THE CHANGING WORLDS OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY: PORTUGAL, SPAIN AND
LATIN AMERICA
EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICAN
COUNTRIES: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay
Denise Leite( Ufrgs,Br ), Cristina Contera(Udelar, Uy ) and Marcela Mollis ( Uba, Arg )
1.Introduction
This text presents the systems of evaluation and accreditation developed in 5 Latin American countries –
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay. The authors, direct main characters in some of the
reported processes, synthesize recent investigations about the theme. The models of quality evaluation
are comparatively analyzed in a matrix considering its rationalities, processes and methodologies.
Having the models as starting point, a reflection about the mission of universities, its identity as a public
asset and its contribution to the maintenance of systems which value democracy is presented at the end.
For the better understanding of this paper, some aspects that could not be available in the scientific
literature normally published, are recollected from the Latin American context and social experience.
2. Latin America
Latin America is a region in the American continent including South, Central and North America. The
expression Latin America, in its linguistic meaning, refers to American countries where Latin languages
are spoken – Spanish and Portuguese. The meaning of the term spread out through the centuries,
designating a political unit, economically and culturally different from North America, an English
speaking region. Most Latin American countries have democratic systems with free elections. In the last
decade, many among these countries suffered reforms and structural adjustments which aimed at the
economy globalization. Policies of neoliberal cuts were the main dynamics for the international insertion
of some countries, but were also the dynamics of the poverty increase. It can be seen that, in most
countries, democracy is appreciated, as confirms the Latinbarometer1. In this valued context, the
construction of an identity of the Latin American University can be understood. A meaningful example
of this identity can be found in the beginning of the 20th century at the Old University of Uruguay Udelar - where through the Organic Law of 1908 the participation of students in collegiate organs was
permitted. Another example was the First International Congress of American Students in 1908 at
Montevideo. This congress echoed in Cordoba, Argentina, stage of the well known university Reform of
1918i. The co-government, brought into being in this reform, echoed strongly in other colonial
institutions – universities or higher education institutions – which were founded on the first centuries of
1
Latinbarometer is an institution placed at Santiago, Chile. It orders surveys to 17 countries in Latin America to compound a
Democracy Index. The “X-ray” of democracy points differentiated levels of democracy in Latin America. In 2000, e.g.,
18125 people were surveyed. Uruguay, at the time, presented 83 points and Brazil 35 in a scale that combines satisfaction
with democracy and support to the democratic regimen.
1
Spanish colonization2 or in the 19th century when the Portuguese royal family came to Brazil. The
majority of these institutions had crystallized forms of government and transmission of knowledge in
which the delay, the dependence and the underdevelopment were perpetuated. Their tradition of
teaching, rethoric and scholastic, mirrored in the main European universitiesii.
In common, the colonial company developed by Spain and Portugal had left an inheritance of
centralization in controls, authorities and powers. Against all that, the students of Cordoba emerged in
1918, launching an ideal of renewed strength to the Latin American university. The reflexes of Cordoba
were felt in the construction of an identity and a Latin America ethics, what has been constituting an
essential strength to the construction of a common academic space, as is proved in integrated initiatives
inside Mercosul 3, like AUGM4 – Association of Universities of Montevideo’s Group, for instance.
In this manner, if in Latin America we have a Humboldtian model of university - a university for
researching and production of knowledge - together with a French Napoleonic model - a model of
college or isolated schools- we also have the presence of a Latin American Political model that surpasses
the academic environment, at times assumed by students as in Cordoba as in the 60’s in many countries,
at times by professors as in Brazil in the 80’s and 90’s, projecting to the society the will for democracy
and social justice. The strong presence of this model will be considered in this text.
As for what matters to this paper, Latin America is composed of 19 countries, with a total of 492.94
million inhabitants, an annual growth rate of the population around 2.1% and life expectancy for people
older than 65 increasing ( 7.2% forecasted to 2015 ). In Latin America, as says Darcy Ribeiro, there is a
“new people”, result of the mixing of 3 continents – European, African and Indo-American, though in
some countries or regions the testimonies of origin are kept through the “ testimony peoples “ (as the
Mayas, Aztecs, Quechuas, Kaigangs…) and through the “transplanted peoples “ (as the ones of
European or Asiatic origin ). Because of that, there exists a number not measurable of dialects ( as the
Veneto-Italian, for instance ) and Indian languages (e. g., tupy-guarany) that are still preserved
(Ribeiro,1980; Yarzabal, 2000;Guadilla, 2003).
The Latin American system of Higher Education , according to Guadilla ( 2003 ), is composed of around
6000 Higher Education Institutions, public and private, being 85.5% non universities. The universities –
870 -, concentrate around 69% of enrollments. As it is impossible to present all the characteristics of this
amplified and heterogeneous context, we highlight some data due to its direct link to the investigation
processes held by universities. The information refers to countries that, for their size, economical and
political importance in the region, can be representatives of a multicultural reality. In so being, in the
chart below, the population, the economically active population, the GNP and the expenses in science
and technology are identified. The relations among these aspects and others are highlighted, since they
2
Oldest universities: Major University of San Carlos in Córdoba, Argentina, 1613; University of Buenos Ayres, Argentina,
1821; University of Chile, Chile, 1842; University of the Republic, Uruguay, 1849; National University of Assuncion,
Paraguay, 1889.
3
Mercosul has its origins on a regional agreement of integration originally in 4 countries : Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and
Uruguay, and later on in Bolívia and Chile, as associates ( Agreement of Assuncion, March 26 th, 1991 ) . This agreement
does not establish Mercosul, but is an instrument of international character to make its concretization possible ( Art.6)
4
This association was created in 1991 and is composed by 15 public universities with a level of technological and scientifical
development compatible, with identical problematic and political objectives. The participating universities are in: Argentina (
University of Buenos Ayres, National University of Entre Rios, National University of Coastal Region, National University
of La Plata, National University of Rosario, National University of Cordoba ); Brazil ( Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul , Federal University of Santa Maria, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Federal
University of Parana, State University of Campinas); Chile ( University of Santiago ); Paraguay (National University of
Assuncion); and Uruguay ( University of the Republic )
2
are factors of competitiveness and international insertion. It is observed that the expenses in science and
technology can vary from 0.26% of the GNP in a country where the economically active population
corresponds to 1/3 of the population ( 3.33 million inhabitants ) to 0.55% of the GNP in another country
in which the economically active population corresponds to 1/3 of the total population ( 15.02 million
inhabitants). Another country invests 0.87% of its GNP in science and technology with an economically
active population corresponding to half of the population ( 163.95 million inhabitants ). In the first case
we have Uruguay, with one mass public university and 4 private institutions of higher education.
Following, there is Chile with 67 universities and Brazil with 156. In other words, the varied amounts
correspond to the different realities and solid possibilities of each country.
Table 1: Economically active population, GNP and expenses with science and technology in selected
countries
Argentina Brazil
Population
million of people 1999
Economically active population
million of people 1999
Gross product ( GNP )
million of U$ 1999
Expenses in Science & Technology in relation to
the GNP
1999 ( Investigation + Development )
Personnel in Science & Technology Researchers
individual workers
(not in companies) 1999
Total
Requested patents
Total in 1999
Given patents
Total in 1999
Dependence rate : non residents / residents
Total in 1999
Publications in SCI
total in 1999
Publications in SCI/ 100 thousand inhabitants
Total in 1999
Pascal publications/ 100 thousand inhabitants
total in 1999
Source : Ricyt, 2002
Chile
Colombia Uruguay
36,58
163,95
15,02
41,59
3,33
15,55
79,31
5,88
17,87
1,22
79,620
21,059
283,260
529,398 67,469
0.45%
0.87%
0.55%
0.24%
0.26%
32,583
49,702
(1995 )
7,114
4,764
1,854
50,701
67,350
14,957
( 1995 )
9,160
3,213
6,457
16,569
3,121
1,800
623
226
626
144
5.7
2.4
6.2
1,241
6.2
2,601
(1995)
0.7
(1996)
4,862
11,759
2,078
608
353
13,3
7,2
13,8
1,5
10,6
6,1
3,4
5,8
0,9
5,0
An emphasis on the increase of personnel of science and technology is observed, as a result of public
policies of post graduate formation, reflected in the number of requested patents (6457 in Argentina and
16569 in Brazil) and in science citation index publications ( 4862 and 11759 / 100 thousand inhabitants,
3
for Argentina and Brazil ). In this specific matter, it is important to highlight that these peoples do not
have English as official language. But Brazil in 2001 reached 2% of worldwide publications in science
and technology (Iesalc/ Unesco, 2002) and can keep its dependence rates (relation between requested
patents by non residents / requested patents by residents) in a percentage of less than 1, what shows the
existence of public policies to keep active researchers in their country of origin. The country with less
population, Uruguay, produces and exports software ( U$ 83.56 million in 2001 and U$ 79.42 million in
2000 ).iii This activity demands an extra effort from the science communities to find frontier spaces
once the publications and technological products are mainly accepted in the universal language
(English), a fact that restricts the effective dissemination of knowledge production stored at the
universities of the region. Nevertheless, the preparation of brains that produce the exported technology
can be attributed to these universities, in spite of the international competition, as pointed in the case of
software and others. Many among the 15 winners of the Nobel Prize of the region were majored in the
same universitiesiv.
Following, some aspects of the so called “ The 90’s Reforms“ in higher education in Latin America are
presented. These reforms reinforced existing processes or introduced quality evaluation systems (Kent,
1997; 2001; Sguissardi, 1997; Mollis, 1998 a); 1998 b); 2002; 2003; Leite, 2002; Leite, Mollis, Contera,
2002; Contera, 2003 ). In this paper we consider the reforms in the same sense as Popkewitz (1994 : 25),
that is, “ the strategic place where the modernization of institutions is carried out “.
3. Reforms and changes in the 90’s
The “ bad feelings “ about the poor operation of Latin American universities began to appear in the
80’s, when democratic governments were being consolidated in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina, where
before there were military dictatorship governments. In each different national level, marked by different
rhythms, emerged a certain worry with the institutional “errors and addictions“, self recognized by
universitarian actors. It could be seen an urgent “quality” crisis affecting universities. In the following
decade, the 90’s, the worry with “quality was connected to ‘the worry with university efficiency”. This
feeling was brought mainly by some international agencies outside universities, such as WB, IMF and
BID . The diagnosis was conditioned and homogeneous to cure the disease (WB, 1993). As Tilach says
(1999), in Latin America, in the 90’s, the previous social contract with the state was broken, public and
private universities began to circulate towards the “marketechnocracy” as an alternative to regain its
poor financing and to search for a new identity.
The relative simplicity of the international context where there had been modernizing reforms contrasted
with the complex task Latin American countries faced. The major transformation in education seems to
be oriented by the change of the public institution identity that was, up to this moment, coherent with
the social function of welfare states or developing states. The “public” identity of institutions began to
go towards “a new identity in the global context of the Business State “ ( Mollis , 2001; 2003 ).
Despite statements like “ the world’s economy is changing as the knowledge substitutes the physical
capital as a source of wealth presently and in the future “ (WB, 2000:9), the Latin American reforms in
higher education are guided mainly to satisfy the increasing and diverse social demand in this level of
education. It was about turning the public resources for universities more efficient and deviating the
increasing demand to another kind of education institution, closer to the education market, freeing the
state of the financing support specifically for higher education.
4
Some aspects of these reforms, a non exhaustive set of issues, are presented in the next section,
contemplating part of the changes which occurred in institutions in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia
and even in Uruguay, where formally we can not consider a country with reforms but with changes in
higher education. In every case – though many of the highlighted changes had occurred – they did not
work thoroughly and in the same manner in all the mentioned countries. Following are the main results
of the reforms of the 90’s in Latin America (Mollis, 2003).
1) –enrollments in higher education expand significantly; increase on private enrollment;
2) –higher education laws are promulgated, reflecting a regulating tendency for the transformations,
even in international scenarios traditionally autonomous ;
3) –the institutional diversification is widened – new “schools and non universitarian courses“
(similar to colleges ), institutes and universitarian centers, short cycles that can certify and give
intermediate titles of higher education are created;
4) –new funding sources and alternatives for state financing are regulated (charging of fees and
enrollment in systems traditionally free, patents, sale of services, agreements and others);
5) –strategic alliances are produced between international agencies and governmental decision
takers; also strategic alliances among universities, corporations and the public sector;
6) –the private investment increases on the private offer of higher education, together with
privatization processes and market offer of education, not always controlled by organs
representing the public interest;
7) –instances of coordination are increased nationally, regionally and in universities; reforming and
normative legislations take place;
8) –internally, the teaching board is differentiated based on figures of productivity through policies
of incentive and systems of merit pay;
9) –academic changes are produced: shortening of careers, intermediate titles, flexibilization of
curricula through credits modality, use of external models of education based on “acquisition of
professional competences”, and others;
10) –extended use of technology in different areas: information, distance education ( non presential
teaching and virtual universities), remote teaching, certification of knowledge and abilities,
recycling of competences;
11) -evaluation processes are consolidated as well as institution’s accountability; mechanisms of
accreditation, certification and recognition of undergraduate and graduate courses are made
stronger; central organs are created to accredit and evaluate institutions, courses, academics and
their productivity.
In order to make a whole analysis of the effects of these changes in Latin American institutions of higher
education, it is vital to understand that the same changes are produced on the cusp of the redefinition of
structures which regulate the production and circulation of knowledge worldwide. The working market,
the corporations and the “new suppliers” made up a moving power which impelled the majority of the
reforms mentioned. In these scenarios – worldwide as well as regionally - , the historical function of
universities oriented to the satisfaction as a “public asset” was conditioned to the urgency of regaining
the investment ( public or private ), what is made through the formation of a “human capital”. This
regaining comes partially from resources of potential users-clients. In the non exhaustive roll of
transformations, the creation of institutions- specifically accreditation ones to defend the “public asset”
is mentioned as for instance CONEAU in Argentina, a buffer institution responsible for verifying the
quality of institutions through processes of evaluation and accreditation.
Following, the evaluation and accreditation systems are developed more specifically .
5
4. Systems of evaluation and accreditation
Next, some aspects of accreditation and evaluation systems which characterize the selected countries5
are presented. After that, a comparative matrix is shown to contemplate the level of adherence to the
Models of Quality Evaluation.
4.1.Argentina
For over 170 years, there have been state-funded and state owned institutions of higher education in
Argentina. The State has also legalized professional and academic degree-granting universities. Thus,
historically, the state has served as provider and subsidizer, not as regulator of higher education. This
pattern still prevails in spite of higher education law enacted in 1995 that established the National
Council for University Accreditation and Evaluation (CONEAU), which introduced a state regulatory
function. The CONEAU has the power to accredit new institutions, set mandatory standards and accredit
some graduate and postgraduate programs. The CONEAU conducts institutional assessment that are to
be made public upon completion. In its first public document Lineamientos para la evaluación
institucional ( Foundations for the Institutional Assessment) it is emphasized the pursue of institutional
quality assessment of higher education to promote the transformation of universities practices in general
through a consensual, participative and constructive process.
The system of university accreditation and evaluation in Argentina was put into practice in a context of a
remarkable growth of higher education enrollments. The Council was originally funded by external
credits of the BIRF and the World Bank.
4.2. Brazil
Brazil has been having, since 1977, a program for evaluation and accreditation of post-graduate courses,
the CAPES (Coordination of Higher Education for Personnel Improvement) evaluation, and beginning
in 1994, a Program for Institutional Evaluation of Brazilian Universities (PAIUB), an initiative of
rectors of Federal Universities. With a democratic and formative objective, this program has been
having a great impact on the change and on the institutional university innovation. Between 1994 and
1997, it was possible to see that 138 – out of 156 – Brazilian universities had adhered to the PAIUB
evaluation program and are still in the program. In 1995/96 the Ministry introduced the National Exam
of Courses (National Examination Study Diploma), known as Provão and after a local analysis of the so
called “teaching conditions’offer”. From now on we could talk about the introduction of a system of
evaluation of higher education aimed to the quality control of public and private offer, under the
responsibility of the Ministry of Education (MEC). In charge of Provão was the INEP (National Institute
of Educational Research ), an independent research state agency of MEC. The quality evaluation system
includes for undergraduate: the annual examination of students, the set of indicators of the HEI from the
Annual Census of Higher Education, the national ranking of institutions with results of Provão by
institution plus the teaching offer analysis (infrastructure and pedagogical conditions). For post-graduate
programs the quality evaluation comprehends a peer review evaluation and the program productivity
measured each 3 years by DataCAPES. The regulating legislation comprehends the Federal Constitution
5
Detailed information about the cases can be found in : Leite, Mollis and Contera. Inovação e Avaliação Institucional.
Efeitos e mudanças na missão das universidades contemporâneas. Porto Alegre, Ed. Evangraf, 2002; Mollis, M. La
Universidad Argentina en transito. Buenos Aires, Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2001. About reforms and evaluation in Latin
America, see also : Kells, 1996; 1998, Amaral and Polidori. 1999; Kent, 1997, 2001
6
of 1988, Art. 84 Inc. IV and VI; the LDB (Guidelines and Educational Foundations Law), Law 9394/96
and the Decree 3860/2001. The results of the evaluation processes are compulsory to the
acknowledgement of courses and to confer temporary credentials to higher education institutions
(similar to “accreditation”), a responsibility of the Ministry of Education (MEC) and of the National
Council of Education.
4.3. Chile
As for the Chilean case, it can be said that the emphasis of the accreditation process is on quality control
(Lemaitre, 1999:216 ). As in the other countries, the process in Chile is legislated in 1990 with the
approval of the Constitutional Organic Law of Education (LOCE). This law creates a Higher Council of
Education ( CSE-Consejo Superior de Enseñanza) to regulate the offer of higher education.
Presently in Chile, three regulating procedures coexist: one of verification, applied in centers of
technical formation by the Education Ministry as the only responsible organ; one of students’
examination(Test of Academic Aptitude - PAA ), applied in universities and professionalizing institutes
by examination institutions according to the legislation established in 1981 and last an accreditation
process, applied by the National Council of Education in universities and professionalizing institutes
constituted after the LOCE or even before, but have opted voluntarily to adhere to this system.
4.4 Colombia
According to Orozco (1999), the process of accreditation in higher education institutions in Colombia
goes through 3 stages. In a first moment, there is a documentary accreditation, when the state – even
before 1980 - , made, in advance, a sort of external evaluation of institutions and academic programs to
concede a working license and legal acknowledgement.
The Law 30, from December of 1992, created the National System of Accreditation (SNA) under the
direction of the National Council of Higher Education (CESU), created by the same law. “The National
Accreditation System for Institutions of Higher Education is created to guarantee to the society that the
institutions that are part of this system follow the highest requirements of quality and fulfill their
proposals and objectives”. The institutions may adhere to the system voluntarily . The accreditation is
temporary.
The SNA is complemented with the creation of a National System of Information to spread out
information about quality, quantity and characteristics of institutions and programs in the system to
guide the community.
4.5. Uruguay
The Uruguayan case is special for its isolation concerning some parameters that characterize other
countries in the region. In this country, the privatization process of higher education is recent, and its
range limited. The regulation of the private system was made effective in 1995, with the approval of the
Decree number 308/95 for the “Organization of the Private System of Higher Education “, specifically
for private institutions, not including the public university (the single public university in the country is
regulated by the Constitutional Organic Law of 1952). In parallel, the process of regional integration
called MERCOSUL (see footnote), in which Uruguay is a member, signs for a number of factors
entailed to the length of careers in under graduate, graduate and specialization courses. These factors are
not expressed in the decree, but even so, the demand for acknowledgement and its variations inform the
new situations, not predicted initially and thus not legislated.
7
The present conflicting relationship among the only public institution, the private institutions and the
Ministry are due to the form this incipient regulation assumed and the role that the public institution
(Udelar ) understands it should be played in the accreditation process. At the moment, it plays a
marginal role, integrating the Consulting Council of Higher Education, responsible for the accreditation
of private institutions only. The only university to really have a self evaluation was the public, Udelar.
Since 1995 until the moment, Udelar has been carrying out a process of self evaluation conceived as a
whole and sustained process, involving all universitarian actors .
4.6. Comparative Matrix
To the comparison of these evaluation and accreditation systems, a matrix has been defined to translate,
simply, substantial aspects in each of the Models of Quality Evaluation presented. The comparison, as
suggested by Popkewitz (1994), establish connections among relations – or models of relations –
connected by hypothetical statements, formulated inside a theoretical structure intentionally selected.
The referred models are named as follows: Type 1 Regulation, Type 2 Mixed, Type 3 Selective
Excellence, Type 4 Democratic. They were analyzed having in mind three great dimensions (Table 2):
philosophical, political and methodological6.
In this sense, it is important to explain how these dimensions are presented: (a) variables considered
relevant are defined with a non exhaustive criteria only; (b) to the political dimension is given a greater
weight , expressed by a different consideration. This decision was taken due to the fact that the models
are built basically from this dimension; (c) the methodological dimension is expressed by 2 variables
concerning the 2 possible options in relation to data analysis: quantitative or quantitative/qualitative. The
possible relation to naturalist, phenomenological and other kinds of investigation approach were not
considered; (d) from each of these dimensions at turns, two great variables are derived in each case; e)
the chosen variables in articulation with the three dimensions of analysis are subdivided in indicators
and categories, chosen for being the best ones to identify each case; (f) in turn, the weight of each
indicator and category derived is different, and because of that, present distinct weight. In the chart,
some categories ( the ones that define the model ) are considered with XX and the others only X. If they
do not apply, a blank is used.
In this manner, we have a map that allows us to appreciate the level of adherence to the theoretical
models in a qualitative perspective. It is important to advise that since the models are not presented in
their pure form, the cases share categories. The matrix as presented is worth just as an indicative.
6
This section synthesizes data from the investigation of Contera ( 2003) for obtaining the Phd title in the Autonomous
University of the State of Morelos – UAEM, Cuernava, Mexico. It is also on a previous publications related to this
investigation ( Contera, 2000; 2001), where the author discusses the quality of higher education and its evaluation according
to the positions of Unesco – improvement as objective – and the World Bank – control as strategy. The quality evaluation
would be a model that could be conceived spatially in a Cartesian perspective from the opposite categories. The first axis of
this conception ( See figure) polarizes, at one side, the concept of quality as an added value (market vision ) and on the other
extreme, the quality as transformation ( vision of the academy ). The other axis opposes systems of evaluation and
accreditation to systems of self regulation. Each square has a variable, as follows clockwise : regulation ( instrumentaltechnical emphasis ), mixed ( combination of two or more emphasis ), democratic ( emancipatory emphasis ), selective
excellence ( productivist emphasis )
8
TOTALES
Table 2 : Comparative Matrix
DIME
NSION
VARIABLE INDICATOR
PHILOSOPHICAL
Instrumental
Rationality Criteria
Ethics
Value
Rationality
Regulation
POLITICAL
CATEGORIES
Arg Bra Ch Col
Technical
Interest
Self
Regulation
Adjustment to means and results
Ur.
XX XX XX XX XX
Efficacy, efficiency, productivity,
“total quality”
X
X
X
---
---
Competitiveness
X
X
X
---
--
---
XX
---
---
---
Emancipatory Praxical,
historical
Interest
axiological
and
Criteria
Emancipation, transformation
---
X
---
---
---
Ethics
Collaboration and solidarity
---
X
---
---
---
Organ
Central, estate
Estate Agencies of evaluation, XX XX XX XX XX
ministries , others
Objective
Regulation
XX XX XX XX XX
Actions
Different uses of sources coming
from the state, “rankings”
¿?
XX
---
----
Organ
HEI
XX XX
---
XX
Objective
Institutional Improvement
XX XX
Definition of Plans to Improve
--- XX
Quality
---
XX
---
---
---
---
Actions
Type
Indicator
Focus
METHODOLOGICAL
Systems of Evaluation and
Accreditation in HEI
of Productivity
Results
Quantitative Definition of
Indicators and
Central Organs
Criteria
of
Values
Type
Indicator
of Quality Indicators
Focus
The processes
Quali/quanti
Definition of
tative
Indicators and
HEI
Criteria
of
Values
-----
X
X
X
---
---
X
X
X
---
---
XX XX XX XX XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
X
---
---
XX
---
---
---
18
28
13
14
9
9
Figure 1: Models of Quality Evaluation
REGULATION
STATE
Type 1
Type 2
“Mixed”
“Regulation”
Quality as an
added value
Quality as
transformation
Values
MARKET
Type 3
III
“Selective excellence
ACADEMY
Type 4
“Democratic”
SELF REGULATION
INSTITUTION
10
Figure 2 : Models of Quality Evaluation and Countries
REGULATION
STATE
URUGUAY
CHILE
Type 1
Type 2
ARGENTINA
“Mixed”
“Regulation”
Quality as an
added value
CO
BRA
LOM
BIA
ACADEMY
ZIL
MARKET
Type 4
Type 3
“Selective Excellence”
Quality as
transformation
“Democratic”
SELF REGULATION
INSTITUTION
11
According to this matrix of analysis, the countries and the Evaluation and Accreditation Systems are
grouped as follows :
GROUP 1 : The evaluation and accreditation systems in Argentina ( 18 points )
GROUP 2 : The systems of evaluation and accreditation in Chile and Colombia ( 13 and 14 points
respectively )
GROUP 3 : The evaluation and accreditation systems of Brazil and Uruguay ( 28 and 9 points
respectively )
Argentina is in group 1. This country has one ministerial organism, the Secretariat of University Policies
(Secretaría de Politicas Universitarias, SPU) which is in charge of building the consensus policies for
the quality assessment movement. In order to fulfill university self and external evaluation’s goals, the
CONEAU has carried out a wide variety of tasks. In addition to supporting institutional evaluation , the
government allocated resources to universities for reforms and improvements arising out of evaluation
and consistent with neo-liberal modernization. The mechanism for making these allocations was the
Fondo para el Mejoramiento de la Calidad Universitaria (FOMEC), created in 1995. The SPU, the
CONEAU and FOMEC represent technical, material and human structures that required a significant
investment of resources to establish the regimen of university assessment. The creation of these national
agencies was underpinned by a loan-based policy agreement between the World Bank and the Argentine
government. Through all these mechanism it is possible to conclude that in Argentina there is a concern
with quality improvement in competitive environments. If the institutional self evaluation is promoted, it
is carried out through the enforcement of indicators defined by central organs that manage the referred
processes. The external evaluation happens through visits of academic pairs. In relation to the adherence
to Evaluation Models, we can say that this group uses a strategy of evaluation and accreditation
combining moments of self regulation and regulation with a strong participation of the academy. As
long as this academy is responsible for processes of self evaluation led lastly by CONEAU, we can
observe a certain adherence to Model Type 2, Mixed, that shares typical traits of Model Type 1,
Regulation. This is based on the fact that this process is being managed by an external organ to the
universities that is declared as non punitive, though it really does not let the academy define the
evaluation criteria that will be applied by the external pairs.
Another aspect to highlight is the role played by external financing organs (as FOMEC). This role raises
doubts about a possible articulation not explicitly stated in the reviewed documents. It would be
convenient to deepen in other studies the existence – or not – of this articulation between CONEAU and
FOMEC in order to evaluate the level of coincidence in the objectives and its impact on the definition of
global policies for higher education in Argentina.
In Group 2 we have Chile and Colombia, two countries with characteristic traits in which we would
highlight at least one important coincident aspect: the alluvial and disoriented growth of the private
higher education offer, what considerably increases the number of institutions. The need for regulating
the offer befalls on the government’s intention to accredit institutions. In both countries the main
objective is the accreditation. Both systems are installed in the early 90’s and have the same regulating
intention. It is convenient to highlight that in Chile we have a strong adherence to Model Type 2 –
Regulation. This is based on the fact that it is possible to appreciate a defined intention from the state to
regulate the offer of public and private higher education in order to control its quality. It is observed
though that the quality control is not associated only to economical or productivity indicators . There is a
valorization of qualitative and procedural parameters. In considering these distinct categories, we confer
a specific value to the existence of quality indicators and another to performance (quantitative
12
indicators), since we believe it wouldn’t be reasonable not to do so, having in mind the complex list of
dimensions which are taken into account in processes of institutional accreditation. From this point of
view, it is necessary to tinge the previous statements to establish a relation that, even slight, really exists
and fits into Model Type 2, Mixed.
Concerning Colombia, we believe we are before an accrediting model substantially different from the
Chilean model. The principles sustaining it as well as its whole conception allow us to suppose the
existence of an accrediting model, not only guided by a technical rationality but also oriented by a
concept of quality more related to the value rationality. The roles played by both the academy in
institutional self evaluation and by the academic pairs in the external evaluation of institutions as well as
the existence of a clear identification with the idea of institutional improvement without a punitive
concern are some of the facts backing up this statement. This case combines a double adherence to
characteristic traits of Model Type 1, Mixed, and characteristic traits of Model Type 4, democratic, as
shown in the comparison chart (Table 2). Further studies could analyze the impact of this not obliged
strategy in order to offer ordinance with a self regulation “regulated” by a central organism. In what
way this contradiction is solved and how the quality of the referred offer can be assured need to have a
more detailed consideration than what this study is supposed to do.
Group 3 is made up of two cases that have in common their isolation in relation to the other three. It is
not about models of institutional accreditation and it is not possible also to appreciate a clear articulation
with the modalities of resources’ concession interceding evaluation as in some of the previous cases. In
Brazil there are two different logics coexisting, presented in such a level of purity that determine an
almost total adherence to two of the models: Type 1, Regulation, and Type 2, Democratic. Both logics
and evaluation processes have been in coexistence since 1995, in a conflictive manner, once they are
guided by opposite rationalities. If at the one hand we have the process impelled by academics (PAIUB),
guided by the concepts defined in the Democratic Model of Evaluation, on the other hand we have
control of results supposed by the national examination (PROVÃO), attached to the regulating intention
of results’ inspection, typical of Model Type 1. This situation is explained throughout the history of a
process guided by the protagonism and made effective through the initiative of the academy. The
academy defines a model of institutional improvement supported by the Ministry of Education but the
implementation was done by institutions without the interference of the government in the results of the
process. After that, instances to inspect results were implemented, and nowadays these instances act as
guides for the demand looking for rankings obtained from quantitative measures of performance –
specially an exam applied upon students, the future egresses of higher education institutions.
Presently, the need of having the Provão and the dynamics installed at the institutions after the practice
of PAIUB’s principles, represent a certain tension, expressed at times in a conflictive manner,
determining a nervous relationship among academics, students and the Ministry of Education,
sometimes called “Ministry of Evaluation”. In this manner, it would be appropriate to question in what
way the values of an evaluation culture built in the academy, confront the values related to a merit given
and competitive rationality that had not been part of the Brazilian academy up to the moment. The
Brazilian model of evaluation has reached its adulthood. It is cemented on the experience and on the
research based reflection of a very significant community of academics. Its contributions are recognized
and valued not only locally, but in the region, because its design influenced other self evaluation
processes (Leite and Figueiredo, 1996; Kells, 1996; Amaral and Polidori, 1999; Leite et alli, 2000 ).
An special Case – Uruguay, as seen on the comparative chart, can not be wholly placed in any of the
models. This is explained by the incipient level of development of its system to regulate the offer and its
13
singular context (1 public university and 4 private institutions of higher education). We can place the
Uruguayan evaluation and accreditation system somewhere around Model Type 1, Regulation (only for
the private offer).
5. Quality Evaluation and the Relation University-Market
As we could see, Latin American higher education, in the countries analyzed, has suffered many
transformations in its structure throughout the 90’s. The transformations introduced procedures of
quality evaluation and accreditation in some countries supported by international financing agencies
(IMF, WB, BIRD). The international financing, interallia, has put academics and representatives of the
executive face to face, producing tensions, distrusts and confrontations that stressed the relationship
State-University. The introduction of new procedures of evaluation and accreditation under direct
control (Brazil) or State supervision (Argentina, Chile) brought up questions about autonomy. Countries
with traditionally autonomous university, like Uruguay, were put on the edge of this process, deciding
for external and internal evaluations without State or other financing organs’ intervention. On a first
moment of the new practices, the redesign of universities’ mission could be seen. New identities are
being managed as a consequence of the reforms shown and of the evaluation processes developed (Kent,
1997; Mollis, 1998;2001; Kent, 2001; Leite, 2002; Leite, Mollis and Contera, 2002; Contera, 2003)
Would these identities be an imitation of patterns elsewhere established or a self identity of the Latin
American university, distinct from the others? Should be part of the institutional mission of accrediting
organs, like CONEAU and others regional or inter-universitary, the evaluation and accreditation of the
hundreds of higher education institutions’ offers that spread out like mushrooms in the field only for
profiting? The valid laws of higher education help to regulate the interests of the ”new suppliers of
educational services” that do not follow criteria of excellence and pertinence ?
The reflection on these questions takes us to the study of Neave and Van Vught who, in 1994, claimed
that universities could be seen as colonial institutions, since they would still present a tendency to copy
patterns of other institutions considered developed, even at the end of the 20th century. After all, since
medieval times, universities would have been the main intellectual products of Europe for exportation.
In this manner, the history of universities could be seen through its relations with the State; could be told
through models and variations of imported models that were consolidated throughout the centuries. This
is confirmed, for instance, by the endless and repeated discussions about power’s predominant entity –
the Prince (State) or the members of the Republic of Letters (Academics)? When Neave and Van
Vught held the cited study, they examined cases of universities and states in different countries of 3
different continents. For the case of Latin American universities, they highlighted that since colonial
times, these universities tried to keep a certain distance from the control of the State and from the
working governments. On the 20th century, periods of dictatorship intervened on this relationship, but
even during periods of democracy, there could be found some exceptions, as in Brazil. In this country
and also in Venezuela, the first universities emerge in republican times7, and just as today, there would
7
Until the 19th century, the idea of university was rejected in Brazil, exactly because the existing models of the colonizers
did not match with the republican and positivist Brazilian ideals. It is said that the Counselor of the Empire, Almeida
Oliveira, in 1882, in the Congress of Education, would have said : “The university is an expression of the culture of the past,
and we will have the culture of the future that does not need it anymore” ( Teixeira, 1968, p.25 ). It is the rupture of the
colonial pact, after the advent of industrial capitalism in Europe, that originates a new cultural order that requires a new
higher education in the country. In this concern, the first higher education courses of Engineering and Agronomy that
constituted the Technical University of Porto Alegre, in 1922, and originated the present UFRGS, counted with the support of
professors coming from other countries but not the colonizing country, whose main model was the University of Coimbra.
Mainly because this particular university did not have the tradition of technical-scientific teaching that the new region needed
14
exist a rigid control of universities from the part of the government, in both public (direct control) and
private (indirect control) universities.
Models of State Control and State Supervision, very well known in the academic environment, refer to
the relation between the State and universities. The first model corresponds to the Principle of Legal
Homogeneity, that is, a national reference mark to centralizing states where universities would act as a
kind of supra parochial entity. The principle of Legal Homogeneity would create a provision of similar
conditions on a key sector to the State, a sector that defines, through the offered formation, the quality of
members integrating the State bureaucracy. Nowadays, when this principle is still present, the Model of
State Control induces the higher education institutions to look to the center to recognize or to endorse
the transformation, just as it would please the colonial times. The model of control would bring with it
the expectation of State modernization, of its economical development.
Essentially, the State Control Model had its roots in a pre-industrial society undergoing political and
administrative modernization. And whilst it may be argued that such priorities contribute greatly to
economic development (…) (Neave and Van Vught, 1994, p. 274 ).
The Supervisory Model, typical of developed countries, especially Europeans, is important for being a
historical occurrence in face of the upbringing of a new actor in the higher education scenario – the
market. In the evolution from one model to the other, some facts had great weight: the conviction that
the Principle of Legal homogeneity was not enough to please the needs of the administrative
modernization of the State, the reduction of public budgets; the requirements for new knowledge
generation for a competitive and globalized world, and to a post industrial economy. The model of State
Supervision does not require the State on the organization and working of the higher education system,
but it favors the autonomy of the Republic of Letters, even to be closer to the market. In this model, the
action of the state is centered on the supervision, on an a posteriori control of university government’s
activities and management, teaching and research, mainly through the evaluation of systems and
performance measurements. The Evaluative State that emerges on this context is a state that governs
evaluating and supervising institutions, acting in a decentralized way. In this sense, it would be a
responsibility of the market mechanisms the parallel control. In so being, the relation cost/benefit would
express a greater diversity on the offer together with the needs and expectations of the society and the
needs and expectations of the business-economic sector (Neave, 1988; Neave and van Vught, 1994;
Amaral and Magalhães, 1999).
The “evolution” of the system, from homogeneous control to supervision and decentralization, would be
characterizing the modern States in post-industrial societies. Add to the view sketched by Neave and
Van Vught that, until recently, the European governments were favorable to the Principle of Legal
Homogeneity, diversely to what occurred in North America, where Trow in 1974 pointed the principle
of Market and its importance to autonomy, competitiveness and diversification of higher education
systems:
Instead of a small number of universities with high uniform standards, centrally or coordinated, as in
European countries, America had a large and differentiated system without common standards or
coordinate policies. Without a central governing body, these autonomous and competitive institutions
made their decisions about growth much more in response to popular sentiments and the play of the
to develop its iron tracks, its roads and bridges, to the scientific creation of cattle and to the birth of industrialization
(professors came from Germany, USA, Italy and other countries )
15
market than did European universities which were, and are, highly insulated against those external
forces (Trow, 1974, p. 64). In North America the power of diversification and of competition, its
measurement through autonomous systems of evaluation and accreditation would sustain the quality of
the higher education systems.
Differently from the North visions, in Southern Latin America, Franco et alli (1989) focused through
the actors point of view, an academics and institutions’ look to the tensions on the relations between
University – State, showing that universities created surviving cultures in face of the State’s
interference, as much intense as these interferences would be8. The survival cultures could be
“characterized by periods of submission, when norms and guidelines from the central administration
are accepted, or of reaction, when norms and rules are rejected. Institutions may also develop
anticipatory cultures, when they move ahead of the state, anticipating its intentions and pre-empting the
agenda with a clear expression of the interests and intentions of the university” ( Leite and Figueiredo,
1996, p.160 ).
As we have seen in the models presented (See figures), the evaluation systems are located in 3 squares
that centralize the oppositions University-Market as the core of the dispute. Using the same form of
analysis of Neave and Van Vught, we observe the moving of University-State relations to UniversityMarket relations at this moment of worlds in change. In this displacement, the State appears as a coadjuvant of the market. We highlight then, in the Latin American cases, the relations University and
Market, as receptors of those tensions historically attached to the relations between the colony
(university) and the colonizer (market).
Looking at the drawing on Figure 2, we see that the models of evaluation are located on the poles 1 and
2 : Type 1, Pole of Regulation (Chile, partly Brazil and partly Argentina) and Type 2, Mixed Pole (partly
Argentina, partly Colombia). A small part of the models is situated on pole 4 – Democratic – part of
Brazil and Colombia. The models of quality evaluation in the Latin American countries analyzed reveal
uncertainty and tension when are situated in more than one square. When the State decides on the
implantation of regulating models, implanted from the outside to the inside of universities as in Brazil,
the academics see on these models the relation Market- University. If, at the same time, in the countries
using these models, the expansion of enrollments in higher education is mainly present through the
private initiative as showed the task force of the World Bank (2000),9 academics ask themselves what
could hold the future for public higher education institutions when the resources have lessened even
more? As this tension has a political component related to a wished society project, it could be seen as a
non credible alternative. What is absent in this alternative – and the model seems to recollect – is the
tension Regulation X Self Regulation of universities on the plan of an inducing relation for a much
stronger Market force. What is not visible on national systems of accreditation and evaluation on the
countries analyzed is the tendency of the internal process to a capitalist redesign of institutions, induced
by the regulating processes. The redesign in its maximum power would tend to cross, surpass, the
tension line, emerging on square 3 (Type 3, Market Pole). On this square, some few and powerful
8
The intensity of the interference corresponds to the beginning of the well known Law of Jadot : Jadot’s Law states that the
degree of autonomy enjoyed by an institution is inversely proportional to the volume of a nation’s legislation defining it
(Neave and Van Vught, 1994, citation of Jadot, 1984 )
9
Percentage share of enrollments in private education : Colombia , 6th world position; Brazil, 8th and Chile 16th. It is seen on
the chart about higher education systems, note IV that the countries that have trusted to the private initiative their expansion
on enrollments, as Brazil ( 14.83%) and Colombia ( 13.82%), the minimal participation indexes of were not achieved. On
the other hand, in countries where the autonomy of universities was consolidated through public investments, the indexes of
participation reached similar levels to the ones of OCDE countries ( World Bank, 2000, p. 30).
16
research institutions would be located. Its model, derived from strong competitive processes would fit on
the pole of Selective Excellence. But, it is also possible to identify, like in Argentina, that the neo liberal
construction of the national evaluation system as an inter-institutional competition, contrasted with the
earlier Argentinian approaches that had been collaborative and egalitarian. University autonomy was
reshaped in terms of corporate culture. The new heteronomy subordinated independent academic
authority, harnessing universities to the "knowledge economy". They received extra funds for training
managers, restructuring administration and improving internal communication and data systems. Few
has been made in favor of the improvement of knowledge building capacity of our universities.
Despite the important fact of knowledge improvement, on the other hand, it seems to be emerging on
these systems that were pointed, the wish for quality without being an added value, a mark coming
from the outside to the inside. The wish is rather of quality as a value of transformation rooted on the
university identity, preferably of Type 4 Democratic (part in Colombia, part in Brazil ). In Uruguay, by
the way, the system of accreditation is presented outside the spatial scheme due to its incipient level of
development. If the evaluation developed in the only public university of the country - an institution
that has almost the whole monopoly of graduated professional formation - is to be considered, we should
place it in the square Model Type 4, Democratic, since the quality corresponds to the search for
transformation. In this evaluation, the control is on the hands of the academy that considers it as an
instrument of democratic responsibility in an institution that is autonomous and co-governed effectively
by 3 entities: the students, the professors’ board and the egresses.
The tensions and values pointed could have some similarities with those pertinent to the struggle for
freedom between the colony and the colonizer. On a moment of reforms, inspired and supported by the
knowledge banks (global banks), the State would incarnate the colonizer. The academics would see the
State as part of the capital, searching for expansion through the regulation of evaluation systems. On the
academic imaginarium, the State protects the Market, the private, despite its obligation with the public
system and spends the scarce resources to claim that the “mushrooms” are of some quality.
6. Conclusion
In concluding, we remind that there is a perspective missing on the evaluation and accreditation systems
of these countries: the quality of the mission of Latin American universities. The quality indicators
should mark the socially entrepreneurial university. An institution that could be turned to the
perspective of those who did not have a chance for speaking, the excluded people, both in higher
education and in elementary and secondary education. In mega systems (Brazil and Argentina), as well
as in big and medium systems (Colombia and Chile), as in small ones like Uruguay, there is a large
heterogeneity on the admission conditions: non restrict access in Argentina and Uruguay, restrict in
Brazil, Colombia and Chile where there are mainly private institutions. In Brazil, for example, there is a
numerus clausus in public higher education institutions and the examination called vestibular works as
a social filter of admission. In this case, as well as in Colombia, where less than 15% of the population
between 18 and 24 years old is assisted, there is an excluded citizenship. In the Model UniversityMarket relation, the new demands of societies that are either plural or unfair can be absent. In this sense,
the models of evaluation and accreditation, without losing attention to the aspects of regulation, should
have objectives to value the social learning of higher education institutions that favor the public asset,
that practice a curriculum and an including multicultural investigation focused to the “new peoples” that
constitutes Latin America and its survival and development needs. The curriculum and the research,
17
when inclusive, could place the mission of universities on another level, the level where concrete
problems of countries – famine, education and work, pollution, inadequate use of water supplies,
diseases and health, human rights, the peace among peoples - are solved. This would be the institution to
be searched through the quality evaluation and accreditation – the socially entrepreneurial university, to the effective insertion of Latin American countries in the changing worlds.
7. Referências bibliográficas:
AMARAL, Alberto. & POLIDORI, Marlis. Quality evaluation in Brazil: a competency based approach?
Higher Education Policy. Pergamon, 12(1999):177-199.
AMARAL, Alberto e MAGALHÃES, Antonio. On markets, autonomy and regulation: the Janus
Head revisited. Porto, Pt, Cipes, 1999.
CONTERA, Cristina. Modelos de evaluación de la calidad de la Educación Superior. Revista
Avaliação. RAIES. Campinas, SP, Vol.5, No. 1 (15): 7-17, 2000.
CONTERA, Cristina. Evaluación de la educación superior: Hacia un modelo democrático radical. En:
HIRSCH ADLER, Ana: Educación y valores. México, Guernika, 2001,.
CONTERA, Cristina Evaluación Institucional Universitária. Modelos de evaluación de la calidad
desde una perspectiva comparada. El caso de la UdelaR (Uruguay). UAEM-Cuernavaca
México,2003. Tesis Doctorado.
FRANCO, Maria Estela, LEITE, Dense e MOROSINI, Marilia. University cultures and state
interferences: a Brazilian case. International Conference on Improving University Teaching, 15.
Vancouver, Canada: Proceedings. Vancouver: 1989. p. 723-732.
GUADILLA, Carmen. Balance de la década de los 90’ y reflexiones sobre la nuevas fuerzas de cambio
en la educación superior. In: Mollis, M. (Comp.) Las universidades en América Latina: ¿Reformadas
o alteradas? La cosmética del poder financiero. Buenos Aires, FLACSO, 2003.
IESALC/UNESCO. A educação superior no Brasil. Caracas, Iesalc/Unesco, 2002. Meio digital 30 de
janeiro de 2003: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org.ve/Pruebaobservatorio/Documentos/
KELLS, H.R. Higher Education evaluation systems for Latin America: an analysis of recent experiences
and formulation of a generalized model. Higher education Evaluation in Latin America. London,
Elsevier/IAU, 1996.p239-253
KELLS, H. R. Stepping back to examine national higher education evaluation systems: an analysis and
some propositions for the research and policy void. Paper presented at The Annual Consortium of
Higher Education Researchers Conference. Kassel, Germany, 3-5, Sptember, 1998.
KENT, Rollin (Comp.) Los temas críticos de la educación superior en América Latina Vol.2: Los
años 90. Expansión privada, evaluación y posgrado. México, Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1997.
18
KENT, Rollin (comp.) et alii Experiências de reforma en la educación superior en América Latina:
los años noventa. México, Plaza y Valdez, 2001.
LEITE, Denise & FIGUEIREDO, Maria The evaluation of higher education systems in Latin America.
In: COWEN, R. (Ed) The evaluation of Higher education systems. London, Kogan Page, 1996.
LEITE, D., HOLZ, N. E TUTIKIAN, J. Avaliação & compromisso. Construção e prática da
avaliação institucional em uma universidade pública. Porto Alegre, Ed.Ufrgs, 2000.
LEITE, Denise. Avaliação institucional, reformas e redesenho capitalista das universidades. Revista
Avaliação. RAIES. Campinas, SP, V7 (2): 29-48, jun.2002.
LEITE, Denise, MOLLIS, Marcela e CONTERA, Cristina. Inovação e avaliação institucional. Efeitos
e mudanças na missão das universidades contemporâneas. Caso Argentina. Caso Uruguai. Porto
Alegre, Ed. Evangraf/CNPq/Fapergs, 2002.
LEITE,Denise Avaliação e democracia. Possibilidades contra-hegemonicas ao redesenho capitalista das
universidades. In: Mollis, M. (Comp.) Las universidades en América Latina: ¿Reformadas o
alteradas? La cosmética del poder financiero. Buenos Aires, FLACSO, 2003.
LEMAITRE,M.J. Acreditación: una experiencia de aprendizaje y el diseño de un nuevo sistema. El caso
de Chile y el Consejo Superior de Educación En:YARZABAL,L.;VILA,A.;RUIZ,R. Evaluar para
transformar. IESALC-UNESCO, Caracas, 1999.
MOLLIS, Marcela. El campo de la evaluación universitária Argentina y los organismos internacionales:
entre la autonomia y la heteronomía.. Revista Avaliação. RAIES. Campinas, SP, Vol. 3 (3):11-21,
março, 1998 (a).
MOLLIS, Marcela: The paradox of the autonomy of Argentine Universities: from liberalism to
regulation. In: KEMPNER, Ken, MOLLIS, Marcela & TIERNEY, Willian. Comparative Education.
ASHE Reader Series. Massachussets, Simon & Schuster. Custom Publishing, 1998 (b).
MOLLIS, Marcela La universidad Argentina en tránsito. Buenos aires, Fondo de cultura, 2001.
MOLLIS, Marcela La geopolítica de las reformas de la educación superior: el norte da créditos, el sur se
acredita. In: RODRÍGUEZ, R. (coord.) Reformas en los sistemas nacionales de educación superior.
Madrid, Netbiblo-Riseu (UNAM), 2002.
MOLLIS, Marcela (Comp.) Las universidades en América Latina: ¿Reformadas o alteradas? La
cosmética del poder financiero. Buenos Aires, FLACSO, 2003.
NEAVE, Guy On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: an overview of recent trends in
HE in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of Education, 23 (1/2):7-23, 1988.
NEAVE, , Guy & VUGHT, Francis Van Government and higher education relationships across
three continents. The winds of change. Oxford, Elsevier, 1994.
ORTEGA Y GASSET Misión de la Universidad. Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 1992.
19
OROZCO, LE. La acreditación en Colombia. Balance y Perspectivas. En: YARZABAL,L.;VILA,A.;
RUIZ,R. Evaluar para transformar. IESALC-UNESCO, Caracas, 1999.
POPKEWITZ, Thomas. S. Sociologia política de las reformas educativas. Madrid, Morata, 1994.
RIBEIRO, Darcy. Os brasileiros: Livro I - Teoria do Brasil. Petrópolis, Vozes, 1980.
SGUISSARDI, W. Avaliação universitária em questão. Reformas do estado e da educação
superior. São Paulo: Autores Associados, 1997.
TEIXEIRA, Anísio Uma perspectiva da Educação Superior no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Estudos
Pedagógicos. Rio de Janeiro, INEP. V.50 (111): p.21-82, jul/set. 1968.
TILACH, Jandhyala B. G. Emerging trends and evolving public policies in India In:ALTBACH, Phillip
(Ed) Private Prometeus: private higher education and development in 21st century. Massachussets
CIHE, Boston College, 1999.
TROW, Martin . The expansion and transformation of Higher Education. Problems in the transition from
elite to mass higher education. OSD, Policies for higher education, Paris, 1974.(revisar)
World Bank. Higher education in developing countries: peril and promise. Washington, WB,The
Task force on Higher education, 2000.
World Bank. Argentina: from insolvency to growth. A World Bank country study. Washington, DC,
1993.
YARZÁBAL, Luis La educación superior contemporánea en América Latina. Cursos
Internacionales Iberoamericanos. Jarandilla de la Vera, Extremadura, España, 3-8, julio, 2000.
Sites:
Argentina: http://www.me.gov.ar/index1.html
Brasil: http://www.mec.gov.br
Chile: http://www.mineduc.cl/
Colômbia: http://www.icfes.gov.co
Uruguay: http://www.rau.edu.uy
IESALC/UNESCO: http://www.iesal.unesco.org.ve
AUGM: Associación de Universidades del Grupo Montevideo
RICYT: Red Iberoamericana de Ciência y Tecnología: http//: www.ricyt.edu.ar
OECD: Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development: http//:www.oecd.org/EN/statistics
Porto Alegre, October 2003
i
Synthesis of “Postulados da Reforma de Córdoba” : For the freedom inside the classroom and for the
democracy outside the classroom : a) student’s co-government b) administrative, academic and political
20
autonomy c) election of university directors d)selection of professors through public tests e)
establishment of mandates with determined term and appreciation of the efficiency and competence in
the position f) free higher education g) implementation of free chairs (CATEDRAS) together with free
courses in which students can make their option between a free chair or a free course h) free frequency
in classes I) freedom to professors. More information can be found in
http://www.intercom.com.ar/historia/documentoshist/1918universidad.htm
ii
Ortega y Gasset, for example, is critic about Spanish universities. He questions the reform and mission
of universities. Being Spain one of the matrixes of the Latin American university, it should be observed
that on October 9th, 1930, in a conference for students, he criticized the Spanish model of university. At
the beginning of the century he claimed that the differences between universities would be differences
among countries, that the English university would not be so different of the continental university, etc.
He said, then : La reforma universitária no puede reducirse a la correción de abusos, ni siquiera
consistir principalmente en ella. Reforma es siempre creación de nuevos usos. (…)Een otras palabras:
la raiz de la reforma universitaária está en acertar plenamente su mission (Ortega y Gasset, 1992, p.
27).
iii
The exportation of software grew 5.2% between 2000 and 2001 according to the Uruguayan Chamber
of Technologies and Information ( Cuti, 2003 ). The total of exportation corresponds to consultancies (
53%), licenses of software ( 32.8%) and sale of services ( 7.5%) and the rest corresponds to the sale of
products, hardware and insumos . The destination of exportation is still the same – South America –
64.2% - North America – 14.3% - Europe – 10.4% - Central America and Caribbean – 8.3%.
iv
Nobel prizes in Latin America : Literature 1945 Gabriela Mistral ( Chile ); 1967 Miguel Angel
Asturias ( Guatemala ) ; 1971 Pablo Neruda ( Chile ); 1982 Gabriel Garcia Marquez ( Colombia ); 1990
Octavio Paz ( Mexico ); Peace 1936 Carlos Saavedra Lamas ( Argentina );1980 Adolfo Perez Esquivel (
Argentina ); 1982 Alfonso Garcia Robles ( Mexico ); 1987 Oscar Arias Sanchez ( Costa Rica ); 1992
Rigoberta Menchu ( Guatemala ); Chemistry 1970 Luis Leloir (Argentina); 1995 Mario Molina
(México and USA); Medicine: 1947 Bernardo Houssay (Argentina); 1980 Baruj Benacerraf (Venezuela
and USA); 1984 César Milstein (Argentina and UK).
21