Chile has more university graduates because more and better secondary school students are receiving degrees.

Chile has more university graduates because more and better secondary students are receiving education. The expert in educational financing focuses on the loss of quality in secondary education as a factor that further complicates the university crisis; "it is false that what was not done in twelve years of basic education can be recovered with preparatory courses or a CBC," he assures. In this edition, La Repregunta will not be published in video format. "There is a lot to improve in public universities, but the main problem is secondary school," he states. "It is clear that students finish secondary school without the knowledge required to pursue higher studies," he underlines. "What the university does is this: it tells the student that under these conditions, it gives a hand and that it probably won't reach them, but it doesn't want to charge a toll before entering because the student is a victim of the system. The university gives them an opportunity that few can escape," he recognizes. "The only thing the university cannot resign itself to is the demand," he concludes. The expert in university financing Juan Ignacio Doberti was on La Repregunta. Doberti has a Doctorate in Economic Sciences from UBA and a Master in Public Administration from Columbia University. He is the author of Las políticas universitarias y sus financiamientos en perspectiva histórica. From dictatorships to democracy. Period 1966-2023. Here are some highlights from the interview. -The current debate is about salary and operating costs of the university, but beyond that, the rethinking of some sacred cows of the university system and how the public university could be improved remains pending. Universities are sustained by the transfers made by the national State. How are operating costs defined for each university? -It has more than one component. The main component is inertia. Behind the current year's budget, you always know the budget of the previous year. The teachers and students from the previous year are looked at. Students who did not graduate and did not drop out will be in the same courses. Throughout the world, the first component in the entire education system is inertia. The second is modifications. In the Argentine case, this began in the 90s. There was a model of budgetary guidelines: it started from indicators. It was financed according to the differential needs of the universities, with more resources for those underfunded and less for those overfunded. -What were the indicators? -Students per course; economies of scale, that is, the larger universities require fewer resources; differential cost of courses, because agronomy is very different from law; the personnel plants and their rationality and some performance indicators, for example, the number of subjects approved on average per student. Nevertheless, it is almost inevitable: the statistics will be bad. -Why? -For three factors. The quality assessments of basic education, primary education, and especially secondary school, are very poor. The idea that what was not done in the twelve years of basic education can be recovered with some preparatory courses, CBC or whatever you call them, is false. The truth is that you do what you can. It greatly conditions the efficiency of the university. On the other hand, there are social conditions: the family income of a large part of the population is appalling. And that also conditions, especially if scholarships for students are eliminated. The university's work is very difficult in that context. Furthermore, universities suffer from quite significant underfunding. In those conditions, the only way to have reasonable indicators in the university is a facilitism that we do not want. I participate in a study group where there are rectors of public and private universities. They all say more or less the same: entrants have many deficiencies. Therefore, things can be done better, yes. Now, aspiring to very good or ideal situations, it seems false to me. Gratuity and lack of filter -Is it necessary to rethink another sacred cow of the university system: gratuity and lack of filter? Should the entry mechanism and the flow of resources for courses that no longer work be rethought? -All countries seek to increase the number of higher education students. The statistics of human capital indicators are conclusive in relation to income, unemployment, fiscal contributions: the possibility of being unemployed drops drastically if a person has education; on average, their income increases drastically. And for countries, it is a business for these students to study: it has a cost, but with a very high return. -Brazil has a different system than Argentina: public universities are elite and absorb 20 percent of university enrollment, but it has quotas and scholarships for lower-income sectors, all showing academic merit. Is it not better than the Argentine system, in terms of the State's capacity to sustain it and in terms of the impact on GDP? -If it is better or worse, it depends on the preferences. There is no technical answer to that. Some people like it more, some people like it less. -But it is not only preferences at play. It also depends on the fiscal balance: Argentina has problems financing the system. Expansion is even more difficult. -From the fiscal balance, of course: every expense adds more pressure. Now, is that the society and the welfare State to which we aspire? It is not true that the university system, and even I would say the education system in general, is affecting the fiscal surplus. If we look at the national accounts and how much the education function weighs on the national budget, it is low. The judge (R. no.: Martín Cormick, first instance judge who leads the case for the non-compliance with the Education Financing Law) says that there is no question of public order that prevents the Government from complying with the Law: it does not lead to social chaos. Compliance with the law costs 0.23 percent of GDP: it does not generate an overflow of public spending. I say: why don't we try to do what the good examples, the most developed or developing countries, which are doing well, do? Why don't we copy the percentage of GDP that Chile spends, for example? -Argentina spends between 0.4 and 0.5 points of GDP in transfers from the national State to the universities. In Chile, 0.8 percent corresponds to the state. In Brazil, 0.7 percent. It is clear that Argentina spends less on the university system. -Half as much as in Chile. If Argentina spent double, like Chile, it could finance that without problems. There is a lot to improve in universities, but the main factor is secondary school. Why does Chile have more graduates? The main factor is that it graduates many more secondary students in proportion to its population, but they also know much more, as shown by the quality assessments of learning. Besides that, there must be a better university system. I do not want to give a condescending look at the university: there is a lot to work on. In fact, the university system had proposed seven areas for improvement: new technologies, internationalization, credit systems. Barring and giving again -The Argentine welfare State would not be functioning in terms of secondary school efficiency, its quality, or the efficiency of the university. Is it not time to mix and redo? -It can be changed. But what doesn't work is pretending a security system like the Swedish one with inadequate financing, because it is living a fiction. Making the public system elitist will make it more efficient, but it will make it much more inequitable; in fact, it already does so. When you put a very rigorous entry exam, you select an elite and then you have very good rates. That implies that the State focuses its spending on those who need it the least: you gained efficiency, but at the cost of inequality. -A system that is called equitable like the Argentine public university because it does not impose entry barriers, but deceives the students in the first trimester of the CBC, does not seem very equitable. Is it not a fiction of equity? -There is clearly a very serious problem of inequality. In aggregate terms, those in the largest quintile are doing well, they don't have to work, they have a culture at home, professional traditions, the parents can help them, they can get private tutors, etc. In front of that, resources must be concentrated on those with more difficulties with scholarships, with tutoring, etc. -My question is: could the national State resources applied to preparatory courses that fail be better used to better support vulnerable students with the possibility of sustaining the career? The CBC is an endogenous filter, within the university. Why not propose a reallocation of more efficient resources that also benefit those kids who want to study? -Scholarships could be increased, but that is the opposite of what is happening. But there is something difficult to solve: the deficit in primary and secondary education affects higher education. Now, we need better vocational guidance, we need to design university trajectories so that students do not waste what they achieve. I am far from believing that the university does not have spaces for improvement. "One cannot allow spending on any inefficiency, but it also makes no sense to defund." -Would you agree with something the government proposes, a final examination of secondary school that serves as a signal to the student of how prepared they are to face the educational effort of the university? -In principle, it might not be wrong to have an exam and requirements that provide information. But the suspicion we have is that it is a euphemism in the sense that the Government actually wants an entry exam to state universities. This would lead to many people not being able to enter, so they should go to the private ones, like in the Brazilian model. In that case, the possibility of continuing or not their studies would depend on their purchasing power. Now, in principle, having an exam could be fine: it is not wrong to test. But if that exam determines nothing, what would be the objective? -Is a possible objective to save the student time? What there is today is a misleading system: is it more a staging of equality? In reality, the lack of equity ends up being concretized in the first trimester or at the end of the first year of CBC. -I agree that there is a component of staging in the sense that secondary school is certifying a series of knowledge that it is not actually providing. It is clear that students finish secondary school without the knowledge required to pursue higher studies. -But it is not the only staging. Is there not also a staging in the discourse of the public and free and open access university when in reality those students enter and after a few months they are excluded? It is said that they are given the opportunity, but in reality they never had it. How to dismantle the staging of equity of the public, free, and unselected university? -We have to do things right; doing things right is to give secondary education that provides the elements. Possible changes today -Secondary school has had these problems for thirty years. It will take time to achieve that change. What can the university do today? -The university will not be able to solve the problem of secondary school. What the university does is this: it tells the student that, under these conditions, it gives a hand and that it probably won't reach them, but it doesn't want to charge a toll before entering because the student is a victim of the system. It gives a hand, but not the hand they need because otherwise, it would have to spend the entire budget on doing a secondary school course. -Is it not victimizing the student twice, first with a secondary school that does not fulfill it, and then with a university that deceives them by allowing something it does not fulfill either? -The university gives them an opportunity that few can escape. Philip Altbach (R. no.: recognized specialist in education, doctor in Comparative Education from the University of Chicago) wrote a paper titled "The survival of the fittest in the UBA". He argued that the UBA's role is to certify knowledge well. Most graduates of the UBA are very good graduates, but most fall behind. But there is no way for the UBA to do a secondary school course. -Therefore: should we abandon the pretension that the CBC replaces or compensates for secondary school? To be honest, that the State is putting resources into a staging that does not bear fruit. -It is quite reasonable. The thing is that the other solution is to say: "Look, since he didn't give you the knowledge, I won't let you in." And the truth is that that is quite cruel. In this case, to say: "I give you a hand so you try, but few will succeed." -But the message is not that. The message is: "Come, because the university is public, freely accessible, free, and a right," but then they are left out in the first trimester. It is an enormous disappointment. -And yes, because they face reality, and I don't think it's wrong: the only thing the university cannot resign itself to is the demand, because in Argentina, unlike other countries, titles are enabling. So they are given another opportunity, but an opportunity in very complicated conditions. If the problem is in basic education, let's not seek to have other instances solve it. To be honest with that and not let them participate, from the point of efficiency, I have no doubt that it would be more efficient. Now, it would also be cruel to tell them: because you were cheated in secondary school, I won't let you into the university. Where do I put the toll? Do I put it before entry or after entry? It is a very complicated debate. -You raise the problem of secondary school, but no one marches for secondary school or primary school, which have suffered the most educational cuts. Is the concern for secondary school another staging? -I agree that the university demand cannot be exhausted by the university demand. It must be an educational demand in general. But the idea that university financing competes with financing of lower levels makes no sense; the demand is common. On the other hand, university institutions also have pre-university levels. The solution is common: to do what the more developed countries do, which is to spend a reasonable amount. One cannot allow spending on any inefficiency, but there is no sense in defunding either. The university as a conservative institution has a very big problem and, in general, is very aware. Now, I see an anti-intellectual and anti-university agenda in general and against the university in particular. -The Government makes a really polarized and simplified analysis, which ends up producing an effect of closing off the university discussion. -A large part of the animosity between the university and the Government is given even by the type of adjustment. I studied the budgets from 1966 to 2023. There were four periods with adjustments of this level. The first, 1976, after the Rodrigazo, when the military dictatorship took over. In 1982, everything for the war effort. In 1989, with hyperinflation. In 2001, with the crisis and recession. In all those cases, what the government said was: "I cannot give you more budget. Now the discourse is not: 'I don't want to give you more budget.' It is a huge change. It is very difficult to incentivize efficiency gains with someone who wants to harm me, who says I am the caste, that I am an illicit association: it is very difficult to build from that place. It generates reverse reactions, isolation, confrontation.