1. How much does it cost choosing in Chilean higher education?
Diversification of tuition fees during the last decade in Chile
Nelson Paulus
Paula Mena
Esteban Geoffroy

2. Abstract
“How much does it cost choosing in Chilean higher education?”
A theoretical presupposition underlying liberalisation of Chilean Higher Education was that market would widen the access and increase the freedom of choice. It is therefore worth asking how differentiated is, in relation to its fees, the offer of undergraduate courses? By using statistical information gathered by the Higher Council of Education, this paper describes the evolution of several indicators associated to costs in order to identify how, as time goes by, the range of alternatives either narrows down or widens. This will be followed by an analysis of the current offer of fees and their relationship with other relevant variables.

3. Introduction
Development
Liberalization process
Neoliberal economic system
After introducing substantive reforms in the constitutional order, labour codes, social security, health system, capital markets and public education, towards the early 1980s they turned their attention to higher education
The whole of the university system had raised their fees in an average 47% between 1995 and 2002 and noting also that nothing pointed towards a change in this incremental tendency because of people’s expectation to get university schooling.

4. We can see that towards the end of the 1990s has a 44,9% of private participation in funding the general costs of education. In the context of higher education, this same indicator goes as high as 77,2%, a figure that is mostly made out of the contribution of Chilean households. In 2005, the contribution of this same indicator went higher than 95% of the private contribution in higher education (OECD, 2007).

5. Graphic 0: Relative proportion of expenditure by private entities other than households on TEIs, 1995 and 2004
Countries are ranked in descending order of the relative proportion of expenditure by private entities other than households on TEIs in 2004.
Note: See note on Figure 4.5 for a definition of expenditure by “private entities”. For Denmark data include part of post-secondary non-tertiary education. For the Slovak Republic data do not include Tertiary-type B education. For „2004‟ data, the reference year for Chile is Source: OECD (2004; 2007a). OECD (2004), Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2004, OECD, Paris. OECD (2007a), Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2007, OECD, Paris.

8. Graphic Nº3. Evolution of percentage participation of non-technical undergraduate courses in ranges of thousands of US$

9. Administration and Commerce.
Table Nº1: Percentage distribution by area of the programme in offer (2007)
Entre 0 US$ y 999 US$
Entre 1000 US$ y 1999 US$
Entre 2000 US$ y 2999 US$
Entre 3000 US$ y 3999 US$
Entre 4000 US$ y 4999 US$
Entre 5000 US$ y 5999 US$
Entre 6000 US$ y 6999 US$
Entre 7000 US$ y 7999 US$
Entre 8000 US$ y 8999 US$
Entre 9000 US$ y 9999 US$
Administration and Commerce.
0,6%
28,5%
38,9%
22,3%
6,2%
2,1%
1,1%
0,2%
0,0%
Agro-industry
11,1%
13,5%
35,7%
27,8%
0,8%
Arts and Architecture
16,0%
19,1%
27,5%
20,6%
8,4%
3,8%
4,6%
Sciences
16,3%
44,2%
34,6%
2,9%
1,9%
Social Sciences
16,9%
30,7%
30,2%
11,2%
6,0%
3,9%
1,0%
Law
15,4%
24,5%
32,9%
18,9%
4,9%
3,5%
Education
24,4%
51,3%
20,5%
3,2%
0,3%
Humanities
36,1%
19,3%
9,6%
7,2%
1,2%
Health
34,8%
26,5%
13,1%
4,8%
Technology
17,3%
39,0%
23,7%
14,2%
4,4%
1,3%
0,1%

13. Graphic 7. Universities percentage participation of number of programmes by range of prices

14. Graphic 8. Professional Institutions percentage participation of number of programmes by range of prices

16. Table Nº2. Evolution of annual average income by quintile in US$
1996
1998
2000
2003
2006 V
26276
30846
33832
34991
38462 IV
8831
10330
10795
11567
13949
III
5387
6283
7050
7385
8905 II
3672
4294
4790
5108
6171 I
1772
1983
2302
2409
2932
Total USD Average for 2007 Annual
9188
10747
11786
12281
14083

17. Average fee of the system
Table 3. Evolution of the value of average fees in the system in relation to the annual average income, by quintile
Average fee of the system
1996
1998
2000
2003
2006 V
5,7%
5,8%
6,1%
7,2%
7,4% IV
16,9%
17,3%
19,1%
21,7%
20,4%
III
27,6%
28,4%
29,2%
34,0%
32,0% II
40,6%
41,6%
43,1%
49,2%
46,2% I
84,0%
90,1%
89,6%
104,3%
97,3%
Average of incomes General
16,2%
16,6%
17,5%
20,5%
20,3%

18. Professional Qualification with an academic degree
Table Nº4: Percentage participation of average fee of different programmes in relation to annual average income, by quintile.
Average income by household for 2006, by quintile
Professional Qualification with an academic degree
Medicin V
8,5%
16,3% IV
23,5%
45,0%
III
36,7%
70,4% II
53,0%
101,6% I
111,6%
213,9%
General Average
23,2%
44,5%