The higher education system in Mexico at the threshold of change

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0738-0593/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ije

E-mail addr1Professor a

Xochimilco Ca

International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 52–66

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

The higher education system in Mexico at thethreshold of change

Gonzalo Varela1

Magisterio Nacional 151 casa 4, Colonia Tlalpan, Delegacion Tlalpan, 14,000 Mexico, DF, Mexico

Abstract

Education in Mexico wants restructuring since the signing of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by

Canada, Mexico and the United States in 1994. In higher education a new policy has been adopted to increase the

enrollment, but a simultaneous improvement in quality is also needed. Nevertheless it clashes with old academic

structures. This article analyzes this situation in six sections: (1) introduction; (2) key features of the Mexican higher

education system; (3) main problems of higher education; (4) solutions proposed, resources required and expected

outcomes; (5) effects of the free trade agreement; and (6) conclusions.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Higher education development; Educational policy; Educational administration

1. Introduction

The Mexican higher education system comesfrom a phase of expansion during the post-war,when the economy grew based on industry, with itseffects on social policy, welfare institutions andaccess to education. Even if in a developingcountry like Mexico, with strong social lags, theeducative advance did not have an influence asstrong in higher education as it did in basiceducation, it still had a repercussion—speciallysince the 1970s—on the sudden escalation of

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve

dudev.2005.07.012

ess: [email protected].

t the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana,

mpus, Mexico, DF.

enrolment in universities, saturating an academicsystem which was not prepared for that change(Rodrıguez Gomez, 1999).The quality of higher education decreased for

which its massive growth was blamed. However,this explanation is ambiguous (Varela Petito,1996). The capacities of the higher educationsystem were exceeded because it had a reducedsize and a rather inflexible structure, and notbecause there was an excessive amount of studentsregistering for higher education. Although thenumber of those enrolled increased largely inhistorical terms between 1955 and 1975, evennow the percentage of people in higher educationin Mexico is still low, as we shall see in the nextsection of this work. Initially, the system had a

d.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) (In

Spanish).

G. Varela / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 52–66 53

poor capacity of response to the rise of demand.This, along with other factors, originated a moreor less permanent social pressure on the academicand administrative matters, which even today stillmanifests itself strongly on occasions.

However this situation is changing for two mainreasons. First, economic development requiresbetter levels of education; second, the demo-graphic trends will impel a larger number ofpeople to demand higher education in the nextfew decades. The age group 20–24 is supposed toincrease by about 22% between 1990 and 2010,reaching a total of 10,186,535 people (ANUIES,2000). On the one hand, the number of students inthis sector grows due to a rise in the populationand the extension of the basic education; and onthe other hand, students from low-income familiesattend higher education institutions (HEIs) in ahigher percentage than they did in the past. Thisrelates to a public conscience about the need formore education, according to the new character-istics of the labor market that demand more yearsof study for jobs that previously required a lowerknowledge (ANUIES, 2003).

While the number of higher education studentsis expected to rise in the next ten years, theenrolment of basic education will fall (as opposedto what happened in the second half of the XXthCentury) and this will demand answers regardingtwo issues: one, the social equity of the enrolment;and two, the need to upgrade the higher educationsystem as a reply to pressures stemming fromforeign competition and the opening of theMexican economy, since the launching of theNorth America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)in 1994 (Marum Espinosa, 1998; SEP, 2001;Taborga Torrico, 2003). So, more importance ispaid to higher education in governmental reportsand in public policies since the 1990s—in contrastto the 1980s, when attention was directed towardsbasic education (Varela Petito, 1997).

In the following sections we will analyze thiscrossroads through four aspects: the key featuresof the Mexican higher education system; the mainproblems of its public HEIs; the solutions pro-posed, the resources required and the expectedoutcomes; and the effects of the NAFTA on highereducation.

2. Key features of the Mexican higher education

system

Official data (Presidencia de la Republica, 2003;ANUIES, 2004a, b) show that the Mexican highereducation (public and private) comprises about20% of the population between the ages of 20 and24. The system is integrated by approximately1500 institutions of different kinds: autonomouspublic universities, private universities, public andprivate technological institutes, public technologi-cal universities, research and graduate studiesinstitutes, normal schools (in charge of teacher’straining) small organizations that impart a fewprograms, etc. Still, most students enroll at largepublic universities that though legally autonomousare dependent on the state. The National Auton-omous University of Mexico2 (UNAM) is thelargest of these institutions (ANUIES, 2004a, b); ithas approximately 250,000 students, 30,000 aca-demics and another 30,000 administrative work-ers. But more than one-third of its students aredoing pre-university level studies. A frequentfeature of Mexican public—and some private-universities is that they impart pre-universityeducation as well as higher education, whichmakes more complex the management of institu-tions in aspects as enrolment, access from second-ary to tertiary levels, and examinations (see Fig. 1).Most of the country’s scientific research is

carried out in public universities, especially at theUNAM (Domınguez Martınez et al., 1998), whichis said to be in charge of about 50% of the nationalresearch. Additional research in areas like-petro-leum, agriculture or health is done by other non-university public institutions but little is done byprivate firms, despite fiscal stimuli policy.Public universities, though being institutions of

the Mexican state, are legally autonomous fromthe government. Thus, government’s authority isapplied indirectly on them, especially throughmechanisms of indicative planning linked tofunding. There are other public HEIs-like thetechnological institutes or the normal schoolswhich have a stronger legal dependency on the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Secondary School

(3 years)

HIG

HE

R E

DU

CA

TIO

N

PhD (c. 3 years)

Specialization

(1 year)

Master

(2 years)

Graduate Studies

Undergraduate Studies

Long Track (4 years)

Universities – Technological

Institutes – Normal Education

Undergraduate Studies

Short Track (2 years)

Technological

Universities

Pre-University studies (“Bachillerato”)

(3 years)

Other

Programs

Primary S c hool

(6 years)

Fig. 1. Mexican educational system.

G. Varela / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 52–6654

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Mexican higher education system (enrolment and academics,

1980–2000a)

1980 % 1990 % 2000 %

(I) Enrolment

Public

Undergraduate 632,307 83.6 890,372 79.3 1,118,731 65.7

Graduate 19,647 2.6 34,435 3.1 71,246 4.2

Private

Undergraduate 98,840 13.0 187,819 16.7 466,677 27.4

Graduate 5,855 0.8 9,530 0.9 46,853 2.7

Total 756,649 100.0 1,122,156 100.0 1,703,507 100.0

(II) Academics

Public n.d. — 83,486 79.5 116,225 64.4

Private n.d. — 21,572 20.5 64,116 35.6

Total 70,286 100.0 105,058 100.0 180,341 100.0

Source: Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de

Educacion Superior (ANUIES), Mexico.aNormal Education is not included.

4


government; even though the number of studentsis lower than that of the universities.

The main higher education institutions inMexico, both public and private, embracing 80%of total enrolment in this educational level, belongto a non-governmental organization called Na-tional Association of Universities and HigherEducation Institutes (ANUIES)3 founded in 1950(Cuevas Nava, 2000). Joining the ANUIES isvoluntary, but in order to do so the HEIs mustfulfill certain requirements and submit themselvesto an admission process. The Association has,amongst others, functions of indicative planningand linkages with the government, so it worksmainly as a vehicle for negotiation of funds andfor the dissemination of the governmental policiestoward the HEIs. For this reason, there arecoincidences in the opinions of ANUIES withthose of the government (ANUIES, 2000).

One of the factors that made it difficult in thepast to have an adequate planning of the highereducation system in Mexico was the absence ofhomogeneous and trustworthy figures, which haspartly been corrected in the last few years byresponding to governmental initiatives. The figuresmay be wrong even in basic aspects like the realnumber of students or academics in the system(Gil Anton et al., 1994). This is due to deficienciesor disparities in HEI statistics, and sometimesperhaps to political manipulation. In the past thegovernmental funds allocated to the public uni-versities were based mainly on the number ofstudents registered; this raised the suspicion thatsome universities manipulated the figures of thestudents enrolled so as to obtain a higher portionof the budget (Latapı, 1980).

According to one of the most recognized sources(ANUIES, 2004a, b) in 2003 the Mexican highereducation had a total of 2,239,120 students, that is7.5% of the total of students in different educa-tional sectors of the country, which is close to 30million people (Mexico’s population is just over100 million people). Of these higher educationstudents, 83.4% were registered in undergraduatestudies in universities and technological institutes;

3Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de

Educacion Superior (ANUIES) (In Spanish).

7.4% in normal education (teacher’s training);3.0% in Technological Universities4; and 6.2% ingraduate studies. Approximately 46.0% of thetotal enrolment were women. Compared to theprevious year, the number of students grew by4.4%. There were 209,873 teachers in the wholehigher education system.A fact worth pointing out is the importance of

private higher education (Levy, 1986; Lorey, 1993;Kent and Ramırez, 2002). While in 1980 13% ofstudents enrolled in the two main streams ofhigher education (universities and technologicalinstitutes) belonged to private institutions, thisfigure had increased by 2003 to 33% (ANUIES,2004a, b). The private higher education is thehighest growing sub-sector, thus the one hiringmost academics (see Table 1).Another authoritative source (Presidencia de la

Republica, 2003) provides data on the perfor-mance of the higher education system in 2003. Itenrolled 85.4% of the students who graduatedfrom pre-university level the previous year; its

Modality of short technical higher education degrees lasting

2 years, inspired on a French model. The difference with

traditional technological institutes is that these, like universities,

have longer degrees lasting in average 4 years.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


dropout rate was 14.7%; its rate of failure(dropout plus delay in completion) was 38%;and it had a completion efficiency of 62%. Totalpublic expenditure on education was $449,894.5million Mexican pesos,5 equivalent to 5.5% of theGDP. Of this sum, $55,766.0 million pesoscorresponded to the funding of the federalgovernment for higher education.

3. Main problems of higher education

3.1. The official diagnosis

A report carried out by the Education Ministry(SEP)6 at the end of the XXth Century provided acritical balance of the Mexican higher educationsystem (SEP, 2000):

�

5

Me6

Mi

of7

31

Academics’ standards below international level,because most academics do not hold a Ph.D.and their work is often reduced to courses withlimited personal attention to students andscarce performance of scientific research.
� Insufficient academic equipment, mainly in
laboratories, libraries and informational mediabecause of budgetary restrictions but also as aresult of the unplanned development of theinstitutions. The HEIs often have buildings andequipments made for an earlier era when mostacademics and even students used to spend littletime in the facilities.
� Limited linkages between the HEIs and their
social environment; which does not fosterdynamic economic and cultural activitiesneeded by a developing country such as Mexico.
� Limited collegiate work and predominance of
individual decisions, probably caused by theexcessive dominance of the ‘‘pure teacher’’ rolewith scarce institutional integration.
�
(footnote continued)

Limited involvement of provincial govern-ments7 in public policies of higher education

The exchange rate for 2003 corresponds approximately to 11

xican pesos to the American dollar.

Secretarıa de Educacion Publica (SEP) (in Spanish). This

nistry is in charge of the regulation, planning and imparting

education.

Mexico is a federal state, divided in 32 territories, of which

have a rank of local state (more or less equivalent to

pro

is f

imp

enr

and8

hom

at m

and their funding, because for decades theorientation and funding of higher educationwere under the almost exclusive responsibilityof the federal government. For provincialgovernments it was a way to avoid politicalproblems and financial burdens.
� Several higher education institutions also provided
pre-university education, a double function that,together with the excessive size of these HEIs,make it difficult to develop a sense of academiccommunity and create institutional issues, becauseit demands a more complex management ofenrolment, students and personnel.
� Escalation in enrolment decisions made uni-
laterally by each HEI, with no connection to theinstitutional, provincial, regional or nationalneeds, given the unplanned development of theinstitutions.
� Single educational tracks8 and lack of short-
term higher education programs (2 or 3 years)which in countries with a better connectionbetween education and development constitutebetween 25% and 60% of the enrolment. Thisstems from an educational development morebased on quantitative than on qualitativevariables.
� Low completion efficiency resulting high costs
per student graduated. This means academicdeficits coming from lags of the primary andsecondary schools as well as from economicneeds that make it difficult for many students tocomplete their studies; but also because of rigidhigher education structures not well adapted tochanges.
� Unequal availability of resources by the HEIs
measured in expenses per student, both byinertia and because the decisions about thenumber of students registered are made uni-laterally by each institution.

vinces) and one (Distrito Federal, the capital of the country)

ederal territory. Each of these entities have at least one

ortant autonomous public university, with a high number of

olment, aside from the technological and normal institutes

private higher education institutions.

It refers to the "licenciatura" (undergraduate studies), an

ogeneous four year track for almost every degree, in force

ost of the Mexican HEIs.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


These problems are attributed by the govern-ment mainly to heterogeneities in the higher
education system. The institutions belonging to itare not equal in the quality of training, theirpublications, the ability to compete for funding,their R&D projects, or the capacity to transfertechnology. This is why at the end of themillennium, while higher education had expandedin numbers, it had also accumulated importantdeviations from approved universal practices(SEP, 2000). But a deeper analysis of the criticalcauses of the working of the public HEIs cannot befound in the official reports. Some will be analyzednext, based on information coming from research.
3.2. Integration of functions

In Mexico the law usually sets three main tasksfor the public HEIs: teaching, research andcultural outreach. Cultural outreach has certaincharacteristics that differentiate it from the othertwo: it is not often developed and when it is, itunfolds in a context relatively separated fromteaching and research. These last two are morestrategic, as they are centered on the relationshipbetween students and academics. In large or verylarge institutions -that is with a generous numberof students, academics, researchers, administrativeworkers and programs—the main problem is theweak or heterogeneous integration among thedifferent segments of knowledge production andtransmission (Casas and Luna, 1999; Cimoli,2000).

In academia one needs to distinguish those whoonly teach (most academics) from those who teachand also do research. The communication betweenstudents and researchers may involve routineteaching practices, for example, when a researcherteaches regular courses. But in the context ofresearch a peculiar training of human resourcestakes place through thesis supervision or assistant-ships. This student–teacher relationship is differentfrom that in the classroom, although this latter oneinvolves more students, specially in undergraduatestudies. The differentiation between pure teachersand teacher-researchers is significant as it condi-tions diverse teaching methods in segmentedsubsystems that do not have the permeability they

should (Varela Petito, 1996). This produces veryunequal levels of benefit for the students. Inpractice, teaching and research are not close asthey are supposed to be, and this implies a failurein the implementation of higher education policies,where the linking of both activities was planned asa way of improving higher education quality (SEP,2000).

3.3. Administration

One of the most critical areas in the Mexicanpublic HEIs (specially in the universities) is that ofadministrative work, not only because the systemis mainly constituted by large institutions, but alsobecause it is still growing without an appropriatedistribution of the enrolment by knowledge areasand geographic regions of the country.The relation between this and the government’s

orientations is ambiguous. The official policyacknowledges that excessive and unplannedgrowth is undesirable, and has promoted thecreation of new institutions to meet the demand,as the Technological Universities (Ruiz Larragui-vel, 1993). However potential students prefer thetraditional public universities, even though tech-nological education seems to offer good jobexpectations (depending on the specializationstudied). This is probably associated with percep-tions about the prestige and better possibilities ofsocial mobility offered by university teaching,compared with other branches of higher educa-tion, although the authorities and experts havewarned that some professions are saturated withgraduates, thus the job offer is declining(ANUIES, 2003).For this and other circumstances, many public

HEIs are large organizations by the space theyoccupy, their demographic dimension, the numberof people they employ, and the infrastructure andeconomic resources they have. Although, intheory, the administration is not the main issue,the HEIs have become bureaucratic structures(Casanova Cardiel and Rodrıguez Gomez, 1999;Cazes Menache et al., 2000). This introducesadditional tensions to the relations betweeninstitutional actors, leading to discussions aboutthe efficiency of the personnel, the characteristics

ARTICLE IN PRESS


of their contracts, the norms and sanctions system,etc.

One aspect of the public HEIs which differenti-ates them from other institutions of the state isthat they do not have a clear criteria to determinewho the public is regarding the administration.Depending on the kind of relationship it cansometimes be the students, or the family thatmaintains them economically,9 or the contributorsthat fund the educational service. Given the legalautonomy of Mexican public universities, thegovernment has also a particular indirect relation-ship with them, through the budget or the maindirections of the educational policy. The aca-demics, although being part of the labor body, donot feel equal to the administrative workers;therefore their relations with the universitybureaucracy show particular details (Varela Petito,1988). The public HEIs have become complexorganizations where the administrative part oftenbecomes a target in itself, causing effects, whichhave an influence on the increasing number ofstudents that prefer to enroll in private institu-tions.

3.4. Labor relations

What was mentioned above has a repercussionon the labor field. Traditionally Mexican publicuniversities, following a tendency which can beobserved in other Latin American countries, havebeen surrounded by a particular moral andintellectual aura, such as being high culture centersof social critique of other institutes like thegovernment, churches or private firms. In thepast, in Mexico, this moral role was seen by theconservative eye as contradictory with the struc-ture of the internal labor relationships. But whenthe number of salaried, academic and adminis-trative workers increased (mainly between the1960s and 1970s, when the number of studentsrose by more than 300%) the trade-union issuesrelated to salaries, hierarchical relations and work

9Regardless of the social origin of the students in higher

education in Mexico, only about a third of them work and

study at the same time (see for example, de Garay Sanchez,

2004).

conditions became important, thus absorbing agreat part of the life of the institutions (PulidoAranda, n.d.). The most debated issues were, andstill are: the union membership of academics andworkers, bilateral negotiations, trends towardscorporativism, ways of association between ad-ministrative workers and academics, etc. In the1970s, the discussions reached such intensity andhad such an impact on the national politicalsystem that they underwent a high level legalregularization by means of an article of thenational Constitution (Constitucion Polıtica delos Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1997; article 3,paragraph VII). Although a certain level ofstability has been achieved, some debates remainregarding management, bureaucratization andlack of support services.

3.5. Inclusion and exclusion

The fact that many public HEIs (specially theuniversities) constitute a social microcosm is alsoimportant. Although it is obvious that they do notreproduce the exact characteristics of the nationalsociety, they have the modalities of a society initself. This is a product of the economic develop-ment, the extension of the literacy and thedemocratization of the society, which broadensthe number and the social class of studentsregistering at university (Lorey, 1993). Contem-porary public universities are rarely completelyhomogeneous. Those with large enrolment tend topresent the same social differences found in thewider society, especially in developing countrieslike Mexico, with sharp social contrasts (BejarNavarro and Hernandez Bringas, 1993). (Let usremember that Latin America is the region withmost disparities in income distribution in theworld, and Mexico, Brazil and Chile are on theedge of social inequity.) The economic and culturalgap can be observed not only among students, butalso among teachers and even administrativeworkers.In the students’ context, different hypothetical

perceptions exist about what can be achievedthrough higher education (de Garay Sanchez,2004). Till now in Mexico most university studentscome from homes where parents do not have

ARTICLE IN PRESS


higher education (nor even secondary schooling),which is why these families have high expectationsthat their children will earn a professional degree.Entering a higher education center may be hardfor these students, as they are in a new world bycomparison with their previous cultural and familyexperience. Eventually, even before finishing hisstudies, a student may feel that the expectationsplaced on his higher education may be frustrated.This is one reason why inside some large HEIspolitical subsystems are constituted, based onpower relations, conflicts, transactions and nego-tiations (Rosas, 2001). The creation of thesesubsystems evolves from the encounter of differentinterests and perceptions resulting from the inclu-sion of these individuals in the higher educationsystem.

The internal political system of the MexicanHEIs is made up not only of its formal structure ofnorms, but also by broader, informal relationsbetween human groups. The organizational cul-ture is not only determined by formally establishedgoals, rights, obligations and sanctions, it alsoconsists of many various relations, usually knownby the participants. There are also institutionalpolitical sub-cultures produced by historic experi-ence, with traditions, ideology, and codifiedpractices of interaction (Varela Petito, 1988). Inpublic universities, legal autonomy also has aninfluence: like in other countries in Latin America,it is an ideological principle to legitimate thepolitical action and even heterodox work practices.

Consequently, some Mexican public HEIs havea routine of administrative centralization, whereasin others decentralization may prevail; and othersmay even have periods of organizational chaos,because, independently from juridical norms, thereis a tactical day-to-day adjustment, with no firmauthorities or clear roles, but without interruptingtheir tasks, finding a way to work in precariousconditions sometimes for long periods (AcostaSilva, 2000).

In this context, in spite of a growing democra-tization of higher education (or perhaps due to theaccelerated and disorganized way in which it hascome about in some periods) the complex,differentiated and large public HEIs producesituations of marginalization or exclusion. Bearing

in mind the mixed social origins of the university’spopulation the HEIs, in a country with strongsocial disparities, need a varied set of mechanismsfor academic integration and intellectual achieve-ment that have a repercussion on educationalquality and the school drop-out. This is not onlybecause of the expectations they offer for aprofessional future, but also because of thecharacteristics of their institutional structure. Forthese reasons, in the last two decades the officialpolicy for higher education has paid specialattention to the need for evaluation and accred-itation of institutions and programs (MendozaRojas, 2002).

4. Solutions proposed, resources required and

expected outcomes

4.1. Solutions

To correct this situation, the National Programof Education 2001–2006 (SEP, 2001) proposedthree main goals:

(1)
An equitable expansion in the enrolment of
higher education: Social equity demands a risein the number of students, providing newpossibilities of access to social groups thatdid not use to reach higher education before ordid so in small percentages. But it is not only aquestion of numbers; it also supposes increas-ing and diversifying the educational offer,expanding the supply to unattended areasand creating a national scholarship system(SEP, 2001). The aim is to persuade the HEIsto help the performance of the students bymeans of different types of programs. Mexicois a multicultural society, with about 22% oftotal population living for the most part inlittle towns in the countryside or being migrantrural workers traveling with their families, so itis difficult both to bring to them the educa-tional service and to teach programs similar tothose used in modern industrial cities. It iseasy to understand that this problem ismuch greater for higher education than forother branches of the educational system.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Diversifying academic programs in contentsand pedagogic strategies would make it possi-ble to reach different kinds of students,reducing the rate of dropouts and delays incompletion of studies.

(2)
Good quality of higher education: To improvethe educational programs, for years the gov-ernment has proposed the upgrading of curri-cula and teachers, and the developing offlexible approaches, promoting new kinds ofinstitutions and studies in each state (PoderEjecutivo Federal, 1989, 1995). Referring toteaching, there is a need to rectify thecharacteristic inequalities of the higher educa-tion system. These consist in sharp differencesof quality between schools, programs andacademics, produced by the uneven growth of1960–1980, often causing students and teachersto drift apart. The solution would be achievedby giving students personal attention, speciallythrough individual and group tutorials(ANUIES, 2001). This means that the institu-tions will personally orient and help thestudents to make their decisions concerningtheir educational choices from the momentthey enter to higher education till they finishstudies. The diversification of the system isrelated to this, as it allows to attend differentkinds of students. The Program of Improve-ment of the Teaching Staff (PROMEP) hasbeen applied since 1996. It supports withfunding the upgrading of teachers, the creationof an adequate work infrastructure and theincreased enrolment in graduate studies,which are still undeveloped in Mexico. Thereare only 1000 Ph.D.’s graduated per year,when ideally there should be 20,000; whilethe US has 40,000. The deficit can be seen inareas like hard sciences, engineering andtechnology.Seeing as future graduates will have to fit into alabor market with new characteristics, deter-mined by the development of the knowledgesociety, higher education will also have to finda way of re-uniting its three main functions(teaching, research and cultural outreach) witha higher quality. To achieve this, governmentplanning and ANUIES (2000) lay a great deal
of importance on the concept of ‘‘academicbodies’’, which would be in charge of increas-ing the capacity of each HEI to generate andapply knowledge.These ‘‘academic bodies’’ are disciplinary andinterdisciplinary groups formed by teachersand researchers working in a field of study.They are not necessarily pre-established areasin an organizational chart, but rather empiri-cally existing groups with dynamic capacity,formed in the academic practice, that must beidentified, institutionalized and multiplied inorder to improve the quality of the highereducation system. Their features would be:attaching themselves to an HEI that creates theappropriate environment for work and per-suade academics to stay; carrying out graduatestudies for their members; a high knowledgespecialization; and networking with otherknowledge systems.Regarding all this, a national regime ofevaluation and non-governmental accreditation

has been established, which is nourished by apeer review process (Valenti Nigrini andMungaray Lagarda, 1997; Malo and Velaz-quez Jimenez, 1998). The goal is to transformthe actual system into a more open one, wherethe institutions take part in regional, nationaland international links of cooperation andscientific exchange.

(3)
Integration, coordination and management of
the higher education system: The higher educa-tion planning system that is operational sincethe end of the 1970s (SEP and ANUIES, 1981)contemplates four levels of action: national,regional (which gathers several provincesunder one coordination), provincial, and ofeach HEI in particular. But their relatedfunctioning and mechanisms for rendering ofaccounts are far from what was wanted. Theplanning system was designed with the inten-tion of achieving a better working of the highereducation system as a whole, but on the onehand this system is divided into three branches(universities, technological institutes and tea-cher’s training institutes) with different tradi-tions and organizational cultures difficult tocoordinate; and on the other hand, even inside

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the same branch, each institution tries tomaintain its own autonomy.

Thus, the effective integration of the systemremains a main target of the public agenda. Intheir strategic planning, both ANUIES and SEPnow pay a lot of importance to two concepts:institutional ‘‘vision’’ and ‘‘mission’’. Vision isregarded as the perception that each HEI has ofitself and of the higher educational system in thefuture. Mission is a combination of actions of eachHEI and the whole system, based on formalcommitments and accountability that warrantsthe achievement of the goals derived from thevision. In exchange for HEIs’ performance thegovernment provides special funding. Thus inthe SEP two initiatives are induced: those orientedtoward undergraduate studies (‘‘licenciatura’’)receive the name of Integral Program of Institu-

tional Strengthening (PIFI), while those orientedtoward graduate studies are called Integral Pro-

gram for Graduate Studies Strengthening (PIFOP).These include a series of commitments by theHEIs, crystallized through agreements with theSEP, which break down into different kinds ofinstitutional development projects, whose fulfill-ment is annually evaluated by peer review proce-dures.

4.2. Resources required

Regarding the human resources, ANUIES (2000)calculates that by the year 2020 the highereducation institutions should have 261,000 profes-sional academics. Nowadays there are over200,000 teachers in the higher education system;so, the numerical availability of teachers is not aproblem. This is why the growth rate of students ishigher than that of teachers, as it should go from9.5 students per teacher in 2000 to 18 in 2020. Butalthough the number of teachers is not critical, thequality of their training and professional perfor-mance is, as suggested by the fact that fewacademics have a Ph.D. or even a Master Degree.In 2002 according to SEP (2003); Appendix III)only 3.5% of the Mexican academic personnelheld a Ph.D. and 17.5% a Master Degree.

Regarding financial resources, let us say thatfunding is one of the most conflicting variables ofthe higher education system, aggravated by thecyclical crisis of the Mexican economy in the last30 years. To achieve the defined goals, there mustbe an increase in the official economic supporttowards public higher education, though thegovernment also expects the HEIs to find othereconomic resources. If the HEIs manage to varysignificantly the number of alternative sources offunding they should be able to rationalize theexpense and establish a different use of the publicmoney received. But the provision of federal fundsfor higher education does not respond to a clearcriteria, being predominant the political andalmost informal negotiation between the govern-ment and each HEI or group of HEIs. And so far,the search for alternative funding sources (knownas ‘‘linkages’’, through cooperation contractswith private enterprises or public institutions) hasnot been successful in many HEIs, although itactually tends to grow (Casas and Luna, 1999).There has also been a rise in the contributionsof some provincial governments toward highereducation.From the point of view of ANUIES (2000) for

Mexico to have a consolidated higher educationsystem by the year 2020, 2% of the GDP wouldhave to be used for higher education and 1.5%toward science and technology development bythat date. At present, 1% of the GDP is used forhigher education and 0.41% for science andtechnology. The commitment of the governmentis to reach by 2006 an investment in the wholeeducation sector of 8% of the GDP. According toofficial data now this percentage is 6.4% consider-ing all public and private expenses (Presidencia dela Republica, 2003). But the accuracy of the figuresis subject to political discussions and interpreta-tions. The program of scholarships to support low-income students is also fundamental to help raiseenrolment, improve quality in student perfor-mance and help diminish their dropout rates.

4.3. Expected outcomes

As already explained, ANUIES plays a crucialrole in the coordination of higher education in

ARTICLE IN PRESS


co-operation with the Mexican Government. Atthe beginning of the millennium, it formulated itsstrategic vision (ANUIES, 2000) for the develop-ment of Mexican higher education for a period of20 years, defining eight basic principles: (1) qualityand innovation; (2) congruency between theactions to be adopted and the academic natureof the HEIs; (3) relevancy with the country’sdeveloping needs; (4) social equity; (5) humanism,seen as integral and not just utilitarian education;(6) strengthening the moral and national values;(7) commitment to build a better society; and (8)efficient government structure and operation ofthe higher education institutions.

Based on this ANUIES (2000) specified thegoals that the higher education system shouldreach by the year 2020, assuming that a goodcoordination was achieved:

�
Coverage: 40 percent of the people in the agegroup of 20–24 years old should be attended, apercentage similar to that of Argentina today,which is the most advanced Latin Americancountry in that area (the corresponding figure inMexico today is 20%, while secondary schoolcoverage is approximately 50% of the 16–18 agegroup). � Diversification: Students should be distributed
between the different types of institutions andmodalities of higher education, thus avoidingthe excessive concentration on a few degreeprograms and institutions.
� Integration: Higher education should respond
adequately to the social needs at provincial,regional, national and even international level.
� Quality: Although it is not possible for all HEIs
to reach the same level of quality by the year2020, we should expect an improvement in all ofthem and access to an international level for themost developed ones.

5. Effects of the free trade agreement

In official policies we find a concern to placeMexican higher education at international level,but with little direct reference to commercialopenness (SEP, 2000, 2001, 2003). However, the

role of education in Mexico has found a newmeaning since the NAFTA came into effect, as itimplies difficult adjustments looking at the homo-genization of some social variables of Canada, theUnited States, and Mexico. For higher education,two main reflections are proposed. In the firstplace, competence among partners of the treatywill primarily be judged in the field of highlyqualified human resources. In second place,Mexico is at a disadvantage with the two othercountries, making it urgent to transform itsacademic structures, pedagogic routines, manage-ment and personnel training of its HEIs. However,any proposal for changes in these as in othermatters clashes with the social dynamics andinstitutional ways inherited from the past, whichalthough unsatisfactory, still constitute a web ofpractices and interests that is difficult to modify, inspite of the academic transformations that tookplace in the last part of the XXth Century(Mendoza Rojas, 2002).The NAFTA has become decisive for Mexican

higher education in many ways (Marum Espinosa,1998; Didou Aupetit, 2000; McGinn, 1994). In thefirst place is the competition for human resources.Since the negotiations for the concretion of thetreaty took place, there were voices in Mexicanhigher education that expressed concern thatprofessionals trained in the US would substitutethose trained in Mexico. (Most of the apprehen-sions are centered on American competition; theCanadian challenge seems less concerning.) Inspite of the cultural and idiomatic barriers, this is areality in the chief executives of subsidiaries oftransnational firms and in other jobs, specially inregions like the northern border of Mexico; and itwill continue to grow in the future, affecting theprofile of the qualified labor force mainly in theservice sector, where the American economy ishighly competitive. This will have an impact—evenat a paused rhythm—on the Mexican highereducation institutions, reflecting on the organiza-tion of studies and professional practices.Secondly, the establishment of branches of

American universities in Mexico has opened thepossibility of competition with the Mexican onesunder the protection of the treaty. This would berelated to a demographic shift. After the period in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

10Some private universities, like the Autonomous University

of Guadalajara (UAG) or the University of the Americas

Foundation in Puebla (UDLA) already anticipate the homo-

genization of some of their programs with those from American

Institutions. But this is not a general fact with Mexican higher

education institutions.


which the ‘‘baby-boomers’’ increased the demandfor higher education in developed countries, the‘‘demographic bonus’’ began to drop in the USlowering the number of students enrolled thuscreating a present or future need to reduce thenumber of higher education institutions. Mean-while in Mexico an opposite phenomenon ishappening. One solution for American institutionsis to attract foreign students, and to expand theiroperations toward other countries. A naturalmarket for the extensive American academicestablishment is Mexico, with a total populationover 100 million people, of which a great portionare still young and where there is a lag in highereducation, both in qualitative and quantitativeterms.

The Mexican government is promoting, througha series of mechanisms (special funding, studyscholarships, and creation of new institutions) theenrolment of more students in higher education.This policy involves firstly the public institutions;but also favors the growth of private highereducation, which has accelerated in the last 20years. It also allows the incursion (so far limited)of foreign educational institutions into the Mex-ican environment, either by opening branches,through long distance programs of education, orby implementing programs jointly with Mexicaninstitutions, mainly in graduate studies. Althoughit seems difficult for American universities to offerundergraduate studies in Mexico, this should bepossible through associations with local institu-tions, or through the purchase or investment inexisting Mexican HEIs. Indeed, one of the largestprivate HEIs in Mexico, the University of theValley of Mexico, with several campuses in MexicoCity and in other six states of the country, andaround 30,000 students, was recently acquired byan American firm (Xanic, 2004). Occasionally,some American HEIs (of uncertain quality) offerundergraduate distance programs too.

Another issue is the standardization of profes-sional qualifications (degrees) of those who cometo work in Mexico (or vice versa, Mexicans who goto the US). The fact that different HEIs, Americanand Mexican or their graduates, come into closercontact than in the past, raises the need to find arelative equivalence between their programs, di-

minishing today’s large differences. This is not yetan urgent issue, since the bulk of the Mexicanhigher education system is still rather closed inspite of the NAFTA,10 and the American HEIs(often also very traditional) do not yet have anaggressive policy of presence in Mexico. One of thefew empirical studies on the subject (RodrıguezGomez, 2004) shows that, compared with otherbranches of the economy, the effects of thecommercial openness on Mexican higher educa-tion are still limited. In 10 years of operation of theNAFTA (1994–2003) direct foreign investment inprivate educational services was only 39 milliondollars, of which 90% was applied to one soleoperation, the mentioned purchase of the Uni-versity of the Valley of Mexico by the firm SylvanLearning Systems. For this reason, most of theestimations about the impact of the NAFTA onhigher education remain rather in the ‘‘would be’’field (Aboites, 1997) than in concrete confirma-tions.However, it is logical to suppose that the

presence of foreign education in Mexico will growin the following years, supported by the GeneralAgreement on Trade of Services (GATS) and anexpectation of a thousand millions dollars businessper year relying on the future expansion of privatehigher education (Xanic, 2004). The Mexicangovernment and the HEIs have a period whichcould be used to establish a regulation that handlesin a reasonable way the impact of the opening upof the Mexican higher education system. Based onwhat was said in the section of this work dedicatedto solutions, it seems that so far this has beensolved mainly through a series of planningmechanisms that reinforce the government’s lea-dership in the evolution of the public highereducation system, but without paying muchattention to the private sector. Although theconcern raised by the challenges brought by the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


commercial openness can be seen, it is not yet clearhow the commercialization and globalization ofeducational services will be regulated.

6. Conclusion

The documents of educational planning inMexico insist on the excessive heterogeneity ofthe higher education system. There are twoadditional elements to consider: (1) the hetero-geneity is not only between the HEIs, but alsoinside them, specially in those with a largernumber of students; (2) given their ‘‘microcosm’’condition, the internal phenomena of highereducation institutions is affected by the greatsocial heterogeneity existing in the whole country.

Changes in Mexico after the foreign debt crisisof 1982 and the subsequent readjustment of itseconomy, with the launching of the NAFTA in1994, had an impact on higher education. A hybridstructure was produced, combining features froma period of expansion with those from a periodmarked by the restrictions in economical andsocial policies, and by the rise in competition atdifferent economic and political levels, bothnationally and internationally (Cazes Menache etal, 2000). Although Mexican graduates of highereducation have not seen their employment possi-bilities so deteriorated as other less educatedgroups of the population (Munoz Izquierdo etal., 1996; Valenti Nigrini et al., 1997; ANUIES,2003) since the 1980s they have suffered employ-ment uncertainty like never before. At the sametime, the aim to integrate Mexico to the knowledgesociety demands a massive increase in the educa-tional standards. This is reflected in the govern-mental policies meant as incentives for highereducation, because the delay in the development ofthis sector was larger than that in other educa-tional sectors.11 As we have seen, other aims mustalso be attended to: quality, internationalization,

11This does not suggest the lack of problems in other levels.

The issue of quality is raised urgently in the case of basic

education, which also has a high dropout of students.

upgrading of knowledge and pedagogic strategies,and employment possibilities. Specifically, themain problem in the Mexican educational system,now as it was 20 years ago (Poder EjecutivoFederal, 1983) is quality.The improvement in life and work opportu-

nities, driven by productivity rather than by thelow cost of labor, require also an effective increasein the education rates of the population. Butgrowth based on technology and better educationalso reduces the number of job positions. Inconclusion, we have verified some paradoxes inthe present situation of the Mexican highereducation:

�
It is necessary to study more to achieve thesame (or sometimes less). � A combination of escalation in higher educa-
tion enrolment and lack of labor market isoccurring. The labor market for people withhigh educational preparation, although withopportunities, has become more competitive,producing situations of exclusion which mayhave an effect on the internal dynamics of theHEIs.
� In spite of the 10 years of operation of the
NAFTA, Mexican higher education is stillhardly internationalized, regarding both thelocal HEIs themselves and the presence offoreign HEIs in the national context.

References

Aboites, H.V., 1997. Viento del norte, TLC y privatizacion de la

Educacion Superior en Mexico. Universidad Autonoma

Metropolitana, Mexico.

Acosta Silva, A., 2000. Estado, polıticas y universidades en un

perıodo de transicion. Fondo de Cultura Economica,

Mexico.

ANUIES, 2000. La educacion superior en el siglo XXI. Lıneas

estrategicas de desarrollo. Asociacion Nacional de Uni-

versidades e Institutos de Educacion Superior, Mexico.

ANUIES, 2001. Programas institucionales de tutorıa. Una

propuesta de la ANUIES para su organizacion y funciona-

miento en las instituciones de educacion superior. Asocia-

cion Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Educacion

Superior, Mexico.

ANUIES, 2004a. Anuario estadıstico 2003. Poblacion escolar

de licenciatura y tecnico superior en universidades e

ARTICLE IN PRESS


institutos tecnologicos. Asociacion Nacional de Universi-

dades e Institutos de Educacion Superior, Mexico.

ANUIES, 2004b. Anuario estadıstico 2003. Poblacion escolar

de posgrado. Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e

Institutos de Educacion Superior, Mexico.

ANUIES, 2003. Mercado laboral de profesionistas en Mexico.

Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de

Educacion Superior, Mexico.

Bejar Navarro, R., Hernandez Bringas, H. (Eds.), 1993.

Poblacion y desigualdad social en Mexico. Universidad

Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuernavaca.

Casanova Cardiel, H., Rodrıguez Gomez, R. (Eds.), 1999.

Universidad contemporanea. Polıtica y Gobierno, Tomo II.

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Casas, R., Luna, M. (Eds.), 1999. Gobierno, academia y

empresas en Mexico. Hacia una nueva configuracion de

relaciones, second ed. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de

Mexico, Mexico.

Cazes Menache, et al. (Eds.), 2000. Re-conociendo a la

universidad, sus transformaciones y su por-venir. Universi-

dad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Cimoli, M. (Ed.), 2000. Developing innovation system: Mexico

in global context. Continuum, London.

Constitucion Polıtica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1997.

Ediciones Fiscales ISEF, Mexico.

Cuevas Nava, J.L. (Ed.), 2000. La ANUIES en la lınea del

tiempo. 50 anos de historia. Asociacion Nacional de

Universidades e Institutos de Educacion Superior, Mexico.

de Garay Sanchez, A., 2004. Integracion de los jovenes en el

sistema universitario. Practicas sociales, academicas y de

consumo cultural. Pomares, Mexico.

Didou Aupetit, S., 2000. Sociedad del conocimiento e

internacionalizacion de la educacion superior en Mexico.

Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de

Educacion Superior, Mexico.

Domınguez Martınez, R., et al., 1998. Cincuenta anos de

ciencia universitaria: una vision retrospectiva. Universidad

Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Gil Anton, M., et al., 1994. Los rasgos de la diversidad. Un

estudio sobre los academicos mexicanos. Universidad

Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico.

Kent, R., Ramırez, R., 2002. La educacion superior privada en

Mexico: crecimiento y diferenciacion. In: Altbach, Ph. (Ed.),

Educacion superior privada. Universidad Nacional Auton-

oma de Mexico, Mexico, pp. 123–144.

Latapı, P., 1980. Analisis de un sexenio de educacion en

Mexico, 1970–1976. Nueva Imagen, Mexico.

Levy, D., 1986. Higher education and the state in Latin

America: private challenges to public dominance. The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lorey, D., 1993. The university system and economic development

in Mexico since 1929. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Marum Espinosa, E., 1998. Las implicaciones del Tratado de

Libre Comercio de America del Norte en la educacion

superior mexicana. In: Rodrıguez Gomez, R. (Ed.), La

integracion latinoamericana y las universidades. Union de

Universidades de America Latina, Mexico, pp. 269–283.

McGinn, N., 1994. The impact of supranational organizations

on public education. International Journal of Educational

Development 14, 289–298.

Malo, S., Velazquez Jimenez, A. (Eds.), 1998. La calidad en la

educacion superior en Mexico. Una comparacion inter-

nacional. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,

Mexico.

Mendoza Rojas, J., 2002. Transicion de la educacion superior

contemporanea en Mexico: de la planeacion al estado

evaluador. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,

Mexico.

Munoz Izquierdo, C., et al., 1996. Diferenciacion institucional

de la educacion superior y mercados de trabajo. Asociacion

Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Educacion

Superior, Mexico.

Poder Ejecutivo Federal, 1983. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo,

1983–1988. Secretarıa de Programacion y Presupuesto,

Mexico.

Poder Ejecutivo Federal, 1989. Programa para la Moderniza-

cion Educativa 1993–1994. Secretarıa de Educacion Publica,

Mexico.

Poder Ejecutivo Federal, 1995. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo,

1995–2000. Secretarıa de Aacienda y Credito Publico,

Mexico.

Presidencia de la Republica, 2003. Tercer informe de gobierno.

1 de septiembre de 2003. Gobierno de los Estados Unidos

Mexicanos, Mexico.

Pulido Aranda, A., n.d. Cronologıa. 50 anos de sindicalismo

universitario. STUNAM, Mexico.

Rodrıguez Gomez, R., 1999. Planeacion y polıtica de la

educacion superior en Mexico. In: Casanova Cardiel, H.,

Rodrıguez Gomez, R. (Eds.), Universidad contemporanea.

Polıtica y Gobierno, Tomo II. Universidad Nacional

Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, pp. 195–231.

Rodrıguez Gomez, R., 2004. Inversion extranjera directa en

educacion superior. El caso de Mexico. Revista de la

Educacion Superior 130, 29–47.

Rosas, M., 2001. Plebeyas batallas. La huelga en la Universi-

dad, Era, Mexico.

Ruiz Larraguivel, E., 1993. Las Universidades Tecnologicas en

la polıtica federal. Universidad Futura 11, 28–38.

SEP, 2000. Memoria del quehacer educativo 1995–2000.

Secretarıa de Educacion Publica, Mexico.

SEP, 2001. Programa Nacional de Educacion, 2001–2006: por

una educacion de buena calidad para todos, un enfoque

educativo para el siglo XXI. Secretarıa de Educacion

Publica, Mexico.

SEP, 2003. Informe Nacional sobre la Educacion Superior en

Mexico. Secretarıa de Educacion Publica, Mexico.

SEP and ANUIES, 1981. Plan Nacional de Educacion Super-

ior. Lineamientos generales para el perıodo 1981–1991.

Coordinacion Nacional para la Planeacion de la Educacion

Superior, Mexico.

Taborga Torrico, H., 2003. Expansion y diversificacion de la

matrıcula de la educacion superior en Mexico. Asociacion

Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Educacion

Superior, Mexico.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Valenti Nigrini, G., et al., 1997. Los egresados de la UAM en el

mercado de trabajo. Investigacion evaluativa sobre la

calidad de la oferta de servicios educativos. Universidad

Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico.

Valenti Nigrini, G., Mungaray Lagarda, A. (Eds.), 1997. Polıticas

Publicas y Educacion Superior. Asociacion Nacional de

Universidades e Institutos de Educacion Superior, Mexico.

Varela Petito, G., 1988. La cultura polıtica de los academicos de

la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Estudios

Sociologicos 17, 371–403.

Varela Petito, G., 1996. Despues del 68. Respuestas de la

polıtica educativa a la crisis universitaria. Universidad

Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Varela Petito, G., 1997. La polıtica de la educacion superior en

la decada de los noventa: grandes esperanzas e ilusiones

perdidas. In: Valenti, N.G., Mungaray, L.A. (Eds.),

Polıticas Publicas y Educacion Superior. Asociacion Nacio-

nal de Universidades e Institutos de Educacion Superior,

Mexico, pp. 255–313.

Xanic, A., 2004. Universidad S.A. Expansion 897, 54–63.

Documents

The higher education system in Mexico at the threshold of change