The real competitive arena 2025 – Hungarian Universities

The government, which has been in power for a decade and a half, has a peculiar relationship with higher education rankings. At the beginning of the period, the prime minister announced a program to get Hungarian universities into the top 200, which we immediately wrote about, saying that it was both impossible and unnecessary.

In the mid-2000s, we saw signs of sobering up when the then minister responsible for higher education saw the best chances of reaching the top 200 in the subject-specific lists, which was realistic on the one hand and, with certain restrictions, could even be a meaningful goal on the other. However, in the last two to three years, the goal has become to reach the “top 100.” Unfortunately, in light of this year’s global rankings, this ambition does not seem realistic.

The ranking positions of the 11 Hungarian universities that made it into one of the four more seriously taken global rankings have hardly changed overall compared to last year, with six of the eleven moving up and sixteen remaining unchanged. There were two significant advances in previous years: in 2023, Óbuda University jumped from the 1001-1200 group to the 601-800 group for 2024, but this trend did not continue this year. The Semmelweis march, which was accompanied by high government hopes (and is indeed commendable) on THE’s list, also seems to have stalled. Two years ago, Hungarian universities achieved their best ranking ever, placing between 200 and 250, but last year, contrary to government expectations, they did not move up but down one place to 250-300, where they remained this year. (During this period, THE changed its methodology for calculating publication performance due to publication anomalies that put SE and Óbuda University in a more favorable position. It still holds a leading position in the post-socialist region, as only three other Austrian medical universities rank higher than it, apart from the University of Vienna (only medical universities are included in the subject-specific list). In the least hackable ranking, the ARWU (“Shanghai ranking”), we saw a significant positive change earlier, clearly due to Katalin Karikó’s Nobel Prize, but its impact this year was only enough to maintain the 401-500 group (along with improved publication performance).

Looking at the four rankings together, it is clear that the ranking of Hungarian universities has not changed at all in the former Soviet sphere of influence. ELTE continues to lead the second group, directly behind the four leading institutions (Charles University in Prague, the University of Tartu in Estonia, and the two Polish institutions, Jagiellonian University and the University of Warsaw). Szeged, Debrecen, and Semmelweis, which are ranked after Ljubljana, Belgrade, and Zagreb. The other Hungarian institutions are mostly in the second thousand group of universities measured by the rankings, with the exception of the Technical University’s 700-800 category on the QS and ARWU lists and Pécs’s better QS ranking.

Of course, this does not mean that Hungarian universities do not have departments and research laboratories that are among the best in the world. In addition, another part of them excellently adapts world science for education and R&D. And these lists reveal essentially nothing about the effectiveness and quality of education. The vast majority of Hungarian students do not face a real dilemma between choosing Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, and German-French universities, not only because of their inaccessibility, but also because of the expectations of domestic social and labor market integration. For this reason, it is neither practical nor beneficial for Hungarian higher education policy, and especially not for institutional strategies, to focus on global rankings. This is particularly true in countries with medium (higher education) development, where such a distortion can lead to organic university movements being overshadowed by local socio-economic needs, the erosion of national culture, and the inefficient use of resources.

After all, global university rankings are of very limited value in measuring performance and quality; they are best suited to measuring publication activity in line with the professional culture of the natural sciences, internationality in terms of geographically and culturally unequal conditions, and reputation. They are certainly not suitable for reflecting the real effects of higher education restructuring (“foundationization”).

A significant portion of the indicators used in these rankings come from the publishing industry, where thematic and geographical biases, networks, and routines that are detrimental to truly exciting scientific achievements are at work. It is gratifying that Hungarian universities have also joined the COARA initiative, which seeks to replace the one-sided focus on quantity and article writing with tools that capture quality in a variety of ways. If the government supports this, it would greatly help in the meaningful development of Hungarian universities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.