This Regional Conference on Policies and Strategies for the Transformation of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean is being held at a crucial moment in our history and in circumstances in which Higher Education is going through a period of crisis and is being seriously questioned. Hence, the significance UNESCO ascribes to this Conference for the future of our Higher Education, now that we are about to enter a new century and a new millennium.
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, university reform processes were the order of the day in Latin America. In general terms, it could be said that those processes fully coincided with the shift in our region from an elitist higher education to a higher education for the masses, and the adoption of the so-called "inwards development" model promoted by ECLAC. At the same time, regional and subregional integration efforts used protectionist tariffs and fiscal incentives as instruments for industrial development, in order to supply an internal demand expanded by wider markets.
Thirty years later, higher education is once again a topic for discussion. But while in the sixties few people doubted the key role of Higher Education in the efforts leading to development, as the shaper par excellence of high level human resources and it was often assigned the role of "critical awareness of society" and the moving force of social progress, the current debate is characterized by a whole school of thought -promoted even by some international funding organizations- that calls the efficacy of higher education into question, especially the public one, questions its economic effectiveness and its social profitability, and discusses the priority and amount of investments allocated to this educational level.
The contemporary debate on Higher Education is far more complex than the one held thirty years ago because what could now be at stake is the confidence of society and the State in Higher Education as one of the privileged means a country has to promote endogenous human development, strengthen its national identity and guarantee its self-determination.
In each historical period, the region has faced the need to redesign its systems for training the elites of leaders and professionals, in line with the prevailing model of economic and social development. But while in the past these efforts became concrete in the so-called "university reforms," generally promoted by academic communities themselves and related to the objectives of democracy and social transformation, the current processes are aimed more at a redefinition of the relations between the State, Society and the University, where the initiative does not only come from the university sectors, but is brought about by the questioning from outside the Academia. "Unlike past decades," Rollin Kent states in a paper prepared for this Conference, "we are now faced with a society that criticizes the University, a University that must be accountable to external audiences, and a higher education system where traditionally excluded actors (under the concept of autonomy) are now jointly participating or are even leading characters in the change."
Consequently, this Conference offers the opportunity to reflect on the essence and the work of our Higher Education, in the context of a changing world and at the dawn of a new century. Hence its strategic nature and its design as a meeting for presenting proposals aimed at action, as has been stated. The academic community that is represented here is offered this most valuable space to discuss and define the basic principles that can guide a deep transformation of Higher Education in the region, which prepare it to face the new challenges and assume the commitments that had been hitherto unknown in its traditional activities.
In the first place, it would be fitting to make some comments about of the current situation in Latin America and the Caribbean in the international context, and to mention -even if only briefly- the challenges that the region is facing that could generate more assignments for Higher Education. It is not a matter of examining those assignments as simple responses, but of analysing them from a proactive perspective, that is, on the basis of how our highest Centres of Study can influence the changes our societies need, contribute to perceiving the different future scenarios and design alternatives for a sustainable human development, inspired by the principles of equity, democracy, justice and freedom -the irreplaceable foundation for a real culture of peace.
During the past few decades, mankind has entered a process of rapid change which manifests itself in all the spheres of the political, social, scientific and cultural life, so that it can be said that we are living the beginning of a new era of civilization, where education, knowledge and information play a key role.
However, it is worth demystifying the arrival of the year 2000 as if it were a magic date capable by itself of transforming the world. The truth is that deep changes are the result of long processes of gestation and do not emerge as a result of special dates. What the conventional analysts tell us is that the XXI century really started to be shaped during the last decades of this century.
Another consideration to be made here is that not all the countries nor all societies will enter the new century at the same time. Even in the Nation-State itself, modern sectors will have access to it sooner than the more traditional ones. Thus, the observation made by Ernesto Sábato is quite valid when he says that centuries do not end or start at the same time for all peoples, at the sound of a single whistle. At any rate, the passage to the new century -and to the new millennium, on this occasion- offers mankind an excellent opportunity to reflect on its evolution in history, its successes and failures, its wise decisions and mistakes. It is also a good time to look boldly into the future, and give free rein to our imagination and creativity to design new utopias, real "dreams of reason," which humanity should never give up.
Latin America and the Caribbean - as a region- does not escape this process of change, or to the challenges emerging from them, whose most relevant characteristics are summarized below.
When addressing the issue of the probable scenarios for Latin America and the Caribbean, a most schematic analysis possible of what the 1980s meant for the region cannot be avoided. The current situation and the challenges we must face will also have to be analysed.
The proposal of ECLAC: Productive Transformation with Equity, states that in the last decade most of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean experienced a considerable economic and social decline to the extent that the 1980s are commonly referred to as the "lost decade" or, at least, as the "decade of painful learning." If we only take into account the global indicator of the evolution of the gross domestic product per inhabitant, we can see that it dropped to the level it had thirteen years ago and to even lower levels in the case of some economies. The average rate of economic growth reported in the 1960s and 1970s was 5.8% for the region; on the other hand in the 1980s, it was only 1.3% on average. ECLAC reports: "Consequently, the countries of the region entered the decade starting in 1990 with the burden of the recessive inertia of the 1980s, plus the liability of the huge external debt (still the biggest obstacle for of any attempt at economic recovery, currently amounting to more than half a trillion dollars), and with a basic lack of adaptation between the structures of the international demand and the composition of Latin American and Caribbean exports."
This decade of the nineties is referred to by some people as the "decade of hope," arguing that during the past few years, our countries managed to stop hyperinflation, balance the macroeconomic indicators and show signs of a renewed growth. However, if we examine the social costs resulting from these achievements, maybe the most adequate term to describe this decade would be the "decade of an increase in poverty and exclusion." In this respect, Juan Somavía warns that "it is politically dangerous to balance finances on the basis of unbalancing peoples lives."
Let us now look at some indicators of the current situation in the region:
Consequently, we can affirm that during the past few decades, Latin America and the Caribbean -as a region- have grown poorer and more marginal. The only exception is to be found in the urban high classes of the major cities that are related to the world market economy. They are virtual "islets of modernity in oceans of poverty". In fact, according to World Bank figures, 10% of the richer households receive 40% of the total income.
Nevertheless, Latin America and the Caribbean is a region very rich in natural resources. Hence it has vast possibilities, provided they are exploited rationally. The ecological heritage of the region is among the most privileged in the planet. Let us look at some data:
The list of the enormous wealth that make up the ecological and natural heritage of our continent is almost endless. The problem is the notable inequality in its distribution and the insatiable appetite it arouses in the transnationals and their local allies.
One of the most typical characteristics of the end of this century is the emergence of globalization” or "internationalization," which modifies the paradigm of interstate relationships that has prevailed to date, which gave the national States the role of main actors in the international system. In the new scheme, States are now a link in a wider system: the global or world system. As stated in the recent report of the International Commission of Education for the XXI Century, "planetary interdependence and internationalization are basic phenomena of our times. They are already acting in the present and they will leave their imprint on the XXI century."
The notion of "globalization" does not only relate to purely economic aspects. In fact, it is a multi-dimensional process that includes aspects that are related to the economy, finance, science, technology, communications, education, culture, politics, etc. At the same time, technological advances are deeply modifying the nature of productive activities. "Indeed, in the past development used to depend on the amount of energy, natural resources, labour and capital. Currently, it depends on the capacity of knowledge and information available to act on a work process," Salvador Arriola, former Permanent Secretary of SELA has stated in this respect. Hence, there is a trend towards the "dematerialization" of the productive process, that is, towards a relatively lower use of raw materials and at a greater incorporation of "intangibles." The wealth of the nations depends mainly on knowledge and information.
However, the globalization process is not generating a uniform increase in progress and development in all the regions of the world. Rather, there is evidence of a fragmented or segmented globalization that focuses the advantages of development on the development of a relatively small sector of the world population. This creates wide gaps of inequality in terms of quality of life and access to economic and cultural possessions among the different elements that make up national societies, both in the industrialized nations and the underdeveloped countries. As James Gestate Speth, Administrator General of the UNDP has said: "an emerging global elite, mostly urban-based and interconnected in different ways, is amassing both power and wealth, while more than half of mankind remains in a marginal situation. For the poor in this world of two classes, this is a world fertile in hope, anger and frustration." The Delors Report mentioned above warns that: "the main risk is the possibility of a rupture between a minority able to move in this world being formed and a majority that feels carried away by events and without the power to exert an influence on the collective fate, thus running the risk of a retreat in democracy and multiple rebellions. The guiding utopia that must lead our steps should be aimed at ensuring that the world converges in a mutual understanding and the intensification of a sense of responsibility and solidarity on the basis of accepting our spiritual and cultural differences."
On a world level economic polarization is constantly increasing, according to the UNDP. Almost 80 per cent of the world gross domestic product belongs to the industrialized countries and only 20% to the developing countries. However, 80% of the world population lives in the latter. Currently, the 20% richest of the countries of the world is seventy times wealthier than the 20% poorest. Thirty years ago, this was only thirty times.
Faced with the processes of globalization and the creation of the major economic blocks, the States need new approaches and clear policies to strengthen their negotiating capacity, encourage competitiveness and improve their insertion in the international economy. This is a challenge that Higher Education institutions must also assume as an imperative of these times and they must contribute to the formulation of these policies.
One of the key elements for our favourable re-insertion in an open world economy lies in the substantial improvement of our competitiveness. Competitiveness implies knowledge, technology, information management, skills. It also implies raising the quality of our educational systems and training our high level human resources, as the countries of Southeast Asia understood very early on and made considerable investments in their people. Competitiveness implies incorporating technical progress in productive activity, so as to go from the "perishable rent," based on natural resources and cheap labour, to a "dynamic rent," that incorporates value added as a result of technological development. Hence, it is worth distinguishing -as ECLAC does- between "spurious competitiveness," based on salary reductions and social service restrictions, and "authentic competitiveness," that implies the capacity of a country to promote its participation in international markets, while at the same increasing the level of living of the population, via scientific and technological progress.
As has been clearly stated by analysts, nowadays, not only do economic forces compete, but also social conditions, educational systems and scientific and technological development policies. In fact, society as a whole and the entire country are competing, not only the business sector.
However, it is not a matter of turning competitiveness into an ideology. In this respect, it is worth repeating here the warning that the Brazilian educator Cristovam Buarque made during the Forum of Cartagena de Indias "Ibero American Vision 2000" (March 1994): "we require economic competitiveness, but mostly, we need social dignity. Nothing ensures that the former will lead to the latter." Competitiveness should not make us neglect equity, nor the guarantee of environmental sustainability. The above mentioned Forum highlighted what was referred to as the economic efficiency of equity, as a guiding principle of the strategy of a sustainable human development. In the words of Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO, this is a development strategy that will satisfy the demands of economic growth and social equity: "Only economic growth with equity in the distribution of its benefits will allow the Latin American countries to overcome the crisis and consolidate democracy."
However, the last report of the UNDP on human development -the 1996 issue- clearly warns that "there are no automatic links between economic growth and human development, though when those links are forged by means of deliberate policies, a mutual reinforcement can be attained in such a way that economic growth can promote development in an efficient and rapid way." Hence the need for public policies that interrelate economic reform, social reform, Reform of the State and political reform. Higher Education institutions should help generate national consensus to support those policies with their research and proposals.
If competitiveness implies technical progress and mastering new technologies, there is no technological progress without scientific development, which in turn, has its roots in a high quality education system. "The tree of knowledge only blooms if it is deeply rooted in the education system." Those countries that wish to compete in the new economic spaces must give preferential attention to the training of high level human resources, to scientific development, technical progress and information accumulation, all of which implies setting priorities in the investments in education, science, technology and research. It is an education for competing, but also for sharing.
According to the figures of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) quoted by UNESCO, in 1991, the Latin American countries devoted between 0.3% and 0.7% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to Research and Development. The Latin American average is approximately 0.5%, i.e. half the 1% recommended by UNESCO more than twenty years ago. These percentages are far from the 3.1% of the GDP that Japan devotes to Research & Development (R & D). They are also behind the 1.6% funds that go to R & D in the dragons of South East Asia (South Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan).
But, science does not emerge spontaneously. As we have already mentioned, its roots are deep in a high quality education system, in which its active didactic methods promote innovation, creativity and a spirit of investigation in students. In this way, they will "learn to learn" and also "to undertake." They will thus be able to absorb new knowledge and technologies. They will be prepared to reformulate scientific hypotheses and adapt what they know to new conditions. In short, they will be able to follow the track of knowledge whose dynamism makes what has been learnt in school obsolete in shorter and shorter periods of time.
Hence education must become the priority investment in our countries. However, as we have already warned, there is a school of thought in the international debate that questions the efficacy and priority of investments aimed at Higher Education in developing countries. In this way, when a decision has to made regarding priorities, this school of thought clearly recommends investing in preceding levels of education, i.e. primary and basic education. It has even recommended that these levels should be assigned a considerable portion of the resources that currently go to Higher Education.
Nobody doubts the priority and importance of offering all our children and teenagers a quality basic education centred on effective learning. This was acknowledged in the World Declaration on Education for All, signed in Jomtien in 1990. However, it added two concepts that are worth bearing in mind. The first one acknowledges that basic education "is more than an end in itself." "It is the basis for a permanent learning and human development. Based on it, the countries can systematically build new levels and new types of education and training." The second concept establishes that "society must offer a solid intellectual and scientific environment for basic education. It is thus necessary to improve higher education and the development of scientific research."
This was also acknowledged by the Ministers of Education of Latin America and the Caribbean during the Consultation Meeting of the World Conference on Education for All (Quito, November 1989). They said that: "The satisfaction of basic knowledge needs must be seen as a ‘floor’ and not a ‘roof’. In other words, the adoption of this aim cannot be an excuse for lowering the degree of attention to other educational demands. Its spirit is an appeal to widen educational coverage, while at the same time improving quality, relevance and equity of education, in search for a higher efficiency. Nor does it imply, depriving other levels of teaching, research and scientific and technological development of the investments they require so that each country can enjoy a relative autonomy in the concert of nations."
During the Seventh Meeting of Higher Education Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean -recently held in Kingston, Jamaica (May 13-17, 1996)- the ministers referred to Higher Education as the "critical factor for the development of the region." However, they also warned that "among the problems currently faced by Higher Education, the low quality of many programmes stands out, along with the inadequate way in which different institutions respond to the demands of economic development, the labour market and the requirements of scientific and technological development." On account of this, they made the following recommendation: "To promote policies to strengthen the capacity of higher education institutions to fulfill the highest quality standards and their mission as trainers of human resources. In this way, they become scientific and research nuclei in close collaboration with productive sectors. They also promote changes that enable universities and other higher education institutions to be factors that help improve the quality of the preceding education levels. Special attention is given to the programmes and initial training for teachers."
It has been mentioned that our region over-invests in university education, to the detriment of primary and basic education. However, recent studies (1994) were carried out by Dr. Fernando Reimers, professor of the Harvard Institute for International Development. They show that Latin America invests less per higher education student than the other regions in the world. Even the countries in sub-Saharan Africa invest three times more per third level student than Latin America. Reimers reached the conclusion that it is not advisable in Latin America to take away all the funds that go to higher education and divert them to primary education. Rather, the countries in the region should invest more in the education sector. Comparative figures show that Latin America invests less in education than the other regions of the world ( Education, Equity and Economic Competitiveness in the Americas: An Inter-American Dialogue-OAS Project, 1994).
Therefore, it is not a question of redistributing the scarce existing resources among the different education levels. Rather, more resources should be transferred to the education sector, taking them from other sectors that have a lower priority. Undoubtedly, the challenge faced by our countries is that of improving quality, relevance and pertinence of the education system as a whole. To this end, the education system must be taken as a whole and not segmented into levels. Besides, the challenge lies in offering a different education and not more of the same. This could be the road for assuming the perspective of the "lifelong learning for all," the new education horizon proposed by UNESCO as the "key to enter the XXI century."
The example of the countries of South East Asia is quoted very frequently. They are the so-called "Recently Industrialized Countries" (RIC) that have achieved outstanding levels of development in a relatively short period of time. One of the strategies followed by those countries was to direct huge investments to all the sectors of the education sector. A study was prepared in this respect by Jasbir Sarjit Singh (Malaysia) and published in No. 79 issue of the UNESCO magazine Perspectives (Vol. XXI No. 3, 1991). The author stated: "Having acknowledged the significance of Higher Education in creating highly qualified labour, the RICs made the decision to heavily invest in that sector. In all the Recently Industrialized Countries, education expenditures as a percentage of the GDP rose constantly. Besides, there was also a constant increase in the share of higher education investments in the total budget for education."
As regards the rate of social return, recent analyses tend to highlight that it would be impossible to assess the contribution of universities to the strengthening of the cultural identity and the self-determination of a country with conventional methods. These two are aspects related to the national academic and scientific communities. The real rate of return of higher education could be even higher vis-à-vis primary and secondary education, if the so-called "intangible" results of higher education could be adequately quantified. As UNESCO has said: "if a country neglects its higher education system, it will not be able to keep fruitful contacts with the scientific and intellectual community. It will not have the capacities and knowledge it requires to take charge of its own development with due autonomy." ( World Report on Education, 1991). In Latin America, 85% of scientific research is carried out in universities, mainly those of the public sector. The UNESCO report adds that: "The State and society must not see Higher Education as a burden for the public budget. Rather, it should be considered a national long term investment for increasing economic competitiveness, cultural development and social coherence." ( Policy Paper for Change and Development in Higher Education, Paris, 1995).
In our countries, universities are the backbone of the scientific-technological subsystem. They concentrate the bulk of the scientific activity of the region. This highlights the key role played by universities in any study aimed at promoting scientific and technological development for the region. Universities must promote creative thinking and scientific research. They are the starting point for scientific-technologic improvement. They have the responsibility of helping us join the contemporary scientific civilization -modernity. And they have to help us do it in an autonomous fashion, and not as mere intellectual appendages. As Alain Touraine has said: "We are undertaking the journey to modernity. What we need to know is if we will do it as galley slaves, or as travellers that have their own baggages, projects and memories."
The concept of modernity is not limited to what Darcy Ribeiro referred to as "reflex modernization." In the words of Luis Enrique Orozco: "our modernity implies modernization, though it is not restricted to the latter. The region has to reconvert the productive apparatus and increase productivity and competitiveness of its countries in the international arena. However, the region also needs to strengthen its democratic processes, adopt the cultural codes of modern citizenship and look for strategies that contribute to the utopian project of a sustainable development. This is a project where all find more and better opportunities for personal improvement and the development of their communities."
Hence, modernity is for us a matter of building an endogenous model of sustainable human development founded on our own cultural identity. It is a model that cannot ignore the opening of the economy and the search for a favourable insertion in the current international context.
Besides the changes brought about by globalization and the key role of knowledge and information in the new productive paradigm, a gamut of phenomena influence the political, cultural and socio-economic life of our peoples. Higher Education must take them into account when it reformulates its mission and function in contemporary society. Among them, we can mention the following:
The globalization and interdependence processes have brought about a crisis in the role of the State and the concept of national sovereignty itself. The boom of neoliberal currents stimulated the trend to curtail the role of the State, while strengthening that of the market. In turn, decentralization processes led to decreases in the duties of the central government.
As a result, the State seems diminished at both its higher and lower levels. In the words of Jacques Delors: "The globalization of the world economy -tending upwards- and decentralization and regionalization -tending downwards- are the two forces that currently shape the nation-States". However, the State is still the ideal framework for citizens to clearly know their rights and duties. Even if it gives the market its due place, the State is still a required intermediating body. The modern national State has to play a functional role: inwards, via decentralization (micro-sovereignty) and outwards, via its incorporation in regional and subregional integration processes (macro-sovereignty). Hence there is a double opening of the State: external, pushed by globalization; and internal, promoted by decentralization.
However, the attempt to reform the State and render it more functional and less bureaucratic does not simply imply cutting it back. State modernization is not simply an exercise in State redimensioning, nor can it be confused with privatization. It is more a question of redefining the role of the State. We could even say it has to be re-invented, to make it more in tune with its new functions as we enter the XXI century. The State is a historical product . Thus, it has to adapt to the rhythm of times and to the new economic, technological and socio-cultural paradigms. As Norbert Lechner, researcher of FLACSO, says: "it is not a question of more or less State. What we need is another State. Choosing between the State and the market is a fallacy. We need them both. However, we must finally determine the ideal relationship between state regulation and economic dynamics."
The strategic role of the State -as a generator of long term policies- makes it necessary to improve the quality of the State, and introduce the culture of prospective vision, strategic planning and the permanent assessment of its activities. The redefinition of the State must also lead to a more constructive relationship with civil society. Through this relationship, it can redistribute tasks. However, the State should not become a captive of the market and the business sector. The key functions of the State, its role as facilitator, compensator and promoter of equity and social solidarity cannot be privatized. However, when the State is not efficient, it is difficult to fight for a greater social investment. Hence, it is not simply a matter of choosing between a bigger or smaller State. It is not a matter either of substituting the State with the market. The real option is a different State, one that stands out by its quality, intelligence and the capacity to design an implement the policies and strategies of a sustainable human development. It should be a State that manages public affairs in a more efficient manner; one that is more responsible and accounts to its citizens. In other words, it should be a modern State that can promote a consensus that is the basis of long term policies, i.e. "State policies" that transcend the limited time in office of a specific administration. These policies are especially required in the social sector, to guarantee the indispensable continuity for its efficiency.
It is obvious that, we cannot go on with the same scheme of the almighty State. With this scheme, it is not possible to adequately satisfy the needs of contemporary society, or the challenges of the future. However, the reform of the State must be linked to an objective: to achieve the political and social changes that promote a higher degree of equity. According to a UNDP report, currently, "the National State is too small for the big things and too big for the small ones." A response to the neoliberal offensive against the State and in favour of the market could be that our countries need a better State and a better market. The State has functions it cannot refuse, among them the regulating of economic and social policies in order to take the compensating measures required to promote equity.
I believe it would be convenient to quote Carlos Fuentes, who wrote the introductory paragraph of the Report on Social Development of the Latin American Commission presided over by President Patricio Alwyn for the Social Summit of Copenhagen. It says: "The doctrinal struggle between the public and the private sector in Latin America is false, ideological and disastrous. It does not promote efforts for reducing inequalities and promoting a development with equity. We must strengthen our public sector so that it can efficiently fulfill its obligations: feeding, educating, creating infrastructure, guiding the monetary and fiscal policies, foreign relations, defence, justice, as well as facilitating production, encouraging savings and tending to the needs of human resources. However, we must also strengthen our private sector, so that it invests more and better, produces more, efficiently administers its labour sources, feels that personal initiative is encouraged and identifies its destiny with that of a growing number of consumers."
The process for strengthening civil society makes it necessary to redefine its relationship with the State. The State versus Civil Society antinomy is both false and dangerous. There are some functions and responsibilities that only pertain to the State and which it cannot decline. The key functions of the State, its role as facilitator and promoter of equity and social solidarity, cannot be privatized. It is not true that decreasing the role and the size of the State, while at the same time, developing the market would be enough to ensure more equity and to strengthen democracy. However, it is true that the withdrawal of the State from certain social areas has brought about more inequality and poverty in our countries.
The figures given above to illustrate the share of Latin America and the Caribbean in world trade clearly show that there is a real danger ahead. Our region could be left out of the ruling trade circles, investments, financial flows and technological processes. It is true that our position is currently more marginal than was the case ten years ago. We could thus ask: Are we facing a process of change from a situation of "dependence" to another of "omission." Faced with this reality, Latin America and the Caribbean have to design a development strategy aimed at a more favourable re-insertion of our region in those circles. In that respect, we must bear in mind that there are no "individual deliverances" in this era of expanded economic spaces, not even for the major countries. Hence there is a need to reinvent and relaunch integration processes, if we want to have some significance in the new international scenario. Our region needs to design a clear response to the processes for creating major macroeconomic units like the ones set up in industrialized countries. It is unacceptable that while these processes are strong and expanding in the North, the South is still immersed in a situation of isolation and fragmentation.
The role of universities in the integration processes has to bear in mind the new world reality and the characteristics of globalization referred to. The tasks that the universities and other Higher Education institutions of the region might have to assume as part of a "Latin American Agenda," could be the following:
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the University was created before the rest of the education system. During a considerable period of time, it was the only institution to impart post-secondary education. Less than half a century after the Discovery, when the "smell of gunpowder was still in the air, the weapons were being cleaned and the horses were being shooed," according to the chronicler Vasquez, the first University of the New World was set up in 1583 in Santo Domingo. It was followed by the universities of Lima and Mexico, founded in 1551, at a time when the Old World only had 16 universities and not one was to be found in what today is known as United States. When Harvard was founded (1636), Latin America already had 13 universities, a number that rose to 31 after the Independence.
The colonial University was created within the framework of the cultural policy imposed by the Spanish empire. Its mission was to tend to the needs of the Crown, the Church and the upper classes of society. The sons of the chieftains and better known Indian families were admitted as an exception when they were related to the ruling classes, or if they collaborated with them.
With respect to their organization, Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares -the two most famous Spanish universities at that time- were the models and sources of inspiration for the universities of the New World. The one at Alcalá was the most imitated. There were considerable differences between both models and the latter were projected to their affiliates in America. This led to two university schemes that led to the division that still prevails in the Latin American system between "state-owned" and "private" universities. The academic structure of the colonial University was adapted to very clearly defined purposes and notions. This enabled it to be a unified institution. It was organized as a whole and not a simple aggregate of parts. It had its own vision of the world, men and society.
It is a well-known fact that the emergence of the Republic did not modify the social structures of the colonial regime. The latter remained practically unchanged, except that the Spanish authorities were substituted by the Creole class. Rather than restructuring society, Independence gave a new direction which led to the formation of our current republics. Independence was based on the revolutionary ideology of the French Enlightenment and it opened the doors to the cultural influence of France. The Republic simply substituted the colonial University with an imported scheme, that of the French University. The latter had just undergone significant changes under the rule of Napoleon, to be in tune with the polytechnical education ideals he favoured. Among the key features of this model, mention can be made of the following: the emphasis on professions, the disarticulation of teaching and the substitution of the University by a series of professional schools, as well as the separation from research. In fact, the latter was no longer considered a university task but, rather, that of other institutions (academies and institutes). The University was subject to the control and management of the State. Its efforts were to be aimed at servicing the State. To this end, it trained the professionals required by the public administration and tended to the basic social needs.
The Latin American University that emerged from the Napoleonic influence probably produced the professionals required to satisfy the most demanding social needs, but because of a formation defect, these graduates were simply professionals, undoubtedly skillful in their professional field, but they were not university graduates in the true sense of the term. The bureaucratization of the University and its subjection to the State also ended the weak autonomy it had enjoyed. Scientific research was not as lucky. In Latin America, the institutes and academies were not set up, or else they did not prosper, as had been the case in France where they assumed the task of promoting the progress of knowledge. The Republican University was also not able to expand the social base of student registration and it was still representative of the ruling classes. As the main structures of society remained unchanged, the elitist nature of the institution prevailed throughout the XIX century.
The first serious questioning of the traditional Latin American University was made in 1918. This year was specially significant for the continent, because, according to some authors it marked the year when Latin America entered the XX century. Clearly reflecting the social structures consolidated by the Independence, the Universities were still "vicerroyships of the spirit" and they maintained in essence their nature of aristocratic academies.
Until then, the University and society had marched together without contradicting each other. In fact, during the long colonial centuries and the first hundred years of the Republic, the University merely responded to the interests of the ruling classes, who were the owners of the political and economic power and hence of the University. The so-called "Cordoba Movement" was the first important confrontation between a society that started to undergo changes in its internal social composition, and a University that was rooted in obsolete schemes.
The emerging middle class was the main actor in the Movement. The purpose was to achieve the opening of the University, which had been controlled until then by the old oligarchy of landowners and by the clergy. The University was seen by the new class as the instrument that would enable them to rise politically and socially, Hence the movement advocated the collapse of the anachronic walls that made the University an enclosed and reserved territory of the upper classes.
On the basis of the lists of reformist postulates already made by other authors, we could summarize the legacy of the Cordoba Reform in the following terms:
To this date, the Cordoba Reform is the initiative that has contributed most to the specific profile of the Latin American university for better or worse. As has been said, this reform emerged from the "very heart of America." One of its favourable aspects has been its aspiration to originality and intellectual independence, which have not always been attained. It was the result of very specific historic and social circumstances but it was not able to guarantee the transformation of the University in the degree it demanded. However, it did take some steps in this direction. As the University is concerned, its action was aimed at an aspect that could be described as the legal or formal organization of the University (autonomy and co-government). In turn, less attention was paid to the academic structure itself. In practice, this basically continued to follow the Napoleonic pattern: separate professional faculties, the Chair being the main teaching unit. However, as Germán Arciniegas has said: "After 1918, the University did not become what it should be, though it ceased to be what it had been; 1918 was an initial step, the prior condition for the destiny of the University in America to be fulfilled."
It is not our purpose to give an account of the countless and significant reform and modernization processes that our Higher Education institutions underwent after taking up the postulates of Córdoba -specially since the 1950s. There is an extensive bibliography in this respect. We will simply list some of the characteristics prevailing in the current panorama of our Higher Education, beginning with some general indicators of the educational, scientific and technological situation of the region.
The classical Latin American University is the result of a lengthy historical process and a socio-historical reality whose outline was finally sketched with the help of Cordoba. Although many of the continent’s Universities have evidently surmounted diverse aspects of that profile, roughly speaking it is characterized by its:
At the level of the Universities, we can see a clear tendency towards the reorganization of the academic structures and to make them more flexible, in which the department triumphs as a basic structural unit, displacing the university chair as the fundamental nucleus of teaching and research. The first steps are now being taken to prevent this departmentalization from turning into a rigid compartmentalization, with the subsequent fragmentation and atomization of science, just when the essential unit of knowledge demands an interdisciplinary effort. There are several examples of the resulting tendency to group the departments into broader units of similar sciences. These may be Divisions, Centres or Areas. There are also experiences aimed at promoting an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary attitude, through the organization of studies and research on programs and projects that call for a combination of several disciplines.
A range of parallel institutions to the Universities have appeared (polytechnics, technological institutes, technical colleges), and these have helped to broaden and diversify education opportunities at post-secondary level. These institutions, and even the Universities now, are offering shorter diploma courses that respond to the social demands that are not met by the traditional degree courses which tend to last longer. It must be noted that the Universities are beginning to show more interest in these courses and in a greater diversification of their fields of study. Mechanisms are also being sought to create a link between the short courses and the academic or traditional degree courses, to keep them from becoming blind alleys, without detriment to their own academic status and their final nature, as far as the incorporation of their graduates in the job market is concerned. In some cases transfers from one cycle to another are encouraged, as well as what are known as "academic catwalks" and side-stepping.
Faced with the expansion and diversification of education opportunities at post-secondary level, efforts aimed at defining policies that orient its development as a properly co-ordinated and integrated subsystem can be seen.
The organization of universities as a system rather than as an entity located in one specific place or city, is also beginning to penetrate Latin American university activities, with a series of nuclei or university centres being scattered across a country or region. Thus, regional Universities that are endeavouring to create strong links with the development of a particular part of the country are emerging, as are national Universities with regional sections or centres in the main cities of their respective countries.
The specialization required by the constant growth of knowledge and the fact that it is impossible for universities to reach an acceptable level of excellence in all fields of knowledge, has given rise to universities that are dedicated to one particular area, such as engineering, agricultural science, biological science, pedagogical science, etc.
The initial experiences of the regional and subregional integration of Higher Education in several countries is beginning to bear fruit. This is so mainly in Central America and the Caribbean. There is also a plan to promote integration at a postgraduate level between the parties to the Andrés Bello Agreement.
The first examples of open university systems can now be seen: Universidad Nacional Abierta (UNA) in Venezuela, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in Costa Rica, Unidad Universitaria del Sur in Colombia, Distance Education System of the Universities of Brasilia, Havana, UNAM of Mexico.
Distance education seeks to achieve a greater potential coverage than is permitted by the conventional systems and, at the same time, to structure new teaching and learning experiences, based on personalized teaching systems and the use of multimedia, to encourage an increased teacher-student interaction.
Continuous education also receives attention through programs geared to graduates wanting to update their knowledge in their respective disciplines. There are several experiences in this field, guided by the key idea of continuous training, which makes the dichotomy between school and post-school education increasingly hazy, favouring an education system that caters for the professional and cultural needs of the present and the future. So the concept of lifelong education is being included in the work of the Latin American Universities, although in a more limited way.
It is also important to mention the regional and subregional associations that have appeared and play an important role in promoting exchange and co-operation: the Association of Universities Montevideo Group (AUGM); the Association of Amazonian Universities (UNAMAZ); the Central American Higher University Council (CSUCA); the Union of Latin American Universities (UDUAL); the Inter-American University Organization (OUI), which includes U.S. and Canadian Universities; the Caribbean Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutes (UNICA). Another modality comprises the regional Universities: University of the West Indies (UWI) and Universidad Andina "Simón Bolívar," among others. Likewise, at a national level, there are organizations and associations that co-ordinate Higher Education. (National Councils of Rectors or Universities, which are becoming increasingly important as the bodies that design national Higher Education policies. They also promote activities related to the evaluation and accreditation of Higher Education institutions). Finally we should mention the networks of universities and institutions, such as the regional network of the Universities of the Caribbean: SIAMAZ, REDESLAC, REDEAED, INFLOES, the Network of Innovations in Distance Higher Education, whose central nucleus is at the UNA of Venezuela and which is backed by UNESCO’s UNITWIN programme.
One of the phenomena that is now beginning to be seen is the co-existence of macrouniversities with over 100,000 students and microuniversities with only a few hundred. Official universities (national or federal, state or provincial and municipal) also tend to coexist with private catholic, protestant and lay universities. Branches of foreign universities, particularly North American ones, have recently been set up in several countries of the region. These tend to function as real "academic enclaves," totally unrelated to the country’s education system.
It is also important to mention the creation of postgraduate studies, linked to research activities, although they do not always have the right level nor respond to a national plan as might be hoped. There is some experience of subregional integration of postgraduate studies, such as the I (PIRESC II), sponsored by CSUCA in Central America; and the subregional postgraduate studies plan promoted by the Montevideo Group.
A study conducted by UDUAL -which comprised 540 Latin American universities- reveals that "the highest number of postgraduate study courses (Specialities) is to be found in the field of Health Sciences. On the other, there are few of these courses in Agricultural and Maritime Sciences and also in Education Sciences, areas where they are most needed in Latin America. This should be taken into account when planning new postgraduates courses." It also reveals that Brazil, Chile and Mexico are the only countries with postgraduate courses in all areas and where, generally speaking, the adequately trained postgraduate teaching staff is not enough. "The minimum requisite is for professors who teach to have a degree in the levels they teach in. But according to the information available to us, this requisite is only fulfilled by 57% of the staff teaching specialities and 40% of the staff teaching master’s degrees." 8
More active teaching methods are being introduced with emphasis on learning more than on the simple transmission of knowledge. The "informatics culture" is finding its rightful place in the day-to-day activities of our Higher Education institutions.
The adoption of a prospective attitude raised the need to examine Higher Education development options, with medium and long term goals. Strategic planning is now an integral part of Latin American University management. This process is based on a clear definition of its mission and functions in the society to which it belongs and in which its strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities for defining its course and short, medium and long term action are analysed.
Many universities have promoted more constructive and mutually advantageous relationships with the production and business sectors. In some cases too, Foundations or Corporations devoted specifically to these tasks have been created under the auspices of the Higher Education institutions, which may become an additional source of revenue for Higher Education.
UNESCO drafted its Document for the change and development of higher education after a lengthy consultation encompassing all the regions of the world, and in response to a resolution adopted by the Member States of the Twenty-Seventh General Conference. During this Conference, the Director General was requested to "develop a global policy to enable the Organization to cover the entire field of Higher Education."
When presenting the Document, the Director General of UNESCO, Professor Federico Mayor, said: "Our general conclusion is that all the levels of the education system should be reviewed and education should fundamentally be a lifetime endeavour." He then added that: "Development can only be achieved by citizens with a high level of training. Nothing can be expected from a population with no qualifications. .... Higher education must be accessible to everyone throughout their lifetime. Our goal is to attain the unattainable and include the excluded. ... Universities must be the conscience of society, a place where we can have a broader view of the world."
UNESCO’s Document offers a summary of the main trends in Higher Education in the world and also tries to give UNESCO a clear picture of the key policies for this level of education. But, as the Director General pointed out in his introduction, it in no way aims at "imposing models or laying down strict regulations. At best, it could serve as an ‘intellectual compass’ for the Member States and for those in charge of Higher Education, when they design their own policies." It is a question, then, of UNESCO’s contribution to the broad international debate on the role of education in general as we near the end of the century and stand on the threshold of a new millennium, particularly as far as higher education is concerned.
According to the UNESCO Document, there have been three key developments in higher education in the last quarter of the century:
The latter have proved harmful for the general functions of Higher Education, affecting its quality and hampering research activities, mainly in the developing countries, so that at present 80% of the Research & Development (R&D) activities worldwide take place in a few industrialized countries.
What is the reason for that extraordinary quantitative expansion of enrolments seen in Higher Education all over the world? UNESCO has three possible explanations:
In absolute terms, the expansion has meant an increase from 13 million students in the higher level in 1960 worldwide, to 65 million in 1991, enrolled in some 30,000 renowned tertiary level institutions. By the year 2000 it is estimated that there will be 80 million students in this level.
Although in absolute terms the expansion is also spectacular in the developing countries, they have not managed to attain equal opportunities of access. The UNESCO Document points out that young people in the underdeveloped countries have 17 times less opportunities of continuing their higher studies compared with those in the industrially developed countries.
As far as the trend towards a greater diversification of institutional and academic structures is concerned, UNESCO attributes this phenomenon to external and internal factors. Among the external ones it mentions the following:
And as far as internal factors are concerned, UNESCO feels that the following have been important for reorganizing teaching and research activities:
As a result of all this, a varied typology of institutions can be seen in the panorama of contemporary Higher Education, depending on the length and extent of the studies, their academic profile, forms of teaching, the student body, financing sources, national, regional or local scope served by them, etc. Diversification, as UNESCO says, is one of the best accepted tendencies in Higher Education today, and every available means should be used to support it. However, in supporting the promotion of diversification, one must take care to guarantee the quality of the institutions and programmes, equity as regards access and preservation of the mission and function of Higher Education, with full respect for academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
As far as restrictions in funds and resources is concerned, UNESCO sustains that the correlation between investment in Higher Education and the level of social, economic and cultural development of a country, has been clearly established. It feels too that it is the tendency to cut back on state contributions, or transfer them to the lower levels of education, which is a cause for concern. However, they do not ignore the difficulties faced by developing countries, particularly those that have found themselves obliged to introduce structural adjustment policies.
So, while UNESCO in no way discourages the search for alternative sources of financing that would call for a greater contribution by the private sector and even by well-off parents, UNESCO does point out that the average expenditure per student in Higher Education, in absolute terms, is ten times less in developing countries than in the industrialized world.
World society, and contemporary science and technology, are undergoing fundamental and rapid changes. UNESCO’s Document states: "Despite the immense progress made, today’s world is confronting tremendous problems and challenges, dominated by demographic changes due to the rapid growth of the population in some parts of the world, outbursts of conflicts and ethnic infighting, hunger, disease, persistent poverty, housing shortages, prolonged unemployment, ignorance and problems related to environmental protection, the consolidation of peace and democracy, the respect for human rights and the preservation of cultural identity."
Current international trends are characterized by a series of concurrent processes not exempt from contradiction. The UNESCO Document mentions the following:
According to UNESCO, the common denominator seen at the World Summits and large international conferences, is that the State, civil society and the professional and business communities must establish national agreements that are conducive to sustainable human development. There is also unanimous agreement that the sine qua non condition for the challenges currently facing it to be overcome, is the development of human resources. UNESCO sustains that: "access to Higher Education and to the broader range of services it can give society, is an essential part of any sustainable development program and requires human expertise and high level professional skills."
The challenges stemming from the international economy and from the rapid growth and change in the fields of science and technology, can only find an adequate response through the contribution of Higher Education. UNESCO reports that: "The impact of technological development, especially in information and communications is such that all countries, regardless of their level of industrial development, have to use internationally accepted standards and equipment. This applies not only to hardware but also to organizational structures and the human factor: ‘humanware.’ This either depends on education or is related to education, particularly at the technical and higher levels."
UNESCO’s Document draws the following conclusions from the foregoing analysis:
For UNESCO there are three key aspects that determine the strategic position of Higher Education in contemporary society and its internal workings. These are: relevance, quality and internationalization.
What does the relevance of Higher Education consist of? According to UNESCO, "Relevance is considered mainly in terms of Higher Education’s role as a system and in terms of the role of each of its institutions towards society. It is also considered in terms of what society expects of Higher Education. Therefore, issues such as the democratization of access and broader opportunities for participation in Higher Education at different stages of life, links with the working world and Higher Education’s responsibilities towards the education system as a whole, must be included." No less important is the community’s participation in solutions to pressing human problems, such as issues involving the population, the environment, peace, international understanding, democracy and human rights. The relevance of Higher Education is perhaps better expressed through the variety of "academic services it offers to society."
The foregoing leads us to re-examine the relationships between Higher Education and civil society and, particularly, between Higher Education and the working world or the production sector. This re-examination will enable Higher Education to produce more and better answers to the problems facing mankind and to the needs of economic and cultural life, and would be more relevant within the context of the specific problems of a particular region, country or community.
The relationship with the working world is marked by the changing nature of jobs, which call for constantly changing and evolving knowledge and skills. A university graduate must also be increasingly prepared to work with multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teams. "Society is moving towards a lifetime-of-learning model for everyone which is gradually replacing the prevailing model of selective concentrated studies over a limited period." Only a sufficiently flexible Higher Education system can hope to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing job market. As reported in UNESCO’s document, "To sum up, at a time when the ‘degree = job’ equation can no longer be applied, it is hoped that Higher Education will produce graduates who not only can be job hunters but also entrepreneurs of success and generators of jobs."
However, it is not enough for Higher Education to cater for the new needs of the job market. UNESCO’s Document adds that "Higher Education institutions must put emphasis on ethical and moral values in society, and strive to awaken an active, participatory civic spirit among future graduates. In order to prepare for professional life, greater emphasis on the personal development of students is also needed. The demand for graduates and courses of study might prove to be the chance to revitalize the Humanities and the Arts in Higher Education and open up new possibilities for creating co-operation links with different public and economic organizations."
One of UNESCO’s prime concerns is the existence of constructive relations between the State and the University, as a requisite for the process to change Higher Education. These relations must be based on strict respect for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, essential principles that give the Higher Education institutions their individual character and set them apart from education institutions at other levels. "However," says the Document, "the principles of the university chair and institutional autonomy must not be used to conceal professional negligence and/or organizational incompetence. They must involve greater responsibility in academic work, including their ethical context, and in financing matters, self-evaluation of research and teaching, and constant concern for cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the evaluation and estimation of quality, in particular in public Higher Education institutions, must not be synonymous with excessive outside regulation or be used as a means for restricting public financing. They must function as mechanisms that enable Higher Education to ensure its self-improvement. ...Higher Education has to show that it can compete with other organized interests that expect financial backing from public funding sources."
UNESCO’s Document does not avoid speaking out on a very controversial issue, the payment of fees. UNESCO recommends that this topic be dealt with caution, since it touches on many aspects of justice, social mobility, equity and social and fiscal policies in general. Adequate attention must be paid, in any case, to establishing a fee-paying system that goes hand in hand with appropriate aid for needy students, so that no capable young person is refused Higher Education on economic grounds. This policy would be congruent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in sub-paragraph 1 of Article 26 reads: "everyone will have equal access to higher studies, based on individual merit."
Faced with the tendency to cut back on state contributions to Higher Education, UNESCO’s Document states: "There is a risk that a radically applied policy to separate the State from Higher Education as far as financing is concerned, influenced by the concept of the ‘social value’ of one rigidly interpreted level of education, may result in excessive pressure on ‘covering costs’ and on the demands for ‘alternative financing’ and ‘increased internal efficiency’ in teaching, research and management. Another risk is the excessive demand to ‘market’ the activities of Higher Education institutions. Ultimately, if Universities and other Higher Education institutions are expected to make a significant contribution to change and progress in society, the State and society must look on Higher Education as a long-term national investment, rather than as a burden for the public budget, in order to increase economic competitiveness, cultural development and social cohesion. That is also the framework within which the problem of the responsibilities for distributing costs must be handled. To conclude, state subsidized education continues to be essential to guarantee its educational, social and institutional mission."
A key point in the ‘new vision’ of Higher Education is the reappraisal of teaching at Universities, which is sometimes rather undervalued compared with research. Without undervaluing research as one of the most important tasks of universities, it is important to make a special effort to renew teaching-learning methods and emphasize the teacher’s place in the University activities.
The interdependence between the scientific disciplines that characterize contemporary knowledge today, make it essential to increase the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary content of studies. The introduction of the idea of permanent education is, in turn, a result of the obsolescent nature of contemporary science. This means that universities have to make a greater commitment to the emerging model of lifetime learning. These developments have consequences that translate into the need to promote more varied and flexible academic structures and programmes, academic recognition of working experience and even of simple vital experience, i.e. the experience that comes with age.
"The effectiveness of renewing learning and teaching also depends on how knowledge is transmitted. It is becoming increasingly evident that due to the combined impact of the development of software and hardware in information technology and communication, avenues have now opened for facilitating new types of educational services. This technology-based learning environment raises the need for innovative teaching practices, as well as the general functions of the vast domain consisting of information services." In short, the ‘informatics culture’ must become part and parcel of university life.
The Document refers to one of the most interesting innovations recently included in teaching-learning processes: knowledge modules and modular curricula as an alternative to traditional programmes. "But this means improving the study guidance system, making the right adjustments to enhance the relevance of the course and the formats structured over periods that are used by many faculties, redesigning support for students and tutoring services (particularly in distance Higher Education), as well as opportunities for study credits and transferring staff in different forms and fields of study."
As far as research is concerned, evidently no Higher Education system can fulfil it mission and be a feasible ally for society in general if part of its teaching team and its organizational entities fails to conduct research according to specific institutional goals, academic potential and material resources. UNESCO feels that: "Despite the fact that the research departments in Higher Education Institutions are costly, they are an essential source of skills and ideas within the context of the world economy, based on constant know-how and technological change. The best way to make the general public, government bodies and economic organizations aware of the role of research in Higher Education, is by demonstrating the academic quality, economic value, humanistic perspective and cultural relevance of research and study programmes and research-related teaching, through convincing results."
Another outstanding aspect of the UNESCO Document is its insistence on emphasizing the fact that any education policy must take on the entire education system. Therefore, the Higher Education reform must bear in mind its close interdependence with the other education levels. This coherence derives from the fact that the quality of Higher Education depends on the results of the work of the preceding levels. This is why UNESCO affirms that: "Higher Education has to play a leading role in the renewal of the entire education system."
It is not enough for Higher Education to be more relevant. It must also have a better quality. Relevance and quality must go hand in hand. Concern for quality is the main concern in the current debate and is likely to remain so.
The concept of quality in Higher Education is a multidimensional concept. Not only does it cover three classical functions of Ortega y Gasset’s championing triptych: teaching, research and extension, which amounts to the quality of its teaching staff, the quality of its programme and the quality of its teaching-learning methods, but it also includes the quality of its students, its infrastructure and its academic surroundings. All these aspects related to quality, plus good management, good government and good administration, determine how the University functions and the "institutional image" that it projects to society at large.
Quality calls for ongoing, systematic evaluation. Higher Education must introduce institutional evaluation into its everyday affairs, either through self-assessment procedures, or peer assessment.
Concern over the quality of students starts off with the idea that a country’s higher level students are its wealth. They are actually the most valuable assets a society can have, given the roles they are expected to play in that society when they graduate. And so, it is in the public interest to guarantee the quality of students. In the future, Universities are going to be judged or evaluated more on the quality of their students than on the quality of their professors, as a result of the emphasis placed today on learning rather than teaching processes.
UNESCO, committed to the idea of renewing Higher Education in the world at large, deems it essential for all Higher Education systems to determine their own mission and bear in mind this new vision we could call the "dynamic" or "proactive university."
This new vision of the "dynamic university" aspires to convert each Higher Education institution into:
UNESCO’s final objective in this entire process of change and development in Higher Education is to anticipate the urgent need for a new "academic pact" which puts Higher Education in all the Member States "in a better position to respond to the present and future needs of sustainable human development."
The key question that must be asked after all has been said, and one that has deep ethical roots, is: who must the process to change Higher Education serve? Which sectors must benefit from a relevant and better quality Higher Education? The answer, in countries such as ours, is obvious: all social sectors, with priority on attention to the basic needs of the underprivileged sectors. This is an additional challenge for our institutions. It is not enough to meet the needs of the modern exporting sector or the requirements of the production sector, or international competitiveness. It is absolutely, and ethically, necessary, to turn our attention first and foremost to those who need to alleviate their difficult situation through the contributions that Higher Education is able to make, guided by a clear awareness of its social function.
"University for what?" asks Professor Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO, and answers: "University for the higher level preparation of citizens capable of carrying out their various tasks and activities efficiently and effectively, even the most different, the newest and the most specialized ones; for the permanent and intensive training of all citizens who want that level: to update knowledge; to train trainers; to pinpoint and tackle the nation’s key problems; to help focus on and solve the broad issues affecting and concerning the entire planet: to collaborate with industry and service companies in the nations progress; to fashion attitudes of understanding and tolerance; to provide governors with elements based on scientific rigor for decision-making on such important matters as the environment, in this progressive process of the scientification of political decisions. University to disseminate and broadcast knowledge. University for everyone, to create, to promote scientific research, innovation, invention. University where what matters is quality rather than degrees, that are frequently senseless. University that provides guidance and is capable of anticipating change. University for objective criticism, for the search for new horizons. University with new contents for genuine, participator citizens, for the pedagogy of peace. University for reducing unacceptable economic and social asymmetries. University to moderate what is superfluous. In short, University to strengthen freedom, dignity and democracy."
On the eve of a new millennium there is nothing more timely than to promote the process of change in our Higher Education institutions, recalling the advice of José Martí, for whom the University should not be a mere factory for turning out professionals, but a place for training citizens who will one day be at the helm of our nations' destiny. But in order to do so, our university students, according to Martí, must fully comprehend the particular elements of the peoples of America. The world may well be transplanted into our republics, but our republics should be the common trunk." And, he added: "The European University must give way to the University of the Americas. Just like someone who takes off one cloak to put on another, the old University must be cast aside and the banner of the new one raised."
NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
