a forgotten in the debate about education

The profit is a scourge. Now, what is the problem of profit? Not that those who are under their schools are exploited, but -in fact that may not have access to the schools for profit have a bad education. Better, worse education.

Because the center of the issue is not the quality of education, but the difference. If all the schools of Chile bend them to its quality (and all deliver good education) of all forms would be a scourge and a profit. And this is because the topic of education is centrally the access to the university, and access to the university (and good careers in good universities) are produced by a ranking system. Therefore, the absolute quality of your education is completely irrelevant, but only your position. If you get you 750 points on the PSU of all forms stay out of Medicine in the PUC if 40 people with more than 750 points postularan there.

Now, the fact that the center of the education in Chile is the access to the University is not an irrational product of ‘cultural problems’. Given that those with college education have incomes much higher than the rest of the population, and that the rest of the population does not have reasonable salaries, the desperation to get out is a topic rational: it is to be out of the best option to get a decent income.

And here comes the oblivion basic: That the educational system works by ranking, and that the central theme is to achieve a better location than the other is something known. Known by the families, who all fit their strategies to the foregoing. What I want to parents it is not good education, nor even better education, is that your child has a better education than the children of the neighbor.

Schools grantees that critics are just a way that the holders have money, play a central role for families: to Ensure the children of the middle class that will have a better education than the children of the poor. Not necessarily by differences in the subjects, but -finally be saved from the bad influences. Being in a college-subsidized is to be in a school in which, finally, are children of families concerned about the education (because only the parents carefree, or are so poor -and so, as bad influences that are not in a position to pay a just weight, leave their children in city schools).

In other words, the inequality in education is a result intended and desired by those parents. That is what makes the profit (and the difference) is not a problem of a few evil people who make money with the education -in the end, not many claim to by the evil ones who earn money with the power. It is a problem of a will of a whole social segment to assure their children a position above other children.

But, of course, that you can not say.