QS ranking profile
University of Washington
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
- #81
- Down 5 places since 2025
- QS 2025 rank
- #76
- Overall score
- 72.7
Explore opportunities at University of Washington
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.
#68 worldwide
#128 worldwide
#391 worldwide
#221 worldwide
#801 worldwide
#441 worldwide
#561 worldwide
#83 worldwide
#160 worldwide
#237 worldwide
Institution profile
How QS classifies this institution
QS groups institutions by size, subject range, and research output.
- Size
- Extra large
- More than 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 University of Washington
Editorial background written for orientation. Verify programs, funding, and admission on the university's official pages.
Research practice as part of the University of Washington environment
The University of Washington Office of Research presents research as a connected set of activities: framing a question, developing a study, finding literature, forming a team, collecting and analysing data, managing records, and sharing results. This is useful context for someone who wants to look beyond subject names. It shows that the university's research environment includes practical systems for moving from an idea to a documented result. A prospective researcher should still look for a local department or group, but the central material helps explain the wider working structure around responsible research activity.
The same research site makes shared facilities, research centres, units, and support offices visible. Applied Physics Laboratory and the Washington National Biomedical Research Center appear alongside resources for collaboration, data, records, equipment, and research administration. These names are useful leads for questions that need specialised environments, but they are not automatic evidence of access or relevance. The right next step is to identify the group that actually uses a facility, study how it describes the problem, and check whether the associated methods match the research path you intend to pursue next.
Accountability, data, and research integrity
Washington's research material makes compliance and responsible practice highly visible. It includes guidance related to human subjects, animal welfare, environmental health and safety, conflicts of interest, research security, data sharing, and records retention. These areas may sound administrative, but they can shape how research is designed and carried out. They are especially relevant when a question uses people, clinical material, sensitive data, laboratory organisms, specialised equipment, or collaborations across institutions. The central guidance does not replace local procedures, yet it signals that research practice is part of the university's public research framework.
For a project involving data, this structure offers a useful way to ask better questions. What data are being collected? Which permissions or protections are likely to matter? Is the work based in a shared facility, a laboratory, a field site, or a computational environment? A team page may provide some answers, while the Office of Research can explain the broader institutional language around responsible conduct. Keeping the two sources separate helps you understand both the scientific setting and the practical conditions under which the work is likely to be organised.
Building a University of Washington evidence trail
Start with a concrete research question and locate the department, centre, laboratory, or unit that appears closest to it. Then identify one piece of current work that reveals method, evidence, or scale. You might find a connection through a research centre, a faculty profile, an infrastructure page, or a project description. Write the connection in ordinary language, without inflating it: the group studies a related system, uses a compatible method, or works with a similar kind of data. That is enough to decide whether the option deserves deeper investigation.
A reliable University of Washington note also records what has not been established. A research office can show available structures and responsible-practice resources; it cannot establish a particular role, person, or project outcome. Preserve that boundary. Recheck local pages when comparing options, especially if the initial fit depends on a current team or active line of work. The result should be a short, evidence-based map of where your question may belong, why the setting appears relevant, and what you still need to verify before drawing a stronger conclusion.