4 ms·

I'd like to add that right now an even more important discussion in Chile is about the quality of higher education. After the educational laws were modified in

I'd like to add that right now an even more important discussion in Chile is about the quality of higher education. After the educational laws were modified in the 1980s in order to allow the existence of private universities and technical institutes, many for-profit institutions appeared, even though educational profit is forbidden (institutes found obscure ways to achieve this). A direct consequence of those for-profit institutions was a constant decrease in the quality of higher education, at expenses of overcrowding classrooms or hiring bad professors. People against this new reform argues that government's money should be expended first by fixing the bad-quality the educational system has, and after that is solved, to fund higher education students.

nico 11y ago
It doesn't really make sense to forbid profit in education (at least the way the Chilean government does it). The best universities in the world make a lot of money (e.g. Harvard, MIT, Stanford). Opening the educational market should create competition and drive quality up. Of course the market should be regulated, but forbidding profit is not really the way to go.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  There is a huge difference between "universities with a lot of money" like Harvard and for-profit universities like Corinthian College.
  - nico 11y ago
    You are totally right. And universities like Harvard would not be allowed to exist/operate under Chilean law.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  There's a fundamental mismatch between the claim you're making and the evidence you're presenting in support of that claim.
- MrGando 11y ago
  You are not very smart sir. Stanford, MIT, they re-invest their utilities in their infrastructure. And that, is allowed in Chile. You can have a private Universtiy, but to be a real Universtiy, the money should be re-invested in the institution. (That's the ideal)
  - nico 11y ago
    Not sure how me not being smart is relevant to the discussion. I would say you are not very polite, however that still doesn't add to the discussion here. The important thing is that even though universities are allowed to invest in infrastructure, they are not allowed to re-invest any of their donations (donations law: http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionsnac/normativa/Ley_18681.pdf http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionsnac/normativa/Le...). Top (and rich) universities, like Harvard, MIT, etc, have an endowment which invests donations (and pretty much most of their money), in companies and funds, which would not be allowed under Chilean law. Additionally, I would argue the idea is not to re-invest in the institution, but to invest the university money in a way that is financially sustainable and in line with the university goals. Spending all the money on infrastructure might not be the best way to achieve that.
vpeters25 11y ago
Private universities in Chile devised tactics inspired on Hollywood accounting to extract profits: for example they don't own the buildings and pay hefty rents to landlords who are shell corporations of the owners.

nico 11y ago

It doesn't really make sense to forbid profit in education (at least the way the Chilean government does it). The best universities in the world make a lot of money (e.g. Harvard, MIT, Stanford). Opening the educational market should create competition and drive quality up. Of course the market should be regulated, but forbidding profit is not really the way to go.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
There is a huge difference between "universities with a lot of money" like Harvard and for-profit universities like Corinthian College.
- nico 11y ago
  You are totally right. And universities like Harvard would not be allowed to exist/operate under Chilean law.
nmrm2 11y ago
There's a fundamental mismatch between the claim you're making and the evidence you're presenting in support of that claim.
MrGando 11y ago
You are not very smart sir. Stanford, MIT, they re-invest their utilities in their infrastructure. And that, is allowed in Chile. You can have a private Universtiy, but to be a real Universtiy, the money should be re-invested in the institution. (That's the ideal)
- nico 11y ago
  Not sure how me not being smart is relevant to the discussion. I would say you are not very polite, however that still doesn't add to the discussion here. The important thing is that even though universities are allowed to invest in infrastructure, they are not allowed to re-invest any of their donations (donations law: http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionsnac/normativa/Ley_18681.pdf http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionsnac/normativa/Le...). Top (and rich) universities, like Harvard, MIT, etc, have an endowment which invests donations (and pretty much most of their money), in companies and funds, which would not be allowed under Chilean law. Additionally, I would argue the idea is not to re-invest in the institution, but to invest the university money in a way that is financially sustainable and in line with the university goals. Spending all the money on infrastructure might not be the best way to achieve that.

vpeters25 11y ago

Private universities in Chile devised tactics inspired on Hollywood accounting to extract profits: for example they don't own the buildings and pay hefty rents to landlords who are shell corporations of the owners.