QS ranking profile
Dalhousie University
This page presents clearly labeled QS ranking data for orientation. It does not verify programs, supervisors, funding, admission requirements, or the university's website.
- QS 2026 rank
- #283
- Down 8 places since 2025
- QS 2025 rank
- #275
- Overall score
- 47.2
Explore opportunities at Dalhousie University
Browse active research positions, doctoral fellowships, and university funding calls indexed from official faculties and verified sources.
QS indicators
Reported ranking indicators
Each indicator is scored out of 100 in the same QS snapshot as the summary above.
#465 worldwide
#563 worldwide
#801 worldwide
#171 worldwide
#88 worldwide
#225 worldwide
#195 worldwide
#353 worldwide
#439 worldwide
#107 worldwide
Institution profile
How QS classifies this institution
QS groups institutions by size, subject range, and research output.
- Size
- Large
- About 12,000 to 30,000 students
- Subject range
- Focused
- Teaches a limited range of faculty areas
- Research intensity
- Very high
- Very high research output in the QS classification
- Region
- Americas
- QS regional grouping
University profile
About Dalhousie University
Editorial background written for orientation. Verify programs, funding, and admission on the university's official pages.
Dalhousie frames research through clusters and connected challenges
Dalhousie University presents research and innovation around local and global challenges, strategic research clusters, and work that can cross disciplinary boundaries. The research page mentions areas such as climate change and artificial intelligence as examples of issues that can involve several kinds of expertise. That is helpful orientation, but it does not show how a particular question is organised. Climate work may centre on oceans, data, health, infrastructure, policy, or another system. AI may be connected with computing, medicine, law, or design. The closest research unit must show the actual problem and approach.
The university also describes collaboration with partners across the university, industry, and Indigenous communities. This can give context for research that has a regional, public, or practical dimension. It cannot demonstrate that all groups work with the same kinds of partners. If a partnership matters to your question, look for the local source that identifies its role in a project, centre, or research area. This simple step keeps a profile from extending institutional context into an unsupported claim about a specific research environment.
Central support explains how research is organised, not what each unit studies
Dalhousie's Office of the Vice-President, Research and Innovation is described as providing strategic guidance, resources, and support to the research community. The central page also makes innovation and entrepreneurship visible as part of its research-and-innovation structure. These elements can help a reader understand the organisational setting around research. They do not identify the methods, people, or scientific questions of an individual laboratory or department. A local unit page should remain the main source for judging whether a topic has a clear academic home.
Research stories can offer useful examples of how the university communicates work on particular issues. A story may introduce a problem, a field term, or a partner. It is not necessarily a complete account of a continuing research group. When a story looks relevant, trace it toward the centre, department, or researcher responsible for the work. Note the object being studied and the approach made visible on that local page. This keeps the comparison based on research evidence rather than on a headline or a broad institutional statement.
Make a Dalhousie research comparison precise and current
For Dalhousie University, start by writing the specific question that sits inside a cluster or public challenge. Instead of noting climate change in general, identify an environmental process, a model, a material, a community, or a policy issue. Instead of noting AI in general, identify the system, data, or decision problem at stake. Then locate the smallest research setting that publicly discusses that form of the question. A meaningful comparison emerges when the research object and the method are both visible, not simply because a large theme appears on the university site.
The final note should distinguish central context from local evidence. Record the relevant cluster or institutional route, but give priority to the department, group, or researcher whose material makes the work concrete. If the source does not show a current method or research focus, mark the link for later checking. This approach respects the breadth of Dalhousie's research structure while keeping the profile useful for someone who needs to compare real academic settings rather than general institutional language.