New metrics reshuffle top 30 university rankings, expose globalization gaps

The Korea Times University Rankings 2027 top 30 remained mostly stable, but a revised methodology reshuffled individual positions and exposed gaps in internationalization at Korean universities. Yeungnam University and Kookmin University entered the top 30, while Sejong University and Woosong University posted the biggest gains. The changes were driven by student retention and a new measure of international full-time faculty. The results also show sharp differences in strengths across education, research, student support and social impact.

Yeungnam University and Kookmin University were the only newcomers to the top 30, rising to 29th and 30th place from 32nd and 34th the previous year.

Yeungnam University ranked ninth among 60 institutions in the research category with 30.95 points, leading the share of internationally collaborative research papers and ranking third in field-weighted citation impact.

Kookmin University’s score for international student retention rose by 2.55 points, and a higher share of papers in the top 10 percent of journals also helped it enter the top 30.

The new indicator for the proportion of international full-time faculty showed the widest gap among 19 indicators, with public universities averaging 0.95 points and private universities averaging 4.05 points out of 10.

Published Sep 18, 2026 12:01 am KST

Yeungnam, Kookmin break into top 30 as student retention, international faculty emerge as key differentiators

A view of Yeungnam University’s campus in Gyeongsan, North Gyeongsang Province / Courtesy of Yeungnam University

The top 30 of The Korea Times University Rankings 2027 remained largely stable — 28 of last year's 30 universities held their places — but beneath that continuity, a revised methodology reshaped individual positions and exposed widening gaps in the quality and depth of internationalization at Korean universities.

Seoul-based private universities dominated the top 30, though seven universities outside the capital region also made the cut. They included regional flagship national universities — Pusan, Kyungpook, Jeonbuk and Chungnam — as well as private institutions known for their internationalization efforts, such as Woosong, Handong Global and Yeungnam universities.

Yeungnam University and Kookmin University were the only newcomers, climbing three and four spots from 32nd and 34th last year to 29th and 30th, respectively.

Graphic by Bae So-young

Yeungnam's rise was driven largely by its strong performance in international research. The private university in Gyeongsan, North Gyeongsang Province, ranked ninth among the 60 institutions in the research category with 30.95 points, placing first in the share of internationally collaborative research papers and third in field-weighted citation impact.

Kookmin's rise was driven largely by gains in international student retention, where its score increased by 2.55 points from the previous year — the biggest contributor to its climb. A higher score for the share of papers published in the top 10 percent of academic journals also helped propel the university into the top 30.

The biggest gains within the top 30 came from Sejong University and Woosong University, which both climbed six places to seventh and 20th, respectively. Handong Global University followed with a five-place rise to 23rd, while Incheon National University and Kookmin University each moved up four spots.

On the other end, Konkuk University and Soongsil University recorded the steepest declines, both falling five places to 17th and 26th, respectively. University of Seoul and Kyungpook National University dropped four spots, while Seoul National University of Science and Technology and Jeonbuk National University each slipped three places.

Domestic and international students pose during Kookmin University's cultural and exchange event. Courtesy of Kookmin University

Retention indicator proves decisive

Behind those movements was a revised methodology that shifted emphasis to education-related indicators.

The change to the student retention indicator proved particularly consequential. Among the 54 universities assessed in both years, it was the largest positive factor for 13 universities and the largest negative factor for 25 — more than any other indicator in both directions. Universities that previously had high dropout rates among non-degree students tended to benefit from the revised calculation, while those with relatively high attrition among degree-seeking international students were more likely to lose ground.

Another key factor was the newly introduced indicator measuring the proportion of international full-time faculty, which showed the widest gap among universities across all 19 indicators.

The divide was particularly pronounced between public and private universities. The 14 public universities averaged just 0.95 points out of 10, compared with 4.05 points for the 46 private institutions — suggesting that private universities have moved more quickly to build a more international faculty.

The rankings were more spread out at the top but became increasingly tight toward the 30th-place cutoff. From 24th to 30th, several universities were separated by only fractions of a point, meaning even small changes in a single indicator could significantly shift their positions.

The results suggest that basic standards for managing international students have become widely established across the 60 universities assessed. Greater weaknesses emerged, however, in indicators reflecting the broader impact of internationalization, including the social impact of graduates and research funding from overseas sources.

Even among the top 30, strengths varied sharply by category. Handong Global University ranked second in student support but 44th in research, while Hankuk University of Foreign Studies placed 12th in education but 58th in student support.

This shows that a high overall ranking does not necessarily translate into strength across all four areas — and that universities are pursuing different paths to internationalization. For prospective international students, the results suggest that looking beyond the overall ranking to the areas that matter most to their studies and campus experience may prove more useful.

2027年《韩国时报》大学排名前30名基本保持稳定，但修订后的排名方法调整了各大学的排名，并暴露出韩国大学在国际化方面的差距。岭南大学和国民大学跻身前30名，而世宗大学和又松大学的排名提升幅度最大。这些变化主要受学生留存率和新增的国际全职教师指标的影响。排名结果还显示，各大学在教育、科研、学生支持和社会影响力等方面的优势存在显著差异。

岭南大学和国民大学是前 30 名中的唯二新晋院校，分别从上一年的第 32 名和第 34 名上升至第 29 名和第 30 名。

在研究类排名中，岭南大学在 60 所院校中位列第九，得分为 30.95 分，在国际合作研究论文占比方面领先，在领域加权引用影响力方面排名第三。

国民大学的国际学生留校率提高了 2.55 分，在期刊排名前 10% 的论文中所占比例也更高，这帮助该校进入了前 30 名。

在 19 项指标中，国际全职教师比例这一新指标的差距最大，公立大学平均得分为 0.95 分（满分 10 分），而私立大学平均得分为 4.05 分。

发布于2026年9月18日凌晨12:01（韩国标准时间）

岭南高中和国民高中凭借学生留存率和国际化师资力量成为关键差异化因素，跻身前30名。

庆尚北道庆山市岭南大学校园一景 / 图片由岭南大学提供

2027 年《韩国时报》大学排名前 30 名基本保持稳定——去年 30 所大学中有 28 所保住了位置——但在这种连续性背后，修订后的方法重塑了各个大学的排名，并暴露出韩国大学在国际化质量和深度方面日益扩大的差距。

首尔的私立大学在前30名中占据主导地位，不过首都圈以外的七所大学也榜上有名。其中包括釜山大学、庆北大学、全北大学和忠南大学等地区性旗舰大学，以及以国际化著称的私立大学，例如又松大学、韩东国际大学和岭南大学。

岭南大学和国民大学是仅有的两所新晋大学，分别从去年的第32名和第34名上升了3个和4个名次，分别升至第29名和第30名。

插图由裴素英绘制

岭南大学的崛起主要得益于其在国际研究领域的出色表现。这所位于庆尚北道庆山市的私立大学在研究类院校中，以30.95分在60所院校中排名第九，在国际合作研究论文占比方面位列第一，在领域加权引用影响力方面排名第三。

国民大学的排名上升主要得益于国际学生留存率的提高，该项得分较上年提高了2.55分，这是其排名上升的最大推动因素。此外，在排名前10%的学术期刊上发表论文的比例也有所提高，这也助力该大学跻身前30名。

在排名前30的大学中，进步最大的当属世宗大学和又松大学，两校分别上升6位，位列第七和第二十。韩东国际大学紧随其后，上升5位至第二十三，而仁川国立大学和国民大学也分别上升4位。

另一方面，建国大学和崇实大学的排名下滑幅度最大，分别下降5位至第17名和第26名。首尔大学和庆北大学下降4位，而首尔科技大学和全北大学则分别下降3位。

国民大学举办文化交流活动，国内外学生合影留念。图片由国民大学提供。

留存率指标发挥了决定性作用。

这些举措背后是一种修订后的方法，该方法将重点转移到与教育相关的指标上。

学生留校率指标的调整影响尤为显著。在两年评估的54所大学中，该指标对13所大学而言是最大的积极因素，对25所大学而言则是最大的消极因素——其影响程度超过了其他任何指标。此前非学位学生辍学率较高的大学往往受益于调整后的计算方法，而那些学位型国际学生流失率相对较高的大学则更有可能因此而受到不利影响。

另一个关键因素是新引入的衡量国际全职教师比例的指标，该指标显示，在所有 19 项指标中，各大学之间的差距最大。

公立大学和私立大学之间的差距尤为显著。14所公立大学的平均得分仅为0.95分（满分10分），而46所私立大学的平均得分则为4.05分——这表明私立大学在构建国际化师资队伍方面进展更快。

排名前列的院校之间差距较大，但越往后（接近第30名），排名就越接近。从第24名到第30名，几所大学的排名差距仅有几分之几，这意味着即使单个指标的微小变化也可能导致其排名发生显著改变。

结果表明，在接受评估的60所大学中，国际学生管理的基本标准已得到广泛认可。然而，在反映国际化更广泛影响的指标方面，例如毕业生带来的社会影响以及来自海外的研究经费，则存在更大的不足。

即使在排名前30的院校中，各类别院校的优势也存在显著差异。韩东国际大学在学生支持方面排名第二，但在研究方面仅排名第44；而韩国外国语大学在教育方面排名第12，但在学生支持方面却排名第58。

这表明，总体排名高并不一定意味着在所有四个方面都表现出色——而且各大学在国际化道路上走的路径也各不相同。对于有意向的国际学生而言，研究结果表明，除了总体排名之外，关注那些对他们的学习和校园体验至关重要的领域可能更有意义。