Take Philosophy and Letters University
The new government project for public universities to start charging foreign students opens up a discussion and a constant dilemma once again. Should public universities continue to be a universal and free right, or are we facing a model that can no longer be sustained in a country in crisis? Spoiler: like everything in this country, the answer is not as simple as it seems.
Some see this measure as a blow to educational inclusion, while others—like me—believe it is a necessary step to safeguard a system that has long been in crisis. And sometimes, the beautiful words and universal principles of "free education for all" hide a less decorous reality: universities have funds, they just aren't always allocated where they are most needed. Students and teachers are told there is no money, but the truth is different.
A controversial project that divides waters
The government of Javier Milei has proposed a radical change: public universities will have to charge fees to non-resident foreign students. In other words, if you are from abroad and do not have legal residency in the country, you will have to start paying for your education. The supposed objective? Allegedly, to alleviate the finances of universities that, like the rest of the country, are held together with wire.
First, let's put this in context. Education in Argentina is free. Free for everyone. For decades, thousands of foreign students—mostly from Latin America—have chosen to come to the country to pursue university degrees, primarily in fields such as Medicine and Social Sciences. This is not coincidental: while in other countries higher education is a luxury, in Argentina it remains a right.
And that’s where things start to get complicated. In 2024, the Faculty of Medicine of the National University of La Plata reported that almost 40% of its new students are foreign. What's the problem? Infrastructure is saturated, resources are scarce, and many Argentinians are starting to wonder if international solidarity is affecting their own opportunities. What was once a source of pride—having an open university for all—is now seen as a "waste."
Is it wrong for them to come study? Of course not. Is it fair for them to do so without contributing anything to the system while Argentinians pay with their taxes? That’s another story.
Maintaining an educational system that welcomes thousands of students from other countries without asking for a minimum economic contribution is a luxury we can no longer afford. Because while our resources bleed out, the quality of education deteriorates. And ironically, those who lose the most are the Argentinians themselves.
Is this the solution the university needs?
The million-dollar question is: will this project solve anything? The government sells it as a pragmatic solution. The logic behind the measure is that if non-resident foreign students start to pay, the Argentine university system could gain additional revenues to cover budget deficiencies. But, as often happens in this country, the reality is much more complicated than a simple equation of income and expenditure.
On one hand, there are those who argue that public universities are bankrupt. And they are not entirely wrong. Universities have been targeted for budget cuts for years, teachers’ salaries are low, and conditions in some faculties are lamentable. In that context, any extra source of income seems like a sensible idea. But is it really?
Because the other side of the discussion is equally valid: if Argentina starts charging foreigners, the country runs the risk of losing its prestige as a regional educational center. Thousands of foreign students choose to come to our universities not only because of the free education but also due to the academic level.
No money? Don't believe it
Recently, a fact came to light that, for those of us who closely follow the university situation, is no longer surprising: $13,845,000.00 is what it costs to have a private driver for the rector of the National University of Rosario, Franco Bartolacci. Yes, you read that correctly. While teachers, students, and workers complain about the lack of supplies and resources, that is the money allocated, not to improve classrooms, but to the personal transport of a single person. So when they tell you "there's no money," I’m sorry to say there is, just not for you. But watch out, there’s money for the driver.
This is just one example of the mismanagement that prevails in many public universities in the country. There are funds, but the destinations of those funds are questionable, to say the least. Therefore, the proposal to charge fees to non-resident foreign students is not so far-fetched. Public universities need to be sustainable but also audited.
Audit and charge: the two sides of the coin
Now, I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that the university should become an exclusive or privatized space. On the contrary. What I am defending is the need for a balance. On one hand, we need a responsibly funded university, which includes having those who benefit from the system, such as non-resident foreign students, contribute financially. On the other hand, it is also essential that we finally audit the internal management of universities.
The case of the rector of the University of Rosario's driver is not an isolated incident. It only takes a little scratching beneath the surface to discover that a large part of the university budget is spent on inflated salaries of officials, superfluous administrative expenses, and other privileges that have nothing to do with improving educational quality. So, what’s the use of asking for more money if we don’t know how the funds we already have are being used?
Universities need to be audited independently and transparently. Only then can we know if the lack of resources is real or if, as in many cases, what is lacking is the will to administer properly.
What would this project really imply?
Let's suppose the measure is approved. What would change? Right off the bat, universities would have to implement a charging and control system that currently does not exist. That is, more bureaucracy. Furthermore, it is unclear if the money collected would be sufficient to cover the urgent needs of the educational system.
Beyond the financial impact, there would also be a social cost. Charging foreigners could trigger diplomatic tensions with the students' countries of origin, many of which have maintained stable bilateral relations with Argentina in the educational field. Furthermore, it could generate a perception of exclusion that does not align with the image the country has built over the years.
What’s next?
What comes next is a necessary but also honest debate. It’s time to stop romanticizing absolute free education and start talking about practical solutions. Charging fees to foreign students is one of those solutions. But it should not be the only one. We need to audit, improve management, and above all, put an end to privileges that only benefit a few, like the private driver of the rector of Rosario.
Public universities can and must continue to be spaces of access and quality, but for that to happen, it is necessary to have efficient and honest administration. And yes, that implies that those who benefit the most from the system should also take on part of the responsibility for sustaining it.
Comments