But with nine Australian institutions in the top 200, there are fears "the lucky country" could be the one cashing in with international students looking for a Southern Hemisphere learning experience - or for wealthier New Zealand students who may eye up opportunities across the Tasman.
There is no doubt tertiary education has become big business, and the drop in rankings - however they may be used - has inevitably put the spotlight back on the issue of funding.
Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan has previously said the decline in funding is contributing to universities' drop in international ranking tables.
Morrow says our universities receive much less funding per student than institutions elsewhere. While the Government's first-year fees-free scheme may have reduced the debt burden for students, Morrow says the multimillion dollar injection added nothing to universities' incomes.
In May, before the new Government's first Budget, Tertiary Education Union president Sandra Grey said tertiary education spending was $3.7 billion short, and New Zealand Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics spokesman Charles Finny said funding had not kept pace with costs.
Governments, oppositions, unions, universities and students will always argue over the numbers, although the rankings do tell a story - as does the 5 per cent loss in international students after tough new requirements came in last year.
However, some of those were made for fears low standards were eroding the quality of our institutions, qualifications and reputations.
We can't afford that, and as a small nation we can't afford bottomless taxpayer funding, either. But neither can we afford to lose our share of the lucrative international student market - worth some $4.5 billion to the New Zealand economy.
As everyone is finding in this competitive market, where tertiary education has become something of a commodity, trade-offs are inevitable.
Universities, like other "businesses" - if that is what they now are, must be able to innovate to survive. But the yield of anything is directly related to what is invested in it. If "results" in rankings, student numbers, and money in the bank are desirable, and if we also want to be known for innovation, quality teaching and research across a range of subjects, there is surely no option but to invest more to help universities regain their footing. Otherwise the continued slide seems inevitable.
Either way, there's a lot at stake.
