Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn)

Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023, pp. 249~261

ISSN: 2089-9823 DOI: 10.11591/edulearn.v17i2.20633  249

Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia:

World-class college ranking perspectives

Tri Suyantiningsih1, Askar Garad2, Muhamad Sophian3, Muhammad Agung Wibowo4

1
Faculty of Economics and Business, STIE Trianandra, Jakarta, Indonesia
2
Doctoral Management Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3
Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia
4
Civil Engineering Program, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This study analyzes Indonesian and Malaysian universities in order to
evaluate the reality of higher education in both countries, uncover the
Received Jul 15, 2022 dynamics and causes influencing higher education, and disclose the
Revised Feb 18, 2023 similarities and contrasts between the Indonesian and Malaysian systems.
Accepted Mar 30, 2023 Birdy's comparative descriptive method was used. This research relies on
trustworthy global rating websites, statistics from the Indonesian and
Malaysian Ministries of Higher Education, high-quality publications, and
Keywords: authoritative news. Indonesian higher education is largely entirely supported
by the government and tuition fees at private universities. Due to a lack of
Higher education collaboration between universities and industry groups, Indonesian higher
Scientific research education lacks a connection between scientific research, technical
Technical and vocational education, and the job market. Unlike Malaysia, it stresses scientific
education research, community service, and labor market demands. The researchers
Universities ranking hypothesized the following processes based on the comparator countries:
Adopting a productive university focused on output application via
instruction and advice. Community-government and private-sector
connections using research to enhance firm products collaboration with a
firm or group to provide services that benefit them in exchange for
participation in higher education goals, payment of expenditures, and use of
outcomes. Through cooperative education, businesses and institutions may
train and prepare university students for the job market.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Askar Garad
Doctoral Management Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
Brawijaya Street, Tamantirto, Kasihan, Bantul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Education has become a factor that affects the positions and impact of cultures in modern period.
Whereas in the post-modern age, the globe was divided into an advanced who possesses knowledge and
generates knowledge, and a backward who imports knowledge and consumes information [1], [2]. Education
in general, and higher education in particular, provide the foundation for the formation and development of a
wide range of economic and social activities [3]. It has become evident that the measure of progress at this
time is not so much based on what countries have in terms of natural resources as it is on what they have in
terms of human riches equipped with science and capable of producing knowledge. As a result, higher
education is the primary driver in the preparation of creative human forces in society [4], [5]. The impact of
higher education returns is visible in the workforce's creative knowledge and skills in many spheres of life.

Journal homepage: http://edulearn.intelektual.org

250  ISSN: 2089-9823

The extent to which both the cornerstone of knowledge and the ability to exploit it is used to assess progress
and backwardness [6]. Higher education provides a high return, and the outcomes can be ensured provided
the people and material resources required for its management are effectively planned, and the level of
performance and quality of its outputs are continually monitored. Thus, education investment is the ideal sort
of investment if sufficient finances are available to fulfill the targeted aims while keeping up with global
changes [6]–[8].
Higher education has become a key driver for the development of societies, whether through the
formation and development of skills among their students in order to facilitate their integration into the labor
market after graduation on the one hand, or by helping institutions, whether in the private or public sector, or
even civil and civil society, by strengthening their competitiveness through creativity, for which this is in
addition to the enrichment and dissemination of knowledge, which is constantly renewed and at an
accelerating pace, forcing its graduates and professors to redouble their efforts and even create new job
opportunities that society will need and resort to in the future so that it does not look for it in scientifically
and technologically advanced Western European, American, or Asian foreign countries [9]–[13].
The importance of this study comes from as higher education institutions are the most important
tools of society to achieve maximum comprehensive development in various cultural, economic and social
fields. In Indonesia, higher education has made qualitative and quantitative leaps that drew the attention of
those interested in higher education affairs, but it is still in its infancy. The Ministry of Education has
introduced drastic changes to reach a new structure for universities to suit the trends of the Indonesian and
global labor market. The stage of higher education is the stage that provides the labor market with highly
qualified forces. Investing in education is the best kind of investment if it has sufficient funds to achieve the
desired goals and that keep pace with global developments. Since Malaysia is one of the advanced countries
in higher education, the importance of studying to discuss these aspects and benefit from them in Indonesia.
It raises questions about: i) What is the reality of higher education in Indonesia and Malaysia?; ii) What are
the roles of the Indonesian University and its strategic objectives?; iii) To what extent have the official
directions of higher education reform policies succeeded in formulating a clear strategic vision in Indonesia?;
iv) What is the impact of official directions of higher education reform policies on the contribution of
Indonesian universities to accessing the global knowledge economy at the beginning of the new millennium?;
and v) What are the proposed mechanisms to fix of higher education systems in Indonesia?

2. HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

The importance of this study comes from as higher education institutions are the most important
tools of society to achieve maximum comprehensive development in various cultural, economic and social
fields. In Indonesia, higher education has made qualitative and quantitative leaps that drew the attention of
those interested in higher education affairs, but it is still in its infancy. The Ministry of Education has
introduced drastic changes to reach a new structure for universities to suit the trends of the local and global
labor market. The stage of higher education is the stage that provides the labor market with highly qualified
forces. investing in education is the best kind of investment if it has sufficient funds to achieve the desired
goals and that keep pace with global developments. Since Malaysia is one of the advanced countries in higher
education, the importance of studying to discuss these aspects and benefit from them in Indonesia.

2.1. Higher education in Indonesia

Indonesia’s readiness seeking to upgrade its human capital in response to changes in population and
economic structure in order to harness the technological advances of the fourth industrial revolution.
Therefore, the current government is concentrating its efforts on improving Indonesia's human capital. The
need for higher education in Indonesia is increasing. According to market research firm Euromonitor, the
Indonesian education sector will earn US$118 billion (AUD $170 billion) in revenue by 2025, rising at a rate
of 10.3 percent annually, predicts market research firm Euromonitor. From 5.2 million students in 2010 to 8
million in 2018, more people were enrolled in higher education. This amount is anticipated to quadruple by
2024, making it the third-fastest expanding economy in the world behind China and India. Indonesia's higher
education system produces about 250,000 graduates yearly through its 4,600+ higher education institutions
and more than 26,000 fields of instruction, or subject areas. Regulating the caliber of courses, however, is
extremely difficult due to the size of the industry [14], [15].
The two primary streams of Indonesia's higher education system are the national system and the
religious system. The bulk of state-run and private higher education institutions fall within the first category,
which is governed by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Kemendikbud, or MoEC). The second kind,
with curricula centered on theology and other religious study subjects, is governed by the Ministry of
Religious Affairs (MoRA), and it includes higher education institutions owned and administered by religious

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  251

groups, including state-sponsored institutions. Numerous religious organizations, including those run by the
Catholic Church and the Muhammadiyah, continue to be a part of the government's educational system and
follow Kemendikbud [14], [16].
The five different types of higher education institutions are universities (universitas), institutes
(institut), tertiary colleges (sekolah tinggi), polytechnics (politeknik), and academies (in both systems)
(akademi). Only the national system offers the final two options. Depending on their licensure, all higher
education institutions can award degrees at the bachelor's through doctoral levels; however, polytechnic
master's and doctoral degrees are referred to as ‘applied’ degrees (‘S2/S3 terapan’). Community academies
(akademi komunitas), which are educational institutions established by local communities and only provide
D1 and D2 level certifications, make up the minuscule sixth category [15], [17]
As of October 2019, the majority of Indonesia's education and training system—which includes
preschool through PhD programs—is under the control of the Ministry of Education and Culture
(Kemendikbud), with some components falling under the purview of other ministries and implementation
duties being shared by national, provincial, and local authorities. University education is under the control of
the federal government, senior schooling is under the control of the provinces, and preschools, primary
schools, and post-secondary training facilities are under the control of local governments. The national
government oversees accreditation at all levels through the Ministry of Education and Culture [18], [19].
As of October 2019, the majority of higher education institutions are under the direction and control
of the Ministry of Education and Culture. With 20% of all students from preschool through university are
educated through a parallel educational system run by the Ministry of Religious (MoRA) Affairs. A variety
of post-secondary training programs are overseen by the Ministry of Manpower (MoM). Several ministries
are in charge of their own post-secondary training facilities. In these facilities, accreditation is handled by
Kemendikbud. The non-government sector is extremely active in owning and managing educational
institutions from preschool to university level, even though all educational institutions are overseen by one of
the following ministries [20].
Indonesian national qualifications framework (KKNI) is a framework for qualification of human
resources in Indonesia, while on the other hand, it is a system for work ability recognition that is suited to
various employment sectors. To develop quality and productive human resources, KKNI is the embodiment
of the quality and identity of the Indonesian country in terms of its education system, its job training program
and its national learning outcomes evaluation system, which is owned by Indonesia. A specific set of work
competency standards is called a specific work competency standard (SKKK). Organizations use SKKKs for
their own internal goals and/or to meet the needs of other organizations that have cooperative ties with the
organization in question or other organizations that require them. International work competency standards
(SKKI) are work competency standards developed and determined by a multi-national organization and used
internationally [19], [21].

2.2. Higher education in Malaysia

Malaysia's distinctive and well-structured higher education system, with more than 30 years of
experience in international education, offers the option to pursue a quality education. In Malaysia, there are
more than 100 public and private educational establishments, as well as international branches of prestigious
universities from the US, UK, Australia, and Ireland [22]. There are many types of higher educational
institutions in Malaysia [22], [23].

2.2.1. Public institutions of higher education (PIHE)

These are public or state-run higher educational institutes. Malaysia has a total of 20 public
universities. Malaysian students benefit from these institutions' high-quality education. Research universities,
focused universities, and comprehensive universities are the three major categories of public higher education
institutions. Technical universities, education universities, management universities, and defense
universities are the four subcategories of focused universities. There are five research universities and
four comprehensive universities among the twenty universities now in operation. The remaining 11 are
focused universities.

2.2.2. Research universities

Universities that focus on research are distinguished by high-quality lectures, difficult admissions,
and intellectual orientation. The undergraduate-to-postgraduate ratio is roughly 50:50. When it comes to
education, universities that focus on research are known for their ability to provide students with an
opportunity to delve deeper into their field of interest. These universities are distinguished by the many
resources they devote to research and development, which allows them to attract highly qualified faculty
members and offer innovative courses. Research-oriented universities also tend to have better access to
cutting-edge technology and state-of-the-art facilities, which provides students with hands-on experience in
Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)
252  ISSN: 2089-9823

their chosen field. Additionally, students at research-focused institutions often have opportunities for
internships, collaboration on projects with professors or industry partners, and publication in prestigious
academic journals. In short, universities that prioritize research play a valuable role in advancing knowledge
and preparing the next generation of leaders in various fields.

2.2.3. Comprehensive universities

Universities that provide a wide range of courses and fields of study are known as comprehensive
universities. The high-quality education is provided, and admission is a highly difficult process. Here, the
undergraduate to postgraduate ratio is 70 to 30.

2.2.4. Focused universities

Universities with a specific focus; these universities concentrate on particular fields relevant to their
founding. These universities are geared toward specialized research, with top-notch teaching and high
educational standards. The ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is around 50:50.

2.2.5. Private higher education institutions (PVIHE)

The purpose of PVIHE is to provide human capital for the nation's development. The government
provides these institutions with access and equity management support through the national higher strategic
plan (NHESP). PVIHE serves as a viable alternative to public universities and colleges. Their primary aim is
to provide quality educational programs that cater to the diverse needs of students who seek a more
personalized approach to learning. Private institutions are known for their unique offerings, including niche
programs that may not be available in traditional public institutions. Moreover, private universities typically
have smaller class sizes, allowing professors to cater to each student's individual needs better. Generally
speaking, private higher education aims at providing innovative curriculum designs that engage students
while preparing them for life beyond the classroom. Apart from academics, private schools often offer
extracurricular activities such as clubs and sports teams geared towards skill development and networking
opportunities. Overall, private higher education is focused on providing a holistic educational experience
through a personalized approach aimed at fulfilling each student's unique aspirations and goals.

2.2.6. Polytechnic institutes

Malaysian polytechnics teach new technical skills to ensure that the country meets the
requirements of the new economic model. These colleges place a strong emphasis on encouraging students
to be innovative and creative. Malaysian polytechnics are well-known for creating knowledgeable and
qualified workers.
Malaysia has taken a number of initiatives to bring its educational system up to par with that of the
industrialized countries. It claims to have formed ‘strategic relationships’ between Malaysian institutions and
select foreign universities with competence in specific fields. There is a strong desire to ‘internationalize’ the
curriculum, especially in technology, business management, and accounting. In conjunction with “the most
respected academic institutions in the world,” a number of public (called ‘national’ in Malaysia) and private
universities and colleges offering education packages were created for this aim [24], [25].
The Malaysian Qualifications Authority or MQA, is a legislative agency established under the
Malaysian Qualifications Act 2007 to accredit academic programs offered by all higher educational
institutions. This adds to the assurance of a course's quality, particularly in terms of content and teaching
materials, delivery mechanism, and teaching staff expertise [26]. Due to the importance of education in
Malaysia, the government spends approximately 5% of its gross domestic product or GDP on it, which is
more than both the global and regional averages for education spending [27]. Since Malaysian culture is
committed to quality education, Malaysian school teachers are some of the world's most dedicated instructors
[28]. High-calibre academics and senior executives are being produced by the Higher Education Leadership
Academy (AKEPT) as part of the government's efforts to improve higher education management [29]–[31].
University finance in Malaysia is supplemented by private sector support, which enhances the
research reputation of Malaysian institutions and the employability of their graduates [32]. Additionally,
private sector investments have led to the creation of private colleges and foreign universities' international
branches in the United States. Eleven Malaysian universities are ranked in the top 500 of the world's
universities, and 23 are in the top 1,000, according to the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and World University
Rankings (WUR) [22].

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  253

3. RESEARCH METHOD
An approach to comparing case studies is used in this study, which employs qualitative research
methods. According to researchers [33], [34], the goal of a comparative study is to comprehend, explain, and
interpret various processes and their outcomes. There are similarities, contrasts, and patterns between two or
more examples that have the same emphasis [35]. The units of analysis were chosen based on the study's
goal, which was to assess the university's ranking indicators.
There are many higher education ranking versions, but authors choose three: Quacquarelli Symonds
(QS) World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, and SCImago
Journal & Country Ranking (SCImago), statistical data sites and higher education strategic plans of the
ministries of higher education in the two countries, and other reliable sites inside and outside the two
countries. Identification, evaluation and interpretation of each rating system's indicators are among the steps
of analysis in this study, which are compared to produce indicators that are related to national interest and
international trend. Since the nature of the study is within the scope of comparative studies that deal with the
education system in a number of countries, the researchers used Perday's approach to comparative
educational studies [36]. Which his approach referred to focuses on the accurate and organized collection of
similar educational information and data in each of the comparison countries. Accordingly, the steps of the
current study are: i) Compiling data from international higher education institutions classification sites,
international statistics and reports sites, statistical data sites and higher education strategic plans of the
ministries of higher education in the two countries; ii) Arrange the data based on classifications, indicators,
topics and statistics; iii) A descriptive study analyzing the reality of the higher education system in Indonesia
and Malaysia; iv) A descriptive study analyzing the forces and factors affecting higher education in Indonesia
and Malaysia; v) An interview or debate of higher education in Malaysia and higher education in Indonesia
in light of the forces and factors affecting both of them to determine the similarities and differences; vi) A
comparison between the two systems in the light of the facts that have been reached and their interpretation,
and vii) Formulating the proposed mechanisms for developing the higher education system in Indonesia and
Malaysia in light of the experiences of both countries experiences in these areas.

4. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS DATA

4.1. Universities rankings
The ranking and classification of universities and colleges in their scientific and literary departments
at academic levels may depend on a set of statistics for scholars and professors. This arrangement is specific
to the undergraduate level, which depends mostly on the quality of education, as for the postgraduate level, it
depends on the level of scientific research. The ranking and classification are carried depends on raising the
level of international standards for universities. It is concerned with the scientific level of universities and
colleges and enhancing their role in scientific research, as well as enhancing the confidence of employers in
graduate students [37], [38]. In this study, we use two types of global classifications, which are QS World
University Rankings & Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings as shown Table 1. The
indicators used in the international classifications are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. List indicators of international ranking (QS & THE)

QS World University Rankings THE World University Rankings
(1) Academic reputation (40%) Teaching (the learning environment) (30%)
(2) Employer reputation (10%) Research (volume, income and reputation) (30%)
(3) Faculty/student ratio (20%) Citations (research influence) (30%)
(4) Citations per faculty (20%) International outlook (staff, students, research) (7.5%)
(5) International faculty ratio (5%) Industry income (knowledge transfer) (2.5%)
(6) International student ratio (5%)

The data from Tables 2 and 3 show that universities in Malaysia are outperformed universities in
Indonesia in the ranking list issued by the QS world campus ranking agency. The latest data for 2021 shows
that the University of Malaya has succeeded in being ranked 59th in QS world. The ranking of University of
Malaya (UM) (59) is even far above the best university in Indonesia, Universitas Indonesia (UI) which is in
position 305. Also, there are four Universities in Malaysia such as University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
(141), University Putra Malaysia (UPM) (132), University Sains Malaysia (USM) (142), and University
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (187) outperformed University Indonesia (UI). The previous year's conditions
were more or less similar where a number of Malaysian universities were far above Indonesia's. According to
QS & THE data, the ranking of major universities in Indonesia continues to decline from year to year.

Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)
254  ISSN: 2089-9823

Table 2. List Indonesian’s universities rankings (THE & QS Ranking)

THE rank univiversity in Indonesia QS rank univiversity in Indonesia
University name University name
2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021
UI* 601–800 601–800 801–1000 UI* 292 296 305
ITB* 801–1000 1001+ 1001+ ITP** 359 331 313
UGM 1001+ 1001+ 1001+ UGM** 391 320 254
IPB 1001+ 1001+ 1001+ UP* 651-700 751-800 801-1000
ITSN 1001+ 1001+ 1001+ BAU** 701-750 601-650 531-540
UB - 1001+ 1001+ AU** 751-800 651-700 521-530
DU - - 1001+ DU* 801-1000 801-1000 1001+
UP - - 1001+ ITSS** 801-1000 801-1000 751-800
TU - - 1001+ UB** 801-1000 1001+ 1001+
- - - - BINUS - 801-1000 801-1000
Source: THE & QS Ranking [37], [38]. Note: *Ranking decreased/**Ranking increased/ without a star, no change in ranking

Table 3. List Malaysian’s universities rankings (THE & QS Ranking)

THE rank univiversity in Malaysia QS rank univiversity in Malaysia
University name University name
2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021
UM** 301–350 301–350 301–350 UM** 87 70 59
UTAR** 501–600 501–600 501–600 UKM** 184 160 141
UKM** 601–800 601–800 601–800 UPM** 202 159 132
UPM 801–1000 601–800 601–800 USM** 207 165 142
USM 601–800 601–800 601–800 UTM** 228 217 187
UTM 601–800 601–800 601–800 UCSI UNIV** 481 442 391
UTP 601–800 601–800 601–800 UTP** 521-530 482 439
UNITEN 801–1000 801–1000 801–1000 TYU** 601-650 511-520 379
UUM** 801–1000 801–1000 601–800 UUM** 601-650 591-600 531-540
UNIMAS 1001+ 1001+ 1001+ IIUM** 651-700 651-700 601-650
Source: THE & QS Ranking [37], [38]. Note: *Ranking decreased/**Ranking increased/ without a star, no change in ranking

4.2. Universities rankings by subject

The evaluation of each subject is based on four measures. The first and two measures are the
academic and business surveys conducted globally by QS, which are used to evaluate the standing of each
institution globally. While the third and four measures of the research process, the influence of research is
assessed using the number of research citations per publication and the relevant field's h-index. The most
comprehensive research citation database in the world, Scopus, which is owned and run by Elsevier, is where
this data came from. The results for each of the topic rankings are generated when these four factors are
combined together, with weightings specific to each field [37].
University rankings are created by THE in order to measure university performance on a global
scale and to give a resource for readers to understand the diverse missions and successes of higher education
institutions in general. There are three basic focuses of university activity: research, teaching and impact, and
the rankings consider all three of these aspects. According to the rankings, each university has a full profile
with information on its overall rankings, as well as additional data aimed to assist students. Each university's
staff-to-students ratio, the student's total income each year, and international students' share are just a few
data points [38].

Table 4. QS rankings by subject in Indonesia vs Malaysia

Social Sciences and Engineering and Arts and Life Sciences and
Natural Science
Name Country Management Technology Humanities Medicine
19 20 21 19 20 21 19 20 21 19 20 21 19 20 21
UM MYS 55 74 85 38 55 54 99 105 105 182 174 179 137 156 166
UKM MYS 134 207 243 135 179 194 168 238 258 360 371 358 294 345 396
USM MYS 144 214 225 123 179 199 212 250 304 326 355 363 223 295 327
UPM MYS 166 199 232 142 210 224 253 324 343 326 311 314 231 281 244
UI IDN 215 203 218 343 295 326 278 286 287 451 451 401 - - -
UTM MYS 226 252 267 85 100 104 393 401 - - - - 289 302 272
ITB IDN 322 320 331 243 244 256 - - - - - - 451 390 451
UiTM MYS 324 317 340 290 391 451 383 - - - - - - - -
UGM IDN 327 266 261 392 355 335 - 274 350 - - - - - -
IIUM MYS 376 401 451 - - - 451 - 401 - - - - - -
Source: QS University Rankings by Subject (2019, 2020, 2021) [37], [38]. Note: Malaysia (MYS), Indonesia (IDN); 19 (2019),
20 (2020), and 21 (2021)

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  255

In the Table 4, taken the top 10 universities in Indonesia and Malaysia according to the QS world
ranking. We note that Malaysian universities are far ahead of the best universities in Indonesia in all
disciplines. For example, in the Department of Social Sciences and Management, the University of Malaysia
is ranked (85) on the best university in Indonesia, which is UI, which is ranked (218) in the world in 2021. In
the Department of Engineering and Technology, five universities in Malaysia UM, UKM, USM, UPM, and
UTM are ahead of the best university in Indonesia, which is ITB, which ranks 256th for the year 2021. Also,
in the Department of Arts and Humanities, UM and UKM are ahead of UI University, which is ranked (287)
for the year 2021. As for the Department of Life Sciences and Medicine, one university from Indonesia is
listed in the global rankings, which is UI (401) for the year 2021, while there are four universities from
Malaysia that advance in the global rankings. Also, in the Department of Natural Science, only one university
from Indonesia is included in the world rankings (451) for the year 2021. This university is the only
university behind six Malaysian universities by a large difference.

Table 5. THE impact rankings 2021 of Indonesia vs Malaysia

Engineering Business & Economics Computer Science Physical Sciences Life Sciences
Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank
UM 151–175 UM 126–150 UM 126–150 UM 301–400 UM 401–500
UPM 301–400 USM 201–250 UTM 401–500 UTM 501–600 UPM 401–500
UTP 301–400 UTM 201–250 UTP 401–500 UMP 601–800 UI 601–800
UKM 501–600 UUM 251–300 ITB 501–600 UPM 601–800 IPBU 601–800
UTM 501–600 UPM 301–400 UI 501–600 UTP 601–800 UKM 601–800
UNITEN 501–600 UGM 501–600 UKM 501–600 UUM 601–800 USM 601–800
ITB 601–800 UI 501–600 USM 501–600 ITB 801–1000 ITB 801+
UI 601–800 UKM 501–600 MU 601–800 UI 801–1000 UB 801+
MU 601–800 UKL 501–600 UPM 601–800 UKM 801–1000 DU 801+
USM 601–800 UTAR 501–600 ITSP 601–800 USM 801–1000 UGM 801+

Social Sciences Clinical & Health Education Arts & Humanities Psychology
Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank Name Rank
UTM 176–200 UM 176–200 UM 97 UKM 301–400 UM 251–300
UM 301–400 UI 301–400 USM 126–150 UM 301–400 - -
UPM 401–500 UKM 301–400 UTM 126–150 USM 301–400 - -
USM 401–500 USM 301–400 UKM 251–300 UPM 401–500 - -
UUM 401–500 UTMARA 401–500 UPM 251–300 UTM 501+ - -
UI 501–600 UPM 501–600 UUM 301–400 - - - -
UKM 501–600 UB 601+ UTMARA 401–500 - - - -
UB 601+ UGM 601+ - - - - - -
UGM 601+ UP 601+ - - - - - -
UP 601+ - - - - - - - -
Source: THE University Rankings by Subject [38], Note: Indonesian universities are marked in bold

In the Table 5, according to the THE Impact Rankings 2021, the progress of Malaysian universities
over Indonesian universities in all departments such as (engineering, business & economics, computer
science, physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, clinical & health). Indonesian universities were also
absent from the international rankings in the departments (education, arts & humanities, psychology).

4.3. Sustainable development goals

A new worldwide league table based on university performance against the United Nations'
Sustainable Development Goals has been launched (SDGs). Each year, we provide a global ranking, as well
as 17 tables that demonstrate how universities are doing in achieving each of the Sustainable Development
Goals [38].Four main categories that compare using precisely calibrated measures are Research, stewardship,
outreach and teaching. The 2021 Impact Rankings is the third edition and the overall ranking includes 1,118
universities from 94 countries/regions. In the table below Impact Rankings based on the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 1–no poverty, SDG 2–zero hunger, SDG 3–good health and
well-being, SDG 4–quality education, SDG 5–gender equality, SDG 6–clean water and sanitation, SDG 7–
affordable and clean energy, SDG 8–decent work and economic growth, SDG 9–industry, innovation and
infrastructure, SDG 10–reduced inequalities, SDG 11–sustainable cities and communities, SDG 12–
responsible consumption and production, SDG 13–climate action, SDG 14–life below water, SDG 15–life on
land, SDG 16–peace, justice and strong institutions, SDG 17–partnerships for the goals.
Table 6 shows the top 10 universities in Indonesia and Malaysia According to the global ranking
THE in the global performance tables that evaluate universities against the United Nations' Sustainable
Development Goals based on 11 indicators. Noted that there is one university (USM=39) from Malaysia,
while there are 4 universities (ITS=64), (Unhas=79), (UGM 83) and (UI 85) from Indonesia among the top
Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)
 256  ISSN: 2089-9823

100 universities in the world. Also noted was the absence of all Indonesian and Malaysian universities from
the global rankings in the (SDG 10-Reduced Inequalities) index.

Table 6. THE impact rankings 2021 of Indonesia vs Malaysia

Name Country Rank Ranking By Impact Indicator Overall
USM MYS 39 SDG16=86.4 SDG3=84.3 SDG1=78.8 SDG17=89.5 90.5
ITS IDN 64 SDG7=76.2 SDG8=75.4 SDG1=80.3 SDG17=86.0 88.6
Unhas IDN 79 SDG1=85.3 SDG14=89.1 SDG3=70.1 SDG17=73.5 87.5
UGM IDN 83 SDG1=81.3 SDG7=71.3 SDG=81.1 SDG=90.5 87.1
UI IDN 85 SDG7=74.9 SDG1=77.2 SDG12=77.0 SDG17=94.0 87.0
ITB IDN 101–200 SDG7=73.9 SDG11=76.2 SDG6=73.0 SDG17=73.5 77.5
DU IDN 101–200 SDG12=75.9 SDG7=66.8 SDG14=76.3 SDG17=87.0 77.5
IPB IDN 101–200 SDG2=80.9 SDG1=68.2 SDG4=64.0 SDG17=73.5 77.5
UM MYS 101–200 SDG11=79.5 SDG9=66.3 SDG7=67.5 SDG17=73.5 77.5
UTM MYS 101–200 SDG9=90.3 SDG16=63.1 SDG4=64.0 SDG17=73.5 77.5
Source: THE Impact Rankings [38]

4.4. Research and publications

As a result of the Scopus database, the SCImago Journal & Country Rank is a publically accessible
portal that comprises journals and scientific indicators for countries (Elsevier B.V). A wide range of
scientific fields can be assessed using these markers. Comparison and analysis of journals is possible. It is
possible to compare or analyze individual country rankings. It is possible to sort journals by subject area
(27 broad thematic areas), subject category (313 individual subject categories), or even by country It is based
on citation data from more than 34,100 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers, as well as
country performance measures from Information visualization project The Shape of Science aims to reveal
science's structure. Bibliometric indicators from the SCImago Journal and Country Rank portal are accessible
through its interface. Research performance, innovation outputs, as well as social impact as evaluated by their
web visibility, are all considered in the SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) classification system for
academic and research organizations.

Table 7. Research and publications rank in Indonesia vs Malaysia

Ranking
among Citable Citations per
Documents Citations Self-Citations H index
Year Asian documents document
countries
MYS IDN MYS IDN MYS IDN MYS IDN MYS IDN MYS IDN MYS IDN
2020 7 5 39.166 50.145 37.099 49.160 30.333 17.017 9.225 8.326 0,77 0,34
2019 7 5 38.228 47.432 36.402 46.644 114.103 55.764 32.121 28.730 2,98 1,18
2018 6 7 34.924 34.918 32.688 34.004 192.744 89.502 49.290 44.391 5,52 2,56
2017 6 9 33.656 21.549 31.633 20.860 258.458 101.638 59.460 39.485 7,68 4,72
2016 6 11 30.660 12.701 29.275 12.209 298.443 82.549 67.513 27.435 9,73 6,5
373 259
2015 6 11 28.202 8.575 27.067 8.229 328.870 75.235 72.036 19.820 11,66 8,77
2014 6 11 29.048 6.910 27.855 6.634 333.595 70.581 78.963 16.964 11,48 10,21
2013 6 11 25.648 5.449 24.542 5.117 311.938 61.178 77.189 13.237 12,16 11,23
2012 6 11 23.119 4.239 22.074 3.894 285.489 56.753 72.404 11.077 12,35 13,39
2011 6 11 20.828 3.529 20.109 3.334 285.434 50.423 73.085 9.053 13,7 14,29
Source: http://www.scimagojr.com [39]

In the Table 7, we note the rise in Indonesia's ranking in 2019 and 2020 in research and publication
in the Asian rankings to the fifth place. However, Malaysia is still ahead of Indonesia in research
(H index: MYS=259 & IDN=373). This indicates the weak impact of Indonesian research globally in terms
of quality, impact and global citation.

5. DISCUSSION
The profound political and socioeconomic developments that have occurred since the early 1990s
have had This is consistent with previous studies by Saleh and Mujahiddin [40] and Khan and Anwar [41],
private universities in Asia including Indonesia face several problems such as varying quality, high costs, and
difficulty to get financial support. In addition, based on reports issued by Asian Development Bank in 2012
and 2015 [42], [43], confirms that higher education institutions in South Asia, including Indonesia, are

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  257

confronted with immediate and pressing needs, such as: Improving their quality, relevance, equity,
efficiency, and governance. Meet new challenges arising from the construction of knowledge economies,
internationalization and ever-increasing competition.
There is a huge difference between the budgets of foreign universities and Indonesian universities.
This difference is reflected in the difference in the position of these universities in the world rankings. The
latest ranking results from THE in the Impact Rankings 2021 state that the ranking of Malaysian universities
is still better than the ranking of Indonesian universities.
The ranking data submitted by QS & THE must be carefully observed by both the campus and the
ranks of the Directorate General of Higher Education (Kemendikbudristek). QS and THE are the oldest and
most credible university ranking agencies in the world. The calculations are also transparent and audited by
the PwC auditor agency. This is also the main barometer for ranking campuses in the world.
According to the doctoral in economics from the Australian National University, the declining
position of campuses in Indonesia is inconsistent with the state budget funds that are increasingly being
poured into universities for research, publication, and other purposes. Then it is also inconsistent with the
claim of the Directorate General of Higher Education which often says that Indonesia publications are from
the greatest in Association of South East Asian Nations or ASEAN and are able to catch up with Singapore
[44], [45].
Higher education in Indonesia currently faces three very serious challenges namely: the quality gap
compared to regional universities in ASEAN: the limited participation rate, the disparity in access between
the poor and the wealthy, and the low internal efficiency. To overcome these three challenges, significant
financial support is needed. a considerable impact on universities in developing countries. To better illustrate
this general pattern, it was decided to compare Indonesia and Malaysia, two significant Asian developing
nations with burgeoning economies and lofty aspirations. The two nations are compared as part of this
comparative framework, which then evaluates four key factors, including topic rankings, overall international
university rankings (QS & THE), sustainable development goals (SDGs), and research and publications. Both
Indonesian and Malaysian higher education systems have undergone massification, marketization, and
internationalization, and are currently striving for universalization through more excellence-driven higher
education initiatives, which include the main mechanisms and rules, as well as marketization and
internationalization strategies and policies [46], [47].
Aside from the macro-level similarities, there are some notable differences and disparities in these
three areas of higher education. These include the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of
private institutions, and the conception of internationalization. All of these differences are brought about by
different historical paths, national agendas, and socio-political environments. In this comparative perspective,
three common elements need to be further discussed: centralized decentralization, domestic globalization,
and the uneven structure of quantitative development [46], [47].
According to previous studies [16], [20], [48]–[50], in 2020, data on the performance of Indonesian
universities were re-identified based on four key factors: i) The caliber of human resources and students
(input); ii) The management of higher education institutions (process); iii) The short-term performance
achievements of universities (output); iv) The long-term performance achievements, and the length of college
(outcome). The indicators that reflect each of the main components have undergone a number of revisions or
additions, therefore it is believed that these main components will now more accurately reflect the state of
Indonesian universities in accordance with their coverage. The number of lecturers with doctoral degrees, the
number of lecturers holding the positions of head lector and professor, the ratio of lecturers to students, the
number of international students, and the number of lecturers who have worked as practitioners in the
industry for at least six months are all included in measuring the performance of universities in the input area.
Nine indicators are used in the process aspect, including institutional accreditation, study program
accreditation, online learning, cooperation between higher education institutions, Higher Education Database
(PD Dikti) reports, the number of study programs working with World of Business Industry (DUDI)/, a non-
governmental organization (NGO), or Quacquarelli Symonds (QS ) top 100 World Class University
Rankings or WCU by subject, the number of study programs implementing programs for independent
learning, and the number of students taking part in the independent learning Program. The four metrics used
in the output component are the number of indexed scientific articles per lecturer, research performance,
student performance, and the number of study programs that have received international accreditation or
certification. The outcome element uses five indicators, including innovation performance, number of
citations per lecturer, number of patents per lecturer, performance in community service, and the proportion
of college graduates who find employment within six months.
Data on both the performance of each individual in higher education as well as the performance of
higher education as a whole are gathered and clustered within the concept of continuous development. In line
with this, the clustering data source employs reliable, usable data that possess the qualities listed below:
Information that is immediately usable, specifically information that colleges and institutions commonly
Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)
258  ISSN: 2089-9823

report to the PD Dikti. Information on the outcomes of higher education performance evaluations that have
been completed by work units under the Directorate General of Higher Education but have not been
presented in PD Dikti. Information that is particularly relevant to clustering but has not yet been incorporated
in PD Dikti is systematically gathered by work units.
Giving value (score) clustering based on the achievement of the university on each indicator in each
aspect. Each indicator has a weight on the overall college performance value. This stage is a very important
stage and can be used as a tool for controlling higher education development policies. The indicator weight is
determined by considering three things, namely: i) Interests: the influence of indicators in forming quality
tertiary institutions; ii) Measurement validity: the validity of the measurements made, including data quality
and ease of verification; and iii) Comparability: does the indicator really apply to all types, statuses,
categories of higher education institutions. From the results of the analysis of data from 2,136 available
universities, the results of the 2020 higher education clustering were obtained which consisted of five
indicators used for evaluation, namely teaching (the learning environment), research (volume, income and
reputation), citations (research influence), international outlook (staff, students and research), and industry
income (knowledge transfer) [13], [51], [52].
Based on strategic of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (Menristekdikti)
regarding the education sector abroad, it turns out that the resources of lecturers and rectors are an important
element for improving the quality of higher education. This is the basis for creating a program for the
procurement of foreign rectors and lecturers. The government also targets that by 2020 there will be
universities led by the best rectors from abroad and by 2024 the number is targeted to increase to five state
universities (PTN). The Ministry of Research has mapped out which ones are the readiest, which ones are not
and which universities they are targeting (rectors) are foreign. If there are many, two to five (universities with
foreign rectors) until 2024. There is also a step by the government in increasing the ranking of universities to
reach the top 100 in the world through bring foreign rector candidates.

6. CONCLUSION
In order to assess the realities of higher education in both nations, identify the forces and dynamics
affecting higher education, and highlight the similarities and differences between the Indonesian and
Malaysian systems, this study compares and contrasts universities in Indonesia and Malaysia. The
comparative descriptive approach of Birdy was adopted. Based on the results, universities in Malaysia
outperformed Universities in Indonesia in the ranking list issued by the QS world campus ranking agency.
The latest data for 2021 shows that the University of Malaya has succeeded in being ranked 59th in the QS
world. The ranking of the University of Malaya (UM) (59) is even far above the best university in Indonesia,
Universitas Indonesia (UI) which is in position 305.
According to THE global ranking that evaluates universities against the United Nations' Sustainable
Development Goals based on 11 indicators, noted that Indonesian universities are leading Malaysian
universities. While both Indonesian and Malaysian universities have disappeared from global assessments in
the latest indicator (SDG 10-Reduced Inequalities). In addition, the evaluation based on research noted the
rise in Indonesia's ranking in 2019 and 2020 in research and publication in the Asian rankings to fifth place.
But Malaysia is still ahead of Indonesia in research (H index: MYS=259 & IDN=373).
Suggested mechanisms to benefit from the Malaysian higher education system in Indonesia;
adopting the concept of a productive university that is based on application and production, through the
provision of educational and advisory services and community partnerships with government and private
institutions, through: i) Adopting applied research in developing and increasing the quality of companies’
products, as adopts special research in various scientific fields; ii) A partnership contract with companies or
institutions to provide programs that serve these institutions so that they participate in its objectives, pay its
costs and employ its outputs; iii) Activating cooperative education in universities so as to benefit from
companies and institutions in training students and preparing them for the labor market; iv) Establishing
consulting centers that provide services and proceeds to the university and scientific research as a center for
engineering consultancy, family counseling, and research consultancy; v) Establishing business centers in
universities, such as medical specialties, for which a day is allocated to provide medical services with the
participation of consultants at reasonable prices and the proceeds to the university; and vi) To reach the top
100 universities in the world we suggest should improve publications, attracting foreign lecturers, attracting
foreign students, exchange students with universities in other countries. Currently there are several regulatory
improvements needed to be able to invite foreign rectors to be able to lead universities in Indonesia and
foreign lecturers to be able to teach, research, and collaborate in Indonesia.

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  259

REFERENCES
[1] P. Delgado, C. Vargas, R. Ackerman, and L. Salmerón, “Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of
reading media on reading comprehension,” Educational Research Review, vol. 25, pp. 23–38, Nov. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.
[2] F. Reichert, D. Lange, and L. Chow, “Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’
beliefs about the aims of civic education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 98, p. 103248, Feb. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2020.103248.
[3] J. Roick and T. Ringeisen, “Students’ math performance in higher education: Examining the role of self-regulated learning and
self-efficacy,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 65, pp. 148–158, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.018.
[4] G. Ocak and A. Yamaç, “Examination of the relationships between fifth graders’ self-regulated learning strategies, motivational
beliefs, attitudes, and achievement,” Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013.
[5] S. Li and J. Zheng, “The Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Self-regulated Learning in One-to-One Computing
Environment: The Mediated Role of Task Values,” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 455–463, Dec.
2018, doi: 10.1007/s40299-018-0405-2.
[6] B. J. Zimmerman and A. R. Moylan, “Self-Regulation: Where Metacognition and Motivation Intersect,” in Handbook of
Metacognition in Education, & A. C. G. D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, Ed. New York: Routledge, 2009, pp. 299–315.
[7] P. R. R. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. McKeachie, “A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ),” Ann Arbor. Michigan, vol. 48109, no. August 2016, p. 1259, 1991, doi: ED338122.
[8] M. Pressley, Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: HarperCollins College
Publishers, 1995.
[9] W. Leal Filho, E. Manolas, and P. Pace, “The future we want key issues on sustainable development in higher education after rio
and the un decade of education for sustainable development,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol.
16, no. 1, pp. 112–129, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0036.
[10] A. S. Knowles, The International encyclopedia of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
[11] J. W. Meyer, “The Effects of Education as an Institution,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 55–77, 1977,
[Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777763.
[12] P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, and R. O. Berdahl, American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and
Economic Challenges third edition, 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
[13] T. W. Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” The American Economic Review, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1961, [Online].
Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907.
[14] K. Digdowiseiso, “The development of higher education in Indonesia,” International Journal of Scientific and Technology
Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1381–1385, 2020.
[15] A. N. R. Handini, Dinna and Hidayat, Firman and Putri, Dina Alif Vatul and Rouf, M. Rasha and Anjani, Nur Raly and Attamimi,
“Higher education statistics 2020 (in Indonesian),” Jakarta, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://pddikti.kemdikbud.go.id/asset/data/publikasi/Statistik.
[16] Minister of Education and Culture, Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of
2020 concerning Accreditation of Study Programs and Higher Education (in Indonesian). Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020.
[17] National Education System, Law (UU) on the National Education System (in Indonesian). Indonesia, 2003.
[18] Z. Mohd Fahmi, U. Balasingam, and J. M. Laguador, “ASEAN Qualification Reference Framework: Harmonization of ASEAN
Higher Education Area,” in ASEAN Post-50, Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 101–134.
[19] Indonesian Central Government, Presidential Regulation (PERPRES) concerning the Indonesian National Qualifications
Framework (in Indonesian). Indonesia, 2012.
[20] Ministry of Education and Culture, Presidential Regulation (PERPRES) concerning the Ministry of Education and Culture.
Indonesia, 2019.
[21] SKKNI, “About SKKNI (in Indonesian).” 2018, [Online]. Available: https://skkni.kemnaker.go.id/tentang-skkni/kelembagaan.
[22] Education Malaysia Global Services, “Malaysia Higher Education in Brief,” 2022. https://educationmalaysia.gov.my/malaysia-
higher-education-in-brief/.
[23] N. A. Albelbisi and F. D. Yusop, “Systematic Review Of A Nationwide MOOC Initiative In Malaysian Higher Education
System,” Electronic Journal of e-Learning, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 287–298, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.002.
[24] R. S. R. Kasim, “The Relationship of Knowledge Management Practices, Competencies and the Organizational Performance of
Government Departments in Malaysia,” International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and
Industrial Engineering, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 1252–1258, 2008, [Online]. Available: http://www.waset.ac.nz/journals/waset/v48/v48-
9.pdf.
[25] N. Azman, M. Sirat, V. Pang, Y. M. Lai, A. R. Govindasamy, and W. A. Din, “Promoting university–industry collaboration in
Malaysia: stakeholders’ perspectives on expectations and impediments,” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 86–103, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1538546.
[26] Malaysian Qualifications Agency, “Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (MQA) Laporan Tahunan 2011,” 2011. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mqa.gov.my/pv4/document/publications/reports/annual/Laporan Tahunan 2011.pdf.
[27] UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), “Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP) - Malaysia,” 2020.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=MY&most_recent_year_desc=false.
[28] Cambridge University Press & Assessment, “Malaysian teachers are amongst the most dedicated in the world for ensuring
students achieve academic success,” 2018. https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/news/news-details/view/malaysian-teachers-
are-amongst-the-most-dedicated-in-the-world-for-ensuring-students-achieve-academic-success-28-nov2018/.
[29] N. Kholis, “Teacher Professionalism in Indonesia, Malaysia, and New Zealand,” TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim
Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 179–196, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.15408/tjems.v6i2.11487.
[30] I. Roha Mohamed Jais, N. Yahaya, and E. K Ghani, “Higher Education Leadership Competency Framework in Malaysia: A
Refinement,” Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 438–449, 2020, doi:
10.18488/journal.73.2020.84.438.449.
[31] A. Garad, S. Haryono, R. Yaya, S. Pratolo, and A. Rahmawati, “The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership,
Improving Employee’s Performance and the Raising Efficiency of Organizations,” Management and Production Engineering
Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 15–30, 2022, doi: 10.24425/mper.2022.142052.
[32] I. Abidin, “University-Industry Collaboration and Malaysian Public Universities Funding Model.” [Online]. Available:
https://news.ump.edu.my/experts/university-industry-collaboration-and-malaysian-public-universities-funding-model.
[33] Charles C. Ragin, The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies, 1st ed. California: Univ of

Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)
260  ISSN: 2089-9823

California Press, 2014.

[34] W. Miller, “The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods,” Berkeley: University of California,
pp. 1–218, 1987, [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnx57.
[35] D. Goodrick, “Comparative Case Studies,” Italy, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.unicef-
irc.org/publications/pdf/brief_9_comparativecasestudies_eng.pdf.
[36] B. Holmes and G. Z. F. Bereday, “Comparative Method in Education,” British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, p.
220, May 1965, doi: 10.2307/3118354.
[37] QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited, “QS World University Rankings 2021,” 2021. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-
rankings/world-university-rankings/2021.
[38] Times Higher Education, “Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2019; 2020; 2021),” 2021.
[39] Scimago Institutions Rankings, “Scimago Journal & Country Rank.” 2021, [Online]. Available:
https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?region=Asiatic.
[40] A. Saleh and M. Mujahiddin, “Challenges and Opportunities for Community Empowerment Practices in Indonesia during the
Covid-19 Pandemic through Strengthening the Role of Higher Education,” Budapest International Research and Critics Institute
(BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1105–1113, May 2020, doi: 10.33258/birci.v3i2.946.
[41] A. Khan and M. Anwar, “Higher education in Peril: Challenges to Southeast Asian academics,” Higher Education Challenges in
South-East Asia, pp. 238–249, 2020, doi: 10.4018/978-l-7998-4489-l.ch013.
[42] Asian Development Bank, “Private Higher Education Across Asia: Expanding Access, Searching for Quality,” 2012. [Online].
Available: https://think-asia.org/handle/11540/915.
[43] Asian Development Bank, Education in Indonesia. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015.
[44] S. Alifah, “Improving the Quality of Education in Indonesia to Catch Up with Other Countries (in Indonesian),” CERMIN: Jurnal
Penelitian, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 113, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.36841/cermin_unars.v5i1.968.
[45] Z. Zuhri, “Priority Determination of State Universities in Indonesia Using the Fuzzy Topsis Analysis Method (in Indonesian),”
Jurnal Ilman, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 2015.
[46] C. Li, “The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective,” Science Journal of
Education, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 77, 2021, doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12.
[47] N. Kurniasih, C. Hasyim, A. Wulandari, M. I. Setiawan, and A. S. Ahmar, “Comparative Case Studies on Indonesian Higher
Education Rankings,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 954, p. 12021, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/954/1/012021.
[48] Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP), “Developing Strategies for University, Industry,
and Government Partnership in Indonesia.” Agency for Research and Developments (Balitbang), Jakarta, 2013, [Online].
Available: https://multisite.itb.ac.id/mwa/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2014/06/ACDP-025-
Developing_Strategies_for_University-Industry-and-Government_Pertnership.pdf.
[49] F. D. Ananda and A. Nuri, “Changes in Management Strategy in Improving Discipline in Higher Education (in Indonesian),”
Jurnal Ilmu Komputer, Ekonomi dan Manajemen (JIKEM), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 923–926, 2022, doi: 10.30596/edutech.v3i1.990.
[50] Ministry of Health, “National Strategy for Combating Tuberculosis in Indonesia 2020-2024 (in Indonesian),” 2020. [Online].
Available: https://tbindonesia.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NSP-TB-2020-2024-Ind_Final_-BAHASA.pdf.
[51] A. M. Al-Ansi, A. Garad, and A. Al-Ansi, “ICT-Based Learning During Covid-19 Outbreak: Advantages, Opportunities and
Challenges,” Gagasan Pendidikan Indonesia, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 10, 2021, doi: 10.30870/gpi.v2i1.10176.
[52] I. Fatmawati and A. Garad, “An Analytical Study of the Relationship Between Network Capability and e-Marketing to Achieve
the Competitive Advantage of MSEs,” in The Implementation of Smart Technologies for Business Success and Sustainability:
During COVID-19 Crises in Developing Countries, 2023, pp. 3–12.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Tri Suyantiningsih is a Doctoral degree of Economic management. She also a

lecturer in STIE Trianandra. Her concentrates are on philosophy of science, HRM, strategic
management, entrepreneurship. She can be reached at email: [email protected].

Askar Garad is Doctoral degree of Management Financial at Universitas

Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. He is also a part-time lecturer in Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta, Faculty of Economics & Business. His concentrates are on economy
development, financial technology management, enterprise information technology,
organizations governance. He can be reached at email: [email protected].

J Edu & Learn, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2023: 249-261

J Edu & Learn ISSN: 2089-9823  261

Muhamad Sophian works as Senior Lecturer at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,

Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia. His concentrates are on cognitive sciences and human
development. He can be reached at email: [email protected].

Muhammad Agung Wibowo is a Master degree of Civil Engineering majoring

in Construction Management at University Pelita Harapan. He also part time lecture and
a student of Doctoral Civil Engineering program at University Tarumanagara. He is also
an interior architect and involve in project management. His concentrates are on
civil engineering majoring construction management. He can be reached at email:
[email protected].

Comparison between universities in Indonesia and Malaysia: World-college ranking … (Tri Suyantiningsih)