Branko Kovačević, the former rector of the University of Belgrade, has expressed criticism over the political reactions to the university’s placement on the 2026 Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities. The University of Belgrade was ranked between 501 and 600, a position that Kovačević argues is commendable given the low levels of investment in education in Serbia. He contends that the political discourse surrounding the ranking does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
Kovačević highlighted that the university’s funding is substantially lower compared to top-ranked institutions such as Harvard. He pointed out that while Harvard’s endowment is approximately $54 billion, with an annual expenditure of about $6 billion, the University of Belgrade operates with a budget of only $200 million for its 31 faculties and 11 institutes. Despite this, Kovačević believes the university’s ranking is a positive outcome, considering the financial constraints.
The former rector also reminisced about the university’s journey to being ranked on the Shanghai list, which began in 2012 after Serbia’s academic sector was integrated into the European framework. He noted that prior to 2003, Serbia’s academic community was largely isolated due to sanctions in the 1990s, which hindered international publication opportunities. The efforts to join the Shanghai list were part of a state project, with support from the ministries of science and education, aiming to restore the university’s international reputation.
Kovačević criticized the current lack of collaboration between the university and government ministries, stating that the process of enhancing the university’s international standing is being undermined by reduced funding for research. He emphasized that the role of university professors is not only to teach but also to engage students in research activities from undergraduate to doctoral studies. He lamented the decrease in international cooperation, which he attributes to changes in state strategy and policy that de-emphasize such collaboration.
In terms of scientific output, Kovačević noted a significant increase in the number of papers published in international journals, from around 700 in the early days to a consistent range of 7,000 to 9,000 annually. However, he stressed that to improve the university’s standing further, there needs to be an emphasis on quality projects that address modern problems and involve international collaboration with leading global universities.
Kovačević also addressed the political nature of student elections, which he believes are treated like political elections, detracting from the university’s educational mission. He argued for a focus on quality over quantity in research and education, criticizing the current approach as reminiscent of old communist ideals where quantity was prioritized over quality.
The broader context of the university’s ranking includes previous discussions about the impact of political influence on its operations. Serbian Prime Minister Đuro Macut has previously stated that the university must proactively manage its faculties and researchers to prevent further declines in quality. He emphasized the importance of reducing political influence to maintain the independence and quality of higher education institutions.
President Aleksandar Vučić has also commented on the implications of the university’s ranking, warning that it could lead to reduced investments and job opportunities in Serbia. He has called for reforms to enhance competition in higher education and to align it with labor market demands.
Kovačević’s remarks highlight the challenges faced by the University of Belgrade in maintaining its international standing amidst financial and political pressures. His critique underscores the need for increased investment in education and a strategic focus on international collaboration to enhance the university’s reputation and academic output.
