Colombia is one of the world’s most interesting higher education systems. With a roughly equal mix of public and private provision, it has long had to contend with issues like quality assurance and student assistance. And as a developing country, it’s always needed to balance the desire to expand its higher education system with the many competing demands on public funds.
Colombia’s also in the midst of a very contentious election. Last weekend, just after this podcast was recorded, the left-wing candidate, Iván Cepeda, clearly positioned as the heir to the legacy of current President Gustavo Petro, came second in the first round of voting to a fiercely right-wing candidate, Abelardo de la Espriella. Petro’s legacy is clearly under threat when the second round happens on June 21.
That legacy, while mixed, has a lot going for it. Under President Petro, public funding of higher education increased substantially, and access and affordability have become central political priorities. Yet despite the influx of new money, many institutions remain under financial strain. Questions persist about how funding is allocated, and relations between the government and parts of the sector, particularly with private universities, have often been tense.
Returning to the show today to discuss all of this is Javier Botero. Javier is a former vice minister of higher education in Colombia and one of the country’s most knowledgeable observers of higher education policy.
We talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Petro’s reforms and what higher education might look like after this year’s presidential election. But we also get into some details about some of the always-interesting day-to-day policymaking in Colombia, including new policies around funding, entrance examinations, and the very odd controversy surrounding the leadership of the National University of Colombia.
It’s an all-around great episode. And so, without further ado, let’s hand things over to Javier.
The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 4.34 | “Not Even as a Doorman”: Politics and Universities in Colombia
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Javier, thanks so much for joining us. I want to start with the question that’s been overarching higher education in Colombia for the last few months. You have a government, Gustavo Petro, that says they’ve doubled funding for higher education over the last three years, right? It was 5 billion, now it’s 11 billion. There’s more money in the system, but the Comptroller General says universities are a mess. Who’s right?
Javier Botero (JB): I would say both of them are right. I mean, it is true that this government has put a lot of money into the state universities — and not only universities, but the whole public higher education system. But that hasn’t really solved the problem because, I would say, the main problem with funding in Colombia is the way it is done.
On one hand, there is a new law, approved earlier this year that changed the way the state funds public higher education institutions. Again, it gives more money and puts more money into the system, but the funding is mainly what we call inertial. The funding of each institution depends on the funding that institution received the previous year. So there are universities that were created in the ’90s or early 21st century, and they are getting very little money, while the more traditional universities — like the National University, Universidad de Antioquia, Valle, and so on — get much more money. So there is no equity in the way the funding is done.
AU: So, the funding formula is not student-based, and as you’ve grown a lot recently, that’s where the trouble is?
JB: Right. It’s not student-based, and it doesn’t have any performance indicators. It is fully independent of what universities do. So the problem exists, and I think it will continue for many years until the structure — the basis — of the funding system is changed.
AU: That can’t be that that’s the whole story, because of course some of the very old universities have been in financial trouble too. You mentioned Antioquia, and that’s one that’s had a lot of trouble in the last couple of years, right? So what’s going on in those institutions?
JB: That is true also. Again, these universities have grown — some of them a lot — with the same basic funding. And not only that, but there are some issues related, for example, to professors’ salaries.
There was one measure taken in the early 2000s that gives faculty permanent salary increases depending on publications and some research and innovation results. Which is fine, if it were really well implemented. So there are still some issues there. You are completely right.
AU: That’s just the public institutions. One of the defining features of the Petro government has been repeated clashes with the private sector, which still educates, I think, almost half of students in Colombia.
Most recently, there was an attempt to put a wealth tax on universities — taxing the assets of universities. My understanding is that the bill would’ve been very severe for some universities like Javeriana and some of the bigger, older institutions. They tried taxing them, but then the courts said they couldn’t. What happened there exactly?
JB: Yeah, that is true. There was a general wealth tax for all types of organizations — not only education, but all types of businesses — and also for individual people. The wealth tax for individuals existed before, but now, for businesses, it included nonprofit organizations, which of course included private higher education institutions.
Then the association of universities and higher education institutions filed a lawsuit in the higher courts. It was really the State Council — the highest state council — that overturned the measure for nonprofit organizations, which includes the private universities.
AU: What drives the animus against private universities, do you think? I was at a meeting in Bogotá about a year ago, and there was barely concealed hostility between the private institutions and the government people in the room.
I would understand it if you could replace the privates, but they’re such a crucial part of the sector in Colombia. So what’s the strategy? Where does the government think it can get to with this kind of antagonism?
JB: It’s an ideological point. The government — and the left in Colombia more broadly — think that all the basic rights, like education and health, should be offered by the state. They believe there shouldn’t be anyone or any organization profiting from them.
The idea is that the state has a responsibility to offer those services and rights to everyone who wants them, for free, and without the involvement of the private sector, which, the left says, profits from providing the service. So they think that, being a basic right, it should be offered to everyone by the state.
AU: I want to move on to another issue. A couple months ago, Daniel Rojas, the Minister of National Education, was musing about ending admissions exams in Colombia, which is interesting because exams are a very big part of any higher education system. Is he serious? Is this likely to happen? And what would the system look like? How would it change if that were brought into place?
JB: Let me first say that actually most private universities — even the high-quality ones — nowadays have no admission or entrance exams, and they haven’t had them for many years. What they used to do was use the Saber 11, this state evaluation that everyone takes to receive a high school degree. And there is an issue with that, because those exams are not really designed as entrance exams. They are not designed to evaluate individuals, but rather the system, or parts of the system.
In the public universities, many of them — not all of them — still have entrance exams. And the point the ministry is making is that these exams create inequality. Those who go to public schools, or lower-quality schools, are mainly poorer students. So if they also have to pass an entrance exam, you are creating an additional barrier for poorer students.
And it is true that, unfortunately, the academic level of students is very much related to income and the social level of families. So again, this is mainly an issue of trying to bring more equity into the system.
Of course, there is a big problem with that. They probably won’t be able to fully implement it, because the public universities cannot admit that many students anyway. But what I’m trying to say is that this is not really a new issue. Many private universities already don’t have entrance exams. Some use the Saber 11, some don’t use anything at all.
There are examples elsewhere in the world. Argentina, for example, is very famous for having an open public university system. What happens there — and what would probably happen here — is that the entrance exam basically becomes the first year of university, because students who are not academically prepared will very probably end up dropping out in that first year.
AU: Another big story in Colombia these last few months has been the saga of the rectorship at the National University. Take us through what happened here. Ismael Peña was elected two years ago, but the students didn’t like it, and the Petro government intervened and wouldn’t seat him. Now there’s been a court case allowing him to come back, but the students went on strike. What’s the story? Why don’t students like him, and what was the role of the Petro government in all this?
JB: That’s really a very sad story. The National University is really an icon in Colombia. It’s probably the best and certainly one of the biggest universities.
What happened is the following: the process to select a rector at the National University begins with an open call. At the beginning there were something like six or eight candidates. Then there is a poll among students, faculty, and administration staff.
The three candidates with the best results in the poll then go to the board, which actually elects the rector. What happened in this case is that the board did not elect the candidate who had received the highest result in the poll.
Honestly, that’s not unusual. That happens quite often. But the issue was that the Minister of Education, who actually presides over the board, refused to sign off and allow the person elected by the board to formally become rector. So, Ismael Peña went to a notary public to sign the necessary papers declaring himself rector, but then it was challenged in court, and a judge ruled that it was not valid. So the board elected a new rector, who was the person who had received the highest result in the poll.
That person served as rector for two years. But then Ismael Peña also sued, and the higher court ruled that he should be the rector. So the other rector had to step down. But again, Ismael Peña was never fully installed as rector because of additional legal issues. So now the university has someone acting in charge, but not a proper rector.
Of course, the students played a role, but I would say the main issue is that this had never happened before in Colombia — that the Ministry of Education would refuse to recognize someone elected by the board.
AU: How did things end? I understand students were very upset this time. There was a strike back in April. How did it end? Did they just say, “Okay, we’re okay with Ismael Peña”?
JB: Ismael Peña is not rector now. There is someone acting in charge, so it’s still unfinished business. And in any case, the rector’s term ends next year.
AU: So, we get to do it all again in 2027!
JB: Right.
AU: Javier, it’s an election year. It’s been four years since Gustavo Petro was elected. What do you think his legacy will be? We’ve talked a little bit already about how he’s put a lot of money into the system and put a fair bit of emphasis on higher education, and on making it cheaper and more accessible. But some of the results have been questionable. How do you think Colombia will remember his record in higher education?
JB: On one side, I think the fact that there is this new law changing the main articles of the old funding law is a big issue. That is something that had been attempted many times before. Again, I don’t think it was done properly — I think much more work was needed — but it is still an important step.
Another positive thing is that this new law also includes the non-university part of the public system. There are many technical and technological institutions — something like community colleges — that previously did not have guaranteed funding. The new law includes them, and I think that’s fair. It’s important for that part of the system, which I think needs to grow.
The second positive thing is that higher education was really on the agenda, and I think that matters.
But on the other side, there have also been some very damaging issues for the system. One is what we talked about earlier with the private sector. For example, ICETEX — the state institution that provides student loans — has had its funding cut very significantly. In recent years, it has not even been able to provide students with the funding they had already been promised in order to continue their studies. So that has been a very serious issue.
Another issue is the president’s position that knowledge, experience, and technical expertise are not as important as ideology. What we have seen is that the government’s representatives on the boards of higher education institutions are often people who know very little about higher education and are much more driven by ideology.
And that is true more broadly across the state. Colombia has spent many years trying to bring well-prepared, experienced professionals into public service. This government has, in some ways, put that aside. So you now see ministers, vice ministers, and other senior officials who do not necessarily have the preparation, experience, or technical knowledge for those positions.
That has created a feeling in the country that it is not so important to have a strong degree, strong professional experience, or technical expertise, but rather ideological alignment. And I think that has been very damaging — not only for higher education, but for the state institutions more broadly.
AU: There was a press conference last Friday in Bogotá, and President Petro was asked whether he might become a university president after leaving office — specifically at his old institution, Externado. I thought it was interesting because he seemed to be keeping his options open and saying, “Well, maybe that sounds interesting.”
But then he also said he’d been offered presidencies at universities in other countries, specifically mentioning the University of Granada in Spain. Do you believe that? And is it possible that he might end up as a university president somewhere?
JB: I don’t know if you saw what the University of Externado replied to the president’s comment. They said, “Not even as a doorman.”
So I mean, it would be hard to believe that the University of Granada would offer him the presidency, but I haven’t heard anything about that.
AU: Interesting. Okay. So tell me — you have an election coming up. The election is at the end of this month? It’s this weekend, correct? It’s close.
JB: We have two rounds. The first one is this Sunday.
AU: Has education — science, research, higher education — played much of a role in the election? Is that an area where the parties differ a lot or where they want to highlight their differences?
JB: Unfortunately, not really. And that’s very sad because education in general, and higher education in particular, are really big issues.
Of course, if you go through the proposals of the different candidates, you will see education mentioned in very general terms. But you don’t really see specific or deeply thought-out measures. Very little, honestly.
I would say the candidate with the strongest focus on education is Sergio Fajardo. He was a university professor, a mathematician, has a PhD — I mean, he’s a very good candidate — but with very little probability of advancing.
The three candidates currently at the top — Cepeda, De la Espriella, and Paloma Valencia — say very little about education. And what they do say is not very deep or substantial. It’s very weak, honestly, and that’s sad.
Of course, Colombia has many huge problems right now, and probably the candidates think they need to focus on the most urgent ones, like health and security. Compared to education, the health situation is really bad and requires strong measures. So that’s what they’ve focused on. And honestly, even on those topics, you don’t hear the kind of serious proposals that should be discussed given the current situation in the country.
AU: My understanding is that Iván Cepeda is the leading candidate right now. Is he likely to become president come July?
JB: I would say there is a high probability, yes. But it really depends on who comes second this Sunday, because then in mid-June we have the second round between the top two candidates.
So it really depends on who makes it there. Of course, it’s very difficult to predict, but for sure Iván Cepeda will be in the final round, and then we’ll see what happens in June.
AU: What do you think the new government, come July, is going to look like? What are the possibilities for the higher education sector for the rest of 2026 and for the next four years?
JB: Again, it’s hard to say. But if Cepeda wins, I think he will deepen many of the measures Petro has pursued over the last four years.
Cepeda is very state-oriented. I would say he believes even more strongly than Petro that all basic services should be offered by the state. So we would probably see an even stronger confrontation with the private sector.
And Cepeda is, I would say, more dogmatic — more aligned with the traditional Latin American left of the ’50s and ’60s.
AU: But on the other hand, if it’s de la Espriella — I mean, I’ve heard comparisons to Javier Milei in Argentina — might we see a very right-wing, libertarian-style government in Colombia? And if so, what would that mean for higher education?
JB: It could be, but that’s the issue with de la Espriella: no one really knows what he wants to do. His campaign has focused mainly on security, and yes, on supporting the private sector too, but not with enough depth to really understand what his positions are.
I wouldn’t say he’s comparable to Milei, even though he talks a lot about Milei, Bukele in El Salvador, Trump, and so on. But it’s hard to know, because his campaign has been based much more on showmanship. He has fireworks and lights at rallies, dresses like a tiger, things like that. So it’s very difficult to know what kind of government he would actually run.
AU: But no chainsaws like Milei.
JB: No, I don’t think so. No.
AU: Javier Botero, thank you so much for being with us today.
JB: Thank you. My pleasure.
AU: It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and you, our listeners and readers, for joining us today. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Join us next week when our guest will be me. Tiffany and I are switching places, and Tiffany will be asking me about the year. It’s our last episode of the season, and we’ll be going through what the first half of 2026 has looked like and what’s in store for the rest of the year. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
