Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 January 2025 | Story Charlene Stanley | Photo Supplied
University of the Free State - Main Gate
The THE rankings are known to guide potential students to identify the best institutions for their chosen field of study, allowing them to compare different universities based on the strength of their academic offerings in specific study fields.

The recently published Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings by Subject 2025 shows that the University of the Free State (UFS) is ranked among the top 1 000 global higher learning institutions in its nine evaluated subjects, with most subject areas showing improved results from those recorded in 2024. 

The annually published THE World University Rankings by Subject is a highly regarded, trusted global benchmark for academic excellence in specific disciplines. Its methodology is designed to evaluate universities by employing a range of performance indicators categorised under five core pillars, namely Teaching, Research Environment, Research Quality, Industry, and International Outlook. 

Under Teaching, factors such as reputation, student-to-staff ratio, doctorate-to-bachelor ratio, and institutional income are considered. The Research pillar focuses on aspects such as productivity, citation impact, and influence. Among the other considerations are the income generated from industry partnerships and patents, as well as the number of international students, staff, and co-authored publications.

The methodology is carefully adjusted for each subject, ensuring fairness and accuracy by considering field-specific research cultures and publication practices.

The complete list of UFS subject rankings is as follows:

Law: 301+  *
Arts and Humanities: 501-600 # 
Education Studies: 501-600  #
Psychology: 501-600  #
Life Sciences: 601-800  #
Social Sciences: 601-800 #
Medical and Health: 801-1 000  #

Physical Sciences: 801-1 000 #

*The “+” label indicates that there is no upper limit and is used in instances where the THE does not provide exact ranks for universities beyond this position, therefore grouping institutions together to avoid overly fine distinctions at lower ranking tiers. (Eg. 801+ indicates 801st or lower.)

# The range label (eg. 801-1000), indicates that a university is ranked somewhere within this narrower range, (eg. between 801st  and 1000th. )

For more detail, visit: www.timeshighereducation.com

The THE rankings are known to guide potential students to identify the best institutions for their chosen field of study, allowing them to compare different universities based on the strength of their academic offerings in specific study fields. It also often paves the way for research collaboration, as companies are more likely to partner with highly ranked institutions in a specific sector for research and development projects. Furthermore, strong subject rankings enhance the international reputation of universities and enable comprehensive comparison in particular disciplines.

“This type of global benchmarking is extremely valuable in enhancing the international reputation of the UFS, enabling us to ultimately recruit and attract the most talented students and staff from our region and from across the globe. This aligns with our institutional strategy contained in Vision 130, whereby we aim to grow and extend our impact and influence locally, regionally, and globally,” says Prof Anthea Rhoda, acting UFS Vice-Chancellor and Principal. “Valuable knowledge and insights are also garnered during each evaluation process, allowing us to remain a globally competitive force in higher education, and to take the UFS to even greater heights in the years to come.”

Click to view document Click to view UFS Times Higher Subject Scores

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept