This article is a research one and is aimed at: а) demonstrating logical links between the growth of international university ratings, education quality and country success; b) design methods of university rating growth cost calculation and c) give university managers a tool for possible alterations in rating improvement strategies and prognosticating the costs of it. In order to achieve the first target we used logical analysis: creation of logical links between improving quality of education, univeristy rating growth, country performance and other factors. In order to achieve the second aim we used a) methods of performance criteria decomposition for "university competitiveness level" and logical method of analysing links between this criteria and the cost of rating improvement; b) induction method: transfer from single average effort to the cost of university rating improvement. The third aim is practical and is a consequence of achieving the second aim. In order to provide foundation for article results authors conducted analysis of positive and negative aspects of each of the two suggested methods of defining costs of rating improvement with the aim of identifying the most perspective one. Authors demonstrate the impossibility of finding a simple solution by means of creating one-factor mathematical and statistical model for costs of improving university international rating. Limitations to the conducted research are as follows: a) in order to use the first suggested method you need to make efforts in objective formation of similar universities pool; b) in order to use the second method you need certain amount of time to accumulate data on university participation in development program. Practical importance of the research is that university managers get a tool for defining and altering university development strategy; prognosticate costs of university development; designing different models of costs spread for perspective years; the choice of optimal development strategy with minimal costs. Novelty and originality of the article is in the following aspects: a) new task setting (calculating university rating improvement costs); b) two new original fundamentally diferent approaches and methods of solving that task; c) introduction of new notions: "university competitiveness level", "single average (very average) university effort in rating improvement per one position, coefficient of efforr increase depending on the number of competing universities; effort decrease depending on university starting point; university ambitions decrease; overcoming solid leading group".