UNIVERSITIES AND FIELDS OF STUDY IN ARGENTINA: A PUBLIC

PROPHE

THE PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Dedicated to Building Knowledge about Private Higher Education around the World

The Program for Research On Private Higher Education (PROPHE) seeks to build knowledge about private higher

education around the world. PROPHE focuses on discovery, analysis, and dissemination. PROPHE neither represents

nor promotes private higher education. Its main mission is scholarship, which, in turn, should inform public discussion

and policymaking. PROPHE’s Working Paper series is one vehicle to promote these goals.

A list of PROPHE working papers and currently published papers are available online at PROPHE website:

http://www.albany.edu/dept/eaps/prophe/

PROPHE Working Paper Series

WP No. 15

February 2010

MARCELO RABOSSI

Assistant Professor, School Of Government, Torcuato Di Tella University, Argentina

UNIVERSITIES AND FIELDS OF STUDY IN ARGENTINA:

A PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPARISON FROM THE SUPPLY

AND DEMAND SIDE

ABSTRACT

Private higher education literature recognizes large public-private differentiation in terms of field

of study. Relative to public counterparts, private universities tend to offer their services in fields

that require low initial investments and present at least relatively attractive internal private rates

of return. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to evaluate the university market in Argentina

to confirm if this pattern is still present or, due to political and market forces, for example, private-

public differences have tended to blur overtime. We study this dynamic from both the supply

(percentage of institutions offering a determined degree program) and the demand side

(percentage of students). Although important to assess public-private differentiation, the former

has not been the object of in-depth analysis in the literature. The demand side, much more

studied, is evaluated here through a longitudinal approach (1975-2006) to see if the public-private

distinction is now less fundamental. A main conclusion is that public universities have gotten

more and more into “private waters” while, when there is an opportunity, privates have

increased their presence in some fields that were once “public property”.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 2 of 20

INTRODUCTION

The most direct objective of this paper is to analyze the private and public university market in

Argentina in terms of field specialization (supply), and the distribution of students among

different fields of study (demand) at the undergraduate level

. Surely, the global private higher

education literature has repeatedly confirmed Levy’s (1986) initial finding that public and private

differences in terms of demand tend to be large and fundamental. Subsequent research

corroborated that Argentina was not an exception (García de Fanelli and Balán 1993). Also,

studies of Latin America have established that relative to public institutions, the private sector

concentrates in the social and humanities (Levy 1986; de Moura Castro and Navarro 1999; CINDA

2007). However, it is also true that public universities are changing in the distribution of its

students in terms of field of study. Levy (1986) already identified that public enrollments were

experiencing adjustments toward more traditional private fields. In Argentina, for example, as

Cosentino de Cohen (2003) noted that since the 1980’s, student enrollment in social and human

sciences in national (public) universities grew relative to medical and basic sciences

Continuation of such trends would bring a lesser public-private differentiation, particularly if

privates find an opportunity to offer their services in previously non-traditional private fields.

Using statistics provided by the Secretariat for University Policies (SPU), first, the

intention here is to evaluate public-private differentiation in terms of academic supply. By supply

we mean offerings. Here we will look at the organizational shape of an institution in terms of

available fields of study. Specifically, if the sector (private or public) has the infrastructure and

thus is ready to produce, independent of the production itself, chemists, meteorologists or, let’s

say, lawyers. This supply approach has not been the object of an in-depth analysis in the

literature, but is important in assessing public-private distinctions. Second, we will look at the

demand side, as gauged by enrollment by field, the conventional mode of analysis used in the

literature. In doing so, we also add a longitudinal dimension, to get beyond static public-private

differences and assess the evolution of enrollment in both sectors. The objective is to see if sectors

have tended to converge over time, thus reducing public-private differences.

Our data deal with the country’s universities, leaving aside the non-university side. The university sector

accounts for almost 70% of total higher education enrollment (INDEC 2001). In the non-university market,

the private side is well represented, accounting for 40% of all enrollees. In terms of fields of study, the sector

strongly specializes in education. Almost 53% of all students are trained as primary or secondary teachers.

However, here a public-private differentiation surges. More than 60% of public students are enrolled in

education. On the other hand, only 37% of enrollees in the private side pursue the same academic degree

(Sigal and Wentzel 2002).

In this work, the words public and national are used interchangeably. Except for one provincial university

(state), all public universities in Argentina are national institutions (federal).

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 3 of 20

In a basic economy, supply represents how much the market can offer of a certain good

or service. On the other hand, demand refers to the amount of that good or service that is desired

by consumers. Equilibrium is reached when the quantity demanded by consumers equals the

quantity offered by suppliers. Excess of supply occurs when the equilibrium price of the market

is less than the price that the good or service is supplied. For example, in the university market,

an institution can offer certain study programs that consumers are not interested to acquire, or

could consider them as pricy (above equilibrium)

. At that price, with scarce demand, some

suppliers will decide to withdraw from that market, or specifically not to enter, particularly

private providers. On the other hand, some public suppliers will stay even at this price. We must

consider that the state generally assumes certain responsibilities as, for example, be present in

certain fields of study even when demand for it is limited. Thus, without an economic incentive

to reduce the cost for attendance to stimulate the demand (i.e. scholarships), excess of supply

would remain. The consequence would be a more heterogeneous public provision, or supply, in

terms of study programs in comparison to the private sector. On the other hand, public-private

differentiation in terms of demand (student enrollment according to fields of study) would be

less clear. If this situation holds true for the Argentine case, we can expect a stronger intersectoral

differentiation in terms of supply than from the demand side. Operationally, supply in this work

is defined as the percentage of institutions in each sector that offers a determined study program.

Given that Argentine enrollment has significantly increased since the early 1980’s, student

demand for different study programs will be analyzed within a longitudinal approach. The

intention is to study the evolution of students among different fields of study since the mid 1970’s.

Thus, the main goal of this paper is to see if a decreasing public-private distinction has been taking

place during the last three decades of great growth in Argentina in terms of demand. Of special

interest will be to analyze if the conjunction of free market forces and public intervention that has

taken place in the university market since the mid 1980’s has affected students’ decision whether

to enroll in one or another discipline.

Of course we know that public-private differentiation goes beyond enrollment by fields

of study. For another thing, curricular differentiation also makes for public-private

distinctiveness. In this sense, we recognize some limitations of an approach that looks at

percentages of enrollments by field. On the other hand, given that the Argentine is a national

system, where diplomas’ validation is a prerogative of the National Ministry for Education, we

can speculate that programs of studies’ differentiation are, to some degree, limited. Homogeneity

in this case derives from a state that allows less autonomy to privates than to publics to define

A study program could be considered expensive even if direct cost to students is zero (no tuition costs).

According to the theory of human capital, individuals tend to invest time and money in education if the

present value of the expected benefits (labor market payoffs) outstrips the cost of attendance and forgone

earnings or opportunity cost.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 4 of 20

their own curriculum and structures

. Such a situation may arise when the state trusts more their

national institutions than the private counterparts (Levy 1999).

Section 1 presents a general overview about the evolution of the public and the private

university sector in Argentina. Specific attention will be paid to the period of the 1960’s-1990´s,

the time during which a series of particular public policies affected the development of the

university market. The case study per se is introduced in section 2, where we compare if public

and private universities specialize in different areas of study. Both sectors will be examined from

the supply and the demand side respectively. The former is intended to test public-private

differentiation in terms of service availability. Academic supply has been divided into 34

academic programs within 5 different fields of study. On the other hand, by analyzing each

market from the demand side within a longitudinal approach, we are evaluating public-private

enrollment overtime. The objective here is to find how each sector evolved in terms of student

enrollment. Specifically, we explore to see if both markets have tended to converge in terms of

study programs, thus reducing public-private differences. Given that classification of fields of

study provided by the Ministry for Education changes over time, it was not possible to break

fields of study down into 34 academic programs. Consequently, when enrollment was studied,

sciences have been dissected into four different fields and 15 academic careers. Levy (1986) found

that public-private differentiation tended to be more pronounced when fields of study were

desaggregated. However, in a longitudinal analysis, stronger validity is accomplished if variables

or observations to be compared are the same during the period under analysis (Krathwohl 1993).

Thus, we made a relative aggregation of data to keep panels in terms of field of study intact over

time. Final conclusions close this work.

1. THE UNIVERSITY MARKET IN ARGENTINA

The Private Sector: Private higher education in Argentina began late in comparison to other

university markets in the region

. But by the end of just the first decade, the 1960’s, Argentina had

a mature and dynamic sector. Capturing almost one every five university students, the private

university consolidated its presence. As the opening of the private sector was from the very

beginning a major public policy issue, though public control did not imply rational planning, the

Although no private university is allowed to open its doors without state permission, they are not granted

definitive authorization before they prove to be academically serious. After this period, that could last even

more than 10 years, private universities get more freedom to define their own curriculum.

The first private university in Argentina, the Pontifical Catholic University, opened its doors in 1959. In

comparison to Brazil, Mexico and Chile, as three of the most important systems in terms of student

enrollment, Argentina was preceded by 19, 25 and 71 years respectively in putting an end to the public

monopoly.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 5 of 20

expansion never took the state by surprise, as happened in many Latin American countries (e.g.

Mexico). However, in crucial respects, Argentine public policy measures were far from fostering

non-public alternatives.

Whereas private growth does not always come through explicit public help (Levy 2006),

Argentina offers a stark case of private development in the face of unfavorable public policies.

For example, open admission in national institutions implemented between 1973 and 1976, and

again since 1984 to today, has helped to channel the demand for university education toward

public institutions. As a consequence, the demand for private options suffered a deceleration.

This open policy, together with no public money available for students’ loans, at least for

undergraduate education, put a stop to a stronger private development.

Also, during the 1970’s and 1980´s direct public action conspired against the expansion of

the private market, at least when the sector is analyzed in terms of the opening of new institutions.

Specifically, no new private universities were legally allowed to open their doors during a span

of 16 years (1973 to 1989)

. Thus, a limited regulation during the 1960´s allowing a dynamic

private growth was followed by more public control hampering a stronger consolidation.

However, the 1990’s brought private universities another chance to reaffirm its presence.

Regarding the number of institutions, the sector grew vigorously, surpassing the number of

public universities. Not accidentally this period coincided with a pro-market reform centrally

operated from the Ministry for Education (ME). The passage of the Higher Education Law (LES)

in 1995 is the legal testimony of this aspiration, where the central authority gave enough room to

private ventures, promoting competition within the whole university market. Thus, during the

1990’s the number of private institutions almost doubled

Yet more freedom has been generally accompanied by more control. That is, the creation

of the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation (CONEAU) in 1996, an

independent public organism that works within the orbit of the ME, has strongly limited the

expansion of the private market. For understanding its role as a strict controller, enough will be

to say that since its creation, CONEAU has evaluated 88 private institutional projects. Only 22

percent of these presentations have received a favorable verdict, a figure that decreases to 13

percent if we include those universities that voluntary withdrew before getting the final decision.

In other words, only 11 institutions were allowed to function as accredited universities or

A governmental decree issued by the peronist government (1973-76) prohibited the creation of new

private universities (García de Fanelli and Balán 1994).

In 1989, the private market had 23 universities. At the end of the following decade there were 44

institutions (SPU 2006).

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 6 of 20

university institutes (CONEAU 2005)

. Thus, after a relatively “permissive” period of 5 years,

when public restrictions appeared to be less strict (1990-1995), the CONEAU imposed new

regulations limiting the expansion once again. In this sense, the action of CONEAU can be in part

portrayed as a kind of formal delayed regulation

Between 1990 and 1995, however, 22 new private universities opened their doors. Serious

entrepreneurs, foundations, non-university institutions, in general with previous academic

experience, were waiting for this opportunity, or lobbying for it. On average, the market

witnessed the appearance of good academic quality projects, within a mix of elite and serious

demand absorbing institutions

. With a growing private supply generating a new demand, many

investors perceived the opportunity and tried to enter to offer their services. Thus CONEAU acted

as an entry barrier, rejecting the opening of more than 70 new private universities.

In any case, the consequences of these changing policies limiting the consolidation of the

private sector surge clearly when the market is analyzed in terms of demand. Private impact is

limited in comparison to other countries in the region. For example, striking growth in Colombia,

Brazil and then in Chile, allowed the private sector to outnumber public enrollment. A 17.4

percent student enrollment share in 1970 in Argentina was followed by a 11.6 percent in 1975,

and again from 19.3 percent in 1983 -its highest proportion- to 12.7 percent in 1985. Currently, it

is slightly above 17 percent. With up and downs, present relative enrollment is in the same level

as 4 decades ago. And although we recognize that the private university has consolidated its

presence in terms of supply, with 58 of all 106 universities and university institutes, from the

demand side its performance has been less convincing.

The Public Sector: With a total of 47 national institutions, the public sector is dominated by the

University of Buenos Aires (UBA), a mega institution created in 1821. With 358,000

undergraduate students, currently this institution has 27 percent of all public enrollees. Except

for National University of Córdoba (UNC) and National University of La Plata (UNLP),

An extremely low proportion of full-time faculty members, a deficient research planning, libraries with

scarce or irrelevant bibliographic material, and a cash-flow plan denoting financial fragility are some of the

most common causes that CONEAU finds incompatible with lifting the barriers to allow new players in

the university market.

As Levy (2006) reveals, accreditation agencies often surge after the expansion takes the public sector by

surprise. The state reacts through delayed regulation to limit private growth or at least low quality growth.

Before the opening of CONEAU in 1996, public control through the Ministry for Education avoided the

creation of mediocre private universities, particularly if mediocre refers to “garage institutions”. The fact

that CONEAU did not force any private university to close down the doors to “clean” the market,

confirmed the effectiveness of the Ministry.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 7 of 20

institutions that enroll around 100,000 each, the rest are medium and small-size universities in

terms of number of students.

Decisive reforms took place during the last half of the past century altering the flows of

students. With periods of free and open admission, followed by others where quotas and also

tuition fees were charged, the national system can be portrayed as the sum of unconnected and

spasmodic movements. For example, with the idea of controlling the demand, the military junta

that took office in 1966 restricted the admission of new students by implementing entry

examinations (Cano 1985). Nevertheless, the democratic government elected in 1974 changed the

rules, stimulating the enrollment of new students. Entry examinations were suppressed and the

policy of open admission was adopted. In 1976, a new military junta overthrew the constitutional

government (Floria and García Belsunce 1988). As expected, policy was radically changed once

again. Entry examinations were implemented according to the career chosen by the student. The

measure contracted the demand for public education immediately, showing how political

decisions are effective to control the demand, at least in the short run (García de Fanelli 2005)

The number of admitted students was also regulated in relation to regional and national

priorities, availability of financial resources, and the equilibrium between the supply and demand

of vacancies (Ghioldi, Izcovich, and Armendáriz 1990). Also, in April 1981 the de facto government

introduced tuition fees in national universities, a policy instrument that had been abolished

during the government of President Juan Domingo Perón in 1949.

Another substantial adjustment took place in 1983, the year in which Argentina returned

to democracy through free presidential elections. Again an open admission policy was devised

to ensure that all high school graduates received university education, eliminating all entry

restrictions and student fees, procedure implemented in 1977 by the military junta. Regardless of

their academic competences, or the economic need to expand certain fields of study over others,

students had the chance to enter any national university, and to enroll in any academic career of

their wish. As expected, enrollment in national universities grew strongly and consistently, with

many students switching from private to public institutions. As a consequence, the number of

enrollees in private institutions decreased by 7.6 and 6.2 percent in 1985 and 1986 respectively

(SPU 1999). Thus, Argentina became one of the very few Latin American countries to witness a

decline in the private share of enrollment (Levy forthcoming). With small differences --entry

examinations are administered to limit the expansion of some careers--, the spirit of this free-for-

all model is what currently determines the expansion of the public market.

In the long run, the demand for higher education is fundamentally determined by the evolution of the

number of secondary school graduates, for example, where political decisions are less effective.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 8 of 20

2. STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY FIELD OF STUDY: A DYNAMIC COMPARISON

The supply side: Although public-private distinction in terms of field of study has been generally

studied from the demand side, as the percentage of students enrolled in each market, for having

a better and more comprehensive perspective about each sector own particularity we will also

need to analyze the supply side. Specifically, this supply means the existence of a field within a

sector. Previous research found that only two of more than twenty private universities in

Argentina offered ten or more fields of study (Levy 1986). Moreover, privates concentrated in less

expensive fields, leaving it to the public sector the continued responsibility of satisfying the

demand for the most expensive programs (e.g., medicine and exact and natural sciences).

Cost and the lack of a strong demand are two main factors that usually prevent private

institutions to expand their academic supply toward less traditional fields, even if they are so

disposed. This particularity did not generally inhibit public institutions to be present with a more

heterogeneous academic offer. Consequently, a strong public-private differentiation in terms of

supply should unsurprise. Furthermore, the past also determines current situations. Given that

the State was present long before the existence of a private offer, it assumed certain

responsibilities in the design of a more heterogeneous supply, adding more to the intersectoral

distinction in terms of available fields of study (Levy 1986).

Table 1 strongly sustains what has long been established for Latin America: sharp public-

private differences, particularly in applied and basic sciences

. A stark differentiation is shown

in applied sciences when the market is analyzed in terms of the existence of that field.

We found that private supply is relatively limited: biochemistry and pharmacy, for

example, or non existent: astronomy, geology, statistics and meteorology. However, public

supply is also quite limited in astronomy and meteorology (only 7 and 2 percent of all public

universities offer these fields). As expected, an interesting difference is revealed in engineering.

Although 28 percent of private institutions offer a degree in this field of study, 84 percent of all

public institutions do. The substantial public edge in basic sciences is not surprising, particularly

in physics and mathematics. Only in biology we note a strong private presence (32 percent),

It is important to note that classification of fields of study varies among nations. In other words, there is

no standard categorization. Some countries are much more generic than others. For example, Colombia

groups their programs of study into a larger number of areas than do Mexico or Brazil (UNESCO 1994). In

our case, we followed the Ministry for Education’s classification, grouping a total of 34 study programs

within 5 different sciences.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 9 of 20

although differentiation is still considerable (70 percent of public universities offer a degree in

this field).

Table 1. Academic Supply in Public and Private Universities and University

Institutes by Field of Study (2006)

Science

Number of Institutions

Offering the Degree

In Percentage of Total

Institutions

Public

Private

Public

Private

Applied

Architecture

41%

46%

Astronomy

Biochemistry & Pharmacy

32%

14%

Agricultural & Animal Sciences

70%

20%

Geology

39%

Statistics

14%

Industry

80%

44%

Systems

84%

62%

Engineering

84%

28%

Meteorology

Other Applied Sciences

Basic

Biology

70%

32%

Physics

52%

Mathematics

66%

Chemistry

57%

14%

Health

Medicine

27%

34%

Dentistry

18%

10%

Allied health

75%

48%

Public Health

16%

Veterinary

23%

Humanities

Archeology

Arts

52%

30%

Education

84%

58%

Philosophy

45%

20%

History

61%

10%

Letters and Language

70%

30%

Psychology

23%

58%

Theology

14%

Social

Communicational Sciences

75%

58%

Political Science

43%

42%

Geography

70%

44%

Law

59%

62%

Economy & Administration

98%

84%

Institutional Relations

18%

38%

Sociology & Anthropology

73%

26%

Other Social Sciences

16%

Source: Secretariat for University Policies (SPU) 2006; and own calculations.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 10 of 20

A less compelling differentiation is present in health sciences. The private edge in

medicine, particularly surprising, shows the rapid expansion of private medical schools during

the last decade, particularly since the mid 1990’s. Also, public-private distinction is relatively

limited in dentistry and allied health. Only public health and veterinary show a clear public

advantage. Although it is believed that private institutions are more likely to add market

diversity, it is also true that private universities tend to duplicate public programs (Teixeira and

Amaral 2001). Thus, health science is a good case to show that the stark public-private

differentiation found in Levy (1986) was followed by some blurring over time. Privates expand

to more expensive fields, as medicine and allied health, as long as they offer good payoffs to their

graduates.

Humanities reveal a public dominance, although not nearly as clear as in basic sciences.

Although an undisputable public edge in education contributes to a visible intersectoral

differentiation, the private sector is also strongly represented (58 percent). The widest distinction

is present in history, and letters and language. Here the public sector rules. We found no private

offer in archeology even though the public sector presence is limited (3 out of 44 national

institutions offer this degree). In this case, archeology presents a good case to sustain that there

is no private presence when demand is limited. On the other hand, psychology shows a private

lead, more than doubling the public supply (58 vs. 23 percent), presenting evidence that non-

public universities are alert to market demand when there are labor market payoffs.

On the other hand, and less surprising, is that the indisputable public edge in terms of

supply in the hard sciences, for example, presents some limitation in the social sciences. As

previous research shows (Levy 1986), the private sector is strongly present in inexpensive fields,

particularly in the social sciences, and specifically in commercial studies. However, we also found

that public supply is active in less expensive fields, blurring private-public differences in terms

of field availability. Although the public sector shows a stronger supply in communicational

sciences and geography, the private sector is also convincingly present (58 and 44 percent

respectively). On the other hand, private-public distinction blurs in political sciences, law, and

economy and administration. Public and private presence in these fields of study is extensive,

particularly in the latter. Only sociology and anthropology present an undisputable public edge

though, with a clear private supply (26 percent of privates vs. 73 percent of publics). The opposite

is true in institutional relations, where private dominates (18 percent publics vs. 38 percent

privates). In sum, a strong private presence is accompanied by a compelling public supply in all

study programs in the social sciences. Evidently, what the study of public-private differences in

terms of supply brings is that distinction is more the consequence of a weak private presence in

basic and applied sciences, than the absence of a public alternative in more traditional private

fields (human and social sciences).

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 11 of 20

The demand side: Public-private enrollment in terms of field of study has been largely studied

showing that differences are considerable (Levy, 1986; de Moura Castro and Navarro 1999).

Oriented to those less expensive fields of study, private enrollment in social and humanities

dominates. On the other hand, Cosentino de Cohen (2003) showed that since the 1980’s, students

in social and human careers in public universities in Argentina are growing more rapidly than in

other fields of study. The findings show that in 1980, students in social and human programs in

public universities accounted for 40 percent of total public enrollment. By 1997, students in both

these sciences reached 53 percent. Under this dynamic, it is possible to infer that public

institutions began to imitate privates, concentrating in those fields that are least expensive to

teach. The “imitation” need not imply design, but can be the consequence of an increasingly

similar response to demand, particularly in the face of an open admission system. Thus, if this

pattern has continued since the mid-1990’s, public-private distinction in terms of enrollment

would be weakening, particularly if private institutions found in non traditional areas,

particularly in health sciences, sector that presents a large increase in terms of supply, a particular

niche to offer their services. The objective is to see if both sectors have tended, or not, to converge

over time thus weakening private-public differentiation.

When sciences are categorized as four different groups (applied and basic, health, human,

and social), Table 2 shows a pattern that emerges in both periods (1986-1996 and 1996-2006).

Table 2. Student Enrollment in Public Universities and University Institutes by Field

of Study (1986-2006)

Science

1986

1996

2006

Applied and Basic

236,428

40.6

267,633

32.9

364,173

27.9

Agricultural & Animal Sciences

26,685

4.6

28,644

3.5

32,399

2.5

Architecture

29,104

5.0

48,329

5.9

83,512

6.4

Engineering, Systems & Industry

106,438

18.3

115,626

14.2

172,764

13.2

Exact & Natural Sciences

44,539

7.7

44,331

5.5

38,961

3.0

Biochemistry, Pharmacy &

Chemistry

29,662

5.1

30,703

3.8

36,537

2.8

Health

74,877

12.9

112,994

13.9

175,806

13.5

Medicine

51,229

8.8

59,545

7.3

62,397

4.8

Dentistry

12,137

2.1

20,397

2.5

18,015

1.4

Veterinary & Allied Health

8,202

1.4

20,041

2.5

92,224

7.3

Humanities

74,768

12.9

108,480

13.4

216,841

16.6

Letters, Language & Philosophy

12,615

2.2

12,529

1.5

41,652

3.2

Education

14,335

2.5

21,051

2.6

50,966

3.9

Arts

37,669

6.5

14,506

1.8

44,003

3.4

Other Humanities

10,149

1.7

60,394

7.4

80,220

6.2

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 12 of 20

Table 2. Student Enrollment in Public Universities and University Institutes by Field of

Study (1986-2006) (Cont’d)

Science

1986

1996

2006

Social

195,740

33.6

323,201

39.8

547,153

42.0

Communication, Administration &

Economics

89,701

15.4

153,738

18.9

310,543

23.8

Law & Political Sciences

87,224

15.0

117,346

14.4

174,942

13.4

Other Social Sciences

18,815

3.2

52,117

6.4

61,668

4.7

Total

581,813

100

812,308

100

1,303,973

100

Source: SPU (1997); SPU (2006); and own calculations.

For example, public enrollment shares in basic and applied decreases during 1986-1996, behavior

that repeats during the following decade. Particularly important is the relative reduction in the

proportion of students in engineering, systems and industry (from 18.3 to 13.2 percent), and in

the exact and natural sciences (from 7.7 to 3.0 percent). Architecture is the only field that presents

a relative increase (from 5.0 to 6.4 percent). On the other hand, as an aggregate field of study,

health remained relatively stable during both periods. However, when this group is dissected

into three different fields, we find a different distribution of students among careers. For example,

enrollment in medicine grew at a slow rate, losing its edge to allied health.

Within this redistribution of students among fields, we can conclude that human and

social were the main gainers within the public sector. During 1986-1996 particularly important

was the increase of enrollees in “other humanities”, a subgroup involving psychology and history

among others fields of study. Education, and letters, language and philosophy increased their

presence, particularly during 1996-2006. Arts also recaptured part of their students after a strong

decrease during 1986-1996. On the other hand, enrollment in the social sciences presents a clearer

pattern, now forming the dominant group. Specifically, the number of students in administration

and economics show a significant increase while the percentage of students in law and political

sciences presents a more stable pattern during both periods.

Unfortunately, we did not find specific data on 1986 private enrollment for breaking fields

of study down into same specialties as we did with the public sector (See Table 3). However, we

used data on private enrollment from Levy 1986. And although the figures refer to 1977, we

consider them also as a good proxy for 1986

We can speculate that enrollment by field of study did not fundamentally change within these years

given that no new private university was allowed to open their doors during the period. Then, given the

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 13 of 20

Table 3. Student Enrollment in Private Universities and University Institutes by Field of

Study (1977-2006)

Science

1977

(1)

1996

2006

Applied and Basic

14,500

23.0

27,896

20.2

50,421

18.0

Agricultural & Animal Sciences

(2)

1,842

2.9

1,129

0.8

2,449

0.9

Architecture

4,564

7.2

7,428

5.4

15,033

5.4

Engineering, Systems & Industry

4,372

6.9

15,356

11.1

26,210

9.4

Exact & Natural Sciences

2,003

3.2

579

0.4

2,407

0.9

Biochemistry, Pharmacy &

Chemistry

1,719

2.7

3,404

2.5

4,322

1.5

Health

637

1.0

4,857

3.5

32,236

11.5

Medicine

637

1.0

1,954

1.4

8,761

3.1

Dentistry

234

0.2

2,119

0.8

Veterinary

(2)

n.a.

350

0.3

Allied Health

n.a.

2,319

1.7

21,356

7.6

Humanities

13,029

20.6

15,421

11.2

40,412

14.5

Letters, Language & Philosophy

2,528

4.0

2,669

1.9

4,075

1.5

Education

2,873

(3)

4.5

4,101

3.0

11,201

4.0

Arts

418

0.7

1,021

0.7

3,962

1.4

Psychology

n.a.

7,004

5.1

19,428

7.0

Other Humanities

7,210

11.4

626

0.5

1,746

0.6

Social

35,008

55.4

90,128

65.2

156,306

55.9

Economy & Administration

17,544

27.8

45,546

32.9

70,385

25.2

Communication & Human Relations

n.a.

10,241

7.4

19,080

6.8

Law

14,190

22.5

27,266

19.7

51,185

18.3

Political Sciences

n.a.

2,771

2.0

5,330

1.9

Other Social Sciences

3,274

5.2

4,304

3.1

10,326

3.7

Total

63,174

100.0

138,302

100.0

279,375

100.0

Notes: (1) Own estimations based on Levy 1986.

(2) In 1977, veterinary is included in agricultural and animal sciences.

(3) Own estimation given that data for 1977 included students enrolled in non-university institutions.

Source: Levy 1986; SPU 2006.

Data on enrollment’s dynamic in the private market confirms a different pattern from the one

observed in the public system. Although in basic and applied sciences a relative decrease in the

private sector is present in both periods (from 23.0 to 20.2 to 18.0 percent), it is not as clear as what

happened in the national university. What in fact shows a stark contrast with the public sector is

lack of new alternatives, it is possible to hypothesize that changes in relative enrollment according to study

programs were limited.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 14 of 20

the evolution found in health sciences. The number of students has grown robustly. Currently it

explains 11.5 percent of all private enrollments (was only 1.0 percent in 1977 and 3.5 percent in

1996). And although allied health programs present the highest increase during the last period

(1996-2006), as in the public sector, we cannot underestimate the relative contribution of

medicine, historically an area traditionally dominated by the national university. This singular

expansion matches with the opening of several university institutes in the field of medicine that

took place since the mid 1990’s.

Opposite to what happened in applied and basic (decrease), and health sciences (increase),

a fluctuation pattern is observed in human and social sciences as an aggregate group. A

significant change is the decrease in the relative enrollment in letters, language and philosophy

(4.0 to 1.5 percent from 1977 to 2006). On the other hand, psychology, historically a discipline

highly popular among students, increases its contribution in almost 2 percentage points during

the last period (5.1 to 7.0 percent). This career currently explains almost half of total enrollment

in the human fields.

After an expansion during the first period (1977-1996), basically explained by economy

and administration, a relative contraction has taken place in the social sciences, again described

by a relative fall of students in administration and economics (from 32.9 in 1996 to 25.2 percent in

2006). However, programs in the social field still keep their predominance with more than half of

all students in the private market. Law, another highly demanded field of study, remains as more

stable, but within a decreasing pattern (from 22.5 to 19.7 to 18.3 percent). These figures still

confirm that privates specialized in less expensive niches. However, the longitudinal analysis

shows that the contribution of these careers has decreased during the last decades. In 1977 and

1996 more than half the entire private sector was concentrated in these two fields of study (50.3

and 52.6 percent respectively, and now 43.5 percent).

The impression that the intersectoral contrast is now less marked is evident, particularly

when both sectors are compared through a longer time series (1975-2006). Although we recognize

that field aggregation tends to underestimate intersectoral differentiation, we cannot deny that

the private-public gap has decreased over time (See Table 4).

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 15 of 20

Table 4. Student Enrollment in Public and Private Universities and University

Institutes by Field of Study (1975-2006)

Science

Public

Private

1975

2006

Variation*

1975

2006

Variation*

Basic & Applied

37.7%

28.0%

-9.7

21.8%

18.0%

-3.8

Health

17.4%

13.5%

-3.9

2.3%

11.5%

9.2

Humanities

11.6%

16.6%

5.0

15.5%

14.5%

-1.0

Social

33.3%

42.0%

8.7

60.5%

55.5%

-5.0

Total

481,155

1,303,973

55,804

279,375

Percentage

89.6%

82.4%

10,4%

17,6%

* In percentage points

Source: Levy 1986; SPU 2006; and own calculations.

A common pattern in both sectors is that relative enrollment in basic and applied has decreased,

but the rest of sciences present opposite movements. Specifically, when relative enrollment in one

sector increases, the other market moves in the opposite direction. Thus, intersectoral gaps have

diminished, even in basic and applied (as public enrollment decreased more than in private

institutions). Most important, these movements have changed the picture, particularly in the

public sector. For example, as a consequence of a 9.7 percentage points relative enrollment

decrease, basic and applied sciences have lost the leadership to the social sciences. The latter

increases 8.7 percentage points during the period and now accounts for 42.0 percent of public

enrollment. Health, which was third in 1975 (17.4 percent), is now fourth after human (16.6

percent in 2006).

On the other hand, except for health, changes in the private sector were less striking. The

relative decrease in basic and applied is not unexpected (3.8 percentage points), but part of a trend

that is affecting the whole university system. Quite the contrary, and thus more surprising, is the

relative decrease of students in the social sciences (5.0 percentage points) and especially the strong

increase in the medical sciences (9.2 percentage points). However, in contrast to what happened

in the public sector, when sciences are ranked according to the number of students, we found no

changes during the period 1975-2006. The predominance of students in social is still evident,

although not as vigorous as three decades ago, followed by basic and applied sciences, human,

and health.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 16 of 20

CONCLUSIONS

When public-private differentiation was studied from the supply side, it remains evident that

relative to private institutions, national universities specialized in applied and basic sciences. In

fact private universities were absent in certain programs when the number of students enrolled

in the whole market (i.e. astronomy, statistics) was below a certain threshold (in this case, less

than 3,000 students)

. Thus, the figures confirm that privates are ready to offer their services

when there is a strong demand to justify its presence. On the other hand, although the number of

students enrolled in certain areas is almost insignificant (i.e. only 236 in meteorology), the state is

nonetheless present to satisfy the demand with at least one institution. Then, public-private

differentiation in basic and applied sciences is more the consequence of a “social” responsibility

(the state must be present when there are social externalities) than the simple response to the

market’s law.

Health science presents a different dynamic, where, surprisingly, the private sector grew

vigorously. We can speculate that the increase in the number of private schools of medicine is the

consequence of three main reasons. First, in comparison to public universities, private institutions

in general offer their enrollees a better organized study plan, allowing students to finish their

studies in a shorter time period. Second, there is a general perception by some students that an

overcrowded and thus underfunded UBA is losing part of its former prestige (within a kind of

open admission system, UBA enrolls almost 50 percent of all public students). Then, for some

students, a private option surges as a reasonable substitute. On the other hand, public schools of

medicine with good reputation (i.e. National University of La Plata and National University of

Córdoba) decided to put a stop to unrestricted admission policies to control its quality

. These

dynamics show how administrative mismanagement (deficiencies in the articulation of courses

in public institutions can prevent students from advancing more rapidly in their careers), a laissez

faire policy (open admission), and public intervention by limiting access (supply restriction), can

converge to give private institutions an opportunity to expand beyond their traditional niches.

Thus, public-private differentiation in this field of study tended to blur.

On the other hand, public-private distinction in terms of supply is more evident in the

human than in the social sciences— a finding original for the private higher education literature.

Again, we can anticipate less differentiation in those areas where the market offers good payoffs

to their graduates. Except for education and psychology, two highly demanded degrees in the

An exception would be geology. Although the public sector enrolled more than 3,000 students, there is

no private offer to satisfy this demand.

On the other hand, since 2008, the National University of Rosario, the other big public school of medicine,

decided to eliminate all kind of entry barriers.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 17 of 20

humanities, the social sciences presents the most marketable careers. Thus, a strong private

presence generates a less clear public-private distinction. This dynamics can be logically applied

to the rest of the sciences. In other words, what makes for public-private differentiation in terms

of supply is the absence of a private option, but not the lack of public presence.

A first interpretation about the movement of students in each sector and within sciences

supports the idea that the blurring of public-private differentiation in terms of student enrollment

(demand) is more the consequence of a public university repositioning into private waters than

the opposite movement, although privates are also increasing their presence in some fields that

were once “public property”. This confirms what was already established by Levy (1986), with

public institutions getting more and more into less expensive fields. The predominance of

students in social sciences is not anymore a simple private characteristic but increasingly a public

reality too. As Table 2 showed, the exact and natural sciences in the national university, a “natural

monopoly” of public systems, are losing students, and not only in relative terms (7.7 percent in

1986 vs. 3.0 in 2006), but even in absolute numbers (44,539 vs. 38,961 in 1986 and 2006

respectively). And although public universities still keep a quasi-monopolistic position in the

production of physics or chemists, for example, the numbers are so small that the impact in the

national system is almost insignificant

The open admission system in public institutions generated a massive entrance of

students into the most profitable and “easier” careers

. Thus, the absence of the state or university

policies limiting the overabundance of enrollees in the social sciences introduced market

dynamics into public settings. By lifting all kinds of entry barriers, now only the demand

determines the final equilibrium in terms of students’ distribution according to fields of study. In

other words, the public is the main “demand-absorber”

. Then, diminished intersectoral

distinctiveness along the years is the consequence of both sectors (public-private) defining part

of the distribution of its students within a similar rule: market force.

On the other hand, public intervention in the private sector restricted the expansion of a

more heterogeneous non-public demand. A strict early control from the outset (1959), followed

Although the national system enrolls more than 1 million students, in 2005 it only produced 1,934

graduates in the basic sciences (996 biologists, 554 chemists, 227 mathematicians, and only 137 graduates

in physics) (SPU 2006).

Although during the last years the labor market increased its demand for engineers, students prefer to

enroll in those careers that, at first glance, are “easier” to complete.

By restricting the expansion of the private sector, more so than in other large Latin American countries,

the state implicitly conferred on public universities the function of absorbing the increasing demand for

university education.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 18 of 20

by a sort of delayed regulation restricting the opening of new private institutions (1974-1989),

culminated with more public regulation through CONEAU (1996). This kind of market

intervention allowed scarce opportunity for “fly-by-night” private institutions of the sort

rampant in much of Latin America. In other words, the private sector did not have the chance of

developing a stronger demand absorbing subsystem to specialize even more into the social fields.

The “reaction” to these public rules was the appearance of academic projects less inclined to

strongly specialized only in the least expensive areas of study.

Although more analysis remains to be done to identify from a theoretical perspective

these patterns of diminishing public-private differentiation, we can speculate that the consumer

choice theory, generally applied to understand the human behavior before the absence or weak

public regulations, is a good approach to explain why the national university has adopted private

tendencies when deciding its recruiting strategies. Specifically, before the absence of any

mechanism to distribute the demand among different study programs, students have the chance

to enroll in any academic career of their wish. Then, the market coordinates the enrollment in

public settings. On the other hand, the relative decreasing expansion of students in the social

fields in non-public universities could be understood through a coercive isomorphic perspective

(state regulation), which in the end is aimed to limit privates to exclusively react to market signals.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 19 of 20

REFERENCES

Balán, Jorge, and García de Fanelli, Ana. 1993. El Sector Privado de la Educación Superior: Políticas

Públicas y sus Resultados Recientes en Cinco Países de América Latina. Documento CEDES/3.

Serie Educación Superior. Buenos Aires: CEDES.

Cano, Daniel. 1985. La Educación Superior en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Facultad Latinoamericana

de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO).

Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo. 2007. Educación Superior en Iberoamericana: Informe 2007.

Santiago de Chile: CINDA.

Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria. 2005. Memorias Anuales,

http://www.coneau.gov.ar (accessed, November 20, 2008).

Cosentino de Cohen, Clemencia. 2003. Diversification in Argentine higher education: Dimensions

and impact of private sector growth. Higher Education 46 (1):1-35.

de Moura Castro, Claudio, and Navarro, Juan Carlos. 1999. Will the invisible hand fix Latin

America private higher education? In Private Prometheus: Private higher education and

development in the 21

Century, 51-72. Edited by Philip Altbach. Boston: Center for

International Higher education, School of Education, Boston College.

Floria, Carlos, and García Belsunce, César. 1988. Historia Política de la Argentina Contemporánea:

1880-1983. Buenos Aires: Alianza Editorial, S.A.

García de Fanelli, Ana. 2005. Universidad, Organización e Incentivos: Desafíos de la Política de

Financiamiento Frente a la Complejidad Institucional. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila.

García de Fanelli, Ana and Balán, Jorge. 1994. Expansión de la Oferta Universitaria: Nuevas

Instituciones, Nuevos Programas. Documento CEDES/106. Serie Educación Superior.

Buenos Aires: CEDES.

Ghioldi. Susana, Izcovich, Sara, and Armendáriz, Elena. 1990. El Ingreso en la Universidad. Buenos

Aires: Fundación Arturo Illia para la Democracia y la Paz.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos de la República Argentina. 2001. Censo 2001,

http://www.indec.gov.ar/webcenso/index.asp (accessed July, 16, 2009).

Krathwohl, David. 1993. Methods of Educational and Social Science Research. White Plains, NY:

Longman.

Levy, Daniel. 1986. Higher Education and the State in Latin America: Private Challenges to Public

Dominance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Universities and Fields of Study in Argentina [PROPHE WP No.15]

Page 20 of 20

---------. 1999. When private higher education does not bring organizational diversity: Argentina,

China and Hungary. In Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the

Century, 17-49. Edited by Philip Altbach. Boston: Center for International Higher

education, School of Education, Boston College.

---------. 2006. The unanticipated explosion: Private higher education's global surge. Comparative

Education Review 50 (2): 217-240.

---------. Forthcoming. The decline of private higher education? Working Paper in progress.

Secretariat for Universities Policies. Anuario 1997 de Estadísticas Universitarias. Buenos Aires: SPU.

---------. 2006. Anuario 2006 de Estadísticas Universitarias, http://www.spu.ar/home (accessed

October, 20, 2008).

Sigal, Victor and Wentzel, Claudia. 2002. Aspectos de la Educación Superior No Universitaria. La

Formación Técnico Profesional: Situación Nacional y Experiencias Internacionales. Documento

de Investigación # 72. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo.

Teixeira, Pedro and Amaral, Alberto. 2001. Private higher education and diversity: An

exploratory survey”. Higher Education Quarterly, 55 (4): 359-395.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1994. Comparative Study between

the Fields of Study of Higher education in Latin America and the International Standard

Classification of Education (ISCED), http://portal.unesco. org/geography/es/ev.php

(accessed, February 17, 2009).