In that sense, it is not totally predictable or measurable deployment through traditional resources of psychometrics, in which culture has a very wide influence. This last perspective, you have to worry not only for the joint acquisition of the same skills and knowledge which are considered Basic for the best future use of new opportunities, but also by other aspects such as reduce the desertion of the high-risk population between first and fifth semester, curricular innovations and its adaptation to different types of students, the creation of resources support, stimulation and leveling that demand different types of students, and the flexibility of learning paths in curricular structures and space and learning time. Of course, it’s an effort that involves the institutions, and that a Government policy can guide through projects of broad encouragement. As long as the first option, which is dominant in most of the countries of Latin America, education will be exclusive, selective and in such a case the struggle for improving their quality will go against the poor. It will be very useful for the formation of elites in each country but not to dignify the existence of majorities. Inequity, the figures speak for the above, remains an unresolved problem choose to increase coverage in the context of an inclusive higher education system, or increase equity, via the improvement of access to educational programs with quality and a more inclusive vision for a less neoliberal appreciation.
The high attrition in higher education reinforces the argument against the increase in coverage versus access and equity. The defection by cohort in the universities is indeed currently 45.3%, in the of technological character is 53% and in the techniques of 60%. These considerations are not rhetoric since the figures regarding inequality speak for themselves. In the previous Government, according to the continuous household surveys from the DANE for the years 2002-2007, gross enrolment rate varied between 24.47% in 2002 and 32,48% in 2007; the Latin America average is 31%, which means that, for this last year, 3.3 out of 10 people attending higher education. But if we look at the net rate, that is most interesting because it speaks to us of people who actually attend the level appropriate for the age, the average for the same period is 17,77% and a rate of 16.31%.
The important thing to observe is the following: when rates are by income quintile, the differences are wide. While in quintile 1, or of lower income, higher gross enrolment rate averaged 6.35% for the 2002-2007 period, in quintile 5, the higher income, the average rate rose to 77,07%. The rate of coverage for the lowest quintile only rose 4.08 percentage points, whereas in quintile 5 the increase was 19.21 points. Similarly, the net rate by income quintile are broad differences between the levels. For the year 2007, in quintile 1 only 6% of people agreed to higher education, while in quintile 5 that percentage rose to 49.4%. The evolution of the net rate by quintile shows that 1 it was 3.03 percentage points and for the 5, 5.26 points during the period 2002-2007. These figures cast doubt on the enthusiasm with which frequently emphasizes the extent of policy coverage, seeking to incorporate into the system to the poorest. As a result, should change the hedging policy to one of improving access with annotated features. This should take into account and harmonize actions aimed at greater access, better quality and a lower dropout. Everything else is gossip.