End of paid public higher education in Chile, why the silence?

Just over two months ago, a trivial fact in itself became big news. The fact was the delivery of a report commissioned by the federal government, a “fair adjustment” proposed by the World Bank. Among others, an adjustment widely publicized by the major media was the end of free public higher education in Brazil[I]. The repercussion was enormous, using successful examples in this sense, such as that of England. Wide publicity did not bring together the “other side”, the contradictory. Criticism of this proposal appeared in vehicles with lower penetration and, in part, through social networks. Once these poles were formed, a public debate did not exactly take place, and no rejoinders appeared to provoke repositioning or deepen arguments. Polarizations without the necessary qualified confrontation are common and a specific case was analyzed very clearly and will be useful to understand the question in the title: the (mis)information about a missile attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014. The analysis, both from press coverage on one side and omission on the other, regarding the repercussion on social media, is by Gilat Lotan from New York University[II]. It is worth looking at the image of the Twitter response network about this fact from a Haaretz.com Twit. It is possible to see that the “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestine” Twitter communities practically do not connect: they are polarized, but each one is not interested in the other side of the story. One of the “eyes” – as the highlighted phrases of an article are called – in Lotan’s text is a worthy candidate for an epigraph: “we are not seeing different points of view but more of the same”. A subtitle is also suggestive: “the Media builds reality”.

As for the major media outlets, Lotan noted that portals from one of the poles clearly announced the incident, while those from the other pole made little mention of it. This is very reminiscent of the case from a few days ago. In the aftermath of the debate (which ended up not existing) following the World Bank report, it would be important to have a more in-depth analysis of the reality in countries where public higher education is paid for, such as the United States or England[III] and, closer to here, Chile. In this context, it was almost only by chance that we learned that “Chile's congress approved a law on free higher education” on January 24th (headline of the eldiario.es[IV]). To get to this article via Google, I first went through a small note Science Journal from SBPC and through the blog do Freitas[IN], which displays the link to the article in the Education Letter, the only media outlet that appears to have reported the news here. So we have a report that proposes something (paid public higher education) widely publicized and an important fact, but in the opposite direction (end of paid public education in a neighboring country), which was obliterated. Remembering Lotan's text: does the media construct reality?

Returning to the main fact, what is the news? The Chamber of Deputies approved the higher education law with 102 votes and two abstentions, which makes higher education universal and introduces other reforms into a system in force since the Pinochet dictatorship. The plan has been around for some time and began to be implemented in 2016[YOU] under criticism from different points of the political spectrum. What is common in several of the narratives is the high cost of the system that now finally has the legal framework for its change: tuition fees at Chilean universities are among the most expensive in the world in terms of purchasing power parity[VII]. This model, which is now being reformed, was correlated with a huge expansion of higher education, but relieving the State at the cost of burdening families and students. In an unsustainable way. The student protests in Chile in 2006 and 2011 are known, the latter having motivated the reform in question.

Understanding an education system in another country is not a quick and simple task, but it is essential for a qualified discussion. Taking just one or another aspect in isolation is simply an example of what has already been baptized as sincericide[VIII]. What must be offered, therefore, is access to different narratives. Here I presented some and I also add the one by J. Salvador Peralta, published on the portal Times Higher Education[IX] (click below) in July last year, that is, in the middle of the debate on the law that was approved practically unanimously months later.

When considering examples from anywhere, we need to look at these experiences over time as a whole, because only then can we realize that what is presented by some as a 'magical' (and tragic) solution ended up in a farce and needed be replaced. I invite everyone to follow the development of free public education in Chile. I root for him, as Peralta warns that the reform would be doomed for being too good. I also hope that we have more access to information about this, without data manipulations, such as those recently confessed by the World Bank[X].