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.