These days thousands of young people are studying for the university entrance exams, the famous EBAU —Evaluation of Bachillerato for Access to University—, also known as the PAU —University Entrance Tests—. Many of these students wonder if they will succeed and whether the effort is worth it, as Miguel A. García Vega explained in El País.
Universities play a pivotal role in contemporary democratic societies. In autocratic regimes, universities are systems of indoctrination, control, and repression. In democracies, they have the mission of educating citizens, enabling them to “think the unthinkable” and to debate everything that is human. To produce research and teaching, one must secure the freedom to think creatively. This is what is regarded as critical thinking, the primary mission of higher education. But that implies making mistakes. It also involves challenging established value systems. It is worthwhile to devote oneself to knowledge even when results are not immediately practical, what is called “basic research.”
It is the model known as liberal arts education, which revalues the concept of intellectual curiosity. In undergraduate education, the first four years, it is not advisable to be overly pragmatic. It is difficult to know which knowledge will be needed in the future. Dedicating four years to diffuse thinking is the success of “higher” education. There is nothing more practical than a good theory. Even better: what matters is the ability to incorporate two contradictory theories without distress. The youth has four years to learn all of this.
“Todavía hay en España instituciones educativas superiores donde el profesorado que se divorcia sabe que pierde su puesto de trabajo”
In the university, the fundamental value is academic freedom. It ensures that faculty positions are not dependent on the ideologies of the institution, nor the department leadership, nor the rector, nor the country’s political directives. Faculty must be secure in their ability to freely express their opinions and ideologies. There are still in Spain higher educational institutions where faculty who divorce know they will lose their job and must leave for another institution. Meanwhile, students must be protected to express their doubts, opinions, ideas, beliefs, and protests in a peaceful manner.
Academic freedom is a particularly sensitive issue in Spain, for the long years of Franco’s dictatorship led to the purge of the country’s best progressive professors, their persecution, exile, and even death. We are, then, the heirs of a history of repression. After the Civil War—and for four decades—there was extensive self-censorship, necessary to survive. In higher education, the military dictatorship allowed only a few private universities if they were religious, Catholic, such as Navarra, the Pontificia de Salamanca or ICADE, while other Catholic institutions, such as Deusto, came from earlier times.
The trend of universities tends to preserve the existing situation and the stratification of society. The university is — and trains — an elite that defends “meritocracy,” the power of the cleverest, thereby reinforcing social inheritance. But all of this often clashes with the egalitarian tendencies of modern democracies. On the popular level, there is sometimes a certain anti-intellectualism, or even skepticism about education. In reality, the PAU exams and high school grades are an imperfect measure of academic and professional productivity. Many people do not trust that sorting system. It is said that it takes twenty years to properly measure the impact of an education.
Loss of trust in the university
Trust in the university is declining every year. There are at least three reasons for this decline, observed in many countries:
In recent years globally, trust in authority has diminished; in various kinds of authority. People are trusting less in teachers, university professors, science, the State, political parties, Congress, newspapers, television, businesses, and even in artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms.
Some segments of the population see education as an economic—and effort—investment that is uncertain. Why study so much and go to university if there are no decent jobs for these young people afterward or adequate salaries? They cannot even buy a home.
The erratic politics of Donald Trump against some of the world’s top universities, accusing them of wokism and antisemitism have also left their mark. He threatens to withdraw federal funding. J. D. Vance once titled a 2021 conference “The Universities Are the Enemy.” For the attack on Harvard, see also Nathan J. Robinson, “Abolish Harvard,” in Current Affairs.
A process of self-reflection by universities and a public debate about trust in the education system is required. Which universities in the world are seriously reforming to increase trust in this institution? They are primarily the most important universities in the world, among them those of the Ivy League, which are—by example—the most attacked by Trump. In Europe, likewise Oxbridge, Oxford and Cambridge, and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
“The evidence is the decline in public trust in higher education, common to many other countries”
A Yale University report has just appeared, in the United States, on trust in higher education: Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education. It is an excellent and essential report. It deserves careful reading and study. In the United States it is a peculiar moment due to the problems between the Republican government and universities. The evidence is the decline in public trust in higher education, common to many other countries. It is a real and urgent problem that must be debated… and solved. But who will knock the cat’s bonnet?
The lack of trust is a subjective, though real, problem. Other problems may be more quantifiable. The cost of higher education is rising, and the situation is worsened by privatization of educational institutions. Second, the university admission system is dubious. There is little information about how it is conducted and the share of students admitted based on academic excellence. Third, freedom of expression on campuses is not sufficiently protected, for both students and faculty. Fourth, radical-right ideology of “natives first” discriminates against minorities. However — and this is optimistic news — in advanced countries there are now more women than men in universities. That marks a major social achievement.
It is assumed that the university should strengthen meritocracy, giving more resources, salary, and power to those who accumulate more merit. It is justified by arguing that the university should train leaders, people who will lead society and devote their lives to solving the economic and social problems of vulnerable populations. It is worth reading the excellent book by Spanish author Emilio J. Castilla, The Meritocracy Paradox: Where Talent Management Strategies Go Wrong and How to Fix Them. Castilla is a professor of management at MIT. Yet, the reality is different. Most of these leaders accumulate wealth and ensure that their children inherit the same privileges. The system is full of tricks and strategies to favor the offspring of the upper classes.
Cost of higher education
The cost of higher education is rising at a rate faster than the cost of living and faster than most family resources. Meanwhile, education itself is lengthening. To become a professional, it no longer seems sufficient to complete an undergraduate program; a master’s degree is now expected. This increases the family’s burden. Moreover, master’s education is more privatized and more expensive, not to mention that the ideal is to study abroad.
In Spain, the number of universities is increasing, while public ones are stagnating in number and budgets. Regions governed by the right are not interested in public education; they prefer to create more private universities for their friends. Supposedly it is good business, at least ideologically. But the number of families in the country who can afford private higher education does not rise significantly. Thus, competition among private universities grows and advertising spending increases. This imbalance is mitigated because families today have fewer children and likely more capacity to invest resources in those few offspring. Now grandparents also help fund university education. Traditionally more was invested in the private education of sons than daughters. That remains true.
The cost of higher education rises even though the institutions involved in it are often public, or private but non-profit. This lack of profit motive should be questioned. For example, in Spain many private universities are Catholic and advocate a conservative ideology. Furthermore, the existence of private universities in a city implies influence—and power—within the community. That they are supposedly non-profit does not mean they are neutral or innocent.
“The aim is for students, during the first four years, to be able to live independently of family resources. Only then is it possible to reduce social discrimination and high rates of youth dependence”
The modern trend in advanced societies is the model of high tuition fees, accompanied by scholarships and aid for families with fewer resources. But these scholarships must cover everything: tuition, housing, maintenance, travel and transport, textbooks, study expenses, and personal expenses. Like in North America, students live on campus, in university residences, the colleges, and have all their essential needs met for four years. It is not simply about free tuition, especially in public institutions, which costs little. It is about students being able to live independently of family resources during the first four years. Only thus can social discrimination and high youth dependence be reduced.
The best American universities can entail a total cost close to €90,000 per year per person for studies, an amount absolutely prohibitive for Spanish families. Families with incomes under $200,000 per year obtain free tuition for their children, and those with incomes under $100,000 have all costs covered by scholarships, including housing and meals. The federal government, the state, the university itself, or foundations, or all four, pay. Thus, education is accessible to all kinds of people and even to various ethnic groups. It is the model of high prices but very generous aid, which Yale has reinforced for families with incomes under $200,000, according to Yale News. As in Spain, the problem is that many families—and students—are not informed, or simply do not believe in advance that these aid programs exist. Therefore, it is important that scholarship information be disseminated before people make decisions. The typical mistake is to think that “it isn’t worth studying” and that it might be better to pursue football.
In Spain, and in other countries, some young people dream of studying abroad. They believe that those countries offer scholarships and that they can survive. These decisions are not usually based on academic merit, but on survival and a desire for freedom: they can’t bear their parents any longer. There is a lack of trust in their own higher education system, partly because it is not well known or well informed. Universities do not publish their admission rates, the proportion of scholarship recipients, the amount of scholarships, student diversity, or real data on graduate outcomes. Sometimes what is published is mere propaganda. Private universities claim in the press that “there are scholarships” or that “90% of graduates find employment within six months.” But they do not provide exact or reliable data.
Recently, some families opt to obtain bank loans, for example, to send their children to university. But this practice collides with a general mistrust of higher education. In family imagination, what matters is whether their son or daughter will get a job afterward. Hence the advertising, unverifiable, that graduates of private universities obtain employment thanks to the education received at their institution is so striking. Wealthier families want their offspring to secure employment, marry, and buy a home. Advancement of knowledge, basic research, populations in poverty, or science debates are largely inconsequential to them.
Consequences of privatization
It is necessary to address the privatization of university teaching. In Spain there are two parallel systems serving two different kinds of families. There are private and semi-private schools for the “well-off” classes —this turn of phrase is wonderfully apt— and public education for the rest, including migrants. Privately run schooling begins with the structure of schools, before the university level. Likewise, there are private universities for well-resourced families and public ones for bright but moneyless youths.
In Spain, the private system preempts the PAU cycle, admitting students a few weeks before the official entrance examinations. Affluent families thus secure a place in a private university for their children before their academic merit is assessed by the exams, though it costs them significant resources. It is remarkable that such discriminating policy is used by Spanish Catholic universities.
“Private universities in Spain never report what percentage of students they admit nor what criteria they use for admission”
Here I include four Spanish universities, unnamed, that conduct spring admissions processes for prospective students. They preempt the official exams by admitting students before the PAU testing, usually held in the first week of June. In private universities, the admission tests, more than exams, are a mock, sometimes merely an interview. Actual admission questions include: “What is the most important invention in history for you?” and “What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language?”. Private universities in Spain never report what percentage of students they admit or what criteria they use for admission. They likely admit everyone who can pay. To ensure the permanence of those future students, they require a deposit already in spring to “reserve a place.” In these cases it amounts to more than €2,500. With that trick, they guarantee students whose families can then pay for four or five years:
University A:
Admission with interview, no exam: March 2026.
To formalize the reserve: €3,950 to be paid and a decision within two weeks.
Tuition for the first year: €14,000.
University B:
Admission exam: March 2026.
To formalize the reserve: €2,500 within two weeks.
Tuition per year: €13,200.
University C:
Admission exam: May 2026.
To formalize the reserve: €3,195 within two weeks.
Tuition per year: €18,500.
University D:
Three admission exams/interviews: May–June 2026.
To formalize the reserve: €3,000.
Tuition per year: €30,000.
All these amounts exclude housing and meals; they cover only teaching. Before the official PAU tests are held nationwide, the affluent classes have already secured a place for their children in private universities. These universities do not choose students for merit, but for their willingness to pay. The decisive detail is that the whole system operates before the PAU exams. These annual tuition figures, between €13,200 and €30,000, should be compared with official tuition at prestigious public universities such as Carlos III University in Madrid or Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, which are about €1,400 per year for a dual degree. They are, therefore, between nine and twenty-one times more expensive in the private sector. In those public universities, an undergraduate degree can cost around €5,600.
The degree, in all cases, is a minimum of four years, and if it is a double degree, five years. In private universities, the cheapest options are at least between €52,800 and €120,000, just tuition, although it can be higher due to annual increases in tuition. Which families can pay this amount? Many of these students, to become professionals, must then pursue a master’s degree. Most master’s programs in Spain are also privatized and cost even more than the undergraduate degree. Spain is creating a “higher” education system that is socially dichotomous. In reality, it is of three kinds, because there are also youths who never reach university.
“Academic merit is not usually the main thing, nor critical thinking, but rather the family’s perpetuation of privileges”
Gradually, universities split young people into two classes. It is not that education itself is very different, but it is ideologically so. Conservative families flee from a university faculty that is leftist and woke. They do not want their children getting into “trouble.” In Spain, most private universities that are also religious depend on the bishoprics, the Jesuits, other religious orders, or the Opus Dei. They are not non-profit institutions, but clearly ideologized. These institutions —they claim— train the leaders of tomorrow. This closes a clearly negative, discriminatory circle. Academic merit is not usually the main thing, nor critical thinking, but the family’s perpetuation of privileges. In today’s society, the family and the education system — and especially the university — are the two most effective mechanisms of social inheritance.
There are two ways to neutralize this: first, fixing the admission dates by decree — at all universities, private and public — after PAU tests and never before; and second, through an effective scholarship system even in the private system. Thus the so-called “place reservation” would be eliminated. As long as the current system persists, the only result is population polarization and an ever more unbearable inheritance-based class division. That system is fundamentally unjust.
Admission system
Some of the world’s most selective universities reject around 96% of applicants. It is assumed that admission criteria should be purely academic. In Spain, admission to universities and degrees depends on the PAU, which includes 60% of the average high school grade and 40% of the entrance exam. Private schools engage in grade inflation, thereby raising the average, while public schools are more demanding. This is where the future is shaped. Moreover, transparency in admissions is not very clear. Private universities construct a class, and they are “more than a club.” Explicitly they claim to train leaders indispensable to society.
The diversity of students and faculty is a valuable asset of the university. Equal opportunity is essential for the transmission of science and for performing scientific or artistic research. Currently, there are more women than men in universities. However, there are essential differences by field and profession. The highest-paying careers are more often for men. Careers that require “care” have become feminized, as happens in all health-related fields: Medicine, Pharmacy, Veterinary Science. In private universities there are more male students, but more women among the faculty.
Intellectual pluralism in the classroom
The majority of university faculty identify with democratic and left-wing positions. This makes conservative families nervous about the possibility that professors indoctrinate their children. They prefer to pay large sums and send their children to private and religious universities. Indeed, some left-wing political parties have originated in public universities. Conversely, radical-right is not currently welcome in those institutions. Trust in the university is lower precisely among the more conservative families. They never believe that their offspring were educated in a neutral manner.
Some essential contemporary societal issues do not appear in the subjects of those universities. They relate to women, violence, ethnicity, minorities, democracy, secularization, and sexuality. They tend to favor a drift toward intellectual and ideological conformity. Yet we know that diversity remains essential for quality teaching and research.
“In open classrooms where mobiles and laptops are allowed, many students in class seem absent; they are present, but their minds sail elsewhere”
The faculty feels that their priority is research rather than teaching. They are evaluated and promoted on the basis of the research they conduct. This weakens, therefore, one of the fundamental elements of the university’s mission. At the same time, students contribute little to stimulate faculty. In open classrooms where mobiles and laptops are allowed, many students in class seem absent; they are present, but their minds roam. They are defined as a “anxious generation.” I refer to the book by the chair professor Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. We must restore the value of thinking and debate in face-to-face classrooms. Similarly, we must anticipate the role of AI both in teaching and in research.
The public agenda
The university requires a reset. It is a demand that dates back to the most important book on the university, published in 1963, but with several later editions: Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University. And Kerr, as the President of the University of California, prefaces the English edition of Ortega y Gasset’s book on the university. But who controls private universities in Spain? How will strategies to win over wealthier families for higher education be controlled? The preceding ideas lead to recommendations for what should be done in the coming decade. They require a public agenda. First, we must reread The Mission of the University, by José Ortega y Gasset. Ortega already contemplated some of these recommendations.
All students should be classified and admitted to universities and degrees according to an objective demonstration of their academic knowledge. It should not be allowed for students to be accepted ahead of others by private universities simply by paying a reservation before the PAU tests.
Any reform must consider the original mission of the university. It is about creating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge through teaching and research. Everything else is secondary. Training leaders is a myth.
There must be maximum protection of freedom of expression, as well as critical thinking. In a democracy, the right to think differently is essential. Even the right to think the unthinkable. Also the right to intellectual debate. This also implies the right to peaceful protest on campus and off. The university must promote open debates on campus.
Parallel to this, there is a need for academic freedom for faculty. This includes freedom in research, classroom teaching, curriculum development, and campus discussion, without censorship by university administration or the State. The university must ensure diversity in curricula and in course programs. It should organize the presence of underrepresented perspectives, even from alternative methodologies. One way is to attract visiting or guest professors with diverse viewpoints.
Education must reduce prices for families, in both the public and private sectors. This should extend to all families. It is necessary to guarantee free tuition for low-income families. It is also necessary to inform about the total cost of the entire degree, accounting for inflation and price increases. This should include undergraduate, master’s, and other professional titles. Furthermore, it is essential to inform about scholarships well before enrollment dates, so families can make appropriate decisions. The trend should be for tuition to be free for all students of public universities.
Admission rates at all universities, public and private, should depend on academic merit and never on the money the families can pay. These rates should be communicated and published. The same applies to the distribution of scholarships and their exact amounts.
Likewise, it is necessary to promote broad areas of teaching that include sciences, social sciences, humanities, and even the arts so that every student acquires a plural and inclusive education. This may be criticized as a somewhat impractical or diffuse education, but the truth is that it is impossible to predict which knowledge will be needed in the future. Changes in modern technology and AI will be considerable. Broad and abstract knowledge is a good strategy. This is internationally known as liberal arts education.
Universities should not be ivory towers. Their activity should extend to other universities, schools, and the community. Collaborative programs with the public and private sectors should be developed. Distance and online education should be organized. It is wise to experiment with systems to make university knowledge and resources accessible to all of society. Summer programs are another avenue.
We must return to the university’s mission, which is to disseminate knowledge and research. The classroom should be the center of the experience. It is essential to raise the level of attention inside the classroom, encourage intellectual debate, and foster curiosity. Distractions inside the classroom must be eliminated, such as students connected to the outside world. Therefore, mobile phones, tablets, or computers in the classroom should not be allowed. Active exchange among students should be encouraged, free of screens.
There has recently been an excessive emphasis on specialization —in subjects and degrees— and on practical knowledge. It is recommended to include in the curricula, especially in the first year, basic general content such as debates about the future of democracy, the structure of government, public life, as well as scientific and technological challenges. Moreover, it is important to teach research from the first year of undergraduate studies; some students should collaborate from the outset in campus research.
Many of these public recommendations require greater transparency and information. Both what is done and what is proposed must be communicated to faculty and students. They must also be published with clear and exact data. This is essential if we want to raise public— and family—trust in the university and the future of higher education. Spain has more resources. It would be good if it used them.
