> As a student initially at a high ranked university, I found I got a better education by switching to a much lower ranked university.

That’s interesting. I’ve consistently heard the same sentiment from ex-students and alumni of certain highly ranked Canadian universities (undergrad) as well. They’ll generally complain about a lack of student support and restrictive policies at these institutions, making it needlessly difficult for students to succeed.

I suspect the higher ranked universities might be under pressure to artificially increase the difficulty of their programs, in order to distinguish their alumni from the alumni of other schools, who’s programs cover more or less the same subject matter.

In Australia, the rankings often seem to be based on outcomes unrelated to undergraduate studies (citation needed). I've found that makes for a situation where there is very little need to increase or maintain the quality of learning at the lower levels. While Uni Melbourne is consistently rated high[1], the quality of teaching and support was very poor[2] and opportunities within the university extremely limited.

In contrast, when I moved interstate and transferred institutes, despite being at a much lower-ranked university I received (subjectively) better tuition and support from low and high-level staff. I was even (enthusiastically) given the opportunity to contribute to active research in my vacations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne [2] 3yrs Mech Eng undergraduate student first-hand experience.

My wife did a law degree at a very highly ranked university in the UK after doing a business degree at a comparatively lowly ranked institution (although still very well regarded) - coincidentally the latter being where I did a CS degree and thought the teaching was excellent.

She said the quality of teaching at the higher ranked university was almost comically bad compared to the lower ranked university.

The usual justification I have read for these things is that the top universities have already selected the best candidates, so they don't actually need too much teaching. Which seems to be missing the point.....

Also, which rankings are meaningfully measuring student experience and give it weight? I know some send around questionaires, but for the things I looked at it seemed a minor concern.

I'm not 100% up to speed on this as, for the most part, it doesn't impact me as lower-tier research staff. Management is often pushing us for more papers in higher-ranked journals as that seems to be the biggest factor. Student questionnaires seem to be used only internally though even then I suspect they're mostly ignored [anecdotal at best].

The justification we're given for higher ranking is overseas students are more likely to chose a university based on these (domestic students are more likely here to go to whichever university is closest). Due to fee-capping on local students, international students have become a big source of income for universities here. Whether it is accurate to do so or not, the universities keep insisting on higher rankings to attract those students.