Higher education: a key aspect of the EU-LAC cooperation


“What do we want?” “Pizza and a beach body! More EU-LAC cooperation in Higher Education”!

Once upon a time, Higher Education cooperation was not needed. Erasmus was never created in Europe. Between 1987 and 2014, 3,770.000 individuals – the population of Panama – did not benefit from Erasmus. In 1987, 3,244 students from eleven countries did not embark on an international adventure, while 329,000 people – the combined populations of Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis – from 34 countries did not carry-out a mobility in 2013-2014. The number of beneficiaries was hence not multiplied by 100 over 27 years, and the threshold of 20% of all graduates from the European Higher Education Area having spent a period of time abroad by 2020 was never a goal. Can you imagine such a story? Luckily, all of this actually happened. Although these facts could be questions for a Friday night trivia at your designated Erasmus bar, they also show how important and attractive international mobility is in Europe.

LAC-wide, the Regional Academic Mobility for Accredited Courses at MERCOSUR-level, the Exchange and Academic Mobility Program of the Organization of Ibero-American States (68 institutions from 19 countries involved in 2016-2017), and the Pacific Alliance scholarships program (about 400 yearly) exist; however, the multiplication of LAC-integration systems attempts and the lack of higher education concerted policies between LAC-countries are clear obstacles to a truly ambitious international cooperation, while more and more young people enroll at universities and demand international possibilities.

Erasmus+, through Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD), International Credit Mobility, Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Capacity Building and Jean Monnet actions, is open to LAC-countries. Nevertheless, they do not take full advantage of it: although 72 LAC-institutions (out of 242 Partner Countries institutions) are involved in at least one of the 38 selected projects of the 2016-2017 EMJMD call for proposals, the participation imbalance among LAC-countries is striking: 34% are Brazilian institutions, four countries (Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Ecuador) are home to 75% of participating LAC-institutions, only 11 LAC-countries out of 33 are represented, and none is Caribbean. Regarding Jean Monnet, none of the 198 2016-2017 selected projects involve LAC-institutions, which demonstrates a total lack of interest for and understanding of the EU. Even the Spice Girls, who sang “if you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends”, originally wanted to say “if you wanna be international, you gotta get with some partners”. True story. While the word “internationalization” seems trendy in LAC and the EU and the CELAC are talking about a Euro-Latin-American Area for Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, this situation is worrying, all the more so as Mexico, Brazil and the CELAC are EU-Strategic Partners. If they are indeed committed to this Area and to the EU-CELAC Academic Summits, the Brussels Declaration and the Action Plan 2015-2017, the EU-LAC cooperation must be reoriented.

Nonetheless, fear not, dear reader, for successful examples of EU-LAC cooperation exist: the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 project “Academic Mobility for Inclusive Development in Latin America” (AMIDILA), implemented between 2013 and early 2017, has been one of the most unique cooperation projects in recent years. It funded 203 mobility scholarships for students, scholars and staff from eleven Latin American and nine European universities in twelve fields related to inclusive development. It served both as a mobility program and a capacity building project since most Latin American universities were not very active internationally, making inclusion a core component institutionally as well. AMIDILA perfectly illustrates the benefits of the cooperation.

The new generation wants and needs higher education to be put at the top of the cooperation agenda, so will the October EU-CELAC Summit be a momentum for academic cooperation? Will Higher Education be at the center of EU-LAC relations in the foreseeable future? Is the EU-LAC Higher Education Area a real possibility? And most importantly: does Jon Snow really know nothing? These questions require answers, and projects and actions like AMIDILA, EMJMD, Capacity Building, Jean Monnet and International Credit Mobility seem like a worthy investment. The creation of a fund financed by European and willing LAC-countries would be a proof of commitment. “Willing”, because LAC is not an integrated area, so countries or groups of countries (ALBA, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, Pacific Alliance, SICA) ready to compromise could start partaking in it, and other members could progressively be integrated: undertaking small steps at a time is the best way forward, as it is regarding the EU-integration. In that respect, the EU-LAC Foundation would have a big role to play, while the 2017 EU-CELAC Summit represents a chance to reiterate the commitment to academic cooperation and move closer towards a common Area for Higher Education, at a time when the USA are losing interest in LAC and Erasmus celebrates 30 years.








The necessity of an academic cooperation program at Latin America and the Caribbean level: the experience of the EU-program Erasmus and of LAC integration systems

The EU-program Erasmus is a tool that allows students, researchers and teachers to carry out academic and professional exchange periods of time in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in other European countries, the so-called programme countries (the 28 of the EU, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, and Turkey), as well as in Third countries, the program partner countries (including all of the LAC countries). Launched in 1987, the name of the program Erasmus stands for European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students. It is part of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and works by multiannual financial frameworks: we are currently in the 2014-2020 framework, following the 2007-2013 one. This program has been one of the best achievements of the EU so far, it is crucial to its development and to the understanding between the peoples, and there is no reason why it would change in the next years.

In the LAC region, academic cooperation programs exist within the framework of MERCOSUR, the Organization of Ibero-American States, and the Pacific Alliance – though with much less funds and efforts dedicated to it than in their European counterpart. Sadly, international academic mobility in some LAC countries such as Chile does not have a great reputation – although it is a requirement in our globalized world. Academic cooperation programm remain vital, and it is important to have a look at them and see how they can contribute to the understanding between nations, trade, and education overall.

This paper will be divided into three parts: first, we will see how the Erasmus program works within Europe – leaving the cooperation with Third countries aloof. We will continue with the analyzing of the academic cooperation within the framework of the integration processes in the LAC region. Finally, we will take into consideration the assets of an international academic cooperation at regional level.


First, let’s break the utopia: Erasmus is not only for exchange students. This is indeed the main part, but teachers and administrative staff can go abroad, and students can also carry out traineeships within its framework. For an HEI to be allowed to take part in the Erasmus program requires little effort: filling in an application file – the so-called “Erasmus Charter for Higher Education” – and bazinga! That is basically it. Once this is done, two HEIs from two different countries fill in an “Erasmus agreement” stipulating various information such as the number of incoming and outgoing students, the level of language required, the area and the level of studies, the length, and the type of mobility. There is no limit whatsoever on the number of agreements that an HEI can sign, and this is an easy document to fill-in.

The amount of the scholarships is set by each HEI depending on what it gets from the EU, which explains why a student at Paris-Sorbonne University will get less than a student at Bordeaux University: there are significantly more scholarships holders at the Sorbonne, and the EU Commission has limited funds, leaving each university deciding on the number of scholarships and the amount it gives (€272/month being the average amongst European students). Also, the amounts vary significantly from one country to another: Spanish scholars are known to obtain more than their French counterparts for instance. The governments of the countries or the HEIs can choose to add up to the amount given by the EU, hence improving the experience of the “chosen ones” – in reality there is not much of a “Matrix” choice, excellence is not really a core condition to get the scholarship since the number of applications is usually lower than the number of available spots.

This was the easy part of Erasmus. There are a lot of tools that you can find on the EU-Commission webpage, one of them being the building of joint Masters Programs – the so-called Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) – between various partners. The aim is to offer two-year study programmes with at least two mobilities, excellence being in this case a core component when it comes to selecting the candidates. Erasmus Mundus has been created in 2004, and scholarships are also available – obviously less than in the case of the regular Erasmus, but with much higher amounts.

Now, allow me to give away a few figures to understand how big and important Erasmus really is: in 2014, €2 billion were spent on Erasmus, 650.000 people studied, trained or volunteered abroad, and 70.000 organizations were involved. Spain, Germany and France are the most popular destinations within the Erasmus programme, while the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Liechtenstein and Luxemburg are the least popular. This ranking barely changes when it comes to the most students benefiting from a scholarship – although Luxemburg and Liechtenstein are the two countries that send the most students compared to the national student population. 61% of the beneficiaries are women, and the Bachelor level is the level that most students choose to carry out an Erasmus mobility (67%), followed by the Master level (29%). Social Sciences, Business and Law is the area involving most students (31%), while Humanities and Arts, and Engineering (both equal at 17%) complete the podium. Finally, the average age of the Erasmus student is 23, and the average length of the mobility is one semester. Between its creation in 1987 and the year 2013 (26 years), 3.350 million individuals benefited from the programme – that is the population of Uruguay! In 1987, 3244 students from 11 countries benefited from it, while 270.000 students and 52.000 staff from 33 countries carried out a mobility in 2012. This number has hence been multiplied by 100 over 25 years (!!!). 4.600 HEIs participated in Erasmus as members in 2013. By 2020, the goal of the EU is that 20% of all graduates from the EHEA have spent a period of time abroad. Impressive, right? Yes, Erasmus is quite good when it comes to marketing!


Now, let’s jump to Latin America and the Caribbean. There are various levels of academic cooperation within the MERCOSUR. Let us not talk about the regional accreditation mechanism (the so-called ARCUSUR) since that is not our focal point – yet do know that there is a cooperation to make sure that there are quality standards at MERCOSUR level and that only MERCOSUR-accredited university courses can partake in the cooperation program that we will study next. MARCA in Spanish (Regional Academic Mobility for Accredited Courses) encompasses Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay and was created in 2006. This is the only academic cooperation within MERCOSUR, and students’ mobility is the main component. Every two years, one of the countries takes charge of the program (Brazil is currently the institutional coordinator). Universities of at least two different countries have to build a project, valid for two years, and exchange students can stay at the partner university for 1 or 2 semesters – may they study, carry out traineeships or researches. The number of financed mobilities per project depends on each country separately (5 for Argentina, 10 for Brazil, etc.). The amounts also depend on the country, but the home country usually covers the flight ticket and the insurance costs, while the host country finances the monthly allowances. The amounts are set by the countries themselves and differ from one country to another. An Argentinian student going to Brazil will hence get a monthly allowance of US$1.233/month, plus US$2.003 for the costs occurred by the installation, in addition to the insurance and the flight ticket: that is for a period of time of six months US$9.401. A Brazilian student in Argentina will get US$1.770/month, plus US$580 for the installation costs, and the insurance and the flight tickets (US$11.200). Generally speaking, the cost of life in Argentina is more expensive than in Brazil, but the amount that a student gets is still very generous. In that respect, MARCA looks a lot like Erasmus Mundus. Regarding the call 2015-2016, 15 projects have been selected, implying 35 Argentinian university courses, 16 in Bolivia, 38 from Brazil, 5 Chilean, 6 from Uruguay, and 10 in Paraguay. Note that all six Uruguayans courses are taught in the same university (the University of the Republic).

The Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture (OEI) is not a proper regional integration system, but it is an intergovernmental organization relevant for the education field. It was created in 1949 (before the EU that is), but became what it is nowadays in 1985. Within its framework, the Exchange and Academic Mobility Program (PIMA in Spanish), coordinated by Spain, is of interest since it grants scholarships since 2000. The program contributes to the Ibero-American Knowledge Area (EIC in Spanish). Most Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in Latin America took part in it in 2015, plus Spain (this makes up for 19 countries, and a total of 67 universities), but any university belonging to a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country can participate in it providing that it is part of the OEI. In total, 273 scholarships were granted in that same year (165 between Spain and Latin America, and 108 between Latin American HEIs), the home university being in charge of selecting the students. It appears very similar to MARCA: a minimum of three universities from three different countries have to gather together and build a project in one single field of knowledge; they are hence organized by thematic reds and exchange students/interns can only carry-out a one-semester mobility at most within a host university that is a member of the same thematic red as their home university. There is unfortunately no information available regarding the amount granted to the students since it depends on every project, but a clue is that the scholarships are not meant to cover all costs of the mobility, they are only a supplement intended to cover the additional costs related to moving abroad, so it cannot be as much as MARCA. So, if you are a student and have to choose between MARCA and PIMA, I suggest you try MARCA!

Finally, the Pacific Alliance (which is not a regional integration system either) has an academic cooperation program, called Student and academic platform, consisting in four yearly calls country by country – and not one call for all countries altogether. Each of the four countries involved decides which amount students get, and it hence depends on the countries where your home and host universities are situated – but we are talking about high amounts anyways. There is a reciprocity principle when it comes to the students flows since approximately 100 scholarships are available in every country. One of the peculiarities of this program is that universities have nothing to do with the selection of the students: one governmental agency in every country is responsible for the selection (a student has to apply to his/her home country’s national agency, and the selection is made by the agency of the country of the host university the student is applying to). Unlike MARCA  and PIMA, not only universities can take part in the program, but institutes and other types of HEIs as well depending on what each country decides – which is a good point. In addition, various fields of studies have been deemed as priorities: business, finances, international trade, public administration, political sciences, hospitality, economics, international relations, environment and climate change, innovation, sciences and technology, and engineering. Finally, it is worth adding that various types of mobilities can be taken into consideration: student mobility (one semester for undergraduates) and academic mobility (from three weeks up to one year for PhD students, researchers and teachers). For more information and critics about this program – yes, I like criticizing – please see the post La cooperación universitaria en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico from April, 10th 2016.

These are the only three international cooperation systems that promote international mobility in the LAC region, but only one of them is actually part of a sub-regional integration system – with the UNASUR on its way thanks to the creation in 2012 of the South American Council for Education (CSE). The SICA, the ALBA, the ACS, the CAN, and all other regional integration attempts do not seem to consider academic cooperation and students’ mobility a priority.


Erasmus: changing lives, opening minds” is the official slogan of the Erasmus programme and it is meant to represent the values that it stands for. Well, it could not be more right. I personally benefited twice from the program, and from three other national programs, all of which allowed me to study, work and carry-out traineeships abroad. I know I was lucky that I was born on that side of the Atlantic when it comes to this kind of opportunities, but it was not easy to always start fresh and go somewhere new. I partied a lot, but I also worked my as off. I can now speak fluently German, English and Spanish, in addition to my mother tongue French, and know my way in Portuguese. These make up for five languages. I now work in the international cooperation field, and programs like Erasmus have highly contributed – and still contribute – to this. It also gave me some values that are essential in our globalized world: independence, flexibility, autonomy, and most importantly great interpersonal skills. I am a convinced Europhile, I believe that building bridges between cultures and nations through regional integration is possible and needs to be worked on in a clever manner: the new generation should be trusted because its perception of other countries is actually more up-to-date than old bureaucratic officials that have never lived abroad – or at least not in the last 20 years. Also, this type of program can contribute to the improvement of education: by welcoming foreign students, universities gain experience and can adapt and improve their courses offer.

The internationalization of education is a task that concerns all LAC countries – or so they say out loud. They seem to be coming up with sub-regional integration systems every day – barely exaggerating it. We are not even talking about political or economic integration here, but a mere intergovernmental cooperation promoting students exchanges at continental level – just like the programs implemented in the LAC region that we have studied, but with the features of Erasmus. Students would hence benefit from classes taught in Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, French, German in some cases, and could even learn indigenous languages. What is not to like there? That does not seem to be as hard as agreeing on everything as it is the case for UNASUR: countries could simply decide which HEIs can participate, give funds to a General Secretariat that would divide it between all countries’ participating HEIs, and HEIs would simply have to sign a bilateral agreement. Of course, it is harder than that, but with a bit of an effort and money, it is doable. That would actually allow students to improve their skills by learning things they could not learn in their own country, trigger an interest within the young generation in creating a regional integration system that could actually work, and hence unite peoples. How scary, right?

La cooperación universitaria en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico

Nacida en 2011 de una voluntad política del Perú, la Alianza del Pacífico es la más nueva tentativa de integración regional en América latina. Estas iniciativas de integración se reproducen más rápido que los conejos, me van a decir. Pues sí, pero esta alianza solo es una idea, países que comparten ideales comunes, pues no tiene sede ni organización. Apunta a la libre circulación de los bienes, los servicios, los capitales y las personas entre sus miembros. Es decir, no hay objetivo político. La gran diferencia con los otros sistemas de integración en la región es que no abarca países con base a la proximidad geográfica, histórica, cultural, etc.: esta iniciativa la constituyen Perú, Colombia, Chile y México. El punto focal lo constituye el poder económico de estos cuatro países: juntos, representan el 55% de las exportaciones de la región ALC. Ah, y también el neoliberalismo, un sistema económico heredado de los Chicago Boys de Chile que se desarrolló durante la dictadura del General Pinochet. Una buena herencia en fin, ¿no les parece? Estos cuatro países tienen en común un sistema económico que reina para lo mejor y sobre todo lo peor: así la desigualdad e inequidad social forman parte de este acercamiento.

Ahora bien, aunque todavía no ha resultado nada muy concluyente que haya cambiado la vida de los ciudadanos – México y Chile hasta mantienen un impuesto de reciprocidad cuando los nacionales ingresan al otro país por razones turísticas (¿¡?!) – aparece interesante analizar la cooperación académica en su marco, pues constituye la primera iniciativa que se concretó.


Primero, vamos a abordar los sistemas de enseñanza superior en cada país, que son un poco diferentes. Los estudios superiores en estos países se dividen así: la licenciatura/el bachiller (4-5 años por lo general) que constituye el pregrado – gracias sistema estadounidense – y el postgrado, que corresponde a la Maestría (2 años) y el Doctorado (3-4 años). Es un poco más complicado que esto – sobre todo en las áreas de la medicina, la ingeniería y la pedagogía – pero basta con saber esto en nuestro caso.

Chile tiene un sistema que incluye universidades públicas y privadas, estatales y católicas, institutos públicos, y centros de formación técnica. Aunque por naturaleza diferentes, todas estas instituciones sin excepción son lucrativas – Bill Gates lucrativas – pues se considera que la educación es una inversión en el futuro: domina la lógica de que la educación es una mercancía accesible a los que tienen los recursos financieros o están dispuestos a endeudarse por el resto de sus vidas. Tentador, ¿no? El resultado es el elitismo en su esplendor, lo que favorece tanto la injusticia social y la corrupción. ¿No tienes educación? ¿No fuiste a la mejor universidad del país que también es la más cara? Pues no vales nada. Claro, funciona así en el Reino Unido, en Australia, en Canadá, en los EE.UU. etc. también, pero a escala menor: según una encuesta de la OCDE de 2012, Chile es el país en que la educación superior es la más cara en el mundo. Sin embargo, hay que destacar que el gobierno actual de la Presidenta Michelle Bachelet se está esforzando para ofrecer la educación gratuita a los estudiantes al horizonte 2018 – una promesa de su campaña que la hicieron Presidenta por segunda vez en el 2014 mientras el país estaba paralizado por las protestas estudiantiles – convirtiendo así los Establecimientos de Enseñanza Superior (EES) que adhieren a la Ley de reforma educacional y a la gratuidad en instituciones sin fines de lucro – aunque oficialmente siempre han tenido este estatuto de “sin fines de lucro”. Por fin, hay que subrayar que existen 61 universidades, 45 institutos profesionales, y 67 centros de formación profesional acreditados y así reconocidos por el gobierno chileno, con un esfuerzo creciente para descentralizar la educación superior en provincia con el fin de responder a las necesidades y particularidades estructurales y económicas de las 15 regiones, pues el 38% de la población chilena vive en la capital Santiago de Chile. En total, son 1.152.000 estudiantes en el país, por una población de 17.6 millones.

Colombia también distingue entre privado y público. El sistema es muy parecido a aquel de Chile, pues los estudiantes tienen que pagar costos de arancel aberrantes aunque se supone que las instituciones públicas funcionen sin fines de lucro. El país cuenta con 81 universidades reconocidas, de las cuales solo 22 están acreditadas – lo que en la práctica se traduce en un problema de calidad de la enseñanza superior. Un proyecto de reforma de la educación superior también está en marcha, pero no ha avanzado mucho desde el 2011 y no hay perspectivas de igualdad de oportunidades y de gratuidad a corto plazo.

El Perú, por su parte, tiene establecimientos privados y públicos divisados entre 139 universidades, institutos tecnológicos, institutos pedagógicos e institutos de especialización e investigación. Son aproximadamente 850.000 estudiantes en total en el país, por 30 millones de habitantes. El sistema privado acoge más del 60% del número total de estudiantes, siendo éste el sistema con mejor reputación.

En cuanto a México, está dividido entre público y privado, y no solo es un concepto. Podemos indicar que el sistema universitario es mucho más igualitario que en Chile, Colombia o Perú: las mejores universidades son públicas (una en cada uno de los 32 Estados, más otras en la Ciudad de México sobre todo) y casi gratuitas (la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México de hecho funciona con un aporte voluntario y es la mejor del país). Es decir que teóricamente, hasta los estudiantes de bajos recursos tienen la oportunidad de estudiar – claro, hay que comprar libros, materiales, etc. – y que la condición de derecho fundamental de la educación se respeta más que en muchos países. Además, cabe aclarar que México cuenta con 2.400 EES, de los cuales 867 son públicos, y acoge a 3.3 millones de estudiantes.


La educación superior en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico toma en cuenta todo esto. El programa es distinto de la cooperación universitaria en el marco del MERCOSUR puesto que la Alianza del Pacífico no abarca la acreditación, sino que está basado solo en la movilidad estudiantil y académica. Es un pequeño Erasmus – un programa de intercambio estudiantil europeo – en muchos sentidos, pero más simple ya que solo cuatro países forman parte de ello. Toma en cuenta el principio de reciprocidad en cuanto al equilibrio de los flujos desde los países involucrados. Otorga aproximadamente 100 becas a cada país para que los estudiantes vayan a estudiar a uno de los países socios. Es decir que Chile, con apenas 1.150.000 de estudiantes, tiene tantas becas disponibles como México, que tiene más de 3.300.000 estudiantes – o sea tres veces más. ¿Será lógico? Esto va a depender del aporte financiero de cada país para fomentar este dispositivo y del número de universidades participantes.

Primero, no existe ningún tratado fundador de la Alianza del Pacífico, solo un acuerdo marco – que no tiene mucho contenido, pues son nueve páginas. En cuanto al aporte financiero, el acuerdo marco no lo considera. Esto significa que habría que ver lo que las leyes de cada país ponen a disposición de la Alianza del Pacífico y de la movilidad universitaria. En Chile por ejemplo – que es el caso que más conozco – la Ley de Presupuestos anual contempla un presupuesto total para la educación, pero de manera general. No entra más en el detalle, y menos menciona el monto destinado a fomentar la educación dentro del marco de la Alianza del Pacífico. Me imagino entonces que sea lo mismo en cada país, y que cada uno fije el monto mensual que considera necesario para estudiar dentro de ello. Cada país lanza una convocatoria anual dirigida a los nacionales de los países socios a través de una institución gubernamental: la AGCI para Chile, la AMEXCID para México, el ICETEX para Colombia y el PRONABEC para Perú. Para el destino Chile por ejemplo, son CLP$400.000/mes (US$585) para movilidad estudiantil, y CLP$500.000/mes (US$730) para movilidad académica, mientras que la AMEXCID considera necesarios montos de MXN$9.500/mes (US$530) en el caso de una movilidad estudiantil, y MXN$13.500 (US$760) para una movilidad académica.

En Chile, son 36 las universidades que participan del programa de movilidad estudiantil (un semestre para estudiantes de pregrado) y académica (entre tres semanas y un año para doctorandos, investigadores y docentes). En lo que va de Colombia, son 53 EES; 172 EES en México; y 39 universidades peruanas. Hay que subrayar que en Chile y en Perú sólo participan universidades, limitando así las posibilidades: si un estudiante de un Instituto técnico mexicano quiere ir a estudiar a un Instituto técnico en Chile, no puede y viceversa. Las áreas prioritarias del programa son las siguientes: negocios, finanzas, comercio internacional, administración pública, ciencias políticas, turismo, economía, relaciones internacionales, medio ambiente y cambio climático, innovación, ciencia y tecnología, e ingenierías.


Hay muchas críticas que se pueden hacer aquí. Primero, el número de becas: 100 becas por país es en efecto muy poco, y no es proporcional al número de estudiantes en cada país. 100 becas para México y 100 becas para Perú corresponden proporcionalmente al 0.003% y 0.012% de la población estudiantil que pueda recibir el beneficio. El número de becas debería de ser proporcional a la población estudiantil y el aporte financiero de cada país seguir precisamente este mismo principio.

Asimismo, se entiende que al reforzar la cooperación universitaria se refuerzan los lazos entre los países. Pero cuatro países al final es muy poco, y limita las posibilidades reales. Esto cuestiona la relevancia de tal programa en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico.

Tercero, aquí hablamos de países que tienen más o menos la misma configuración académica, las mismas carreras, y sobre todo que hablan la misma lengua. Este programa es enriquecedor en cuanto a la cultura que es diferente en cada país, pero el resto no parece muy relevante. Si tomamos todos los países de América latina y el Caribe, se hablan el español, portugués, neerlandés, francés, inglés y hasta alemán en algunas universidades. Parece más enriquecedor hacer eso a nivel de la región ALC.

También hay que añadir que los estudiantes pagan los costos de arancel en su universidad de origen, lo que es bueno para un estudiante mexicano que vaya a ir a estudiar a Chile, pero no es reciproco para un estudiante chileno que vaya a estudiar a México ya que la educación en México, tal como lo planteamos, puede ser casi gratuita, y que cuesta un ojo en Chile. Se le haría más barato a un estudiante chileno ir en movilidad individual – es decir por su propia cuenta – que en movilidad supervisada dentro de acuerdos entre EES o gobiernos.

Un otro punto débil reside en la selección de los candidatos: los EES no tienen palabra ninguna en el proceso de selección. Las agencias mismas deciden de todo: un estudiante peruano postulará directamente al PRONABEC para ir a estudiar a Colombia, y el ICETEX decidirá del otorgamiento de la beca, sin consultar ni el EES de origen, ni él de destino. Esto, por supuesto, suele limitar el interés de los EES participantes ya que la excelencia no es un criterio de selección – un mínimo de 5 de 10 es necesario en Chile por ejemplo.

Finalmente, las áreas prioritarias son resolutamente destinadas al money making y a la lógica de comercio internacional, pues el área de la agricultura y la pesca por ejemplo está fuera de las convocatorias – aunque es de suma importancia para cada uno de estos países.


En el caso de Erasmus, el lema “Unida en la diversidad” de la Unión Europea toma un sentido especial, y si me preguntan este programa es el mayor logro de la UE hasta la fecha, pues funciona perfectamente y se le destina muchos recursos financieros y humanos. El estudiante “estudia” oficialmente, pero en la práctica se sabe que fiestudia – estudia en las fiestas –  conociendo a personas que hablan idiomas distintos, que vienen de distintos países con costumbres diferentes. Sin embargo, Erasmus ha adquirido tanta importancia que hoy se refiere a la nueva generación – mi generación – como a la “generación Erasmus”, demostrando asimismo la importancia de esta herramienta. Estoy orgulloso de pertenecer a esta generación, y no conozco a nadie que no lo esté: aprendí el español en cinco meses, sin bases previas. Hablo francés, alemán, inglés, español y portugués, en muchos sentidos gracias a Erasmus. Entiendo la cultura de los países en los que estuve, puedo trabajar en y con cualquier país que hable uno de estos idiomas. En el caso de la Alianza del Pacífico, no pienso que se hablara jamás nunca de una “generación movilidad estudiantil y académica” – primero al nombre del programa le falta el encanto, el sexy y el lado fácil de recordar de Erasmus y segundo los estudiantes y académicos no se identificarán a una generación unida más allá de las fronteras ya que no se unen países con tan solo 400 becas cada año. Claro, tiene el mérito de existir, pero no se pensó bien: al querer replicar los logros europeos, se olvidó que no se puede aplicar estrictamente en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico. Hay que adaptar las bases a la realidad de estos cuatro países. Esto es una muestra más de que los gobiernos implementan políticas con el fin de presumir que implementan políticas y se olvidan del rol que deben desempeñar: diseñar políticas que representan una sociedad en su conjunto y no solo satisfacerse con copias de políticas que funcionaron en otros países.