Introduction
The article “Univerziteti – Top lista nadrealista” (Universities – Top List of Surrealists), published on Pogled 360 on April 21, 2026, offers a critical examination of global university ranking systems. The author questions the objectivity and true purpose of these rankings, suggesting they serve more than just an informational role, particularly in the context of education as a significant global business. The core argument is that these international ranking systems inherently favour Western institutions, perpetuating a form of academic and cultural imperialism.
Summary of the Article’s Main Points
The article systematically deconstructs the mechanisms through which global university rankings, such as QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE), and Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Ranking), maintain a bias towards Western, particularly Anglo-Saxon, institutions:
The “Harvardometer” Effect:
The author argues that rankings are not objective measures of universal educational quality but rather function as “Harvardometers,” gauging how closely an institution resembles the elite Anglo-Saxon research-university model. These rankings reward characteristics unique to leading US and UK institutions, such as vast financial endowments, high tuition fees, competitive selection processes, and a strong emphasis on patent-producing research. This framework ignores alternative models of higher education, like Latin American “state-building universities” that prioritise public access, democracy, and local social problem-solving.
Linguistic and Disciplinary Bias:
The methodologies of major ranking systems exhibit a deep bias towards the English language and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects. By relying heavily on proprietary academic databases such as Scopus and Web of Science for “research productivity,” they penalise scholars who publish in non-English languages and those working in the humanities or social sciences. For instance, 36% of THE’s total ranking score is based on Scopus, which explicitly excludes non-English sources.
The “Matthew Effect” and Subjective Reputation:
A significant portion of a university’s score comes from subjective reputation surveys. For example, up to 50% of the QS World University Rankings’ total score is based on the subjective opinions of surveyed academics and employers. This creates a “Matthew Effect” (where the rich get richer), as historically privileged universities in the Global North continue to dominate because their existing fame attracts more votes, international talent, and funding.
Weaponisation of Financial Resources:
Rankings heavily reward resource-intensive metrics. Wealthy Western institutions can afford high salaries to recruit international “research stars,” build multi-billion-dollar scientific facilities, and invest heavily in global marketing. Developing countries, often facing severe resource constraints, are effectively penalised for their broader socio-economic realities rather than their true educational value.
Cultural Imperialism and Global Brain Drain:
Similar to the Bologna Process, these global rankings are seen as a form of “cultural imperialism.” By universalising Western particularisms, rankings force developing countries into unequal terms. To climb the rankings, governments in the Global South often divert scarce public funds from equitable, mass education to artificially inflate research metrics of a few elite universities. Furthermore, as many countries and employers use these rankings for visa eligibility and scholarship funding, the system actively encourages “brain drain,” directing the brightest students and researchers from developing countries directly to Western institutions.
In essence, the article concludes that these ranking lists function as a commercial enterprise that perpetuates global inequality, ensuring that the top 100 spots remain a largely fixed club dominated by the English-speaking Global North.
Critical Analysis
The article provides a compelling and well-structured critique of global university ranking systems. Its arguments are largely consistent with academic discourse on the biases inherent in these rankings. The author effectively uses terms such as “Harvardometer” and “Matthew Effect” to illustrate the self-reinforcing nature of Western dominance within these systems. The focus on linguistic and disciplinary bias, as well as the weaponisation of financial resources, highlights concrete mechanisms through which this bias operates.
One of the strongest points of the article is its emphasis on the impact of these rankings on developing countries. The idea that governments in the Global South are compelled to divert resources to inflate metrics for a few elite institutions, at the expense of broader public education, is a significant concern. The concept of “cultural imperialism” accurately captures the imposition of a specific Western model of academic excellence onto diverse educational landscapes.
While the article is highly critical, it does not offer explicit alternative solutions or models for evaluating universities that would be more equitable or representative of diverse educational philosophies. However, its primary goal is to expose the flaws in the current system, which it achieves effectively.
The article’s collaboration with Gemini AI and NotebookLM is noted, suggesting a data-driven approach to its analysis and enhancing its credibility in dissecting ranking methodologies.
Conclusion
“Univerziteti – Top lista nadrealista” is a timely and insightful piece that challenges the perceived objectivity of global university rankings. It argues convincingly that these rankings are not neutral arbiters of academic quality but rather instruments that reinforce existing power structures and contribute to global inequalities in education. For readers interested in a deeper understanding of the political economy of higher education, this article provides a valuable critical perspective. It implicitly calls for a re-evaluation of what constitutes “excellence” in higher education and how it should be measured, especially in a multipolar world.
This is unedited commentary by Manus 1.6 Lite AI