For over a decade, the Croatian media has presented a distorted view of the alleged low quality of Croatian public universities. In addition to the excessive exploitation of individual scandals, mostly selectively related to the universities of Zagreb and Osijek, most of this often deliberately placed disinformation about poor quality was based on incorrect “analysis”, i.e. the alleged poor placement of our largest universities in some world university rankings. The authors of such media misinterpretations regularly failed to understand that it was not a bad ranking at all, because being in the top three percent in the world is not bad at all. They also failed to understand that these university rankings are methodologically completely inapplicable for comparing different types of institutions that these rankings call universities. These rankings compare fundamentally different institutions, akin to comparing apples and oranges. The methodology favors institutions resembling an , “orange,” thus disadvantaging those with different characteristics, or “apples.” I have written a lot about this and I hope that I have clarified the basic problems with unserious university lists as well as the methodological problems of scientometric measurement of science.[i][i]
The second line of failed ideological criticism of our public higher education institutions in recent years stems from a typical neoliberal perspective, whereby suddenly, when criticism on the subject of science no longer succeeds, the focus shifts to the educational component. Or rather, to the economics of the educational component. Concepts such as efficiency, effectiveness and rationality are brought to the forefront, and the role of the university is reduced to a factory of personnel needed by the current labor market, or the economy. According to such an ideology, universities should not be an ideological and scientific driver or a social and public authority, but should mainly be at the service of the economy. This means that they should listen to what the economy needs at a given moment and respond to that call, thus adapting their scientific, professional and educational activities to what the economy sets.[ii]
This ideological shift, which aims to transform universities from active social commentators to passive service providers, is supported by various actors in the private sector, many of whom stand to gain financially from the decline of public education and the expansion of private institutions. However, there are also such exponents in politics and among certain prominent individuals in the public academic community itself. Some leaders within public universities, including prominent professors, particularly in STEM fields, fail to acknowledge the broader social responsibilities of these institutions. Sometimes they advocate one of these cheap platitudes: “All programs that do not educate the personnel currently needed should be abolished!” Or: “Why should taxpayers pay for the education of philosophers, sociologists or sculptors?” In doing so, they do not realize that with such an approach they have not shown greater intelligence and morality than their surroundings, but something completely different. This sentiment echoes cynical remarks like, “Is a sociology professor capable of manual labor?”
The problem with such an approach is that, especially if it comes from the sphere of politics or the academic community, especially the STEM community, it clearly lacks an analytical foundation. Sometimes it is dramatically lacking. It is concerning that some STEM scientists present the following flawed argument as evidence of irrationality: “The declining student-to-teacher ratio indicates inefficiency.”[iii]
Rationalization is a concept that is not questioned at all in Croatia due to our self-racist and colonial attitudes. Intuitively, rationalization is always and in everything the goal that is implied. It is believed that we, unlike the mythical West, are always and in everything inefficient and too expensive. Coincidentally, such an understanding corresponds perfectly with neoliberal views on public services. There are many such views in our media, especially in the presentations and texts of libertarian lobbyists, who are often also lecturers at private universities with an interest in reducing public services. These views can also be seen in anonymous comments from readers or bots below texts on internet websites and social networks.
Consequently, authorities provide minimal justification for rationalization measures, as seen in their announcements within the “National Recovery and Resilience Plan” and education legislation. They believe that it always falls on ideologically prepared fertile ground in the public, so the argumentation can be weak, maybe even non-existent. Just a few strange graphs and claims proclaiming that something in the system is redundant and inefficient and that we should “achieve more with less money.”
Is this really the case? It seems that it is not. And it may also be the case that the system should go in the opposite direction, i.e. in the direction of enrichment and stronger funding. I will show here several graphs that present the situation in 2020 or later.[iv] In the images, I have marked with green arrows the countries most similar to us, Slovakia and Lithuania, as well as Slovenia, with which we share a tradition. The first question is, are we scientifically bad and inefficient? I would say that we are not. As the first graph shows, the latest available data show that we are at the top of Europe in terms of the number of scientific articles published by a scientist, internationally visible and peer-reviewed.[iv] In the images, I have marked with green arrows the countries most similar to us, Slovakia and Lithuania, as well as Slovenia, with which we share a tradition. The first question is, are we scientifically bad and inefficient? I would say that we are not. As the first graph shows, the latest available data show that we are at the top of Europe in terms of the number of scientific articles published by a scientist, internationally visible and peer-reviewed.
Between 2010 and 2020, in response to political directives, the four major Croatian universities—Zagreb, Split, Osijek, and Rijeka—significantly increased their scientific output, achieving a 60 to 70 percent rise in internationally peer-reviewed publications. As detailed in my book (Stanzer 2023a), our citation rates and research productivity relative to investment are exceptionally high, placing us among Europe's leaders in both publications and impact.
Therefore, the question arises: is our public higher education system excessively costly? I contend that it is not; in fact, it is remarkably cost-effective. As illustrated in the accompanying graphs, Croatia's investment in higher education is comparatively low, suggesting a need for increased funding.
What is the state's investment in higher education per university faculty member or researcher, specifically measured by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers? [v]As depicted in the accompanying fourth graph, state expenditure per higher education researcher appears to be low.[v] As the fourth graph shows, the state appears to spend little per higher education researcher.
Are faculty salaries at higher education institutions excessive? In Croatia, despite comparable or even higher living costs for essentials like food compared to Germany, a professor's salary is significantly lower. The accompanying fifth graph illustrates that university faculty salaries are relatively modest.
Consequently, contrary to claims of redundancy, an increasing employee count amidst declining student numbers, and an excessive budgetary burden, it is plausible that higher education institutions require an increase, rather than a reduction, in staff. As evidenced by the accompanying sixth and seventh graphs, the number of higher education researchers is comparatively limited.
It appears that Croatia may have a lower ratio of higher education faculty and researchers compared to the European average, and potentially even to comparable nations.
The rationale behind further rationalization, or budget cuts, within the Croatian higher education system remains unsubstantiated. While claims of inefficiency are prevalent, they lack empirical support, despite their inclusion in strategic documents. For instance, the 'National Recovery and Resilience Plan' asserts that legislative reforms will “enable greater scientific and teaching productivity using the same or fewer resources” (Vlada RH 2021, 879). Similarly, the “Act on Quality Assurance in Higher Education and Scientific Activity” excessively emphasizes “rationalization” (e-savjetovanja 2022).
Although strategic consolidations may justify certain rationalization efforts, it is generally accepted that enhancing research and teaching quality necessitates increased, rather than decreased, funding. Historically, Croatian higher education has been underfunded. The recent influx of funding through the “National Recovery and Resilience Plan” should not be misinterpreted as a long-term solution, as it represents a temporary increase. Even with this funding, Croatia's investment may remain below European standards, and the situation could deteriorate upon its depletion.
This analysis aims to encourage a more critical and analytical approach within the academic community regarding efficiency and rationalization. Faculty should conduct independent analyses and approach information from media and official sources with skepticism. Numerous unsubstantiated claims, data misinterpretations, and inaccuracies are present in seemingly credible documents. A crucial long-term goal is to cultivate a stronger sense of self-worth and recognition of quality within the academic community, despite existing challenges. This will contribute to restoring social reputation, dignity, and improved working conditions. Beyond media and political recognition and enhanced collaboration with societal and economic stakeholders, increased funding is essential. Furthermore, it is imperative to challenge the applicability of neoliberal principles that advocate for a diminished role of universities in Croatia. Croatia requires a more robust and vocal academic community.
References
e-savjetovanja. 2022. Zakon o osiguravanju kvalitete u visokom obrazovanju i znanstvenoj djelatnosti. https://esavjetovanja.gov.hr/ECon/Slicing/GetDocx/20721.
Eurostat. 2024. R&D Personnel by Sector of Performance, Professional Position and Sex. Eurostat. 2. prosinca 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/rd_p_persocc/default/table?lang=en.
Eurydice. 2024. The European Higher Education Area in 2024: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Eurydice. 27. svibnja 2024. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-higher-education-area-2024-bologna-process-implementation-report.
Glassdoor. 2025. https://www.glassdoor.com/index.htm.
Scopus. 2025. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com.
Stanzer, Damir. 2023a. Mjerenje hrvatske znanosti. Zagreb: Centar za demokraciju i pravo Mika Tripalo. https://tripalo.hr/knjiga-mjerenje-hrvatske-znanosti-2022.
Stanzer, Damir. 2023b. Kako metodologija pojedinih rangiranja sveučilišta utječe na našu poziciju na njima? Universitas Portal. 9. listopada 2023. https://www.universitas-portal.hr/kako-metodologija-pojedinih-rangiranja-sveucilista-utjece-na-nasu-poziciju-na-njima/.
Vlada RH. 2021. Nacionalni plan oporavka i otpornosti. Zagreb: Vlada Republike Hrvatske. https://planoporavka.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Plan%20oporavka%20i%20otpornosti%2C%20srpanj%202021..pdf?vel=13435491
[i] My book (in Croatian) Mjerenje hrvatske znanosti "Measuring Croatian Science" (Stanzer 2023a) and the article (in Croatian) “How does the methodology of individual university rankings affect our position in them?” (Stanzer 2023b) are available for free.
[ii] To be sure, one of the important roles of universities is to help the economy, not only in the form of training personnel but also in the form of research and development with application in the economy. My colleagues and I from the Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology understand this very well because we continuously maintain cooperation with the economy, we are inextricably linked to it. The problem arises when this task of the university becomes the only or the most important one in a reductionist ideology. In the systematic application of such an ideology, a justification arises for cutting other important roles of the university.
[iii] It is incomprehensible how a STEM scientist can stop his thinking at this claim: “the number of teachers cannot grow if the number of students falls.” The mere fact that something falls and something rises does not mean anything in terms of information about the justification of that rise in relation to that fall. It is necessary to know: a) the initial values and b) the target or reference values. There is no imperative proportionality, it is possible that something must rise even though something else falls.
[iv] The data sources for creating these graphs are: Eurostat (2024), Eurydice (2024), Scopus (2025), Glassdoor (2025). Salary data from the Glassdoor website should be taken with a grain of salt, as they are not based on exact country statistics. This also applies to European sources: they should not be trusted blindly. They are created by disinterested “Eurocrats” who do not check what each country sends them. However, this data can give us a rough impression.
[v] FTE (Full time equivalent) indirectly and approximately indicates the number of scientific and teaching employees of higher education institutions (professors, associate professors), and to some extent also adjunct employees. In Croatia, scientific and teaching positions allot about 50 percent of working time to science. Although this is not the same in all countries, a comparison of FTE researchers of higher education institutions approximately indicates the ratio of the number of academic employees as a whole. In addition to the fact that scientific and teaching positions in Croatia account for the majority of teaching, additional meaning is given to this representation by the fact that in Croatia the majority of scientific activity is carried out precisely at the largest public universities. Therefore, the small share of university researchers (in comparison to other countries) indicates not only a smaller share of higher education teachers, but also an even greater shortage of scientists in the country.
