copyright by maria andrea contreras 2005 · 2019. 2. 8. · university of san nicolás de...

Copyright

by

Maria Andrea Contreras

2005

The Dissertation Committee for Maria Andrea Contreras Certifies that this

is the approved version of the following dissertation:

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZATION AND

GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS OF TWO SELECTED

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Committee:

Marta N. Ovando, Supervisor

Marilyn Kameen

James Duncan

Michael Thomas

Orlando Kelm




by

Maria Andrea Contreras M.V. M.D.U

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

The University of Texas at Austin

August, 2005

Dedication

To my daughter Maria Juliana, my son Mateo, my husband Eliseo and my parents

Nelson and Alicia

v

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the people who helped me

realize my dream of getting a Doctoral Degree in Education. First, I would like to

thank Dr. Jim Duncan, who gave me the opportunity and much encouragement

along the way. I would also like to thank Dr. Lasher and Dr. Kameen, who made

it possible for me to be accepted into the program.

I am especially grateful to Dr. Ovando, my mentor, who has given me so

much of her time and advice during the long research process, and then helped me

pull it all together. I owe sincere gratitude to my honorable committee members

who read draft chapters and provided many valuable comments and suggestions:

Dr. Maryleen Kameen, Jim Duncan, Orlando Kelm, and Mike Thomas.

I would like to thank to the University of Ciencias Aplicadas y

Ambientales U.D.C.A. and his Rector, German Anzola Montero for allowing me

to spend many, many long hours there studying; also Ovidio Oudjian Bernard and

Luis Enrique Nieto from the University of Rosario, and the helpful people in the

Historical Archive of the National University who furnished me with some very

valuable sources for this research.

I would also like to thank my beloved teachers, friends, and my editor,

Ann Derrick, for her patience and understanding during the long editing process.

My eternal gratitude and love goes to my family; my husband Eliseo, my

daughter Maria Juliana, and my son Mateo, for their love, support and

vi

understanding, and for the many sacrifices they have made for me over the years

of study. To my father Nelson, who gave me encouragement; to my mother

Alicia, my sisters Luisa Fernanda and Carmen Alicia, my father-in-law Gonzalo,

and my mother-in-law Martha – your care, support and constancy throughout this

long process means everything to me.

vii




Publication No._____________

Maria Andrea Contreras. EdD

The University of Texas at Austin, 2005

Supervisor: Marta N. Ovando

The aim of this study was to establish the evolution of the organization

and governance dimensions of two Colombian higher education Institutions;

included one public (National University of Colombia) and one private (Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario) as the representation of Colombian

universities that will help to illustrate the evolution of higher education

specifically from these two aspects.

Three questions were proposed to guide this historical research: (1) How have the

organization and governance dimensions of higher education evolved in two

selected higher education institutions of Colombia?, (2) What characteristics of

the Spanish and French models are reflected in the organization and governance

dimensions of private and public higher education institutions?, and (3) What are

viii

the differences and similarities of the organization and governance dimensions

between public and private Colombian higher education institutions as reflected

by two case examples?

The findings show that the organization and governance dimensions of the

Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National University of

Colombia have their genesis in the medieval university model, which instituted

the use of contemporary titles such as Rector, Vice-Rector (Provost), and Dean

among others. Through the influence of the medieval university, each higher

education institution evolved through a complicated process derived from the

historical development of the societal, economic, political, and educational

evolution of the country, from since its conquest to the present day. In addition,

certain aspects of the university organization and governance reflected the

Spanish and French models. However, the researcher also discovered the

influence of other higher education models, such as the American and German

ones.

Finally, both higher education institutions have similar organizational

structures to the other higher education institutions of Colombia and the rest of

the world. Most of the positions and governmental bodies have similar duties and

responsibilities; however, the most important difference between the university

and the college, which was the focus of the study, was the way these offices were

set up within each organizational chart according to the historical time of each

ix

institution. The expansion of each higher education institution caused that each

one become more complex, making it necessary to add more offices in order to

respond to the challenges that they faced.

x

Table of Contents

List of Tables......................................................................................................xxiii

List of Figures .................................................................................................... xxvi

List of Exhibits .................................................................................................xxviii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Brief description of Colombia........................................................................ 7 Rationale for the study ................................................................................. 10 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 12 Purpose of The Study ................................................................................... 13 Research Questions ...................................................................................... 13 Methodology ................................................................................................ 14 Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 15 Delimitations ................................................................................................ 16 Limitations ................................................................................................... 17 Organization of The Study ........................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature........................................................................................ 20 Historical Evolution of Higher Education.................................................... 20

Period I: Colonial University (1580-1819): ........................................ 21 Historical Context ...................................................................... 22 Exploration and Conquest .......................................................... 22 Social Context ............................................................................ 23 Administration Structure ............................................................ 24 Economic Context ...................................................................... 25

xi

Religious Context ....................................................................... 25 Political Context ......................................................................... 27 Institutions.................................................................................. 29 University of Santo Tomás of Aquino ....................................... 32 Pontific University Xaveriana.................................................... 34 University of San Nicolás de Bari.............................................. 35 Great College of San Bartolomé ................................................ 35 The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario ..................... 36 The Great College of San Buenaventura.................................... 37 College-Seminar San Francisco of Popayán: ............................. 38 College of Antioquia .................................................................. 38 Students ...................................................................................... 39 Access......................................................................................... 39 Classification of Students........................................................... 40 Academic Degrees...................................................................... 41 Faculty........................................................................................ 42

Period II: Republican University (1819-1842): .................................. 44 Historical Context ...................................................................... 46 Political Context ......................................................................... 46 Social Context ............................................................................ 48 Economic Context ...................................................................... 50 Institutions.................................................................................. 51 The Central University of Bogotá: ............................................. 56 The University of Cauca (Popayán): .......................................... 56 The University of Boyacá (Tunja): ............................................ 57 The University of Magdalena (Cartagena de Indias): ................ 57 Students ...................................................................................... 58 Access......................................................................................... 58 Cost of Education ....................................................................... 60

xii

Faculty........................................................................................ 61 Period III: Beginning of the Modern University (1842-1930):........... 62

Historical Context ...................................................................... 63 Political Context ......................................................................... 63 Social Context ............................................................................ 66 Economic Context ...................................................................... 69 Institutions.................................................................................. 71 Students ...................................................................................... 76 Access......................................................................................... 76 Academic Degrees...................................................................... 78 Cost of Education ....................................................................... 79 Student Activism ........................................................................ 81 Faculty........................................................................................ 83

Period IV: Reform of the Modern University (1930-2000): ............... 85 Historical Context ...................................................................... 86 Political Context ......................................................................... 86 Social Context ............................................................................ 89 Economic Context ...................................................................... 91 Institutions.................................................................................. 93 Students .................................................................................... 101 Access....................................................................................... 101 Academic Degrees.................................................................... 105 Students Activism .................................................................... 107 Professors ................................................................................. 108

Previous Studies of Colombian Higher Education..................................... 112 Studies on Specific Historical Period................................................ 113 Studies on Specific Institutions of Higher Education ....................... 114 Studies on Specific Higher Education Topics................................... 114 Studies on the Development of Colombian Higher Education ......... 115

xiii

Theoretical Framework of the Study.......................................................... 116

CHAPTER 3

Methodology ....................................................................................................... 120 Research Design......................................................................................... 122 Description of the Sample .......................................................................... 127 Data Collection........................................................................................... 130 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 131

CHAPTER 4

The Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions of a Private Higher Education Institution: the University of Rosario (Universidad del Rosario) ...................................................................................................... 132 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROSARIO .................................. 132 Colonial university (1580-1819) ................................................................ 132 Republican University (1819-1842)........................................................... 147 Beginning of the Modern University (1842-1930) .................................... 148 Reform of the Modern University (1930-2000) ......................................... 155 Evolution of the Organization and Governance of the Great College ....... 157

Constitutions of 1654 ........................................................................ 158 Sponsor..................................................................................... 163 Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) ................................................ 165 Rector ....................................................................................... 166 Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 169 Other positions ......................................................................... 170

New Constitutions of 1893................................................................ 170 Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study

based on the New Constitutions of 1893......................... 173 Sponsor..................................................................................... 175 Advisory Senate (Consiliatura): ............................................... 177 Rector ....................................................................................... 178

xiv

Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 178 Syndic (Síndico) ....................................................................... 179 Secretary................................................................................... 179 Dean ......................................................................................... 179 Other positions ......................................................................... 180

Agreement 5 of 1930:........................................................................ 180 Investment and Credit Consultant: ........................................... 185 Investment and Credit Consultant Board ................................. 186 Faculty Assistant Secretary ...................................................... 187 Colegiatura ............................................................................... 187

Agreement 3 of 1974......................................................................... 188 Advisors (Consiliarios) ............................................................ 190 Rector ....................................................................................... 191 Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 192 Faculty Council ........................................................................ 193 Assistant Research Committee................................................. 194 Planning Department................................................................ 194 Planning Council ...................................................................... 195 Specialization and Graduate Studies School ............................ 195 Research Center: ...................................................................... 197 Students Council ...................................................................... 198 Students and University Welfare Dean .................................... 199 Sindicatura................................................................................ 200

Agreement 77 of 1995....................................................................... 200 Rector ....................................................................................... 204 Advisors (Consiliarios) ............................................................ 205 Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 207 Sindicatura................................................................................ 208 Faculty Academic Council ....................................................... 208

xv

Students and University Welfare Dean .................................... 209 Current Organizational and Governance Strucure of the Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario .................................... 209

CHAPTER 5

The Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions of a Public Higher Education Institution: the National University of Colombia (Universidad Nacional de Colombia) ........................................................ 211 HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA......... 211

The National University Branches .................................................... 222 Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions of The

National University ........................................................................... 224 Law 271 of 1826 ............................................................................... 224

Particular Board........................................................................ 226 Rector ....................................................................................... 226 Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 227 First and Second Bedel............................................................. 227 Secretary................................................................................... 227

Decree of September 22, 1867 .......................................................... 228 General Director of University Instruction .............................. 230 Great Council of the University ............................................... 232 Inspection and Governance Board ........................................... 233 Schools' Councils ..................................................................... 233 Rector ....................................................................................... 234 Rector of the School ................................................................. 235 Secretary................................................................................... 237 Treasurer................................................................................... 238 Vice-Rector and Pasantes......................................................... 238

Decree of January 13 of 1868 ........................................................... 239 Decree 1238 of 1892 ......................................................................... 239

University Board ...................................................................... 241

xvi

Rector ....................................................................................... 241 Rector of Schools ..................................................................... 242 Directive Faculty Council ........................................................ 242

Law No. 039 of 1903 (October 26) ................................................... 243 University Board ...................................................................... 244 Rector of Faculties or Schools ................................................. 245

Decree No. 491 of 1904 .................................................................... 245 Law 68 of 1935 ................................................................................. 245

Board of Trustees (Directive Council) ..................................... 247 Rector ....................................................................................... 249 Syndic....................................................................................... 249 General Secretary ..................................................................... 250 Academic Senate ...................................................................... 251 Dean ......................................................................................... 251 Higher Faculty Senate .............................................................. 252 Lower Faculties, School, and University Service .................... 252 Student Council ........................................................................ 253

Agreement No. 66 of 1939 (Board of Trustees)................................ 253 Rector ....................................................................................... 254 General Secretary ..................................................................... 254 Syndic....................................................................................... 255 Dean of Faculties and Head of Schools and Institutes ............. 256 Faculty or School Directive Council ........................................ 256 Secretary of the Faculty or School ........................................... 257

Decree No. 0136 of 1958 .................................................................. 257 Advisory Senate ....................................................................... 259 Academic Senate ...................................................................... 261 Rector ....................................................................................... 263 Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries.............. 263

xvii

Syndic....................................................................................... 264 Dean or Head of the Teaching and Research Units ................. 264 Academic Units Council .......................................................... 264 Relation Committee.................................................................. 265 Financing Committee ............................................................... 265

Law 65 of 1963 (December 10) ........................................................ 266 Board of Trustees ..................................................................... 267 Academic Senate ...................................................................... 268 Rector ....................................................................................... 270 Directive Council of the Faculties, Schools or Institutes ......... 270 Students' Council...................................................................... 271

Agreement 108 of 1964..................................................................... 271 Planning Office ........................................................................ 274 Organization and Methods Office ............................................ 275 General Secretary ..................................................................... 276 Vice-Rectorship........................................................................ 276 Student Affairs Division........................................................... 277 Syndic Administrator ............................................................... 278 General Coordination Committee: ........................................... 279 Planning Committee:................................................................ 279 Administrative and Financing Committee: .............................. 280

Agreement 59 of 1965....................................................................... 280 Dean ......................................................................................... 281 Vice-Dean................................................................................. 282

Agreement 77 of 1969....................................................................... 282 Vice-Rector .............................................................................. 283 Students’ Direction................................................................... 284 Teaching Direction................................................................... 284

Agreement 82 of 1977....................................................................... 284

xviii

Agreement 83 of 1977....................................................................... 285 Academic Director for Undergraduate and Graduate

Programs.......................................................................... 285 Program Advisory Committee ................................................. 286 Academic Directors Committee ............................................... 288

Decree 82 of 1980 ............................................................................. 289 Board of Trustees ..................................................................... 291 Rector ....................................................................................... 292 Academic Senate ...................................................................... 293

Agreement 124 of 1980..................................................................... 293 Academic Vice-Rector: ............................................................ 294 General Secretary ..................................................................... 295 General Administrative Director .............................................. 296 Faculty Directive Council ........................................................ 296 Area Committees...................................................................... 297 Research and Scientific Development Committee-CINDEC... 297 Research and Scientific Development Director ....................... 298 Graduate Studies Committee.................................................... 299 University Administrative Committee ..................................... 299 Faculty Directive Council ........................................................ 300

Agreement 100 of 1984..................................................................... 301 Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare .......... 301 General Secretary ..................................................................... 302 University Welfare Committee ................................................ 303 Faculty Student Affairs and University Welfare Director........ 304 Faculty Advisor in University Welfare Committee ................. 305

Agreement 44 of 1986....................................................................... 305 Academic Senate ...................................................................... 308 University Sources Vice-Rector............................................... 309

xix

General Secretary ..................................................................... 309 Deans Council .......................................................................... 309 Curricular Programs Committee .............................................. 310 University Welfare Committee ................................................ 310 Research and Scientific Development Committee-CINDEC... 311 Professors Committee .............................................................. 311 Professors Committee designated by the Board of Trustees.... 312 Directive Faculty Council ........................................................ 312 Student Affairs and University Welfare Vice-Dean ................ 312

Decree 1210 of 1993 ......................................................................... 313 Board of Trustees ..................................................................... 315 Rector ....................................................................................... 316

Agreement 13 of 1999....................................................................... 317 Branch Council......................................................................... 319 Faculty Council ........................................................................ 319 Dean 321 Basic Academic-Administrative Performance Units ............... 321 Inter-Faculty Centers................................................................ 323 University Cloister (Claustro) and Colegiatura........................ 323 University Welfare Unit (UNIBIENESTAR) .......................... 324

Current Organizational and Governance Structure of the National University of Colombia ............................................................ 325

CHAPTER 6

Characteristics of the Spanish and French Model reflected in the Organization and Governance of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National University .............................................................................. 327 University of Salamanca (Spanish Model)................................................. 327

History of the University of Salamanca ............................................ 328 The Great Colleges............................................................................ 331

xx

Organization and Governance of the University of Salamanca ........ 334 Influence of The University of Salamanca on the Great College of

Nuestra Señora of Rosario................................................................. 339 Imperial University (French Model) .......................................................... 343

Evolution of the French Higher Education since the French Revolution ................................................................................ 344

The Imperial University .................................................................... 350 Administration and Organization of the Imperial University: .......... 351

Influence of the imperial university (French Model) on the national university........................................................................................... 354

Others models and movements that influenced the development of the organization and governance dimensions of both institutions: ......... 357

CHAPTER 7

Comparison between the organization and governance of the National University and the University of Rosario................................................... 359 Board of Regents ........................................................................................ 363 Board of Trustees ....................................................................................... 363 Rector ......................................................................................................... 365 Vice-President of Academic Affairs .......................................................... 368 Vice-President of Business Affairs ............................................................ 369 General Secretary ....................................................................................... 370 Faculty Council .......................................................................................... 371 Academic Senate ........................................................................................ 372 Students Council ........................................................................................ 374 Research ..................................................................................................... 375 Graduate Studies ........................................................................................ 376 Dean ........................................................................................................... 378 Planning and Development ........................................................................ 379

xxi

CHAPTER 8

Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................. 382 Summary of The Study .............................................................................. 382 Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 384

Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions in Two Selected Higher Education Institutions in Colombia ............... 384 The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario ................... 384 The National University of Colombia ...................................... 394

Characteristics of the University of Salamanca (Spanish Model) and Imperial University (French Model) Reflected in the Organization and Governance Dimensions of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University of Colombia, Respectively ..................................... 406

Differences and similarities related to the organization and governance dimensions between The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University of Colombia .................................................................................. 413

Conclusions ................................................................................................ 416 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 419

APPENDIX A

Published Primary and Secondary Sources ......................................................... 421 Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario ............................................ 421 National University of Colombia ............................................................... 424

APPENDIX B

Unpublished Primary Sources............................................................................. 427 Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario ............................................ 427 National University of Colombia ............................................................... 428

APPENDIX C Section 1. Colonial Period (1653-1819)..................................................... 430 Section 2. Republican Period (1819-1842) ................................................ 434

xxii

Section 3. Beginning of the Modern University (1842-1930) ................... 435

APPENDIX D 437

GLOSSARY 438

REFERENCES 445

VITA 462

xxiii

List of Tables

Table 1: First universities established in the colonial period. ............................... 31

Table 2. Distribution of Great Colombian Population by race in 1825 ................ 49

Table 3. Distribution of Colombian Students Enrollment by University 1842-

1950.................................................................................................. 59

Table 4. Colombian demographic development during nineteenth century and

the beginning of the twentieth century. ............................................ 68

Table 5. Statistical Portrait of Faculty and Students, 1847- 1848......................... 85

Table 6. Distribution of Colombian Population between 1938 and 1993............ 91

Table 7. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by type,

1935-1959......................................................................................... 95

Table 8. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by Type,

1960-1975......................................................................................... 97

Table 9. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by Type,

1980- 2000........................................................................................ 99

Table 10. Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Type of

Institution, 1935-2000 .................................................................... 103

Table 11. Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Gender,

1935-2000....................................................................................... 105

Table 12. Distribution of Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education

by Academic Degree, 1960-2000................................................... 106

Table 13. Distribution of Colombian higher education Faculty by Type of

Institution and Gender,1935-2000.................................................. 109

xxiv

Table 14. Distribution of Colombian higher education Faculty by the Number

of Hours Employed, 1965-2000 ..................................................... 112

Table 15. Sponsors and Co-sponsors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora

del Rosario between 1653 and 1819. ............................................. 164

Table 16. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario between

1930 and 1973. ............................................................................... 184

Table 17. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

between 1974 and 1994.................................................................. 192

Table 18. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

between 1994 and 2001.................................................................. 205

Table 19. Evolution of the National University of Colombia between 1960

and 2002 ......................................................................................... 222

Table 20. Evolution of the Organization Dimension in The Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University. ............ 360

Table 21. Composition of the Board of Trustees in The National University. ... 364

Table 22. Requirements to be appointed in the Rector Position ......................... 367

Table 23. Composition of the Faculty Council in The Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and in The National University. ........ 371

Table 24. Composition of the Academic Senate in The National University. .... 373

Table 25. Composition of the Students Council in the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National University............... 374

Table 26. Composition of the Research Committee in The Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University. ............ 376

xxv

Table 27. Composition of the Graduate Studies Committee in The Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National

University. ...................................................................................... 377

Table 28. Composition of the Planning and Development Board in The Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National

University. ...................................................................................... 380

Table 29. Organization and Governance dimensions of the University

Salamanca and the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario . 407

Table 30. Organization and Governance dimensions of the Imperial University

and the National University of Colombia ...................................... 411

xxvi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario between

1654 and 1893. ......................................................................... 159

Figure 2. Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario between

1893 and 1930. ......................................................................... 173

Figure 3. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del

Rosario 1969. ........................................................................... 181


Rosario 1974. ........................................................................... 189


Rosario 1995. ........................................................................... 201

Figure 6. Organizational Structure of the University of Rosario 2004 ............... 210

Figure 7 Organizational Structure of the Central University of Bogotá, 1826 ... 225

Figure 8. Organizational Structure of The National University of the United

States of Colombia, 1867 ......................................................... 229

Figure 9. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia,

1892.......................................................................................... 240


1903.......................................................................................... 244


1935.......................................................................................... 246


1958.......................................................................................... 258

xxvii


1964.......................................................................................... 272


1969.......................................................................................... 283


1980.......................................................................................... 294


1986. ......................................................................................... 306


1993.......................................................................................... 314


1999. ......................................................................................... 318


2004.......................................................................................... 326

Figure 20. Organization of the Education System in France between 1789-

1804. ......................................................................................... 347

Figure 21. Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of The Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario from 1654 to 2000. .... 388

Figure 22. Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of the National

University of Colombia 1867 to 2000...................................... 398

Figure 23. Comparative Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure

of The Great College of Rosario and The National University

of Colombia.............................................................................. 414

xxviii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Trends and Events in Colombian Higher Education .......................... 119

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

OVERVIEW

Higher education has it origins in the medieval period in Europe. The idea

of the university as an organization started to be developed in the twelfth century.

It was an incipient form of organization formed by groups of students who

established their own organization and assemblies, appointed faculty, set the rules

for spending funds, decided courses of study, and awarded degrees (Cohen,

1998). Higher education in the New World was modeled after the educational

forms developed in medieval Europe. For instance, the Colombian higher

education system was established in the colonial period (1580-1819) when

Spaniards conquered and colonized the country. It has evolved in order to respond

to the educational requirements of each particular historical period.

To comprehend the evolution of the Colombian higher education system,

it is important to know the political, religious, economical and social contexts of

each historical period in which the system evolved. Although higher education

may be analyzed from several perspectives; finance, faculty, policy and politics,

curricula, research, public service, students, campus constituents and others, the

present research focuses on the organization and governance aspects only. These

2

two dimensions have become an important investigative field in the higher

education arena over the last century.

Organization and governance of higher education in Colombia have

developed and adjusted to respond to the expansion and evolution of the higher

education system including the number of institutions, programs, students,

faculty, curricula, mission and so on. However, there is a difference in meaning

between “organization” and “governance”. “Organization” refers to how people

are grouped in order to make decisions and to get their work done, while

“governance” relates to the way the decision-making process is structured with in

organizations (Forest & Kinder, 2002; Weingartner, 1996; Westmeyer, 1990).

From the organizational perspective, a higher education institution;

namely, a university, is considered to be as one of the most complex structures of

organization in modern society. In fact, the university is one of the oldest kinds of

organization. As universities have evolved along with human development, they

have taken on distinctive features and patterns of organization and forms of

decision-making (Schmidtlein, 1987). Colleges and universities have some unique

characteristics that differ in many ways from other organizations. For example,

universities have ambiguous and incommensurable goals, and are dualistic in

nature. They treat the students as clients, not just customers. Governance and

decision-making structures are shared by the constituencies of the univeristy.

Finally, a university's work force is dominated by professionals (Baldridge,

3

Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1977; Birbaum, 1988, Weingartner, 1996). Due to the

distinctive features of a university, traditional management theories developed for

corporations and business enterprises cannot be applied to institutes of higher

education without carefully considering whether or not they will work.

On the other hand, there is no single, commonly accepted definition of

governance. Generally, this term encompasses the structures, policies and

processes through which institutional participants interact, influence each other,

and communicate with the larger environment in order to meet institutional goals

and accomplish the mission. Governance focuses on institutional rather than

organizational aspects. Traditionally, governance gives more attention to defining

and differentiating the particular appropriate roles of the various constituencies

involved in the decision-making process in higher education (Birbaum, 1983a,

1988b). Decision-making involves the structures, processes and techniques

employed by persons within organizations in order to make choices among

alternative policies and courses of action. This could be considered as one of the

most complicated and overtly political activities of an organization. Decision-

making also involves communication, planning, deciding, acting, and reacting

through information processing and coordination (Forest & Kinder, 2002; Hoy &

Miskel, 1996).

From the organizational point of view, the concept of the university itself

as a formal institution is rooted in the medieval era. This idea contrasts with

4

Greek schools and the rudimentary way in which the schools were organized

during that era. Medieval institutions introduced the use of several contemporary

terms that continue to be used today such as Dean, President, Proctor, and Rector.

Similarly, these institutions introduced the idea of curriculum, courses, degrees,

and student organizations, among others (Duryea, 1973; Schachner, 1938).

European higher education institutions, as well as colleges and universities

in the New World, were influenced by certain aspects of the medieval university's

organization. In the same manner, other aspects of its organizational features

demonstrate the more direct influence of the university model that the respective

conquerors and colonizers brought to each country during the colonial period. As

a case in point, American colleges and universities reflect the English university

model1 , and German as to Research2 (Cohen, 1998), while Latin American

institutions reflect the influence of Spanish universities from the sixteenth and

seventeenth century.

Latin America received from Spain the threefold medieval division of

power; the State, the church, and the university. The establishment of colleges and

universities in Latin America began after the arrival of the Spanish conquerors

and colonizers in 1538 with the foundation of the University of Santo Tomás in

1 During the Colonial Period (1636-1789), the first college and universities established under the influence of European models of university, but specially English colleges and universities (Cohen, 1998). 2 After the 1850s the German University became model of the American higher education system, due to the influence that American Professors brought to United States after studying in German Universities (Cohen, 1998).

5

Santo Domingo. Colleges and universities were created to serve the church and

the State at the same time, and often functioned by the authority of the papal bull

(pontifical universities) and royal charters, even though both hats could be worn

by the same institution. It was common for the Crown to authorize the creation of

universities that were retroactively sanctioned by the Pope (Levi, 1986; Maier &

Weatherhead, 1979). The most significant universities created in the colonial

period in Latin America were the University of Mexico and the University of

Lima. These universities were located in the capital of each vice-royalty; in the

North in México and in the South in Perú. These universities were considered to

be the greatest universities of the continent (Levi, 1986; Tünnerman, 1999), and

had the same organization and privileges as the Spanish Universities (the

University of Salamanca and the University of Alcalá de Henares). The Peruvian

and Mexican Universities could not offer education to all the young people born

in the colonies. Consequently the bishops, religious orders, and the Real Audience

(Real Audiencia) made a request to the Pope and the King to create the foundation

of universities in other important cities of the New World. As a result, new higher

education institutions were established in Sucre (Bolivia), Spanish Island

(Dominican Republic), Bogotá (Colombia), Quito (Ecuador), and Argentina

among others (Rodriguez, 1973).

Colombia, located in the northwest part of South America, was also

influenced by the idea of the European university, specifically by the Spanish.

6

The evolution of Colombian higher education has been marked by several

historical moments that shaped the actual system. Its origins date from the period

when Colombia was a colony under Spanish dominance (1580- 1819). The church

played a primary role not only in the creation of higher education institutions but

also in the establishment of primary and secondary education. In fact, the church

remained the principal authority in the sphere of education in Colombia until the

beginning of twentieth century. From a higher education perspective, few colleges

and universities were created during this period. Most of the institutions which

were established were closed and reopened several years later.

The main purpose of Colombian colonial colleges and universities was to

provide education to the civil and ecclesiastic bureaucracy. The Spanish colonial

university was replaced by the French model in the beginning of the 1800s

(Tünnerman, 1997). During the ensuing centuries, the Colombian higher

education system grew slowly in enrollment, faculty, institutions, and programs

during the following centuries. Few universities were established, and most of

them were public. At the beginning of the twentieth century some of the private

universities established did not have Catholic influence. The greatest expansion of

the Colombian higher education system occurring in the 1970s resulted from an

increased demand for a higher education.

7

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF COLOMBIA

Colombia is a democratic republic located on the North Western region of

South America, sharing borders with Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador and

Panama. It also borders the Pacific Ocean along 1.300 kilometers and with the

Caribbean Sea to the north along 1.600 kilometers.

The population of the country (estimated by 2002) is 41,008,227 inhabitants

with an overall density population of 36 persons per square kilometer. Around 74

percent of its population is considered to be urban, and about 96 percent of the

people are Roman Catholic. The official language is Spanish, although the

National Constitution of 1991 recognized the languages of ethnic groups in the

Colombian territory.

The racial make up of the country is diverse; 58 percent of the population is

mestizo that means mixed of white with American Indigenous. Twenty percent are

blancos (whites) and 14 percent mulato (a mixture of whites and blacks). The

remaining eight percent is formed by blacks, Native American, and other mixed

races. The Colombian upper class is made up of wealthy white people. The wealth

of these people is based on ownership of land and properties. Nevertheless, people

recently have accumulated wealth through commercial and entrepreneurial

activities. The emergence of the middle class is a result of the industrialization

and economic diversification which occurred during the twentieth century. Within

this group are included small-business people, merchants, professionals,

8

bureaucrats and government workers, professors and teachers, and white-collar

workers. Finally, the lowest class, considered as the majority of the Colombian

population, is made up of by manual laborers and low wage workers who are

poorly educated and do not have adequate housing, health care, or sanitation

(Encarta, 2002).

Colombia as a country is divided into thirty-two departments

(departamentos), and one capital district (distrito capital). The capital and largest

city is Bogotá, with an estimated population (1999) of 6,276,000. Other important

cities include Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Cartagena, and Bucaramanga.

From a political perspective, Colombia’s 1991 constitution replaced a charter

dating from 1886, which mandated a highly centralized republican form of

government. In other words, the executive branch dominates government

structure. National executive power is vested in a president. The president and the

vice-president are elected by direct popular vote to a single four-year term. The

president appoints a cabinet, subject to congressional approval. Under the 1991

constitution, the departmental governors and majors are also elected also by direct

popular vote. The legislative branch is comprised by bicameral Congress

(Congreso) consisting of the Senate (Senado) with 102 seats and the House of

Representatives (Cámara de Representantes) with 166 seats. Members of both,

Senate and House of Representatives are elected by popular vote to serve four-

year terms.

9

The judicial branch is comprised by three high courts; the Supreme Court, the

Constitutional Court, and the State Council. The Supreme Court of Justice (Corte

Suprema de Justicia) is the highest court of criminal law. Judges are selected from

the nominees of the Higher Council of Justice for eight-year terms. The

Constitutional Court (Corte Constitucional) monitors the integrity and supremacy

of the constitution, rules on constitutionality of laws, amendments to the

constitution, and international treaties. The Council of State (Consejo de Estado)

is the highest court of administrative law (CIA, 2002; Encarta, 2002).

From an economic point of view, Colombia is primarily an agrarian country.

However, there has been some industrial expansion over the last few decades. The

Colombian agricultural sector used to depend on coffee as its principal cash crop;

however, since the decline of international coffee prices; the country has

diversified its agricultural production through cacao beans, sugar cane, tobacco,

bananas and cut flowers. The mining sector has also made a significant

contribution to the economy of the country with large deposits of fossil fuels,

precious metals, and emeralds.

The labor force of the country, estimated by 1999, was 18.3 million of people

distributed as follows: 50% in services, agriculture, fishing and forestry 27%, and

industry and mining 23%. The unemployment rate was around 17% in 2001

(Encarta, 2002).

10

The education system, at all levels, is composed of 100.000 educational

institutions, 470,000 teachers and about 9.8 million students. As opposed to some

other countries, the private education sector in Colombia is very large.

Approximately 20% of students are in primary, 32% in secondary, and 67% in

tertiary education in private schools. By 2000, the access indicators of the

education system were 43.6 % for pre-school education, 83.7% for primary,

62.7% for secondary and 15.2 % for higher education (DNP, 2002). Elementary

education is free and compulsory for five years. After that, much effort has been

devoted to eliminating illiteracy, and 97 percent of all Colombians over age 15

could read and write by 2001 (Encarta, 2003).

RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

Although there are several aspects to research in the higher education

field, organization and governance became one of the most important aspects of

study in the last century due to the importance that the decision-making process

has in the administration of any higher education institution. The importance of

organization and governance as a field of study began in the end of last century

when Granville Stanley Hall (1844-1924), president of Clark University in

Worcester, Massachusetts, offered the first course on college and university

problems. That event set in motion the study of higher education with emphasis

on administration and student life in United States. However, not until 1926 the

11

first graduate program related to administration of higher education was created

(Goodchild, 1996).

In the same way that higher education institutions evolved in order to

respond to the huge challenges that these institutions faced over the years,

organization and governance have responded, shifted, and adapted to those

changes. As a result, academic institutions are functioning more effectively to

improve their ability to accomplish their goals and overcome obstacles. It is

important to point out that academic institutions have unique characteristics that

differentiate them from other types of organizations. These differences make the

application of traditional management theories used in business organizations to

educational institutions difficult without carefully considering the adaptation of

those theories to the academic setting (Baldridge et al, 1978).

Birbaum (1988) states that this concept reflects the most important

difference between business firms and higher education institutions, which is

governance. Although legally the authority in colleges and universities is held by

the governing board, the final decision-making process is shared among trustees,

president, and faculty.

As colleges and universities became larger and more complex, the way

that these institutions were governed and organized changed and evolved. The

roles of faculty, governing board, president, student and alumni, shifted since the

creation of colleges and universities. At present, administration and management

12

of higher education institutions require knowledge and expertise to fully

understand and accomplish the administrative tasks necessary for this changing

environment.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study of history in higher education was essential for those who are in

charge of higher education reforms (Cohen, 1998; McCulloch & Richardson,

2000). From the historical perspective, higher education may be analyzed from

several viewpoints, such as finance, faculty, policy and politics, curricula,

research, public service, students, campus constituents and others. Several studies

have been done on the evolution of the Colombian higher education system.

However, there is a lack of research specifically describing the evolution of

organizational and governance aspects of Colombian higher education i.e.

(Instituto Internacional para la Educación de América Latina (IESALC)- United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2002;

Romero, 1999). Most of the previous studies done in this topic are related to the

historiography of higher education, which analyze particular topics of higher

education such as the development of institutions (Jaramillo, 1996; López, 1991;

Rodriguez 1973; López 1991 Timaná, 1998; Zamora, 1980); students, faculty,

curriculum, legislation or even a particular historical period (Hernandez, 1980,

Laverde, 1986; Ocampo, 1998; Silva, 1992; Young, 1972/1994). Other studies

confirm that there are a few single reports, which compile the history of

13

Colombian higher education (Garcia, 1985; Rivadeneira, 1986; Suescún, 1994;

Torres, 1975).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to establish the evolution of two important

dimensions of Colombian higher education: organization and governance. For the

basis of this research, the study of two higher education institutions, one public

and one private, were selected to represent Colombian universities. This will help

illustrate the evolution of higher education specifically from these two

viewpoints. In order to understand the way organization and governance evolved,

it is important to describe the social, economic, and political contexts in which

higher education has developed in each particular historical period, as well as

some other important aspects related to the evolution of higher education such as

student enrollment, types of institutions, and faculty. Although, this background

information was not the focus of the research, it serves as a framework to

visualize the manner in which organization and governance evolved in Colombian

colleges and universities since their foundation in the colonial period.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

There are three questions that will guide the research on the historical

evolution of the organization and governance dimensions of Colombian Higher

Education:

14

1. How have the organization and governance dimensions of higher

education evolved in two selected higher education institutions of Colombia?

2. What characteristics of the Spanish and French models are reflected in

the organization and governance dimensions of private and public higher

education institutions?

3. What are the differences and similarities related to organization and

governance dimensions between public and private Colombian higher education

institutions as reflected by two case examples?

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative study followed the methodology used in historical

research. The historical method includes several stages that cannot be delimited

precisely into historical blocks. Shafer (1980) describes six stages comprising the

historical method. They are:

1o Learning what are categories of evidence,

2o collecting evidence,

3o communicating evidence,

4o determining authenticity of evidence (external criticism),

5o determining the meaning and value, or credibility of evidence

(internal criticism),

15

6o analyzing and synthesizing operations, which means blending

evidence that accurately describes historical events or solves

historical problems.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study was significant for four main reasons. First, previous research

on the history of Colombian higher education has focused on particular aspects of

higher education, such as the study of higher education development in one

particular historical period, establishment and evolution of institutions,

enrollment, faculty, and research among others. Although these are important

aspects of higher education, most of these studies are fragmented and do not

embody the evolution of Colombian higher education since its establishment in

the colonial period. Furthermore, these studies do not cover the organization and

governance dimensions in higher education, which are the focus of this research.

Second, this research contributes to the development of a Colombian

higher education with a focus on literature; specifically, the evolution of the

organization and governance. This investigation may serve as a basis for further

research, such as economics and finance, development of curriculum, research,

public service, and so on.

Third, this study provided background information on the evolution of

organization and governance dimensions of two higher education institutions to

leaders and administrators working in higher education who are interested in

16

gaining a better understanding of how these studies evolved in order to address

reform efforts in higher education. Researching the history of any field of study,

especially education, has become useful in highlighting the advantages of past

experiences which may lead to solutions of present problems.

Finally, this study provides interested educators and researchers with the

topic, the opportunity to better understand the evolutionary aspects of the

Colombian higher education system specifically related to organization and

governance.

DELIMITATIONS

This research will only focus on the analysis of the evolution of

organization and governance dimensions of public and private higher education

institutions in Colombia since their establishment. The researcher has chosen to

cover the periods from the colonial (1580) to the year 2000. Focusing on this

extended time period is central point to analyze the evolution of Colombian

higher education, including the outcomes of the present legislation that regulates

higher education in Colombia (30 of 1991 Law). Although this law helped

institutions to gain autonomy for both private and public institutions through

Articles 28 and 29 (which acknowledge the academic, administrative and

economic freedom of the university), this legislation provides the framework for

the way public institutions should be organized from Article 57 through Articles

95 (ICFES, 1995). In addition, this study will only address organization and

17

governance dimensions within two higher education institutions; one public and

one private. They are the National University of Colombia at Bogotá, and the

University of Rosario, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Given the nature of this qualitative study, limitations were described from

two perspectives: historical methodology and researcher limitations. From the

methodological perspective, the major limitation was related to bias in using and

analyzing evidence. This problem could be solved by sticking to the rule of

relevance and credibility of the primary and secondary sources described in

historical methodology. From the researcher's perspective, the historical method

involves great many value judgments, analysis, and subjective interpretation of

facts and events. Even though any researcher can claims of objectivity in the

sense of dispassionate, disinterested, scientific treatment of the investigation, it

becomes very difficult to be objective when one is dealing with history. As a

result, this study would be limited by this researcher's subjectivity. A second

limitation is the Spanish language in which most of the sources are written, which

makes the translation of some documents, policies and legislations difficult due to

the differences in style and editing.

18

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study is organized into eight chapters, appendices, glossary, and

bibliography.

Chapter 1 introduces the subject and the scope of the study, including an

overview of the research method, purpose, research questions, significance,

delimitations, limitations, and organization of the study.

Chapter 2 presents the relevant sources which examine the history of the

Colombian higher education system. The evolution of Colombian higher

education will be placed within the framework of higher education development

in the different historical periods. This chapter also includes a brief review of

previous research and the theoretical foundations of the study.

Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of the study including the qualitative

research and historical methodologies utilized in the research design, the

description of the sample, procedures and data collection, and data analysis.

Chapters 4 and 5 describe the evolution of the organization and

governance dimensions of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and

the National University of Colombia respectively, including a brief review of the

history of each institution.

Chapter 6 focuses on the influence that the Spanish and French models of

education had on the organization and governance of the Great College of Nuestra

Señora del Rosario and the National University of Colombia. It begins with a

19

brief review of the evolution and history of the Spanish and French higher

Education by placing emphasis on the organization and governance of the

University of Salamanca and the French Imperial University. The author then

analyzes the influence of the Spanish model on the Great College of Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, as well as the influence of the Imperial University on The

National University of Colombia.

Chapter 7 provides a comparison between the organization and

governance dimensions of The Great College of Rosario and the National

University of Colombia

Finally, Chapter 8 presents a summary, conclusions, a general discussion

of the implications of findings, and recommendations for future studies.

20

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature

The review of the literature for this qualitative historical study provides an

overview of Colombian higher education evolution, including the political,

economical, and social context in which the system evolved. This chapter will

focus on the development of institutions, students, and faculty as the background

for understanding the organizational and governance dimensions since the

establishment of colleges and universities in the New World in the sixteenth

century. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part comprises the

evolution of Colombian higher education since its establishment, from the

colonial period to the year 2000. The second part presents a brief review of

previous studies focusing on the evolution of Colombian higher education from

the colonial period through the present. The third part provides the theoretical

framework in which the study is developed.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The first part of the chapter is organized chronologically into four periods:

(1) Colonial university (1580-1819), (2) Republican University (1819-1842), (3)

Beginning of the Modern University (1842-1930), and (4) Reform of the Modern

University (1930-2000).

21

Period I: Colonial University (1580-1819):

The history of Colombian higher education began with the foundation of

pioneer universities in the colonial period by the first group of Roman Catholic

clergy that arrived with the Spanish conquerors to the New World. In order to

understand the development of higher education during this period, it is important

to know about the social, political, economical and religious thoughts and ideas

permeating intellectual life in those days. For instance, the church played a

traditional dominant role not only in the creation of higher education institutions,

but also in the establishment of primary education. The Catholic Church remained

the principal authority in the sphere of education until the beginning of the

twentieth century. The character of Colombian colonial universities was strongly

influenced by the Spanish universities such as the University of Salamanca and

the University of Alcalá de Henares. Colombian higher education institutions

were created to serve the interests of the church and the State simultaneously.

Moreover, operation of universities was authorized by the Real Cell (Cédula

Real), by the Pontific Bull or by both. The aim of the colonial university was to

educate the ecclesiastical and nobility oligarchy of the country. This period ended

with the independence of Colombia (1819).

22

Historical Context

The history of Colombia during the colonial period covers: exploration

and conquest, social context, administrative structure, and economic, religious

and political contexts.

Exploration and Conquest

The first Spaniards who explored the northern coast of the Colombian

region were Alonso de Ojeda (1499) and Rodrigo de Bastidas (1500). Ojeda

discovered the northern coast of Colombia and Venezuela known as Cabo de la

Vela and founded Santa María la Antigua del Darien. Bastidas discovered the

Gulf of Darien and made the first settlement in Santa Marta in 1525. In 1533

another explorer, Pedro de Heredia, established the second settlement in

Colombia known as the harbor of Cartagena, becoming the major port for

intercontinental traveling (Markham, 1971). These coastal cities served as refuges

from Indian attacks and as bases for exploratory expedition into the interior.

In 1538, Gonzalo Jimenez de Quesada founded the city of Santafé de

Bogotá in his search for a path to Peru through the interior of Colombia. Nicolás

de Federman explored the eastern plains, founded Rioacha and arrived in Bogotá

by 1539. Sebastian de Belarcazar founded Quito, traveling northward. He also

established the cities of Popayán and Santiago de Cali. Other members of his

group founded Cartago and Anserma. In 1539 Belalcazar arrived in Bogotá,

23

where he, Quezada, and Federmán negotiated the division of the newly

discovered territories (Library of Congress, 1988e).

Social Context

The distance from Europe contributed to shaping the course of

development of the country, as the colonizers built their own society with varying

degrees of supervision from the mother country, Spain. The colonial society relied

on “purity of blood” as a basis for stratification, developing a rigid social

hierarchy (Library of Congress, 1988c). On the top of the pyramid were

peninsulares. They were persons of Spanish descent who were born in Spain.

They were the most privileged group, and occupied the highest government

positions. Below them were Criollos, the Spanish descendents born in the colonial

settlements. This group held secondary positions in government and trade, but had

limited access to the higher circle of power and status. Next in importance and the

most numerous were mestizos. They were of mixed race, descended from Spanish

and Indians. They were free but relegated to a position of low prestige. At the

bottom of social scale were black African slaves, and Zambos. They were mixed

descendents of Africans and Indians who were important only as a labor source

(Delgado, 1974; Granados, 1978; Library of Congress, 1988c).

24

Administration Structure

The colonial administrative structure was comprised of two important

organizations: (a) The House of Trade (Casa de Contratación) created in 1503

and established in Seville. Its main function was to control trade overseas, and (b)

the Supreme Council of the Indies (Consejo Supremo de las Indias) created in

1519. This council centralized the administration of the colonies and had

legislative, executive and legal functions. The king gradually delegated more

authority to this council, which became the ruler of the colonies (Colonial

Administration, 2000; Diaz, 1974). The highest authority in the colonies was the

vice-royalty (virreinato), headed by a viceroy (virrey). The next level of

jurisdiction was the Audiencia, a local court consisting of various judges and a

president. The Real Audiencia de Santafé was instituted by a royal charter in

1550. The Audiencia had jurisdiction over the governorships, which controlled the

cities. Governors were appointed by the Crown. They had administrative and

judicial functions, although in some dangerous places they had military duties as

well. The lowest jurisdictional levels were the city councils, or cabildos. Despite

their low positions they had the greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of the

citizens in the local municipalities. They became the first effective agency of civil

government, regulating the processes of government and tempering the authority

of the governor. Cabildo mayors were elected annually, and initially acted as

judges in courts of first instance (primera instancia) with criminal and civil

25

jurisdiction. The two additional governmental practices were designed to oversee

the colonial authorities were the residencia (public judicial inquiry) and the visita

(secret investigation) (Library of Congress, 1988b).

Economic Context

In the sixteenth century, economy was based on the extraction of precious

metals, such as gold and cooper. The colony functioned as the source of primary

materials and the consumer of manufactured goods. The Spain monopolized trade

with the colonies by designating the routes of transport, the number of ships, and

the types of merchandise allowed for trading. In the 1500s, agriculture was

limited to providing subsistence for colonial settlements. By the 1600s, it became

a dynamic enterprise that replaced mining as the core of the Colombian economy.

Sugar and tobacco were the most important export commodities by the end of the

1700s. As agriculture became the foundation of the Colombian economy, two

dominant types of landholdings appeared. They were the encomienda, and the

hacienda. Encomienda was the right to receive the tribute from Indians within

certain limits; and hacienda was a contract arrangement involving the owner and

the Indian workers (Library of Congress, 1988j).

Religious Context

In Colombia, the established religion in the colonial period was Roman

Catholicism. It played an important role and became a vital element of the

26

colonial life. The first missionaries arrived simultaneously with the conquerors in

the late 1400s. The missionaries' most important objective was to indoctrinate the

natives in the Christian faith. Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians and

Capuchins were the religious orders that arrived in Colombia during this period.

In addition to bringing the Catholic religion to the indians, they spread the ideas

and institutions of Western civilization and had a strong influence on the creation

of schools, seminars, colleges and universities (Library of Congress, 1988i). The

Catholic Church also played a dominant role in education by authorizing the

books, texts, and printings to be used in colonial education. On the other hand,

there were several disagreements among religious orders; not only in colleges, but

also within the precincts of royal universities. The most important was between

the Dominicans and the Jesuits, since the Dominicans attempted to maintain

degree-granting authority at the University of Santo Tomás de Aquino (Maier &

Weatherhead, 1979). Church influence in the Colombian education system

continued until the twentieth century. This is visible in two important Colombian

legislations related to its influence on the universities' organization. The first was

the Ospina Reform of 1842, which established the introduction of religion in the

direction of the universities. The second was the Political Constitution of 1886.

Article 41 determined that public education should be organized and directed by

the Catholic Church (Gaitán, 1982).

27

Political Context

Several events forced the independence of the colonies from Spain. The

first event was the ascension of the Bourbons to the Spanish throne in 1700

through Philip of Anjou, known as King Philip V (1700-1746). Bourbon Kings

placed themselves in more direct control of their colonies, reducing the power of

the Supreme Council of Indias (Consejo Supremo de Indias) and abolishing the

House of Trade (Casa de Contratación). In 1717 the Viceroyalty of New Granada

was established. It was composed of what today are Venezuela, Colombia,

Panamá, and Ecuador. In 1739, Bogotá became its capital. The kings also wanted

to improve the profitability of the American colonies by removing the trade

restrictions that they used to have (Library of Congress, 1988d).

In 1778, Charles III declared war on Britain. He levied taxes on the

colonies to fund the war. The excessive and increasing taxation in the late of

1700s contributed to the discontent of the Criollos with the Spanish

administrations, which was demonstrated through the Comunero Revolution

(Revolución Comunera) of 1781. This was the most serious rebellion against the

Spanish administration before the independence war. The rebels expressed their

loyalty to the king and the church while calling for a repeal of new taxes and

modification of government monopolies. They succeeded in getting government

representatives to abolish the war tax and to reduce some taxes and tributes.

However, the government negotiators betrayed the agreements, declaring that

28

they were acting under pressure. As a result, rebellion leaders received severe

punishments, including the death penalty for some of the most prominent leaders.

The rebellion was an auspicious prelude to the struggle for freedom (Library of

Congress, 1988d).

The second major event forcing the independence of the country was the

influence of the Enlightenment movement on the Criollos. After the Comunero

Revolution, this movement changed the ideas of upper-class and middle-class

people reinforcing their desire to control their own destiny and to reform the

traditional patterns of political, economic, and religious institutions. Finally, the

third major event of the late colonial period leading towards the independence

was the Napoleonic invasion in the early 1800s. Napoleon Bonaparte made his

brother Joseph the king of Spain, forcing Charles IV to abdicate, and his son

Ferdinand VII to resign the throne. In exile, Ferdinand VII organized a council

(Consejo de Regencia) conformed by royalist supporters, which constituted a

provisional government for Spain and the colonies. As a result, there was a

competition between Napoleon and the royalists for support from Spain's colonies

in the New World. On one hand, Napoleon wrote a liberal constitution in which

he recognized the colonies as having rights equal to those of Spain. On the other

hand, the Central Council offered certain privileges, such as participation in

Spanish Courts. This competition and concessions to Criollos resulted in the

creation of a Criollo governing body council in Bogotá on July 20 of 1810. The

29

new local government passed reforms favoring power sharing by Criollos and

Peninsulares and liberating the economic restrictions previously imposed on the

colony (Library of Congress, 1988d).

Institutions

It is difficult to isolate the foundation of colleges and universities during

the colonial period without an overview of the establishment of Latin American

universities and colleges. In some ways, they also influenced the creation of

Colombian higher education institutions during this period. Several reasons for

establishing colleges and universities in the new world emerged from the

literature. These were grouped as follows:

a) The distance from peninsular universities;

b) the need to offer instruction to a proper number of novices of the

religious orders that came with the Spanish conquerors;

c) the necessity to provide similar opportunities of education to the

Peninsulares and Criollos;

d) the requirement to train public servants to fulfill secondary

positions of the civil and ecclesiastical bureaucracy; and

e) the need to grant degrees and to obtain the same privileges and

immunities enjoyed by Spanish universities (Maier &

Weatherhead, 1979; Tünnerman, 1999).

30

Latin American universities were established soon after the initial

settlements in the New World to serve the church and the State. They often

functioned under the authority of the "Papal Bull" (Bula Papal), pontifical

universities, and royal charters; even though both insignias could embellish the

same institution. It was common for the crown to authorize the creation of

universities that were retroactively sanctioned by the Pope (Levi, 1986; Maier &

Weatherhead, 1979). The most significant universities created in the colonial

period were the University of Lima and the University of Mexico, which were

considered the greatest universities on the continent (Levi, 1986; Tünnerman,

1999). They were located in the capital of the vice-royalty, one in the North,

Mexico, and the other in the South, Perú. They were authentic offshoots of

Salamanca University, and would become the benchmark for universities of the

New World.

Few universities were created in Colombia during the colonial period.

They were the University of Santo Tomás de Aquino (1580), the University

Xaveriana (1622), the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (1653), the

University San Nicolás de Bari (1694), the Great College of San Buenaventura

(1715), and the University of Antioquia (1803). Most of these institutions were

closed and reopened several years later as can be observed in Table 1 (Torres,

1975).

31

Table 1: First universities established in the colonial period.

NAME YEAR CREATION

YEAR CLOSED

YEAR REOPENED

RELIGIOUS ORDER

University Santo Tomás de Aquino 1580 1861 1966 Dominicans

Real College-Seminar of San Bartolomé 1605 - - Jesuits

University Xaveriana 1622 1767 1931 Jesuits College-Seminar San Francisco of Popayán 1639 - - Jesuits

Great College Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1653 - - Dominicans

University San Nicolás de Bari 1694 1775 - Augustinians

Great College of San Buenventura 1715 1861 1961 Franciscans

College of Antioquia 1803 - - Public From Efemérides e Historias de las Instituciones de Educación Superior, by ASCUN, (1967),

Bogotá: ASCUN.

Nevertheless, only the University Santo Tomás of Aquino and the

University Xaveriana had the capacity to enroll graduate students. These

universities followed the Salamanca pattern, including the important role played

by the Great Colleges in Spain. As a case in point, the most important Great

Colleges in Colombia were: the Great College of San Bartolomé and the Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (Hernandez, 1980).

Most of the universities established during this period emerged from a

religious college or a convent. Universities were classified into two categories:

major universities and minor universities. Major universities had the privilege of

32

awarding degrees; however, the courses taken without major universities

authorization were not valid for granting a degree. Their revenues came from the

Crown. They had the same organization and privileges as the Spanish universities.

The universities of Lima and Mexico were included in this category. Minor

universities had restricted rights to grant degrees. They were divided into three

types: college-university, convent-university, and seminary-university

(Rodriguez, 1973).

University of Santo Tomás of Aquino

By 1573 Dominicans started the procedures for the creation of The

University of Santo Tomás of Aquino. First, they asked King Phillip II to convert

the convent of Rosario of Santafé, created in 1571, into a university. At the same

time, they requested the Pope's authorization to create a university. The

authorization for the establishment of the new university was granted on May 21,

1580 through the Romanus Pontifex bull authorization given by the Pope Gregory

XIII. This bull authorized the establishment of a university for Studium Generale

(general studies). Students could take courses to obtain degrees in the same fields

as in other Spanish universities. In addition, by 1594, King Philip II (Felipe II)

authorized the foundation of the university by a royal charter, but limited and

restricted instruction to certain disciplines (Grammar and Greek); likewise the

faculties (facultades) of arts and theology. Only clergymen granted degrees.

Following the King’s instructions, the Dominicans organized the theology,

33

prima3, and vísperas4 Chairs (cátedras), as well as arts, philosophy, grammar, and

Greek Chairs (cátedras) (López, 1991).

The University of Santo Tomás was opened by the civil and religious

authorities in 1639. The degrees granted were bachelor, licentiate, master, and

doctoral. During the seventeenth century, important litigations between the

Dominicans and the Jesuits took place. The first one was related to the foundation

of the College of Santo Tomás regarding an endowment of 30,000 pesos given by

Gaspar Nuñez to establish a college for orphans and people of low economic

status. This litigation was won by the University of Santo Tomás (López, 1991).

The second one was linked to the right of conferring degrees. Although the

university conferred degrees in all disciplines, it did not offer the same kind of

Chairs. The four main Chairs (cátedras) were arts, theology, canon and civil law.

Theology was studied for four years, followed by the study of moral theology,

holy scripture and canons. Philosophy was studied for three years and grammar

and humanities completed the curriculum.

Civil and canon law were stronger than other fields in the College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Students from this college obtained their degrees

from the University of Santo Tomás (Rodriguez, 1973). After the country gained

independence, the university was closed and the Central University of Bogotá was

created. Its properties were given to the Central University for its use. In

3 They were Chairs (Cátedras) offered early in the morning

34

addition, in 1869 the president, Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, in the name of

democracy, expedited the decree of “Desamortización de Manos Muertas,” which

gave authorization to sell ecclesiastical properties (Beltrán, 1980). By 1965, the

university reopened with 260 students and four faculties (facultades): Civil

Engineering, Economy and Business Administration, Philosophy and Law, and

Religious Sciences (Rodriguez, 1983).

Pontific University Xaveriana

The base of the University Xaveriana was the Great College of San

Bartolomé. It was established through the Pope Bull (Bula Papal) of Gregory XV

in 1622 and the Real Charter of Philip IV in 1622, which gave it the authorization

to confer degrees to scholars who had studied in the Great College of San

Bartolomé. However, courses taken in order to obtain a degree were valid for only

ten years. After that, a long struggle started between the Jesuits and the

Dominicans, which finished in 1701 when the Supreme Council of the Indies

which enabled them to grant degrees from both the University of Santo Tomás

and the University Xaveriana (Jaramillo, 1996; Rodriguez 1973).

The fields of study offered included arts, theology, philosophy, medicine,

canon, and civil law. Medicine was only taught occasionally. The degrees granted

were bachelor, licentiate, master and doctoral. The university awarded degrees to

those students who studied in the Great College of San Bartolomé and in the

4 They were Chairs (Cátedras) offered early in the afternoon

35

University Xaveriana. The Jesuits created regulations to make the expenses of

degree ceremonies more moderate. Professors were clergymen who came from

the Jesuits Order. The University Xaveriana was closed in 1767 due to the

expulsion of the Jesuits by the King Charles III (Rodriguez, 1973).

University of San Nicolás de Bari

The University of San Nicolás de Bari was founded by the Augustinians.

It was erected by the Papal Bull (Bula Papal) granted by the Pope Innocence XII

on April 24, 1694; however, it was created since 1575. The Pope conceded the

opportunity of obtaining bachelor, master, and doctoral degrees to those

clergymen who had finished their studies and approved their examinations. The

king confirmed the Papal Bull (Bula Papal) on April 22, 1703. There were

offered the prima and vísperas Chairs (cátedras) of theology, moral, arts, and

oratory. Unfortunately, Brother Juan Bautista Gonzalez ordered the closure of the

institution in 1775 due to lack of economic sources to fund it (Rodriguez, 1973).

Great College of San Bartolomé

This College was founded in 1605 by the Archbishop Bartolomé Lobo

Guerrero. Its aim was to educate the clergy and secular nobility of the

Viceroyalty of New Granada. This college followed the pattern of the Spanish

Great Colleges offering degrees in philosophy (three years) and theology (four

years). The establishment of the civil and canon law Chairs (cátedras) was

36

approved by the Real Charter of November 25, 1704. University Xaveriana

conferred bachelor, licentiate, master, and doctoral degrees to those students who

performed their studies in this college (Jaramillo, 1996).

Although the Jesuits were expelled from the Colombian territory, this

college never was closed. By those days, the control of the institution was

assumed by a delegate of the king, and the viceroy, and the president was elected

from a group of ecclesiastical leaders of Santafé. Nowadays, the Great College of

San Bartolomé is a private school which provides basic and secondary education

for the middle and high socio-economic classes (Jaramillo, 1996).

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

Brother Cristóbal Torres, a Dominic friar, founded the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario in 1645. By 1651, the King Philip IV approved the

creation of the college with the same rights and privileges that Salamanca’s

University had. The college started functioning in 1653. This charter, among

others, described the method of instruction, Chair provisions, and the level of

participation of students and faculty in the governance of the institution (Suescun,

1994). The main purpose of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was

to educate the nobility of that period by offering the following fields of study:

arts, theology, philosophy, canon and civil law, and medicine. It is important to

point out that this college offered the first Chair (cátedra) of Medicine in

Colombia (Garcia, 1985).

37

In the middle of eighteen century, the Great College of Nuestra Señora del

Rosario was influenced by Jose Celestino Mutis, an important scientist who built

the basis for changing the medieval scholastic method of the ecclesiastic

university. He established the first Chairs (cátedras) in natural sciences,

mathematics, and astronomy. Likewise, he organized the first Botanic Expedition,

which was one of the most important stages in the Colombian higher education

evolution because it provided the basis for a radical change in science and culture

through the study of Natural Sciences. The aim of this Expedition was to

investigate, and to make an inventory of, the natural resources of New Granada

(Garcia, 1985). Unfortunately, Cundinamarca Constitution of 1812 abolished the

Expedition, provoking the return of scholastic method and traditional Chairs

(cátedras) to the college (Rivadeneira, 1986). A remarkable feature of this

institution has been its uninterrupted educative contribution to the Colombian

society since its establishment.

The Great College of San Buenaventura

The Great College of San Buenventura was established by Brother

Diego Barroso, a Franciscan friar, in 1715. However, it had its origin in the

Convent of San Francisco in Bogotá. Initially, arts and theology were the fields of

study taught in this convent. The authorization to confer degrees in arts,

philosophy and theology was granted in September 19 of 1747 by a Real Charter

of Philip VI. This institution was closed in 1861 under the presidency of Tomás

38

Cipriano de Mosquera for the same reasons as the University of Santo Tomás

(López, 1991).

College-Seminar San Francisco of Popayán:

This College-Seminar was founded by the Jesuits in 1639. The King

Philip IV approved its foundation by the Real Charter of April 25 of 1643. Its

constitutions were based on those of the College San Luis of Quito and the Great

College of San Bartolomé, which were approved with some modifications by the

Supreme Council of the Indies. In the beginning, grammar was the only Chair

(cátedra) taught. Later, the philosophy, theology and moral Chairs (cátedras)

were established. By 1744, the Jesuits established the Academy of San Jose

within this college. This academy had the right to award bachelor, master, and

doctoral degrees. This college was closed in 1767 when the Jesuits were expelled

from Colombia. However, the king ordered it reopened in 1769 under the

direction of the Dominicans (Rodriguez, 1973).

College of Antioquia

The first public institution established in Colombia was the College of

Antioquia. Paradoxically, it was created by the Franciscan Father Rafael de la

Serna in 1903. This college followed the medieval structure provided by the

Spanish model of colleges and universities during the colonial period. However, it

was closed and reopened several times due to the civil wars that confroted

39

Colombia during the republican era (ASCUN, 1967; Timaná, 1998). Today, the

University of Antioquia is one of the most prestigious public institutions.

Students

Access

Only a small number of aristocratic people wanted to go to colonial

colleges and universities because they did not see the necessity of higher studies;

their lineage gave them the power required for that period. The admissions

requirements imposed by the colonial universities further limited the number of

students who could attend post-secondary institutions. For instance, students had

to demonstrate lineal purity (limpieza de sangre) and legitimate birth to be

admitted in the University Santo Tomás of Aquino. The requirements to be

accepted in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario were: (a) legitimate

birth for the student and his parents; (b) parent should not work in positions of

low prestige, (c) no students from parents born in the New World; and (d) the

student should be a person of great potential (Laverde, 1986).

The requirements to be accepted in the Great College of San Bartolomé

were less strict than those asked in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del

Rosario. The main differences between them rooted in students' origin (Spaniards

or descendents from conquers), and legitimate birth (Jaramillo, 1996). Aside from

these requirements, students had to demonstrate a superior command of writing

40

and reading in order to gain admission to college-seminars. Knowledge of Latin

was a requirement for entrance in universities. A Latin Chair (cátedra) was taught

in the Great Colleges. However, it was not considered as a university Chair

(cátedra). Other criteria for admission were the command of the scholastic form

of debate through the syllogisms, and the number of years that a student studied in

a particular institution (Silva, 1992).

Classification of Students

During the colonial period, only male students attended colleges and

universities. They were classified into four categories: (a) Scholars (Colegiales)

were the students who had access to a beca5 (scholarship) that were economically

beneficial. As an illustration, a student who received a beca did not have to pay

for his studies, and could participate in the governance of the institution. In

addition, the college provided him housing and food. (b) The majority of the

students were “convictores” or “porcionistas”6 who could pay the cost of studies.

They also had the right to participate in the governance of the college. (c)

“Manteístas” or “Captistas”7 lived outside of the college. They had to pay fees

and did not have any participation in the governance of the institution. (d) The last

category was the familiares (familiars). They had to be Caucasian, but not a

5To have access to a beca, the student had to prove its lineal purity. 6 They were a type of students 7 They were a type of students that had to pay their studies and lived outside of the college.

41

nobleman or extremely poor. In return, students had to work in the college as a

guards, sacristans or clerks (Silva, 1992).

Academic Degrees

Four academic degrees were granted in the colonial universities: bachelor,

licentiate, master, and doctor. To obtain the bachelor's degree in arts, a student

had to complete three courses in moral philosophy, logic and natural sciences, and

pass an oral examination. To obtain a bachelor's degree in theology, the candidate

had to hold a bachelor degree in arts, or complete the requirements to obtain it;

and present four years of work in theology and biblical studies. The bachelor of

medicine required four additional years of work in natural philosophy, medicine,

and surgery, plus a two-hour oral examination. Then, the student had to practice

for two more years, at the end of which he received the degree. The law student

followed a different program. It was not necessary to complete arts courses.

However, the studies of both civil and canon law required five years of study

(Addy, 1966; Rodriguez, 1973; López, 1991).

One academic degree was licentiate (licenciado). This degree was

obtained in all faculties (facultades). The requirements were three or four years of

residence (pasantía) at the university, a lecture demonstration (repetición), and

the approval of an oral examination. Doctor and master degrees both were equal

in rank. Masters were conferred in theology and arts. Doctorates were awarded in

the other faculties. There were no requirements except the possession of a

42

licentiate degree and enough money to pay the high costs of the ceremony. The

graduation fee and the ceremony costs made academic life rather expensive, and

constituted outright economic discrimination against many who could not afford

them. As a result, a number student could not be granted a degree due to the

expensive fees (Addy, 1966; Rodriguez, 1973; López, 1991).

Faculty

During this period the basic organization of the Curriculum was the Chair

(cátedra). However, some times the Chair (cátedra) was confused with the

Faculty (Facultad), which was defined as a program on a specific field of study.

Faculties (facultades) were divided into two categories, major faculties

(facultades mayores) and minor faculties (facultades menores). The former group

consisted of canon law, civil law, theology, and medicine. The minor faculties

were conformed by arts and philosophy. However, for studying theology and

medicine, previous study of art was required (Rodriguez, 1973; Tünnerman,

1999). The instruction method was the scholastic disputation (Laverde, 1986).

The curriculum offered by Jesuits’ universities were excellent, especially in Latin

studies, grammar (including elementary, intermediate, and advanced) and

rhetoric, as well as some native language Chairs (cátedras). Dictates (dictados)

was one of the most important exercises of the university and collegiate. The

professor explained his own course, each student had to take note of the lessons,

and transcribe them into a notebook. In order to prove that they had attended the

43

courses, the professor read and signed the notebook. This procedure was to the

dissemination of the work of some renowned authors due to the scarcity of printed

texts during that period (Maier & Weatherhead, 1979; Rodriguez, 1973). During

the seventeenth century new Chairs, such as the study of theology and scholastic,

moral theology and ethics (casos de conciencia) were established. In the middle

of eighteen-century natural sciences, mathematics and astrology began to be

taught, marking an educational innovation (Maier & Weatherhead, 1979; Silva,

1992).

Colleges and universities were mainly organized by Chairs (cátedras).

There were several ways to classify the Chairs. According to the hour taught were

classified into: cátedra de prima (offered early in the morning), cátedra de

vísperas (offered early in the afternoon), Chair (cátedra) at ten, at eleven, at two,

at three, and so on. The most important Chairs (cátedras) were the prima and

vísperas because they offered the most interesting topics besides they were

requirement for obtaining a degree. They were always Property Chairs (cátedras

de propiedad). Other Chairs (cátedras) bore the names of the main authors or of

the subject taught. For instance, in theology, there was a Biblical Chair, Saint

Thomas Chair, and Nominal Theology Chair, among others.

Other types of Chairs were: (a) the Property Chairs or Major Chairs

(cátedra de propiedad) and were permanent; (b) Temporal Chairs or Minor

Chairs (cátedras temporales) were offered generally for three or four years; (c)

44

the Substitution Chairs (cátedras de sustitución) were subdivided into different

types: the Absent Substitution Professorial Chairs (sustitución de catedrático

ausente); the Retired Professor Substitution Chairs (sustitución de jubilados); the

Half Fine Chairs (cátedras de media multa) were Chairs (cátedras) given to

professors who substituted for those who were absent without justification; and

the Extraordinary Chairs (cátedras extraordinarias), which were sporadic and

given to those scholars who asked for them (Rodriguez, 1973).

Professors could ascend to Chairs (cátedras) by competing with each other

(opposition contest). The appointment of Chairs (cátedras) was an important and

highly regulated aspect of the university statutes. Once an announcement of the

requirement for a Chair (cátedra) had been made, the process would begin with a

public debate or competition (concurso por oposición) (Maier & Weatherhead,

1979). The characteristics of the competition were: the selection of a subject for

the trial lecture, preparation of the lecture, the professors´ defense of their lesson

against the arguments proposed by the opposition, and then the most qualified

candidate was selected by students (Addy, 1966). In addition to the public debate,

the professor had to meet the same requirements as students in familiar purity and

nobility (Rodriguez, 1973; Tünnerman, 1999).

Period II: Republican University (1819-1842):

In the beginning of nineteenth century, higher education was under the

Church leadership. The University of Santo Tomás, the Great Colleges of Nuestra

45

Señora del Rosario, and San Bartolomé were among the first to be influenced by

the Catholic Church orientation. In addition, higher education still had the

residual elitist influence of the colonial universities. The University of Santo

Tomás retained the right to award degrees to students who finished their studies in

the Great Colleges until 1826 (López, 1991).

Since the Independence War, Colombia and other Hispanic countries

began an era of national consolidation, which sought to strengthen the national,

identity and unity of traditional regions. The colonial style university was

replaced by the French model, which followed the Napoleonic scheme. During

this period several concepts shaped the development of education such as: (a)

secularization of education including control of ideological contents and aims of

education, (b) the requirement for "practical" education, (c) expansion of

education particularly basic and secondary, and (d) professionalization of

education (Benoit, 1972).

The new State of the country required increasing the number of trained

leaders for the occupation of public administration positions leaded by the

peninsulares. The leaders of the new National State like Simon Bolívar and

Francisco de Paula Santander considered that Education should be the first

priority of the new order. As a result, the Congress of Cúcuta established the

creation and consolidation of the first public universities and the so-called

Santanderin Colleges.

46

Historical Context

Historical context during the Republican period will be analyzed from the

political, economic, and social aspects.

Political Context

During the nineteenth century there was a growing diversification of social

and economic structures, aside from a slow and difficult crystallization of the

political parties based upon divided ideologies which catered to different social

groups. This period is characterized by extreme instability that resulted from the

gradual evolution of the competing interests of social groups due to the

ambiguous situation of the initial political parties and groups. From the political

perspective, there was a formal dispute centered upon the organization of the

country; whether it should be unitary or federal base. The conception of authority

became one of the basic and most visible milestones for the discernment of a

"liberal" vs. "conservative" ideology and in fact acquired a status permitting

ideological identification or rejection of one party on the other (Benoit, 1972).

This era was divided into two periods: the Great Colombia8 (1810-1830),

and New Granada (1831- 1858). It was also characterized by several civil wars9

which left the country pacing severe financial struggles that in one way or another

8 The Great Colombia had several mandataries such as: Simón Bolívar (1819-1823), Francisco de Paula Santander (1823-1826), Simón Bolívar (1826-1830), Domingo Caicedo (1830), Joaquín Mosquera (1830), Rafael Urdaneta (1830-1831), and Domingo Caicedo (1831).

47

weakened the recently established nation. The Great Colombia was created in the

city of Angostura on December 17, 1819, with the Congress of Angostura.

Initially, it was formed by Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Afterward,

Panama joined the group. The political, social, economic, and cultural

organization of this new nation was linked to the Congress of Cúcuta, which met

in Villa del Rosario of Cúcuta from May 6 until October 14 of 1821.

The Cúcuta political arrangement was highly centralized and provided for

a government based on popular representation with a bicameral Congress, a

president, and a Supreme Court consisting of five magistrates. "This constitution

guaranteed freedom for the slave's children, freedom of the press, inviolability of

homes, persons, and correspondence, codification of taxes, protectionist policies

toward industry and agriculture, and abolition of the mita system of labor"

(Library of Congress, 1988m). This legislation also brought remarkable changes

for education, including the establishment of primary schools for boys in every

town of 100 or more families; compulsory school attendance for kids of six to

twelve years of age; and free education to children of low status. In the same way,

it ordered the confiscation of capital holdings of minor convents for the benefit of

public education, as well as a mandatory organization of primary schools for girls

by the female religious congregations (Benoit, 1972).

9 Civil wars racked the country in 1830-31, 1839-41, 1851, 1854, 1860-61, 1876, 1885, and 1899-1902 (Benoit, 1972)

48

The problems facing the country; the discontent of liberal groups who saw

the constitution as being monarchical and the military's desire for power

culminated in the fall of the Cúcuta Constitutional Order in October of 1830.

After the failure of the Great Colombia, the country became independent. It was

called New Granada until 1863. In October of 1830, the Congress of Cúcuta was

replaced by the new constitution of New Granada. This new constitution restricted

the power of the presidency and expanded the autonomy of the regional

administrative subdivisions known as Departments (Departamentos).

Personalization and regionalism remained key elements of national politics in a

country with small cities, a weak State, and a semi-feudal population that was

bound to large landowners in patron-client relationships (Kline, 1983; Library of

Congress, 1988g).

Social Context

From a social perspective, Independence did little to alter the colonial

framework of the society. In the struggle for independence, the Peninsulares were

backed by Spanish troops, and the Criollos10 were backed by mestizo and mulatto

troops; nonetheless, the values and outlooks of the two factions were similar.

Many of the Peninsulares left after independence, allowing the Criollos and other

people of mixed blood to take over their positions in the society. To this extent,

the system was opened up to qualified mestizos and mulattoes, but those who

49

moved up did so as individuals whose mobility was based on education, wealth,

and culture rather than on a change in the status of their group. No attempt was

made to upgrade the status of blacks, who remained on the periphery of the

national society, or Indians, who remained almost completely outside it (Library

of Congress, 1988a).

The Colombian social structure during this period was predominantly

mestizos, mulattoes and blacks (43% of the population). However, during the

Great Colombia experiment, the country’s ethnography shifted due to the

integration of the four countries (see Table 2). Once the Great Colombia was

dissolved, the New Granada kept the social trend inherited from the colonial

period.

Table 2. Distribution of Great Colombian Population by race in 1825

GREAT COLOMBIA POPULATION RACE % Mestizos, Mulattoes and Blacks 43%

Indians 35% New Granada 1,327,000

Whites 22%

Mestizos, Mulattoes and Blacks 59% Whites 26% Venezuela 800,000 Indians 15% Indians 90% Whites 6% Ecuador 550,000 Blacks 4%

From Historia Básica de Colombia, by Ocampo, J, (1984), Colombia: Plaza & Janes, (p. 227).

10 Those born in the New World of Spanish descent

50

Economic Context

The economical situation of the country during the Republican period was

not positive. The most important economic activity was based on agriculture,

ranching, and mining. Economically, the country had no product other than gold

which it could export on a regular basis due to the social, political, economical,

and geographical11 characteristics of the country at that time. During the first half

of the nineteenth century, gold continued to be Colombia's principal export.

However, independence-era disruptions almost completely shut down, and even

virtually ceased, exportation not only of gold but also cinchona bark and cotton

(Safford, 1995).

During this period, the Colombian economy was in crisis. Besides low

production and dearth of other economic resources, Colombia owed a huge debt

to Great Britain for loans granted to finance wars and stimulate mining and

agricultural production. The scarcity of workers resulted in the cessation of the

mines exploitation. Agriculture then became one of the most important economic

activities, with tobacco as the main product, cultivated and exported from the

eighteen-forties to the eighteen-sixties. Exportation of cinchona bark and cotton

reemerged briefly in the 1850s and 1860s, respectively (Ocampo, 1984; Safford,

1995).

11 Colombia's mountainous topography and tropical climate tended not only to fragment its population and economy, they also made it difficult for the country to engage effectively in exporting agricultural commodities

51

Similarly, New Granada sunk in a depressed State after the dissolution of

Great Colombia. None of the country's three principal economic bases agriculture,

ranching, and mining were healthy. The import trade was limited to a small group

of tradespeople, the banking industry was inadequate, and craftsmen and small

manufacturers could supply only enough products for local consumption. Despite

the desire and need for change, New Granada retained slavery, sale taxes, and a

State of monopoly on the production and trade of tobacco and alcohol (Library of

Congress, 1988g).

Institutions

The French Revolution and the consolidation of the Napoleon's regime in

Spain radically converted the shape of Colombian universities (Torres, 1975). The

colonial university framework was replaced by the Napoleonic university model.

The concept of the Napoleonic University was characterized by: professionalism,

decentralization of the university into individual professional schools, having

research in universities shared by other institutions, and having a Central

Government (Tünnerman, 1999). The main mission of post-secondary education

was to provide cultural training and educate the elite bourgeoisie by promoting

unity and political stability for the country (Laverde, 1986).

The organization of the educational system at all levels was one of the

most important tasks for the new government. Santander (1820) ordered primary

education to be mandatory for children between four and twelve years old. Public

52

schools for caucasians were funded by local revenues, while schools created for

Indians received State revenues. In addition, the 1821 Congress of Cúcuta

proscribed the structure of the new National State. This Congress was also

concerned with educational legislation. For instance, it ordered the establishment

of official colleges, schools in small towns, the foundation of coeducational

institutions in religious convents, and the creation of at least one elementary

school in every small village, parish, and/or town with more than 100 inhabitants

(Ocampo, 2001). Through this Congress, Santander also provided the parameters

for the separation of colleges and universities. These parameters established the

foundation of colleges 12 (colegios) known as Santanderin (Santanderinos) and of

education houses (casas de educación). A census done in 1935 showed that there

were three universities and twenty colleges (López, 1991). Some of these colleges

were converted into universities a few years later.

The 1826 educational plan established an academic pyramid by providing

communities with instructional institutions scaled according to their political

category, size and resources. The idea was to have a clear definition of the role of

the most important political and cultural centers, which were to create university

12 Several colleges were created during this period, the most important were: El Colegio de Boyacá, el Colegio San Simón de Ibagué, el Colegio de Antioquia en Medellín, el Colegio Santa Librada en Cali, el Colegio Santa Librada en Neiva, el Colegio Académico del Socorro, el colegio de Guanetá en San Gil, el Colegio de Cartagena de Colombia, el colegio de Pasto, la Casa dela Educación en Pamplona, la Casa de Educación de Vélez, el Colegio de Mompós, el Colegio Académico de Buga, el Colegio de Ocaña, el Colegio Académico de Cartago, el Colegio del Istmo de Panamá, el Colegio de Guayana en Angostura, el Colegio de Cumaná, el Colegio de Educación de Valencia, and el Colegio de Trujillo, among others (López, 1991; Ocampo, 1998).

53

programs for the formation of professional elites. The provincial towns were

dedicated to providing the basic education required for a loyal and productive

citizenry. In the poorest communities, primary schools would give instruction in

reading, writing, grammar, simple arithmetic, religion and morality, and political

constitution catechism. Next, cantonal administrative centers known as the houses

of education (casas de educación), offered more programs emphasizing the

natural sciences useful to the local economy such as geometry for the mechanical

arts and practical agriculture (Safford, 1976), thus expanding the scope of

education.

In the largest cities of the country, department universities (universidades

departamentales) were established, whose aim was to provide a full and intense

preparatory program. Instruction in the natural sciences included mathematics,

physics, the three branches of natural history, chemistry, and experimental

physics. Students were required to complete natural science courses as well as

courses in French, English, Latin, and Greek as prerequisites for undertaking

professional studies in law, theology, and medicine. The provincial houses of

education (casas de educación) or colleges (colegios) could also give these

preparatory courses. But unlike those offered in the universities, such courses

would not automatically lead to entrance into professional studies. Students in

these types of schools were required to undergo a rigorous examination of their

qualifications by the university towns to gain admission to a university. A

54

national organization known as the General Direction for Public Instruction

(Dirección General de Instrucción Pública) was created to maintain the standards

of education at the three levels, but particularly at universities and colleges levels

(Safford, 1976).

The March 18, 1826 Decree authorized the creation of central universities

in the capital cities where there were the greatest number of students and

professors. In this way, universities were founded in Caracas (Venezuela), Bogotá

(Colombia), and Quito (Ecuador). These universities functioned until the

dissolution of the Great Colombia when the states of New Granada, Venezuela,

and Ecuador emerged. In addition to these universities, three public universities in

the Colombian provinces of Popayán (the University of Cauca), Tunja (the

University of Boyacá), and Cartagena de Indias (the University of Magdalena)

were established. In Bogotá, the Central University was the outcome of the

reorganization of the University of Santo Tomás and the two Great Colleges

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and San Bartolomé. The University of Magdalena and

Cauca were founded in 1827 (Rama 1970; Silva 1992; ASCUN 1967). This

decree (March 18, 1826) also regulated university education including the

location, buildings, admission requirements, tuition and fees, library, students and

professors' rights and duties, texts for each course, exams, requirements to grant a

degree, and so on. It also stated that universities would have five faculties:

philosophy, law, medicine, theology, and natural sciences. Degrees in philosophy

55

were suppressed and the only degrees recognized were law, medicine and

theology (Jaramillo, 1982)

Political factors also played an important role in the development of

higher education institutions during the nineteenth and the first half of twentieth

century. The ideology of the two political parties (Liberal and Conservative) was

reflected in the educational policies. For example, the Plan of Studies of 1826,

created by the liberal General Francisco de Paula Santander, introduced new

textbooks of doubtful religious orthodoxy because of their exaltation of authors

such as Bentham, Wattel, and Lepage among others. By 1828, Bolivar revoked

this Plan of Studies, which was reintroduced again by Santander during his next

administration in 1835. Finally, during the conservative regime of Mariano

Ospina Perez in 1840, the teaching of liberal philosophers was abolished once

more (Benoit, 1972). The Ospina reform will be discussed in detail in the

following period. At the end of the presidency of Santander in 1837, the

Colombian higher education system comprised 3,102 students in three central

universities (Bogotá, Caracas, and Quito), 20 public schools for boys, and 6

houses of education (casas de educación). In addition, there were 45 courses in

languages, 46 in philosophy, 41 in Law, 15 in Theology, 13 in Medicine, 2 in

Chemistry, 1 in Botanic, 2 in Literature, 3 in Music and 1 in Liturgy (Jaramillo,

1982).

56

The Central University of Bogotá:

The Central University of Bogotá was established through the March 18,

1826 Law under the presidency of General Francisco de Paula Santander. The

university's plan of studies was regulated under the October 3, 1826 Law

(Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001). This law also stated that the Central

University of Bogotá should be integrated by several faculties which functioned

in the different campus branches as follows: law and medicine were offered in the

Great College of San Bartolomé, while philosophy, literature, and theology were

offered by the Great College Nuestra Señora del Rosario. This university was

closed on May 15 of 1950, when in the name of education freedom and

democratic equality, public university and universities' degrees were abolished

(Morales, 2001; Ocampo, 2001).

The University of Cauca (Popayán):

The University of Cauca was founded under the April 24 of 1827 Decree.

The University of Cauca managed the Santanderin Colleges of Santa Librada of

Cali, Buga, Cartago, and San Agustín of Pasta. The faculty (facultad) of law,

philosophy and theology were established. This university faced several civil wars

and political upheavals during the nineteenth and the beginning of twentieth

century (Morales, 2001).

57

The University of Boyacá (Tunja):

The University of Boyacá was created under the National May 30, 1827

Decree signed by the vice-president Francisco de Paula Santander. The First

Article stated that the university was going to be located in Tunja. Similarly,

Articles 2 and 3 assigned the revenues and goods belonging to the College of

Boyacá and to the Convent of Saint Ecce Homo to be used for the operations of

the university (López, 1990). Professional studies were offered in law,

philosophy, medicine, engineering, natural sciences, and arts. By 1904, after the

Thousand Days War, the university only had two schools. These were the law and

philosophy schools. In 1913, the schools of agronomy and civil engineering were

created. Major faculties (facultades) disappeared in 1930 and only the structure

and dynamism of the College of Boyacá remained (Morales, 2001).

The University of Magdalena (Cartagena de Indias):

In 1822 the University of Magdalena (Cartagena de Indias) opened its

doors to students coming from the Atlantic Coast of Colombia including Panamá.

It was established as the University of Magdalena e Itsmo under the October 6,

1827 Decree. Students obtained bachelor degrees in philosophy, medicine or law.

This university was closed and reopened several times due to the interruption of

civil wars and political instability that the country faced during the nineteenth

century and the beginning of the twentieth. As a consequence, it has had different

58

names such as: Universidad del Magdalena e Istmo, Universidad del Segundo

Distrito, Colegio Provincial de Cartagena, Instituto Boliviano, Colegio de Bolívar,

Colegio del Estado, Colegio del Departamento, Colegio de Fernández de Madrid,

Universidad de Bolívar, and the latest University of Cartagena (Múnera, 1998).

Students

Access

From the social perspective, the colonial university and post-independence

university shared the same characteristics. Its main objective was to educate

students from families of high social class. In the colonial period the socio-

economical structure was integrated by the crown functionaries, dealers born in

the New World and manufacturers, while in the republican period this structure

was comprised of landowners and government functionaries, among others

(Torres, 1975).

The requirements for admission to colleges and universities continued to

be the same as those known during the seventeenth and eighteenth century

because the university continued to be elitist, and the social class stratification

remained almost the same as the one developed in the colonial society. By 1840, a

process of transition for students' admission in higher education institutions

started. There were huge changes in the selection process in which legitimate

birth of the student, purity of blood, work position of the parents, and nationality

of the students were abolished as criteria for admission. In addition, a student´s

59

word on the presence or absence of any contagious illness was replaced by a

medical examination. Having other degrees in order to be accepted in a university

was not necessary. The main requirement for admission to higher education was

to pass a rigid examination given by each institution. In other words, admission

standard was based on previous knowledge since that period. This requirement

still remains as an entrance criterion for public institutions in the present (Silva,

1992; Young, 1972/1994).

It is difficult to really know how many students were enrolled in higher

education during this period due to the sporadic way data was collected. However,

there are some documents in the National Archive that reveal the number of

students registered in colleges and universities in the Republican period. Between

1842 and 1850, there were 798 students, including students enrolled in the

preparatory schools13 (See Table 3). These data are inflated, because around half

of the student body was comprised of kids registered in preparatory schools who

being groomed to enter universities (Young, 1972/1994).

Table 3. Distribution of Colombian Students Enrollment by University 1842-1950

STUDENTS ENROLLED IN UNIVERSITIES YEAR BOGOTÁ CARTAGENA POPAYAN

1842-1843 273 No information available 135 1843-1844 378 167 185

13 Preparatory schools were considered as a part of universities. They gave students the knowledge that they did not acquire in their respective provinces. These schools were called "Faculty of Philosophy and Letters" (Young, 1994).

60

STUDENTS ENROLLED IN UNIVERSITIES YEAR BOGOTÁ CARTAGENA POPAYAN

1844-1845 285 203 101 1845-1846 333 205 147 1846-1847 403 189 155 1847-1848 586 194 129 1848-1849 524 150 98 1849-1950 524 170 104

From La Reforma Universitaria de Nueva Granada, by Young, (1994), Bogotá: Universidad

Pedagógica Nacional-Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Cost of Education

Another important shift in the Republican University was the cost of

education. Education became almost free of charge for students. In addition,

students who demonstrated economic hardship did not have to pay the graduation

fee required for obtaining an academic degree. A quarter part of the student body

was exempted from payment of this fee. This engendered a protest from the

Director of Public Instruction (Director de Instrucción Pública) because of the

considerable revenue losses (Young, 1972/1994). Although the cost of education

was inexpensive, for those students who came from the provinces the cost of

housing and maintenance was high. These students faced real economic struggles

that were solved by living with relatives or by asking for a scholarship (beca)

from the institution in which they were enrolled.

61

Faculty

Santander made a proposal that the manner in which professors were

appointed during the colonial period be modified somewhat. In the colonial

university, professors were selected by students through the debates. Conversely,

in the Republican period students did not participate in the selection process.

Professors defended their lessons in the presence of a group of other professors.

This group of professors came up with a list of three candidates in order of

preference, which was presented to the executive government (gobierno

ejecutivo). Usually, the first name on the list was appointed under the assumption

that he was the most qualified person. However, Santander allowed the executive

government (gobierno ejecutivo) the right to reject the selected candidate.

Nevertheless, this was not a commonly used method for professors' appointments.

In fact, only few professors were appointed through such a process (Young,

1972/1994).

The idea of college and university teaching as a profession was not taken

seriously because the salaries the professors received were so low. The complex

economic situation that the country was facing was also being reflected in the

education sector. The Central Government was in charge of funding colleges and

universities and thus for paying professors salaries. As a result, professors´low

wage issues still exist received low wages paid, this still persist. In this way

faculty were more like volunteers engaged in public service. Another important

62

aspect of the Republican period relating to faculty was a decline in the number of

scientists and scientific amateurs. This decline was attributed in part to the

execution of some of them during periods of unrest, and also because of the

tendency of republican politics to absorb a high number of educated elite to fill

government positions (Safford, 1976).

Period III: Beginning of the Modern University (1842-1930):

During the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the

twentieth century, the increasing diversification of social and economic structures

continued with similar trends. After a few years of personal struggles, factions

became organized, and the political parties (liberals and conservatives), which had

dominated national life, were formed. However, political turmoil was the cause of

most of the civil wars that occurred during this period, including the longest,

cruelest and most devastating of these violent conflicts between the two parties,

the War of the Thousand Days14 (Guerra de los Mil Días). It began in July of

1899 with a Liberal revolt aimed at overthrowing the Conservative government

(Kline 1983). This period was also characterized by several educational reforms

which reflected the ideology of each political party.

14 The war continued until 1902. At the end of the war the balance sheet included more than 100,000 men dead, more with disabling injuries, commerce ruined, difficult communications, and economic production almost nil.

63

Historical Context

Political Context

From the political perspective, the two parties, liberal and conservative,

were established in 1849, and began to be organized towards the end of the López

government. Each party soon developed different programs that were, at least to

some degree, carried out when the respective parties came to power. The liberals

were federalists, anticlerical, supported free trade, anticolonial, and wanted to

transform New Granada into a modern nation (Granados, 1978; Kline 1983;

Library of Congress, 1988k; Ocampo, 1984). Those joining this party primarily

came from the more recently created ascending classes.

"It included merchants advocating free trade; manufacturers and artisans anxious to increase demand for their products; some small landowners and agriculturists endorsing a liberalization of State monopolies on crops such as tobacco and slaves seeking their freedom. The liberals also sought lessened executive power; the separation of church and state, freedom of the press, education, religion, business, and the elimination of the death penalty" (Library of Congress, 1988k). The conservatives favored a unified government which included

protectionism, and also wanted to preserve the Spanish colonial legacy of Roman

Catholicism and authoritarianism.

"They favored prolonging colonial structures and institutions, upholding the alliance between church and State, continuing slavery, and defending the authoritarian form of government that would eliminate what they saw as excesses of freedom. This party grouped together slave owners, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and large landholders" (Library of Congress, 1988k).

64

However, there were some exceptions to these generalizations. In essence,

the main ideological difference between both the liberal and conservative parties

was what the proper role of the Roman Catholic Church should be. While the

liberals were surely Catholic, they opposed an active clergy outside of the

religious sphere. Indeed, part of the intensity demonstrated in the political

struggles of nineteenth century due to the religious aspect of the struggle. It was

though that the conservative party used its ideological position to mobilize the

masses (Granados, 1978; Kline 1983; Library of Congress, 1988k; Ocampo,

1984).

The country experimented with both extreme federalism and centralism

during the nineteenth century through the constitutions of 1853, 1858 and 1863.

The centralist15 regime was consolidated between 1832 and 1858. In 1832, the

Constitution of New Granada gave a centralist character to the Colombian

territory16. Ten years later, this constitution was replaced by the Constitution of

1843, which also had a centralist and authoritarian character, and established the

separation between the State and the church. The federalism process began with

the Constitution of 1853, which gave partial autonomy to some provinces such as

Antioquia, Bolívar, Panamá, Boyacá, Cundinamarca, and Santander. However,

15 The presidents who integrated the centralism era were: Francisco de Paula Santander (1832-1837), José Ignacio de Marquéz (1837-1841), Pedro Alcantara Herrán (1841-1845), Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera (1845-1849), José Hilario López (1849-1853), and José María Obando. 16 It was integrated by Bogotá, Tunja, Socorro, Pamplona, Magdalena, Cartagena, Panamá, Veraguas, Antioquia, Neiva, Popayán, Pasto and Barbacoas.

65

the federalism regime was established in 1858 when the Granadan

Confederation17 (Confederación Granadina) was created.

In 1863 a federal State called United Stated of Colombia (Estados Unidos

de Colombia) was created. According to its constitution, some powers held by the

Central Government were given to the states, including the right to engage in

arms and ammunition trading. The Central government only had jurisdiction of

foreign relations and the power to fight foreign wars. This constitution contained

as a full definition of the individual liberties and guarantees as possible, leaving

the federal authority with little room to regulate society, which also guaranteed

Colombians the right to choose any religion (Kline, 1983; Library of Congress,

1988l; Ocampo, 1989; Rausch, 1999).

"This extreme federalism continued until 1885, when the conservatives and the Independent liberals formed a coalition named the "National Party" to support Rafael Núñez. While the National party did not last long, the Constitution of 1886 remained in force until 1991. This constitution reversed the earlier federal trend and brought the República of Colombia into a strongly centralist mode" (Klein, 1983, p. 39).

In striking contrast to the Constitution of 1863, the 1886 charter called for

close church-State cooperation, declaring Roman Catholicism the national

religion. It enforced respect for the Church by civil authorities and relegate the

administration, the conduction of public education to comply with Catholic

17 It was composed by Antioquia, Bolívar, Boyacá, Cundinmarca, Panamá, Santander and Tolima (created in 1961)

66

teaching, and consider the Church as a juridical entity in civil law. The Concordat

of 1887 amplified these prerogatives by affirming the Church's influence on civil

authority and granting it substantial control over education. In Article 15,

Colombia pledged to pay the Church an annual sum of 100,000 pesos in

perpetuity to support its dioceses, chapters, seminaries, missions, and other

activities. More importantly, the government agreed in Article 31 that any treaties,

which might be signed with the Vatican "for the development of Catholic

missions among the barbarous tribes”, would not require congressional approval

(Rausch, 1999).

Article 41 determined that public education should be organized and

directed by the Catholic Church, and Article 120 gave the president the supreme

authority to direct, rule, and inspect the national public instructions. This

essentially meant the loss of university autonomy (Gaitán, 1982). This

constitution had authority over public institutions, but not private ones, indicating

that private institutions could have a different religious orientation from

Catholicism.

Social Context

The social structure was unchanged from the previous period. However,

the second half of the century showed a remarkable increase of the Colombian

population in spite of the extreme political, social and economic instability that

the country was confronting during those years. The dynamic of Colombian

67

society during the nineteenth century showed struggles among the different socio-

economic sectors in order to defend their interests and to find solutions to the

diverse sorts of problems that society was facing, especially the lowesttier (slaves

and Indians), and the middle sector (artisans and merchants) (Ocampo, 1984).

Slaves fought for the definitive abolishment of slavery in the country.

Indians fought for lands and the defense of Indian community lands (resguardos).

There were some governmental rules which protected the resguardos in 1820,

1832, and 1890. However, there were other official policies which allowed the

distribution of such lands into private property, such as the dispositions of 1821

and 1850. Merchants and artisans were fighting for free trade and protectionism.

Nevertheless, the main difference of opinion between merchants and artisans was

the trading aspect. Merchants were known as gólgotas. They favored tributary

reform and free trade of imports, whereas artisans and manufacturers, called

draconianos, demanded protectionism to support domestic industry (Library of

Congress, 1988k; Ocampo, 1983).

During the second part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the

twentieth century, the distribution of the Colombian population was

predominantly rural. There were few migrations to the urban centers. These

centers were considered large villages rather than cities. Between 1850 and 1870,

only 6% of the population lived in the largest cities of the country (Melo, 1988).

This demographic trend was influenced by topographical features and the tropical

68

climate. As a result, the country was divided into small settlements that tended not

only to fragment its population and economy, but also it made difficult to engage

in exporting agricultural commodities. In spite of this isolation of regions,

population was able to feed itself largely with locally obtainable crops by trading

products within sub-regions (Safford, 1995).

In the first half of the twentieth century, the gradual growth of population

started taking on the characteristics of a demographic explosion. By 1851 there

were more than two million of inhabitants, and by the end of the century, there

were almost four million inhabitants. However, the greatest growth of population

in the history of Colombia occurred between 1912 and 1929 (see Table 4). The

number of Colombians increased from about five million to slightly fewer than

eight million in those years. Such growth augmented the pressure on land

resources and spurred migrations to the cities and larger towns (Dix, 1967).

Table 4. Colombian demographic development during nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.

YEAR POPULATION 1851 2,243730 1870 2,391,984 1905 4,143,032 1918 5,585,077 1928 7,212,200

From Historia Básica de Colombia, by Ocampo, J, (1984), Colombia: Plaza & Janes.

69

Economic Context

Changes occurred slowly and the economy was fragmented and dispersed.

It was managed essentially by a loosely related group of regional producers. Land

and wealth continued to be the privilege of a minority. The accumulation of lands

was helped by the national policy of dividing the resguardos and by the sale of

public lands during the nineteenth century18. The economic activities continued to

concentrate on mining, ranching, agriculture, and commerce. These last two

sectors, agriculture and commerce, focused on opening channels to world

markets, a process that continued slowly but steadily throughout the end of

nineteenth century (Library of Congress 1988f; Safford, 1995).

The late nineteenth century witnessed the development of tobacco and

coffee export industries. These export industries greatly enhanced the merchant

class leading to a population expansion and the growth of cities. Gold also

remained an important product for exportation. However, a remarkable economic

development took place in Colombia from 1870 to 1910, through the coffee boom

that projected the country into the modern period. Coffee gave the country, for

first time, an agricultural export that was in big demand by an ever expanding

market. Expanding exportation of coffee swelled government coffers, thereby

making a somewhat effective Central Government possible for the first time. The

coffee trade enabled the first successful banks to be created. Aside from the

70

stimulation of construction of railroads and highways by encouraging foreign

loans; the coffee boom also increased the demand for a larger labor19 force and

spawned the first major attempts at manufacturing (Library of Congress, 1988i;

Palacios 1980; Safford, 1995).

In this manner, Colombia began a period of modernization and

industrialization. This was characterized by financial prosperity brought about by

high coffee prices, the indemnity paid by the United States (for the role played by

this country in effecting the independence of Panamá), and by the influx of large

amounts of foreign capital as investment or loans, which were used in part to

initiate and then to further develop the industrial era. From the late 1920s,

Colombia became a much more complex country, with unprecedented amounts of

foreign capital that found their way into both private investment and public

works. New economic groups arose with import substitution (sustitución de

importaciones), industrialization, and creation of a larger financial sector (Benoit,

1972; Kline, 1983).

Despite the outward signs of growth, serious flaws remained in the

Colombian economic system. The benefits of economic growth were distributed

disproportionately to the export sector, cities, and manufacturing groups. Perhaps

as much as 70 percent of the population received little or no benefit from this

18 During most of the century large tracts of public lands could be obtained at little cost through the purchase of depreciated government bonds (Safford, 1995). 19 Coffee has a natural cycle of both weeding and harvesting. Both activities are very labor intensive (Palacios, 1980).

71

period of expansion. These shortcomings provoked unionized workers into violent

strikes in the industrial centers and the foundation of the socialist party (Benoit,

1972; Library of Congress, 1988h).

Institutions

This period (Beginning of Modern University 1842-1930) was also

characterized by several educational reforms similar to the previous period. Each

one had strong ideological influence over the two political parties (liberals and

conservatives) with respect to the teaching curricula. The initiative of practical

education by the introduction of "scientific" and "technical" subjects in the

curriculum according to the stipulations of the Congress of Cúcuta (1821)20

continued its development during this period by expanding the science curriculum

in colleges and universities, and by creating new higher education institutions. In

this way, higher education started to respond to the economic development and

growth that the country was facing. At the beginning of this period, although

practical education was important, students were not very interested in science

due to the lack of practical place for a scientific professional to apply the

knowledge acquired in this field of study (Safford, 1976).

The first reform occurred under the presidency of Pedro Alcántara Herrán

(1841-1845) through the Ospina Rodriguez Plan in 1842 (IESALC-UNESCO,

72

2002; Jaramillo, 1982). This reform addressed several main aspects; first, students

would be subject to strict rules not only on their habits and morality, but also in

their studies and degrees obtained. Second, religious influence was reintroduced

in the university administration. Third, this plan expanded natural science Chairs

(Cátedras) in colleges, such as chemistry, mineralogy, geology, topography and

so on in colleges. In order to accomplish this, the curriculum had to be changed to

a more technical orientation. In addition, there was a reorganization of Chairs

(Cátedras) and subjects taught to students through the introduction of a

conservative ideology, such as Baldes' texts and Tracy's Philosophy, which

replaced the Bentahm's texts. Some Chairs (Cátedras) were prohibited because

they were considered to be dangerous for democracy21 in fields such as legislation

science, constitutional science, and the assembly's tactics, among others

(Jaramillo, 1982). Fourth, colleges and universities required a body of at least ten

professors (four in literature and philosophy, three in natural sciences, and three in

any traditional university fields that the college chose to offer) in order to teach

courses within any of the traditional professions. Finally, the Law 21, 1842 put

universities under the direction and control of the General Direction of Public

Instruction (Dirección General de Instrucción Pública). This organization had

broad faculties to monitor and organize higher education institutions, printing and

20 Decree of July 28th emanating from this Congress advocated for colleges and schools to promote the study of agriculture, commerce, mining and the military arts necessary for the defense of the republic (Pombo & Guerra, 1951). 21 This was the though of the conservative party that was governing during those years.

73

text translations, approval of programs, appointment of professors and staff,

enforcement of disciplinary rules, commencement regulations, tuition and fees,

and controlling the granting of degrees, among others (Jaramillo, 1982; Safford,

1976).

The administration of the president Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera (1845-

1849 and 1861-1867) shared many goals with his predecessor, Pedro Alcántara

Herrán, but differed somewhat in style. His government continued to develop of

academic sciences by establishing the military college (1848), which was oriented

toward civil engineering and military instruction. This college was strongly

oriented toward the technical with predominance in engineering. First year

students were expected to be prepared in algebra and geometry, and be able to

read texts in the French and English languages. The curriculum provided three

years of mathematics, cosmography (cosmografía), and principles of engineering

(Safford, 1976). The military college trained a large percentage of the engineers

who worked on road and railroad construction. The professors who taught

mathematics and engineering during the second half of nineteenth century also

studied in this college. This institution was closed under the presidency of Jose

Hilario López in 1854, and reinstated by Mosquera in 1861. However, the

institution did not start functioning until Mosquera returned to office in 1866. Due

to its excessive costs, the technical courses offered by this college were

transferred to into the School of Engineers in the newly created National

74

University of the United States of Colombia by 1867 (Rivadeneria, 1986; Safford,

1976).

This period (1842-1930) was also characterized by enormous criticism the

university due to limited access for low income level students, rigidity of

curriculum, higher standards requirements, increasing scientific content of

curriculum, and the excessive central control that Ospina's reform gave to higher

education. These events set in motion the second reform in higher education that

occurred under the presidency of Jose Hilario López (1849-1853) through the

May 15 of 1850 Law (Laverde, 1986; Safford, 1976). López´s liberal ideology led

him to promote the freedom of education in sciences, arts and letters (Article 1)

by abolishing the three national universities22 (Article 16), annulling academic

degrees (Article 2), and decreeing that it was not necessary to have a diploma for

whatever profession a person wanted to pursue. University and colleges buildings

and properties were given funding for the establishment of national colleges. In

addition, the August 19 of 1853 Resolution stated that university degrees were not

a requirement for any profession with the exception of pharmacy. In summary,

this education reform abolished universities23 and eliminated academic degrees

(Fals-Borda, 1962; Jaramillo, 1982; López, 1991; Rivadeneira, 1986; Wares,

1963).

22 Universities were renamed as National Colleges (Colegios Nacionales). 23 Even though, some colleges continued with the character of universities such as the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, the College of Holy Ghost, and the College of Perez Brothers (Rivadeneira, 1986).

75

The closing of universities continued for seventeen years. Criticism of this

travesty began to gather steam in the beginning of the 1860s. As a result, the

National University of the United States of Colombia was established in 1867. It

was a public institution, free of any charge for the first time. The administration of

the university was appointed by the Central Government for the first time, rather

than by the university itself. The main charter of this university was to educate

Colombian society in the fields required by the economic developments that the

country was experiencing during this time. Consequently, the following schools

were established: law, medicine, natural sciences, engineering, arts and trades,

and literature and philosophy (Jaramillo, 1982; Safford, 1976).

The Colombian educational system was reorganized once more under the

presidency of Rafael Núñez within his two-term periods of presidency from 1880-

1882, and from 1884 - 1888. In his first presidential term, under the Decree 167,

1881, the university was defined as a higher education institution established by

law, funded with national funds, with the main purpose of offering free public

higher education. Núñez placed post-secondary institutions under the control of

the executive government practically eliminating the concept of autonomy.

Education was classified into basic, secondary and professional levels. The latter

level included the study of natural sciences, civil and military engineering,

agriculture and trades, political sciences, law, medicine, and navigation. In 1881,

the School of Mining in Medellín was established (Jaramillo, 1982).

76

New shifts also occurred in education under the Constitution of 1886. In

1887, the intervention of the Church returned to education through the Concordat

signed in the Holy See (Santa Sede). In this way an elitist and non-religious type

of university emerged once more (Laverde, 1986; López, 1991; Rivadeneira,

1986). The outcome of this situation was the establishment of the first non-

religious university in Latin America, the University Externado of Colombia

(Universidad Externado de Colombia) by Nicolás Pinzón Walostren (1886). This

private institution was created with the law and political sciences faculties. Other

universities created during this period were the University of Nariño (1904), and

the Free University (Libre) of Colombia (1923). These were public and private

institutions respectively (ASCUN, 1967; Laverde, 1986; Rivadeneira, 1986).

Students

Access

At the beginning of the twentieth century, higher education had preserved

its elitist character. There were several reasons for the restricted number of

students enrolled in higher education. One of those reasons was the low number

of Colombians studying primary and secondary education. The percentage of

students enrolled in basic education rose from 1.2 in 1835 to 3.0 in 1873. Within

this context, the number of students registered in secondary education was even

smaller, with only 954 students by 1847 without taking into account 591 students

77

who were studying in seminaries (Melo, 1988). Other causes for the limited

attendance of higher education were, (a) geographic locations of colleges and

universities, (b) Mariano Ospinas' plan requirements (students having to take

professional courses in Bogotá, Popayán or Cartagena), and (c) economic

struggles that parents and students faced (Safford, 1976).

In the same way that higher education was restructured within the

government of each political party, admission requirements changed between one

reform and another. For example, the Ospina's plan of 1842 included an elaborate

introductory program modeled on the French lycée system. There was a list of

twenty-seven subjects including not only French, English, and natural philosophy,

but also chemistry, mineralogy, geology, topography and drawing. The

introductory program included a seven-year curriculum that students were

required to take regardless of its relevance to their intended careers. This new

curriculum required the successful completion of a general examination in order

to obtain a Bachelor’s degree (Bachiller) in literature and philosophy. In addition,

students could obtain credit for courses taken in provincial or private colleges

only by taking a long series of examinations on each field of study in the

universities located in the towns. The incidental complication of this plan was that

courses had to be taken in a certain order. Since this plan changed the sequence of

the courses, students had to repeat some courses that they already had completed.

The financial struggles faced by some colleges made it difficult for them to offer

78

all those courses due to the lack of financial resources for the payment of

qualified professors in fields such as chemistry and mineralogy (Safford, 1976).

Neither colleges, universities, nor students were pleased with the Ospinas'

Plan due to the economic and academic burden given to them respectively. As a

result, the administration of President Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera made some

reforms to the curriculum in order to mitigate the problems created with Ospina's

plan. In 1845, the curriculum in literature and philosophy was restructured by

reducing the number of requirements. The length of the program was cut to one

year, and the mineralogy, chemistry, and geology courses were dropped. The

written general examination was eliminated, and provincial colleges were allowed

to give courses in law, medicine and theology (Safford, 1976).

New admissions criteria for universities were established in the Decree

1074, 1934, under the presidency of Olaya Herrera, which settled on a mandatory

general studies entrance examination for admission to public and private higher

education institutions. This Decree also had a detailed guide to the structure of the

test and the content of its questions. In addition, this legislation stated that the

exam would be authenticated by the National Education Minister (Pacheco,

2002).

Academic Degrees

Academic degrees granted in the colonial universities, such as bachelor,

licentiate, master, and doctor continued to be awarded by universities in the

79

traditional fields of study such as law, medicine, and theology. However, the

Ospina plan introduced the bachelor, licentiate and doctoral degrees in natural

sciences (Safford, 1976; Young, 1972/1994). During the presidency of Jose

Hilario López, academic degrees were eliminated. However, a degree could be

awarded if a student was interested in applying for it. The Bachelor degree was

suppressed, and the only degree awarded was that of doctorate, which was

awarded in law by completing an exam in principles, civil and penal legislation,

constitutional science, politic economy, civil and roman rights, people's rights,

ecclesiastical public right and judicial procedures. For the degree in medicine,

exams in botany, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology, surgery, obstetrics,

therapeutics, pharmacy, hygiene, and legal medicine were required. For the

ecclesiastical doctorate, it was necessary to pass examinations in theology,

Christian religion, Church history, exposition, dogmatic theology and morality

(Laverde, 1986).

Cost of Education

During this period, students began to assume the economic burden for

their attending higher education. The Ospina plan introduced a system of annual

tuition and fees24. Students from the province had to pay for the general

24 Students had to pay 8 reales (equivalent to $1.00 U.S. currency of that period) for the right to take the general examinations. The cost of tuition was 8 reales for the enrollment of any great faculty. Graduation fee was $ 30 for bachelor or licentiate, and $ 30 for doctoral degrees (Young, 1972/1994).

80

examinations required to obtain their Bachelor degrees, in addition to paying the

graduation fees. Living costs were still a problem for students who did not live in

the big cities. Even though the creation of scholarships helped to solve some

students' financial struggles, financial resources continued to be a problem for

them due to the scarcity of scholarships and the requirements for granting them.

For instance, not until 1845 were scholarships available in the great faculties

(facultades mayores). In Bogotá, scholarships were given to students enrolled in

philosophy in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, because it was the

only institution that had a physical plant and the facilities to do so. In Popayán,

scholarships belonged to the college-seminar because the university did not have

economic funds to support them. Although Santander (1825) abolished the

legitimate birth requirement for admission to higher education, it was a condition

for granting a scholarship during this period. In addition, the Mosquera reform

increased the economic difficulties of commuter students by limiting the awarding

of free degrees to those students who were living in colleges or universities

(Young, 1972/1994). By 1892, the Decree 1238 restructured the scholarship

system. It established a total of 114 scholarships; 74 were assigned to departments

and 40 to the national government. The candidates for the scholarships assigned

to departments were recommended by governors while the candidates for the

second group were assigned by the Minister of Public Instruction (Ministerio de

Instrucción Pública. A student could lose the right to a scholarship for

81

inappropriate behavior, low grades, failing tests, or withdrawal from the

institution among other things (Torres, 1975).

Student Activism

There was a university reform trend in Latin American universities that

had great impact on Colombian public institutions from the students' perspective.

The Latin American Reform Movement at the University of Córdoba, Argentina

began in 1918. The principles of this movement included:

"student co-government, a governing role for alumni, selection of faculty through competitive examinations, periodic review of faculty competence, optional classroom attendance, free instruction, open enrollment to all academically qualified applicants, university extension courses for workers, university autonomy, and the orienting of the university toward the solution of national economic, social and political problems" (Liebman, Walker, & Glazer, 1972, p.10).

Students went on strike due to the refusal of university officials to

implement any of the reforms requested by students. In this way, this movement

served as the catalyst for the establishment of the first national student

organization in Argentina (FUA-University Federation of Argentina). Like other

universities in Latin America, Colombian higher education was also stirred by the

events at Córdoba and the university reform movement there (Liebman, Walker,

& Glazer, 1972).

The first two national student congresses in Colombia's history were held

in 1922 and 1924. They were an outcome of the reactions to the Argentine

82

developments. Both congresses also gave birth to the first national student

organization: the Federation of Colombian Students (Federación de Estudiantes

Colombianos -FEC). The major themes of these congresses were student

representation in governance of the university, upgrading the curriculum and

teaching methods, and competent professors. Some considerations were also

given to non-university political aspects such as the role of imperialism and the

United States of America in Colombian affairs. Although the main objective of

the congresses appeared to be the building of a united student movement; the

following years, students were not able to develop a strong and vigorous one for

several reasons; one of which was the government constant refusal of student

demands for university reform (Liebman, Walker, & Glazer, 1972).

The third congress held in 1928 adopted a more activist orientation by

devoting considerable attention to national political aspects. The weakness of the

student movement, (as well as its orientation) shifts from university problems to

controversial national political aspects, had several explanations including

economical, social, and political conditions under which the movement was

developed. Thus, university reform came not as the result of the efforts of a

significant self-interested constituency demanding such change, but as the result

of the decision-made by a sector of the oligarchy concerned with its own future

and the forestalling of more basic changes (Liebman, Walker, & Glazer, 1972).

83

Faculty

Ospina's plan ended the opposition disputations and at the same time

increased the power of the Executive Branch. This plan stated that a list of four

candidates for each vacant position was to be presented to a council of professors

(Gran Consejo). The difference from Santander's plan was that the Ospina reform

required the inclusion of the qualification status of each candidate. The Executive

Branch appointed the professor for the respective Chair (cátedra). In other words,

professors did not have influence in the selection and decision made by the

Executive. In addition, Ospina declared all university positions vacant including

professor positions in 1842. As a result, all property Chairs (cátedras de

propiedad) were shifted to substitution Chairs (cátedras de sustitución).

Mosquera's presidency included small shifts to the appointment of professors as

well. The responsibility of designing and appointing professors was transferred to

the Council of Instruction and Government (Junta de Instrucción y Gobierno) of

each university (Young, 1972/1994).

The lack of economic resources made it difficult for colleges to put in

practice Ospinas' plan, as science teachers were both expensive and unavailable:

"While lawyers and physicians were willing to teach cheaply or even on a

volunteer basis (200 to 400 pesos), a foreign professor might cost 5,000 pesos

within the space of two years" (Safford, 1976, p. 118). This was more than the

total revenues that provincial colleges received. As a result, colleges could not

84

afford the payment of salaries for foreign professors, not even the courses

established in the plan (Safford, 1976). The size of the faculty was established by

law under the Decree 1842. As a case in point, Bogotá and Cartagena Universities

were assigned eight professors in literature, four in natural sciences, four in law,

four in medicine and an indeterminate number of teachers for ecclesiastical

sciences. In the same pattern, in 1843 for the University of Popayán the following

faculty: eight professors for literature and philosophy, four for law and an

indeterminate number for ecclesiastic sciences were designated (Young

1972/1994).

However, in reality, the number of professors was far lower for several

reasons: there were no professors available for some Chairs (cátedras), students

were not interested in some courses, and colleges and universities budgets were

insufficient to pay the professors' wages. Due to these inconveniences, by 1847

the government stated that each college and university should determine the

number of professors required according to the subjects and courses taught. Under

this plan, the Bogotá faculty was bigger than the faculty of Cartagena and

Popayán faculty put together (see table 5) (Young, 1972/1994).

85

Table 5. Statistical Portrait of Faculty and Students, 1847- 1848

INSTITUTION FACULTY SIZE

STUDENTS ENROLLED

University of Bogotá 37 586 University of Cartagena 16 194 University of Popayán 10 129 TOTAL 63 909

From: La Reforma Universitaria de Nueva Granada, by Young, (1994), Bogotá: Universidad

Pedagógica Nacional-Instituto Caro y Cuervo

Period IV: Reform of the Modern University (1930-2000):

This period was characterized by the modernization of the country and the

economic infrastructure through a political and economical process. This

modernization was demanded by the United States government as a guarantee for

the payment of the external debt and for direct and indirect investment of capital

to our country. The requirement of modern education and qualified labor force

was perceived after the Second World War. This began the greatest period of

expansion and development for the higher education system of Colombia as

measured by the number of institutions, programs and students.

86

Historical Context

Political Context

From the political perspective, this period (1930-2000) experienced great

political variation. There have been civil wars, a military dictatorship, and periods

of civilian coalition government. During these events, the key players have been

the elite sectors of the two political parties, liberals and conservatives, although

each party most commonly has been divided into various factions. Between 1930

and 1946, Colombia faced liberal hegemony25. The disputes of the previous

century about federalism vs. centralism and the role of the Catholic Church were

settled, or at least placed aside by this time. The new issue was the dispute over

the role of the government in the economy (Kline, 1983). Olaya's government

adopted some measures of electoral reform, introduced higher tariff schedules for

the benefit of the country manufacturers, and started the initial steps toward

agrarian reform (Dix, 1967).

The most revolutionary aspect of this era was related to the first

administration of López (1934-1938), whose presidency was commonly called the

"Revolution March". The main innovations and aspects of this government can be

grouped as follows: (a) the recognition of the function of the State in the

promotion of social welfare and in the guidance of economic development, (b) the

25 Enrique Olaya Herrera (1930-1934), Alfonso López Pumarejo (1934-1938), Eduardo Santos (1938-1942), Alfonso López Pumarejo (1942-1945), Alberto Lleras Camargo (1945-1946).

87

formal disestablishment of the Church, (c) legislation concerning tax reform, land

reform, protection of labor and the unions giving them the right to strike and the

guarantees for collective bargaining, (d) abolishment of literacy, property, or

income requirements for voting, and (e) limitation of property rights by the

recognition of the principle of social functions of property. These aspects had the

effect of aggravating the divisions between the two parties, conservatives and

even within the liberal party (Benoit, 1972; Dix, 1967; Kline, 1983).

Alfonso López returned to the presidency in 1942. This second term of

presidency was called "the reform of the reforms". Once again, the revolution did

not succeed, because the economic and political contexts changed. During his

administration, deep divisions within the liberal party were developed. In the

meantime, conflict between liberals and conservatives was again taking on the

characteristics of intransigency and violence, in part because of the ideological

and practical issues raised by the policy of the first López administration, and in

part because the conservative party gradually became aware of the fact that they

were to be a minority in Colombian politics (Benoit, 1972).

The liberal party split led to the victory of a conservative candidate,

Mariano Ospina Perez, in the 1946 presidential elections. His government was the

outcome of a coalition government with the liberals. However, the conservative

party was also not united. Laureano Gómez, a Historical Conservative, disagreed

with the Ospina's idea of being a moderate, favored compromise, and worked for

88

coalition government. Gómez was elected president in 1949, but his term was

short. Neither he nor Ospina had the opportunity to effect changes. With the

return of the conservatives to power, violence in the countryside started almost

immediately. These civil disturbances were greatly aggravated by assassination of

Jorge Eliécer Gaitán26, the leader of the revolutionary Liberal faction, in Bogotá

on April 9 of 1948. The violence spread from the rural to the urban area, and

continued until 1966. Violence in the rural areas continued even after the urban

violence ended.27. By the end of this conflict, at least 200,000 peasants

(campesinos) had died as a result of the conflict.

Gómez's presidency was terminated in 1953 by Lieutenant General

Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. He is the only dictator the country had during the twentieth

century. To cap off this violent period, leaders of the parties who were opposed to

Rojas planned a coalition government. It was carried out through the National

Front (1958-1974), which lead to a State of peace in the country. Competition

between parties ended because one of the coalition’s main goals was establishing

a finite term for the presidency (every four years) between the two traditional

parties (liberals and conservatives). During the National Front period (1958-

1974), the guerrilla movement became strong because no channels of political

26 He was a mestizo lower-middle sector background. He was a populist who made distinction into "political country" (the political elite) and the "real country" (of a real country with its humble people) (Dix, 1967; Kline, 1983). 27 At its beginning the violence was fought on party lines. Conservatives attacked Liberals or vice versa. The affected group whose property had been seized and-or destroyed, and some whose members were killed and-or raped. This was the snowball effect of the violence.

89

participation resulted from the sharing of power between the two traditional

political parties (Kline 1983).

Social Context

From the social perspective, Colombians have been characterized in racial

and social terms; however their Spanish heritage and purity remained

predominant. The class system is based on occupation, education, race, income,

life-style and other factors. Most of the social forms of power, along with the

control of the political system, have primarily rested in the hands of the upper

class, which has been a self-perpetuating minority in control of the key power

sources in society, without taking into account the rest of the community. There

are several sources of elite status such as land ownership (economic power),

social prestige, family name or ancestry, race (most, but not all, members of the

upper class are white), and education (Dix 1967).

The restricted of access to education has constituted more of a barrier to

upward social mobility than a channel for advancement. The middle class

occupied the second layer in the social structure. Most of the modern middle class

has developed since the 1920s. As a class, the various middle groups

distinguished themselves from other members of society by regular employment

in occupations that generally did not qualify them for membership in the elite.

These groups were comprised principally of "professional people and managerial

90

personnel, medium-sized landowners, governmental bureaucrats, and

entrepreneurs" (Dix 1967, p.56).

The lower class is defined by its lack of attributes such as of occupation,

education, income, manners, dress and housing, which mark the middle and upper

classes. Traditionally, the lower class has been comprised mainly of peasants

(campesinos), whose position in the social system has been determined, above all

by their relationship to the land. In the urban areas, there is a threefold distinction

including obreros working in medium and larger sized industries, persons

engaged in artisan-type manufacturing, and what might be called sub-proletariat.

The first category includes those commonly known in industrialized countries as

the urban working force. They have regular employment with relatively high

wages. The second group consists of those who work in households or small-scale

industries, or who operate establishments themselves. They lack many of the

advantages of the factory worker in terms of security, welfare benefits, and

wages. The final category comprises "the habitually unemployed, the

underemployed, as well as the domestic servants and porters. Most unskilled non-

factory workers, such as those in construction, would be classified here…. A large

percentage of people belonging to this class are migrants from the rural areas who

lack the skills for urban life and work" (Dix, 1967, p. 71).

From a demographic perspective, the country experienced both extremely

rapid population growth and an increase in the percentage of the people living in

91

urban settings during this period. The country grew from 11.5 million people in

1951 to 17.5 million in 1964, to 22.5 million in 1973, to 27.3 million in 1980, to

33,1 million in 1993, and it was projected to reach 46 million in 2005 (DANE,

1993; Kline, 1983). At the same time, Colombia had one of the highest

urbanization rates of any Latin American nation. The numbers of people living in

urban areas increased from 31 percent to nearly 60 percent from 1938 to 1973.

Over the period from 1951 to 1964, the rate of urbanization averaged 5.5 percent

per year (see Table 6). In the 1980s, however, the rates of both population growth

and urbanization fell (Kline, 1983; Library of Congress, 1988h).

Table 6. Distribution of Colombian Population between 1938 and 1993

YEAR URBANA (%) RURAL (%) TOTAL 19381 2,692,117 30.9 6,009,699 69.1 8,701,816 19511 4,468,437 38.7 7,079,735 61.3 11,548,172 19641 9,093,094 52.0 8,391,414 48.0 17,484,508 19731 13,548,183 59.3 9,313,935 40.7 22,862,118 19851 18,178,170 65.3 9,659,762 34.7 27,837,932 19932 23,514,070 71.0 9,595,770 29.0 33,109,840

1From La Educación Superior, by Lucio, R., Serrano, M. (1992). Bogotá: Tercer Mundo Editores.

2From XVI Censo Nacional de Población y de Vivienda 1993 by DANE (2003).

Economic Context

From the economic perspective, Colombia faced both depression and

expansion during this period. Transportation infrastructure continued to be

improved by expansion of transportation facilities, financed directly and indirectly

92

by the coffee industry. Greater economic integration soon became evident with

the heavier concentration of industry and population in the six largest cities

(Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Baranquilla, Bucaramanga, and Cartagena). In addition

to coffee production, economic expansion of both the noncoffee industrial sector

and the service sector was accomplished in two distinct stages. From 1950 until

1967, in which Colombia followed a well-defined program of import substitution

industrialization (industrialización por substitución)28; and from 1967 to 1980, the

Colombian economy, particularly the coffee industry, experienced sustained

growth supported by an expanded labor force, increased labor productivity, and

accelerated investment. Coffee's success, therefore, was ultimately responsible for

the reliable transportation network that hastened urbanization and industrialization

of the country (Library of Congress, 1988f).

The major depressions the country experienced during this century were

when the price of coffee dropped to about one-third of the 1928 price, loans from

United States banks had stopped, and the global recession which began in 1981

caused demand in external markets to fall precipitously. By the late 1980s,

Colombia's short-term economic outlook had become more promising; in large

part because of an unusual confluence of circumstances that occurred in 1986.

That year, a coffee production boom in Colombia coincided with a poor harvest in

28"A pattern of economic development encouraging the local production of previously imported manufactured goods. Governments typically institute high tariffs to protect the infant domestic

93

Brazil and rising international prices. For the near future, analysts predicted

continued growth and stability (Library of Congress, 1988f).

Institutions

The greatest increase in the number of higher education institutions

occurred during the twentieth century. This period can also be divided into three

sub-periods: from 1930 until 1959, from 1960 until 1974, and between 1975 and

2000. Colombian higher education started its expansion in the 1930s (see Table

7), although the greatest growth occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. There were two

important events that influenced higher education in the period covering the

1930s and the 1960s; first, the migration process from rural areas to urban areas

due to economic development of the country, and second, the secularization of

education, which caused great expansion in the establishment of public

institutions such as the Escuela Naval de Cadetes de Colombia (1935), the

Universities of Atlántico (1946), Caldas (1943), and Valle, (1945), the University

Industrial of Santander (1947), the University Francisco Jose of Caldas (1948),

the National Pedagogical University (1951), the Pedagogical and Technological

University in Tunja, the University of Tolima, Technological University of

Pereira and University of Quindio (1960), Technological University of Magdalena

industries. Employed widely in Latin America in the wake of disruption of trading patterns during World War I and the Great Depression" (Library of Congress, 1988f).

94

(1962), and University of Cordoba among others (ASCUN, 1967; Lucio &

Serrano, 1992; Renner, 1971).

From the legal and ideological perspective, in the beginning of this period

legislation and several provisions to regulate the education system including

higher education was created. Through the social modernization scheme, López

government (1934-1938), proposed several political, economical, and social

changes which directly and indirectly influenced higher education such as the

Lands Law, which is the division between the Government and the Church, the

tributary reform, and the educational reform. This educational reform included

"education for everybody", standardization of the rural and urban education

systems, regulation of technical and vocational education, and the liberation of

education from the Church control. Although, there was not great expansion in

enrollment and number of institutions during this period, the most important

aspect was the effort to establish administrative, legal, and organizational

parameters in order to create a new model of modern public institutions. This

ideal was expressed in Law 68 of 1935, which restructured the National

University (Lucio & Serrano, 1992).

95

Table 7. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by type, 1935-1959

YEAR PUBLIC (%) PRIVATE (%) TOTAL 1935 7 53.8 6 46.2 13 1940 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 1945 8 61.5 5 38.5 13 1950 10 58.8 7 41.2 17 1955 13 56.5 10 43.5 23

From La Calidad de la Educación Universidad y Cultura Popular, by Parra, R. (1992). Bogotá:

Tercer Mundo Editores.

The hegemony of the Liberal party ended in 1946, starting the control of

the Conservative party that lasted in 1953. Given the ideology of this party, the

liberal idea of education was shifted to a new education reform which established

some privileges for urban education and changed the Law 68, 1935. It limited the

participation of students and teachers on the universities' boards. In addition,

Decree 0136, 1958 gave a non-religious character to universities. The Superior

Normal School (Escuela Normal Superior) was closed in 1951. This school was

divided into two institutions; one is located in Tunja, and the other in Bogotá.

This separation provided the basis for the establishment of the Pedagogical and

Technological University at Tunja and the University Pedagogical at Bogotá

respectively. The result of this power struggle between the two political parties

(conservatives and liberals) was the establishment of some secular and religious

private institutions.

96

In the secular group was founded the University of Los Andes (1948),

University of Medellín (1950), the Great Colombia University (1951), the

University of America (1952), the University of Santiago de Cali (1953), the

University of Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano (1954), and the University Central

(1966) among others. The following religious private institutions group was

created consisting of the Pontifical University Xaveriana (reopened in 1931), the

Pontifical University Bolivariana (1936), the Social Catholic University of La

Salle (1965), and finally, the Universities Santo Tomás and San Buenaventura

were reopened in 1961 and 1966 respectively (ASCUN, 1967; Renner, 1971).

The second period (1960-1974) of the greatest expansion of higher

education institutions was developed under the National Front leadership. This

National Front established legislation that influenced the evolution of the system.

For the first time in this century, university autonomy29 was defined through the

Law 65 of 1963, Article 4, which included its scope and limitations. Two more

important aspects were established in this legislation. First, universities were

allowed to offer programs in graduate studies, and second, it established a

mechanism for decentralizing the different branches of the National University at

Manizales, Medellín, and Palmira (Lucio & Serrano, 1992). In addition, Decrees

1464 (1963) and 1297 (1964) established the rules and standards for the

29Autonomy could be defined as the degree that each institution had to express its philosophy, academic organization and governmental forms.

97

establishment, approval, and inspection of non-university institutions as well as

universities, and other post-secondary institutions, respectively (Pacheco, 2002).

The greatest quantitative expansion of higher education institutions

occurred in this period. It began with 29 (1960) higher education institutions and

ended with 105 (1975). This represented an increase of 262 % in the number of

institutions in only 15 years. In the beginning of the 1960s, the establishment of

higher education institutions was moderate from 23 (1955) institutions to 29 in

1960. Table 8 shows a growth rate of 89.6 % from 1960 and 1970. However, the

greatest expansion in the history of higher education occurred between 1970 and

1975 with a growth rate (in the creation of institutions) of 90.9 percent.

Table 8. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by Type, 1960-1975

YEAR PUBLIC (%) PRIVATE (%) TOTAL 1960 16 55.1 13 44.9 29 1965 22 59.4 15 40.6 37 1970 23 41.8 32 58.2 55 1975 43 40.9 62 59.1 105

From La Calidad de la Educación. Universidad y Cultura Popular, by Parra, R. (1992). Bogotá:


It is important to point out that the greatest expansion in of higher

education institutions coincided with the ending period of the National Front in

1974. "The number of institutions grew from 23 to 37 (a growth rate of 60%) in

98

the public sector, and from 35 to 58 (a growth rate of 66%) in the private sector

between 1973 and 1974" (Lucio & Serrano, 1992, p. 82). In the 1970s, there was

more of an increase in private institutions than there was in public institutions.

Although the growth of the system started during this period, this overexpansion

also had some negative effects on higher education, such as the decline in the

quality of some institutions; the institutions grouping in urban areas, duplication

of effort related to the programs offered, and the development of a heterogeneous

university system stratified by social origin and academic quality (Lucio &

Serrano, 1992; Renner, 1971).

A great effort was put forth to modify and modernize the higher education

system through more research and studies such as the Atcon Report (1961), the

Basic Plan (1966), and the Galán Reform (1971). Although these studies proposed

reforms in higher education, they were not successful for several reasons. The

Atcon report did not study the university within the social, economical and

political challenges the country was facing. Also, the philosophy of the report is

based on privatization, self-financing, an autocratic government, and a correlation

between higher education and the developmental plans. The Basic Plan gathered

the main aspects suggested in the Atcon Report. However, it brought up two new

issues; the centralized and regionalized control of the higher education, and a

proposal for vocational and occupational training as an alternative to academic

studies. Finally, Luis Carlos Galán, who was the Minister of Education in 1971,

99

proposed a new reform to change higher education. Galán included in this reform

the main points of the previous reports, with only one difference; he did not

incorporate the vocational education which was proposed as part of the higher

education system. These proposals failed because students and professors protest

vetoed their main points (Ocampo, 1978).

Finally, during the last period (1975-2000) the quantitative expansion of

the system continued. This period (1975) began with 105 institutions and ended

(2000) with 291, which indicates a growth rate of 177 %. It is important to

mention that this trend has been marked by a strong tendency towards system

privatization. As an illustration, in 1970, 58.2 percent of the higher education

institutions were private, and by 2000 this increased to 67.7 % (see Table 9).

Table 9. Distribution of Colombian higher education Institutions by Type, 1980- 2000

YEAR

PUBLIC

%

PRIVATE

%

TOTAL

1980 1 56 29.8 132 70.2 188 1985 1 69 30.7 156 69.3 225 1990 1 74 30.6 168 69.4 242 1995 2 80 31.3 175 68.7 255 20002 94 32.3 197 67.7 291

1 From Autonomía y Calidad, by Caro, B. et al.,1993, Bogotá: Magíster en Dirección

Universitaria. Universidad de Los Andes.

2 From La Educación Superior en Colombia, by IESALC-UNESCO (2002). Bogotá: Instituto

Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.

100

The development of the system during this period resulted in the

emergence two trends; the first was related to the migration of people from the

rural sector to the cities, and the second was associated with the qualified labor

force that the country acquired due to its economic development. The disorderly

expansion of institutions and programs that occurred in the seventies was

controlled thorough the Decree 80, 1980, which reformed the Decree 1297, 1964.

The Decree 80, 1980, along with additional decrees created such as the 2745 of

1980, the Decree 2010, 1984, and the Decree 1227, 1989, established some rules

and regulations for the creation of academic programs, enrollment of students,

and categorization of higher education institutions30 (León, 1990). This regulation

was considered interventionist because it monitored universities. As a

consequence, the expansion of the higher education system was limited. These

limitantions among others, were also influenced by external forces such as the

economic depression of the 1980s, unemployment, geographic concentration of

institutions, and the unequal modernization process of development, creating a

social crisis (Caro, 1993).

30 Article 18 of the Decree 80 of 1980 recognized the autonomy of universities to develop academic programs, but not to create new programs. There were several legislations that had influence on the autonomy of the universities. For example, the Decree 2745 of 1980 established the performance and the approbation of higher education’s programs; Decree 2010 of 1984 determined the number of students enrolled at a university, and Decree 1227 of 1989 determined the rules related to the inspection and vigilance (León, 1990).

101

This crisis forced new reform in response to the increasing demand of

higher education and the need to create a curricular diversification, including

institutional differentiation, teaching methodologies, research development and so

on. Decree 80, 1980 was changed by the Law 30, 1991. The new reform sought

an expansion, diversification, and decentralization of higher education in addition

to quality improvements. The Law 30, 1991 also helped institutions gain

autonomy through Articles 28 and 29 that recognized the academic,

administrative and economic freedom of universities (ICFES, 1995). In spite of

this legislation, the growth rate of higher education institutions has been declining

gradually since the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1990, 54 institutions were founded

and between 1990 and 2000, 49 institutions were created. These figures indicate a

growth rate of 28.7 % and 20.2 %, respectively. The quantitative results of the

Law 30, 1991 can be seen in the enrollment and programs offered by higher

education institutions.

Students

Access

The requirements for admission included a bachillerato degree (student

who has attended secondary school for 6 years), State education test (examen de

102

estado)31, university general examination given by some private but

predominantly public institutions, secondary grades, teacher recommendations,

and personal interviews and others. However, standards varied considerably from

one institution to another. The growing demand for higher education in the last

decade provoked increased competition for entry to public institutions. As a

result, young people of lower socioeconomic status have seen reduced access to

higher education, because they do not have the option of attending high quality

secondary education or paying for preparation for both universities' entry exams

and the State education tests (examen de estado) (World Bank, 2002).

This period is characterized by its quantitative expansion of student

enrollment in higher education due to the growth of secondary education, as well

as and the inclusion of women. Other factors also contributed to the massive

enrollment increases; an increasing number of institutions, shifts in the migration

rate (from rural to urban sector), an increasing demand for professional training,

and the belief that education could serve as means of climbing from the lower

class to middle class, and from middle to upper class. It simply means that new

social groups, which previously were denied the opportunity to enroll in higher

education were waiting impatiently on the threshold (Lucio & Serrano 1996).

31 The use of such state education test (examen de estado) had become widespread by August 1969 when 23,241 6th year secondary students took such test to qualify for admission to over 20 universities. This test is made and standardized by the National Testing Service (a dependency of the ICFES) and are administered without charge (Renner, 1971).

103

Enrollment increased exponentially in the years between 1960 and 1980,

from around ten thousand to more than one hundred thousand students; a 650%

increase. At the beginning of this period, public education had the largest

enrollment (approximately 70 %). However, the scales gradually tipped in favor

of the private sector, and by the end of the twentieth century, almost 65 % of

students were in private institutions (see Table 10). The 1970s started one of the

most remarkable of the Colombian higher education system; the privatization of

the educative sector. Decentralization of higher education institutions also helped

increase access to private education. The establishment of higher education

institutions in small cities and towns facilitated entrance for those students who

could not afford the living costs associated with of the big city universities (Lucio

& Serrano 1996).

Table 10. Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Type of Institution, 1935-2000

STUDENT ENROLLED YEAR PUBLIC % Private % TOTAL

1935 1 2,948 71.2 1,189 28.7 4,137 1940 1 2,033 68.0 957 32.0 2,990 1945 1 4,730 72.6 1,782 27.4 6,512 1950 1 7,637 71.8 2,995 28.2 10,362 1955 1 8,252 62.1 5,032 37.9 13,284 1960 1 13,360 60.2 8,821 39.8 22,181 1965 1 23,535 54.5 19,719 45.5 43,254 1970 1 46,618 56.0 36,621 44.0 83,239 1975 1 86,089 48.9 90,009 51.1 176,098 1980 1 100,783 37.1 170,847 62.9 271,630

104

STUDENT ENROLLED YEAR PUBLIC % Private % TOTAL

1985 1 156,317 39.9 235,173 60.1 391,490 1990 2 193,343 39.7 294,105 60.3 487,448 1995 2 212,053 32.9 432,135 67.1 644,188 2000 2 336,391 36.0 597,694 64.0 934,085

1 From La Calidad de la Educación Universidad y Cultura Popular, by Parra, 1992, Bogotá:




Access for women was accelerated during this era, as shown in enrollment

figures by gender (see Table 11). The percentage of male and female students

shifted. Legislation on behalf of gender equity appeared through Law 132 of

February 20, 1936, which prohibits sexual, racial, and religious discrimination for

admissions to any public or private higher education institution (Pacheco, 2002).

In 1935, more than 98 % of the student population in higher education was male.

This percentage started declining since the 1960s. Equal enrollment of females

relative to male registration was reached by the end of the 1980s. The greatest

expansion in female enrollment occurred between 1970 and 1980, when women's

involvement in the work force of the country began growing (Kline 1983; Lucio

& Serrano 1996).

105

Table 11. Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Gender, 1935-2000

STUDENT ENROLLED YEAR

MALE % FEMALE % TOTAL 1935 1 4,079 98.6 58 1.4 4,137 1945 1 6,275 96.4 237 3.6 6,512 1955 1 11,079 83.4 2,205 16.6 13,284 1960 1 18,402 83.0 4,258 17.0 22,181 1965 1 33,166 76.7 10,088 23.3 43,254 1970 1 62,624 75.2 22,936 24.8 83,239 1980 1 157,933 58.1 123,986 41.9 271,630 1985 1 201,553 51.5 189,937 48.9 391,490 1990 2 236,894 48.6 200,883 51.4 487,448 1995 2 309,984 48.1 334,204 51.9 644,188 2000 2 481,970 51.6 452,115 48.4 934,085

1 From La Calidad de la Educación, by Parra, 1992, Bogotá: Tercer Mundo Editores.



Academic Degrees

Any officially recognized higher education institution regulated by the

Colombian Institute for the Promotion of Higher Education -ICFES had the right

to grant a professional degree. The types of studies are divided into two types;

undergraduate and graduate. Graduate degrees are classified as doctoral, master

and specialist degrees. The time required for completion for each degree varies:

For instance, the degree of doctorate usually requires 8 to 12 semesters (4 to 6

106

years), a Masters requires 4 semesters (2 years), and a specialization requires 2 to

4 semesters (non-health professions run 1-2 years). Undergraduate studies offer

four types of degrees: Technician, Technology Specialist, Licentiate, and

Professional. The degree of technician runs 4 semesters (2 years), Technology

Specialist, 4 semesters (2 years), Licentiate, 8 semesters (4 years), especially in

areas of teaching and social sciences; and Professional, 10 to 12 semesters (5 to 6

years) depending on the field of study (Renner, 1971, p. 115).

Table 12 shows the evolution of student enrollment by types of degrees

since 1960. Although the percentage of students enrolled in professional

education (including licentiate degrees and professional degrees) has dropped

since the 1960s, professional education still prevails over the other types of

degrees. In Colombia, as in other Latin American countries, vocational education

has been developing slowly, primarily because of the low status generally

associated with manual labor (Renner, 1971).

Table 12. Distribution of Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Academic Degree, 1960-2000.

UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE Technician Technologist Professional YEAR

Total % Total % Total % Total %

TOTAL

1960 1 - - 1,141 5.0 21,820 94.8 52 0.2 23,013 1965 1 - - 1,592 3.6 42,529 95.8 282 0.6 44,403 1970 1 - - 3,323 3.9 81,420 95.2 817 1.0 85,560 1975 1 - - 14,861 8.4 158,652 90.1 2,585 1.5 176,098 1980 1 19,343 7.1 17,582 6.5 230,159 84.7 4,546 1.7 271,630

107

UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE Technician Technologist Professional YEAR

Total % Total % Total % Total %

TOTAL

1985 1 31,802 8.1 40,156 10.3 311,682 79.6 7.850 2.0 391,490 1990 2 37,918 7.8 72,459 14.9 363,370 74.5 13,701 2.8 487,448 1995 2 34,085 5.3 93,324 14.5 478,497 74.3 37,682 5.9 644,188 2000 2 41,639 4.4 112,269 12.0 724,266 77.5 55,911 6.1 934,085

1 From La Educación Superior. Tendencias Políticas y Estatales, by Lucio R. & Serrano M.,

(1992), Colombia: Tercer Mundo Editores.



Students Activism

As mentioned in the beginning of the Modern University period,

Colombian student activism started its creation at the end of the nineteen-twenties

through the establishment of the Federation of Colombian Students (FEC).

However, this organization was not as developed as other student organizations in

many other Latin American countries until 1964. For example, the university

reform of 1935 was not a direct response to the pressure of students. In the

nineteen-sixties several student organizations were created such as UNEC,

CEUC, and Left Politic Group of the Communist Youth (JUCO). By 1963 the

National University Federation (FUN) was created, which classified the above-

mentioned student organizations. This organization was dominated by leftist

leaders of Maoist or Castroite. The FUN was dissolved after a violent incident

occurred at the National University at Bogotá. A motorcade carrying the president

108

of Colombia and John D. Rockefeller III was stoned by 200 leftist students under

the presidency of Carlos Lleras Restrepo in 1966 (Renner, 1971).

By the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the tradition of

student activism took on a new guise having with more political influence. During

those years, many student demonstrations seem to have been aimed at improving

the quality of instruction. However, the National University was closed in 1970

by the Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior) in response students´ political

activism centered on the impending national elections. This increasing politization

showed by the fact that student organizations from virtually all higher education

institutions located in Bogotá participated in protest parades supporting students

who were enrolled in the National University. Although a number of academic

reforms have been made in recent years, student political activism persists as a

feature of university life, especially in public higher education institutions

(Renner, 1971).

Professors

The increasing demand for higher education, along with the correspondent

expansion of the system since the 1930s, necessitated an increased in the number

of professors. The traditional university, which was basically elitist, was staffed

by fewer professors, who usually practiced their teaching as a secondary activity.

The modernization of the university also brought a change in the requirements for

becoming a professor, such as education level, salary, and full time employment

109

among others. These changes were necessary for the new challenges that higher

education was facing. As a result, the validation of professors as having a

beneficial and profound influence on students began at this time. The expansion

in the number of professors increased considerably since the thirties. Between

1930 and 1960, the number of professors has increased sevenfold, while between

1960 and 1974, and 1975 and 2000, the number of professors increased only

threefold (see Table 13) (Lucio & Serrano, 1992; Parra, 1992; Rama 1970).

Table 13. Distribution of Colombian higher education Faculty by Type of Institution and Gender,1935-2000

YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PUBLIC % PRIVATE % 19351 605 604 1 455 75.2 150 24.8 19451 1,059 1,054 5 746 70.4 313 29.6 19551 2,645 2,492 153 1,680 63.5 965 36.5 19651 5,486 n.a n.a 3,294 60.0 2,192 40.0 19701 10,295 n.a n.a 5,995 58.2 4,300 41.8 19751 21,153 n.a n.a 10,963 51.8 10,190 48.2 19801 31,136 24,952 6,184 14,085 45.2 17,051 54.8 19851 43,222 32,999 10,228 17,198 39.8 26,029 60.2 19901 52,445 38,480 13,965 20,878 39.8 31,567 60.2 19951 65,318 47,005 18,313 22,906 35,0 42,421 65.0 20002 85,743 58,517 27,226 28,762 33.5 56,981 66.5

1From Escuela y Modernidad en Colombia: La Universidad, by Parra, R. (1996), Colombia:


2From Estadísticas de la Educación Superior 2000 by Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la

Educación Superior -ICFES- (2002).

110

The number of faculty in the private sector has been increasing

progressively since the nineteen-thirties. It grew from 25 % in 1935 to more than

50 % in the 1980s, and to almost 70 % at the end of the twentieth century.

Although, the participation of female professors has also increased, it has not kept

pace with the number of women enrolling in higher education degrees studies. In

1935, were 605 professors with only 0.16% being female. By the end of the

twentieth century only 31.7 % of the professors were female (Lucio & Serrano,

1992; Parra, 1992; Rama 1970).

The modernization of the university again changed the role of faculty.

Teachers who had only spent a few years teaching various subjects at higher

education level now wished to set their priorities on becoming full-time

professors in a particular field of study. According to the number of hours they

are employed, professors can be grouped as full-time, half-time and part-time.

Full-time professors work at least 40 hours a week, lecturing at one institution.

They could also lecture in other institutions and practice their professions. Half-

time professors at the same time work at least 20 hours a week for one institution

and may lecture for other institutions and while still practicing their profession.

Finally, part-time professors work on an hourly basis. They did not usually do

university-related research, nor did they produce any scholarly publications,

unless those were the primary reasons for their appointment. Since they went to

the university to teach, they often failed to prepare their lectures adequately and

111

they were rarely available for student consultation. However, sometimes they

were professionals who had influential contacts in the prestigious professional

circles (Renner, 1971).

The evolution of faculty in private and public higher education developed

differently, depending on the number of hours they worked. Although the greatest

increase in the number of professors occurred in the private education sector (see

Table 14), the number of full-time professors did not follow the same pattern.

Since the 1960s, part-time professors have prevailed over full-time professors in

private institutions. This rate has fluctuated between 70 % and 80 % from 1965 to

2000 (see Table 14). Even though public institutions did not follow this trend in

the 1960s or even in the 1980s, since the 1990s, the percentage of full-time

professors has been declining compared to part-time professors. In general, these

data indicate that the professionalization of faculty has been strengthening in

public institutions, which also offers more labor stability for them. On the other

hand, the increasing number of part-time professors is seen as detrimental to the

quality of education, because as stated previously, part-time types of professors

are only appointed for teaching, not for doing research, public service, publishing,

or advising students.

112

Table 14. Distribution of Colombian higher education Faculty by the Number of Hours Employed, 1965-2000

PUBLIC PRIVATE YEAR TOTAL %

Full Time

% Half Time

% Part Time

% Full Time

% Half Time

% Part Time

19651 5,486 50.3 15.3 34.4 12.9 16.5 70.6 19701 10,295 60.7 23.5 15.8 18.1 25.9 56.0 19751 21,153 58.9 10.9 30.2 12.8 12.1 75.1 19801 31,136 58.1 9.3 32.6 13.6 13.0 73.4 19851 43,222 52.9 9.9 37.2 11.3 11.8 76.9 19901 52,445 46.2 10.6 43.2 11.3 9.5 79.2 19951 65,318 39.4 9.4 51.2 13.7 9.4 76.9 20002 85,743 40.0 12.7 47.3 12.5 8.7 78.8

1From Escuela y Modernidad en Colombia: La Universidad, by Parra, R. (1996), Colombia:


2From Estadísticas de la Educación Superior 2000 by Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la

Educación Superior -ICFES- (2002).

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Since the establishment of the first colleges and universities in Colombia,

several studies have been done, starting in the colonial period up to the present.

Most of the studies are related to the historiography of higher education which

analyzes particular topics of higher learning such as the establishment of

institutions, development of students, faculty, curriculum, legislation and perhaps

even a particular historical period. However, there are few single reports that have

compiled the history of Colombian higher education.

113

Studies on Specific Historical Period

Hernandez (1980) completed a study on the evolution of higher education

covering the colonial period. This study describes the establishment of the first

colleges and universities, including the curriculum, student life, and degrees

awarded. Although Hernandez noted the stages of development of higher

education during this period, he made particular emphasis on the establishment

and evolution of the University Santo Tomás of Aquino only.

Another study focused on the relationship between society and higher

education in the New Kingdom of Granada (Nuevo Reino de Granada) including

that of Colombia (Silva 1992). The main focus of this research was on the

historical profile of faculty and students during the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. This study addressed the geographical origin of faculty and students,

admission requirements, classification of students, and curriculum, including

samples of the types of text utilized by students in each course.

Parra´s study (1992) examined the quality of education since 1930s. This

study analyzed the evolution of higher education from the quality perspective

covering institutions, enrollment, curriculum and faculty. This study focused only

on the last seventy years of Colombia´s higher education development. Similarly,

Lucio & Serrano (1992) conducted a study about the evolution of higher

education since the 1930s. However, their research focused on the influence of

general educational policies on the development of higher education.

114

IESALC-UNESCO (2002) conducted a survey of the current situation in

Colombian higher education, including a historical overview of the evolution of

higher education. This study also included an examination of student profiles,

libraries, research, finance, quality, accreditation, organization and governance.

However, this research only analyzed present day at the macro and micro level of

organization and governance. A history of the evolution of organization and

governance dimensions was not included.

Studies on Specific Institutions of Higher Education

Jaramillo (1996) exclusively researched the establishment of the Great

College of San Bartolomé, including a historiography of its foundation, its

degrees, students, admission requirements, curricula, and faculty, among others.

A comparison was made of both colleges, the Great College of San Bartolomé

and the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. These colleges and

universities played an important role in the development of higher education in

Colombia. Nevertheless, this study did not address the organization and

governance dimensions.

Studies on Specific Higher Education Topics

Pacheco (2002) conducted research on the development of Colombian

higher education from a legal perspective. The researcher documented the

legislation related to higher education starting from the colonial period. He also

115

analyzed several topics related to the influence legislation had on particular

aspects of higher education such as faculty, university autonomy, students,

admission requirements and institutions among others.

Studies on the Development of Colombian Higher Education

Garcia (1986) conducted a study of the evolution of higher education from

an economic, political, and social perspective. Garcia described the six university

models that Colombian higher education has developed since its establishment.

The author only analyzed the evolution of institutions, students, and curricula

within each model.

An historical evaluation of the development of Colombian higher

education, from the colonial period until 1980, was completed by Rivadeneira

(1986). This study divided the evolution of higher education in Colombia into

different categories, and included the ideologies influencing each stage.

Rivadeneira also analyzed the evolution of the curricula and methods of

instruction. However, this research does not include the study of other topics such

as students, faculty, finance, and so on.

In 1991, López performed an investigation of the evolution of Colombian

higher education from the colonial period until the late of nineteen-seventies. This

study starts with a description of the religious orders arriving in 1550 with the

conquerors. It provides a chronological account, including the requirements for

116

creating institutions, which degrees would be awarded, and the political context in

which higher education evolved.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

There are several ways of organizing historical data when using the

historical method. The most common way of arranging it is chronologically and

topically, although geographical organization of data is often used as well. Most

historical research might be presented through the chronological order of topics or

even by periods of time. However, all historical arrangements are time oriented to

some extent. When grouping evidence using chronological, topical or

geographical methods, it is important to take into account that chronological

groupings do not organize facts in order of importance, and that arranging

evidence topically might also distort the chronological flow of events (Shafer,

1980).

For the purpose of this study, Cohen's (1998) approach of presenting

history will be followed. This approach is based on a study of American higher

education since its establishment in the colonial period until the present day.

Cohen described chronological trends and events under headings, showing the

correlations between them, defining “trend” as a "long-term movement that

points in a consistent direction" (p.3); event is described as a "specific occurrence

that marks the progression of a trend" (p.3); and topic as "a cluster of trends and

117

events" (p.3). As a result, Cohen suggests one matrix with the focus on topics and

trends one axis and periods or eras on the other.

Cohen's matrix will serve as the framework for this study. This

framework was found to be the most conducive to effecting a meaningful study of

the evolution of Colombian higher education. Cohen's matrix includes the

following topics:

Societal context,

institutions,

students,

faculty,

curriculum and instruction,

governance and organization,

finance, and

research and outcomes.

Of these topics only social context, institutions, students, faculty,

organization and governance will be included in this research. In addition, this

study expands the social context by reviewing the political and economic

contexts. However, it will most specifically address the organization and

governance dimensions within the Evolution of Colombian higher education.

Exhibit 1 displays a layout which illustrates how the historical evidence will be

organized. The first row shows the four periods in which the history of Colombian

higher education is divided. The first column illustrates the different topics that

118

this study will develop, including social, political and economic context,

institutions, students, faculty, and finally the main subject of the study, the

organization and governance of higher education institutions.

119

Exhibit 1. Trends and Events in Colombian Higher Education

PERIODS

I. Colonial

university (1580-1819)

II. Republican University

(1819-1842)

III. Beginning of the

Modern University (1842-1930)

IV Reform of the

Modern University (1930-2000)

Topics Trends

Political Context

Social Context

Economic Context

Expanding the nation, and

economy. Ideological

influence; increasing

demands and expectation

Institutions Diverse, multipurpose

Students Access, activism, and cost

Faculty Professionalization

Organization and Governance

Note: Based on The Shaping of American Higher Education, by Cohen, A. (1998). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

120

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology used to conduct

this qualitative research. This historical study will focus on the organizational and

governance dimensions of Colombian higher education since its establishment in

1580 until the year 2000. The following research questions will guide this study:


education evolved in two selected higher education institutions of

Colombia?


the organization and governance dimensions of private and public

higher education institutions?


governance dimensions between public and private Colombian higher

education institutions as reflected by two case examples?

Historical research has been an important aspect in the field of education

since the 1930s. From this time, several researchers interested in developing

historical methods in education, have examined historical accounts in order to

bring solutions to present days problems (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000).

Tuchnman (1994) states that any social phenomenon must be taken in its

121

historical context, because understanding history makes it easier to comprehend

the present. McCulloch & Richardson support, "...the conviction that historical

research is an important means of understanding and addressing contemporary

concerns" (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000, p.5). According to Shafer (1980), in

order to grasp the historical information, the researcher must take a position

which includes an interpretative framework which will give some idea of the

"meaning" of history.

Even though historical research methodology differs from any other type

of methodology, it has some similarities to all types of research, because each

effort begins with a literature review. Mertens (1997) states that "Every research

study starts as an historical study, because the act of conducting a literature

review involving locating and synthesizing information that is already known on

the topic" (p. 197). It is important to point out that a historical research follows

several stages that "…..cannot be delimited precisely into chronological blocks"

(Shaffer, 1980, p. 39). The collection of data is concentrated on the early stages of

the research. Data analysis also begins when the first note is taken and goes

beyond just copying events from the sources found by the researcher (Shafer,

1980). There are three different tasks that should be conducted simultaneously

when performing historical research; first, searching for the truth, and

understanding the past as it really happened, and being sure the facts are solid.

The second is to interpret the facts; then assess, and then evaluate and explain

122

their importance. The third task is to present the ideas in a clear and appealing

way (Ali, 1978).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Due to the evolutionary nature of organizational and governance

dimensions of Colombian higher education since colonial times (1580), the

researcher chose the historical research method to conduct this study. Shafer

(1980) describes the six components of the historical method. These components

may be divided into two categories: the “well-agreed-upon” and the “less-agreed-

upon” or the more controversial. The “well-agreed-upon” category can be better

analyzed using the historical method. It consists of three stages; learning the

categories of evidence, collecting evidence, and communicating the evidence.

The second category, the “less-agreed-upon” or the more controversial is the more

difficult to analyze using the historical method. This category includes external

criticism, internal criticism, analysis and synthetic operations.

The first stage of the historical method is related to identifying the

categories of evidence. Historians are constantly analyzing and rethinking the

past; discovering new patterns and meanings of events. During this process, they

depend on certain artifacts to interpret the past. Such artifacts make up the sources

from which historians construct meanings. These sources are relics and reports,

oral and written. Written resources are divided into two categories; primary and

secondary. Primary sources have been the single most important source for

123

historical research in education, and can also be subdivided into two categories;

unpublished primary documentary sources and published works. Unpublished

primary documentary sources, generally public and private collections with

restricted access, are manuscript materials such as letters, diaries, and

memoranda. These sources are usually private and sometimes sensitive

documents (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000).

For historical research in education, unpublished primary sources also can

be divided into three general categories; those related to educational policy and

administration, those from individual educational institutions such as schools or

universities, and those comprising the personal papers of teachers, educational

reformers and others whose work has related specifically to education at any

particular stage in their lives. The main repositories of unpublished primary

sources on education policy and administration are the public record offices, and

the records of national and local organizations associated with education.

Research on specific educational institutions such as schools, colleges or

universities can often be found through primary documents located and stored at

the institution itself (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000). A second category of

primary sources is published works. These are materials which were intended

from the outset to be printed and made public, such as newspaper articles,

magazines, congressional debates, autobiographies, annual reports, and official

reports of government or private institutions, among others (Brundage, 1997).

124

The most important difference between primary and secondary sources

used in historical research concerns authorship. Whereas primary sources are

published by those involved in, or witnesses to, a particular event; secondary

sources are written after the event, usually by those who were not involved or

were not participants. Therefore, primary sources provide the researcher with first

-hand accounts, while secondary sources are interpretations of historical events or

longer-term process (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000).

Secondary sources come in a great variety as well. The usual types of

sources for historical research in education are published books, articles in

academic journals, chapters in edited collections, and unpublished master theses

and doctoral dissertations. Such works examine specific historical problems or

debates in education or the researched topic (McCulloch & Richardson, 2000).

The second step of the historical method, described by Shafer (1980), is

collecting evidence. Much, but not all, of this collection occurs early in the

research effort. This involves bibliographical search, description, control, and

analysis and annotations of the evidence. However, it is important to emphasize

that the different stages of an historical inquiry may overlap. In collecting

evidence, there are two other steps that the researcher should take at the same

time; these are recording bibliographic information, and finding the sources. The

former step is about working on bibliography cards. In finding sources, there are

several bibliographical aids which save time for the researcher. Among these aids

125

are library catalogs, bibliographies, government publication guides and indexes,

press and journal indexes, indexes to published books, manuscript and archival

guides, indexes to doctoral dissertations, scholarly journals, a reference book

guide, booksellers' lists, and others (Shafer 1980).

Once the researcher finds the historical documents to be used in the

investigation, the following steps should confirm the authenticity of evidence

(documents) and credibility of evidence (contents and meaning of the document).

These steps are also known as “external criticism”, also referred to as "lower

criticism" and “internal criticism” as "higher" criticism (Ali, 1978; Gottschalk,

1969; Shafer, 1980).

External criticism is also called “heuristics”. Renier (1965) defined

heuristic "….as a deftness in the handling of specialized guide-books, a strong

memory for bibliographical detail, severe self-discipline in making, classifying,

and preserving of notes" (p. 106). It is used to validate the authenticity of the

document. The types of problems addressed by external criticism include

forgeries, unintelligible documents, miscellaneous unauthenticated notations,

partial texts, plagiarism, and ghost writers. External criticism also deals with both

intentional and accidental errors in texts. Identification of the authorship, place,

and date of the document or evidence is considered an essential part of external

criticism because that information may help prove or disprove the authenticity of

the document (Gottschalk, 1969; Ali, 1978; Shafer, 1980).

126

The purpose of internal criticism is to determine the credibility of

evidence. This methodology is also known as hermeneutic. "Historians use the

concept of hermeneutics in their discussion of interpreting historical documents to

try to understand what the author was attempting to communicate within the time

period and culture in which they where written" (Mertens, 1997, p. 11). The main

task in this stage is the analysis of the evidence, which means separating the ideas

and cutting the whole document into its constituent parts with the purpose of

testing its validity (Ali, 1978; Gottschalk, 1969; Shafer, 1980).

Ali (1978) describes two methods of internal criticism: positive and

negative. The first method, positive criticism, refers to the analysis of the content

of the document with the purpose of knowing what the author really means by a

particular statement. The second operation, negative criticism, is the analysis of

the conditions under which the document was produced. The main purpose of

negative criticism is to eliminate the possibility of error in the author statements.

Negative interpretative criticism appears as a practical necessity for the purpose

of eliminating statements that are obviously erroneous. Negative interpretative

criticism is comprised only of two problems; one is related to good faith (beliefs)

and the other to accuracy (knowledge) of the author (Ali, 1978).

Having assembled the sources and subjected them to authentication and

credibility checks, historians face the task of explaining them by connecting the

sources to a story about the past. This is considered the last stage of the historical

127

method, known as “analyzing and synthesizing”. Analysis and synthesis involve

such mental processes as comparison, combination, and selection. Then, all the

material needs to be considered as a whole, in a final effort of analysis --

interpretation, generalization, and synthesis. At this stage, the researcher engages

in the always perilous process of inference, which could be considered the most

difficult part of the historical inquiry (Ali, 1978; Shafer 1980). This mostly

includes joining, grouping, arranging, explaining, and interpreting the data in a

narrative manner that make the study meaningful and interesting (Shafer, 1980).

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

In order to analyze the evolution of the organization and governance

dimensions of Colombian higher education, the researcher selected samples from

the pool of 321 Colombian higher education institutions (103 public institutions

and 218 private) which in 2002 represented both public and private institutions

(ICFES, 2002). The selection process was based on the purposeful sampling to

choose a sample from each sector of public and private; as well as the type of

institution (university), the period of establishment (Colonial and Republican

period), location (Bogotá, Colombia), and the fact that these institutions have

been in operation continuously since their foundation (1653 and 1868) without

interruption. It is important to point out that public higher education institutions

were created in the Republican period. Similarly, during the colonial period, only

private institutions were founded, which had Catholic religious influence. Most of

128

the colleges and universities established during the colonial period were closed,

and few of them were reopened several years or even centuries later.

The higher education institution selected from the public sector was the

National University of Colombia, which is one of the largest in the country. It was

created in 1867 as the National University of the United States of Colombia.

Although it was not the first public institution32 established, it has been one of the

most important public institutions since its establishment. This institution has

several branches as follows: Bogotá, Medellín, Manizales, Palmira, and Arauca.

The Bogotá's branch has 22,286 undergraduate students and 36,000 graduate

students. In addition, this university is academically organized by faculties

offering the following programs:

Faculty of Agriculture: Agronomic Engineering.

Faculty of Arts: Architecture, Plastic Arts, Cinema and Television,

Graphic Design, Industrial Design, Music and Instrumental Music.

Faculty of Sciences: Biology, Statistics, Pharmacy, Physics,

Geology, Mathematics and Chemistry.

Faculty of Economic Sciences: Business Administration, Public

Accounting, and Economics.

Faculty of Human Sciences: Anthropology, Spanish and Classic

Philology, Philology and Languages, Philosophy, Geography,

History, Linguistic, Literature, Psychology, Sociology, and Social

Work.

32 The first public institution established was the University of Antioquia. However, this institution was created as a college in 1803 (ASCUN, 1967).

129

Faculty of Law and Political Sciences: Political Science and Law.

Faculty of Nursing: Nursing.

Faculty of Engineering: Agricultural Engineering, Civil

Engineering, Systems Engineering, Electrical and Electronic

Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry Engineering.

Faculty of Medicine: Speech Therapy, Medicine, Nutrition and

Dietetics, Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy.

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics: Veterinary

Medicine and Zootechnics. Faculty of Odontology: Odontology

(ASCUN, 2000).

From the private sector, the University of Rosario was selected to analyze

the evolution of organization and governance dimensions in Colombian higher

education. The main reason for choosing it was because it was established during

the colonial period and because it is the only institute of higher learning that has

existed through the years without being closed. It was originally created as the

Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora

del Rosario) in 1653, and several years later it evolved into a university changing

its name to the University of Rosario. Currently, the university has 2,718

undergraduate students and 1,368 graduate students. It offers the following

undergraduate programs: Business Administration, Political Science and

Government, Economics, Philosophy and Humanities, Physiotherapy, Speech

130

Therapy, Jurisprudence, Medicine, International Relations, Sociology, and

Occupational Therapy (ASCUN, 2000).

DATA COLLECTION

In order to obtain valuable information for this research, the researcher

selected reliable sources such as published and unpublished primary sources to

prevent bias and unreliability. The researcher used published primary and

secondary sources such as books, general treatises on education, policy reports,

legislation (Laws and Decrees), journals, and newspapers and periodicals (See

Appendix A). Unpublished primary sources were also consulted. These included

archival records, institutional publications, and statutes which included

Agreements and Resolutions from both higher education institutions (See

Appendix B). As a secondary source, the author utilized books, as well as articles

in academic journals.

Once the researcher started collecting sources of evidence through primary

and secondary sources, the information was recorded on 3 x 5 cards. These cards

contained the substantive data. Each card had the following information: author,

title, publisher, date and place of publication, and the respective annotations about

the focus of the study as well as helpful findings for the development of the study.

These cards will be arranged in chronological and alphabetical order as a way to

facilitate the process of preliminary analysis.

131

DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis and interpretation of data were conducted parallel to the data

collection. During the analysis and interpretation the data the researcher

considered the stages for conducting historical research, including external

criticism, internal criticism, and analysis and synthetic operations. The researcher

verified the authenticity of the evidence by checking the authorship, place and

date. Then the researcher determined the credibility and validity of the evidence

by scrutinizing the content of the documents. Finally, the researcher completed

the last stage, analyzing, grouping, interpreting and explaining the data in a

narrative manner in order to make it interesting and meaningful.

132

CHAPTER 4

The Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions of a Private Higher Education Institution: the University of Rosario

(Universidad del Rosario)

In this chapter the researcher attempts to answer the first research

question: How have the organization and governance dimensions of higher

education evolved in two selected higher education institutions of Colombia. This

is accomplished through a description of the organization and governance

dimensions of the historical evolution of the University of Rosario, which was

created as the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. First, the researcher

begins with a description of history of the Great College from its foundation in

1580 to the year 2000. Next, the evolution of the organization and governance

dimensions of the Great College will be examined through the analysis of primary

and secondary sources such as governmental legislation, archival records of the

Great College regarding internal policies, agreements, decrees, and minutes

among others.

HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROSARIO

COLONIAL UNIVERSITY (1580-1819)

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario has played an important

role not only in the development of the culture and history of Colombia, but also

133

in the education of several distinguished people. The Great College of Nuestra

Señora del Rosario has been the only higher education institution that has endured

since its establishment, on December 18 of 1653, in the colonial period33. Its

founder, Fry Cristóbal de Torres34, took a different approach to creating the

college, which would not be as vulnerable to shutdowns as other Colombian

universities35 established during this period. The main difference was that it was

a secular College, independent of any Religious order, with economic and

organizational autonomy, ruled by its own statutes, and managed by its scholars

(colegiales) (Salah, 1997).

Fr. Cristóbal de Torres was sent by Phillip IV (Felipe IV) to the New

World for two important reasons. The first was to indoctrinate the natives into the

Catholic religion (Gil, 1982), and the second was to improve the relationship

between the Church and the State, as well as among the religious orders, which

33 During this period only two universities existed: The University of Santo Tomás de Aquino that belonged to the Dominicans Order, which was established on 1580 as monastery-university and ratified as University on 1626; and the University Xaveriana, created in 1623 as an academy by the Jesuits Order. 34 Fry Cristóbal Torres was a friar, who belonged to the Dominicans Order. He was alumni of the Great College of the Archbishop of Salamanca (Colegio Mayor del Arzobispo de Salamanca) where he taught Theology and Arts. By 1617, he was appointed as preacher of the chapel of the king Phillip III (Felipe III). Once Phillip III died, he continued working with Philip IV (Felipe IV) until 1634 when Bernardino de Almansa, archbishop of Santafe de Bogotá died (Gil, 1982). Fry Cristóbal Torres was appointed as an archbishop of Santafé on October 28 of 1634, starting his travel to America in the beginning of 1635. He arrived to Santafé on September 8 of 1635 when the president of the New Kingdom was Don Sancho Girón, marquis of Sofraga (Guillén de Iriarte de Iriarte, 1994), (Gil, 1982). 35 The Xaverian University was closed in 1767 by King Charles III, when the Jesuits were banished from his domain. The University of Santo Tomás de Aquino was closed in 1826 by Francisco de Paula Santander when he established the Central University of Bogotá. The Dominicans were cast out by President Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera in 1861.

134

were experiencing some internal turmoil36 at the time. Fr. Torres was sent as a

mediator to try and improve the relationship between the Church and State. A

few months after his arrival, he discovered how poor the education under the

Viceroyalty of New Granada was, and decided that creating an institution of

higher studies was the answer. This institution would create Chairs (Cátedras) of

Canon Law, Civil Law and Medicine for the purpose of educating future religious

leaders, lawyers and physicians the country required for its successful

development. He established a College with characteristics similar to those of the

Great Colleges of Spain, England, and Germany. In addition, he wanted an

institution such as the Xaverian University (Universidad Javeriana) and the

University of Santo Tomás de Aquino that was less vulnerable to the problems

plaguing other universities at the time.

The full curriculum development and staffing of the College took more

than ten years. In 1645, Fr. Cristóbal requested that the king of Spain, Philip IV,

authorize its establishment. In order to achieve his dream, he had to overcome

several obstacles. The first was the Supreme Council of the Indies37 (Consejo

Supremo de Indias) and the second was the litigation between the University of

Santo Tomás and the Xaverian University over which institution would be

allowed to grant degrees. Both universities disapproved of creating a new

36 At the educational level, the Dominicans and the Jesuits were facing litigation linked to its right to be a university and confer degrees (Lucero, 1987).

135

institute of higher education because they felt a new College would dilute the

academic privileges they enjoyed. The second issue was finding and appointing

qualified Professors and administrative personnel. The third was the selection of

the first scholars38 to be enrolled in the College. Fourth, the King of Spain was

opposed to providing any financial resources for the establishment and

maintenance of this College because he needed money to maintain his troops in

Spain’s war with France. As a result, Fr. Cristóbal was only granted 1,600 pesos

with the promise 40,000 additional ducados (Lucero, 1987).

While Fr. Cristóbal was waiting for authorization from the King, he began

purchasing several properties (using his own resources), including the land for the

College's buildings, facilities and church. He was well aware that the College

needed to be economically viable in order to survive. He hoped that the

properties would produce enough revenue to maintain the College (Gil, 1982). In

1645, Fr. Cristóbal turned over the management of the College to the Dominicans

by appointing Fr. Tomás Navarro as Rector and Fr. Juan del Rosario as Vice-

Rector. At first, these positions would be held by ecclesiastical dignitaries in

perpetuity because Fr. Cristóbal had not written statutes for the academic and

economical administration of the College. The ownership of the properties and

37 The Supreme Council of the Indies centralized the administration of the colonies and had legislative, executive and legal responsibilities. The king gradually delegated more authority to it, and it became law for the colonies. 38Students who had access to a beca (scholarship) were given economic and administrative benefits.

136

the administration of the College by the Dominicans39 was ratified on July 13,

1650, by a public deed (Hernandez, 1989-1965). This document gives a detailed

report on the amount of money allocated for the establishment of the College,

along with an inventory of the properties acquired for the location of the College

and those which would provide revenue for its maintenance.

On November 17, 1651, the Supreme Council of the Indies sent a request

to Fr. Torres to establish the Great College. The Supreme Council stated that the

Archbishop Fr. Cristóbal Torres had asked for the license to create a College with

the same honors and privileges as the Great College of the Archbishop of

Salamanca40. The Council pointed out that the facilities had been built for fifteen

students who would study Saint Thomas doctrine, law, and medicine. The

Council confirmed that this College did not have any connection with the

litigation between the Dominican and Jesuit orders. Finally, this document

declared that the Constitution41 of the College should be confirmed by the

Supreme Council of the Indies (Hernandez, 1989-1965).

King Phillip IV approved the establishment of the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario through the Real Cell (Cédula Real)42 of December

39This document stated that in case the King did not approve the establishment of the College in the following ten years, the properties and goods given by Fr. Torres should be invested in healthcare for poor people and orphans. 40 The students had the same rights as those in the highest positions in the government and church, which was to elect the Rector of the College (Guillén de Iriarte, 1994). 41 The statutes of the College became known as the “Constitution” and laid the foundation for the scholarly and administrative organization of the College. 42 Refers to the legal document enacted by King of Spain during the Colonial Period.

137

31, 1651. This Real Cell authorized the establishment of the Great College with

the same privileges and honors enjoyed by the Great College of the Archbishop of

Salamanca, which had no connection to the litigation involving the Dominicans

and the Jesuits. The Chairs of the Saint Thomas doctrine, Law, and Medicine

were to be offered to fifteen scholars. The Real Cell pointed out that the

Constitution should be presented first to the Supreme Council of the Indies and

then to the King for approval and confirmation. When the Constitution was

confirmed, the King authorized the scholars to begin their studies. Finally, Philip

IV ordered Fr. Cristóbal Torres to give the Crown 1,600 pesos in cash and 40,000

ducados of silver to help support the Spanish Army (Rodriguez, 1977).

In 1654, Fr. Cristóbal wrote the Constitution of the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario based on the same model as the Statutes as one

governing the Great College of Santiago de Zebedeo in Salamanca, also known as

the Great College of Archbishop of Salamanca43 (Guillén de Iriarte, 1994). Fr.

Cristóbal Torres’ objective for creating this College was the establishment of an

institution of higher education that would educate the Spaniards who conquered

the New World as well as the descendants of the Spanish nobility (Agueda, 1977;

Guillén de Iriarte, 1994). Consequently, the College was more secular than

parochial despite the Catholic influence of Fr. Cristóbal Torres, who was a

Dominican Friar. In addition, the Santo Tomás doctrine was the base for the

138

curriculum offered in this institution as stated in the Real Cell (Cédula Real) of

December 31, 1651 (Carrasquilla, 1915).

The College began with thirteen scholars44 who were known and

recognized as nobility. Fr. Tomás Navarro inaugurated the College on December

18, 1653 by conducting a Mass. According to the protocols in the Inauguration

Act, several dignitaries attended the ceremony, including the Real Audiencia, the

ecclesiastical and secular councils (cabildos), and clergymen from the Santo

Domingo, San Agustín, and San Francisco convents. This act also stated that the

group of scholars studying in the College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was

secular, and that there were no representatives from the Dominican Order

(Hernandez, 1989-1965).

Once Fr. Cristóbal gave the College’s properties and other assets to the

Dominicans, they in turn began to distort Fr. Cristóbal’s intentions regarding the

creation of the institution. Fr. Cristóbal considered the advantages and

disadvantages of having done this. He realized the situation might be a threat to

the survival of College and changed his mind, revoking the donation given in

1645 by the Public Deed of January 19, 1654. Fr. Torres stated that the donation

43 This nickname was given in order to differentiate it from the Great College of Cuenca, which carried the same name as the Archbishop. 44 The act of inauguration stated that there were thirteen scholars "... y los colegiales que entraron recibidos, examinados y aprobados fueron trece...." [Thirteen scholars were received, examined and approved] (Hernández, 1969-1985, p. 225). However, the public deed of January 17, 1654 related to the establishment of the College mentioned the name of only nine scholars: Cristóbal Vanegas de Torres, Jerónimo de Berrío, Fernando Mendoza de Ezpeleta, Cristóbal de Figueroa,

139

was not valid anyway, because the Dominicans General Province (Provincia

General de los Dominicos) had not formally accepted his gift (Hernandez, 1989-

1965).

Fr. Cristóbal gave five reasons for his change of mind. First, due to the

internal organization of the Dominicans, it was difficult to determine who

controlled the properties, gifts, and rents of the College he was concerned about

the risk to its finances. Second, the Rector and Vice-Rector refused to dip into

their own funds to compensate for the results of poor management. Fr. Cristóbal

was aware that the Rectorship needed wealthy candidates to augment his own

resources in case of poor management of the College. Third, when Fr. Cristóbal

established the College, he wanted the scholars to be secular. The Dominican

administration had begun giving priority the education of future clergymen rather

than secular scholars. Fourth, from a governmental perspective, it was difficult to

punish people who did not perform their duties. Finally, if the order continued

managing the College by making the Rector and Vice-Rector positions

permanent, the scholars would lose the privilege of electing them. (Gil, 1982;

Guillén de Iriarte, 1994).

In the Public Deed of January 19, 1654, Fr. Torres annulled the

appointment of Fr. Tomás Navarro and Fr. Juan del Rosario. In their places, he

appointed Cristóbal de Araque Ponce de León, his nephew, as Rector of the

Juan de Montoya Guerrero, Francisco Mosquera Sotelo, José de Vargas Alarcón, Enrique

140

College. The Dominicans were not pleased about being excluded from the

administration of the College. The result of the repeal was a ten-year tug of war

between the Dominicans and Fr. Cristóbal Torres for control of the College.

Although Fr. Cristóbal Torres died on June 7 of 1654, in his will he had given

authorization to Gonzalo Suarez de San Martin and Cristóbal de Araque to

continue legal action. He also begged the King and the Supreme Council of the

Indies to approve the College's Constitution. He confirmed the permanent

appointment of Fr. Cristóbal de Araque as Rector of the College, and the

promotion of the King of Spain as Sponsor of the College (Hernandez, 1989-

1965). Fr. Cristóbal de Araque went to Madrid in order to stay up to date on the

litigation. Philip IV confirmed and approved the Constitution of the College by

the Real Cell on July 12, 1664. In it he requested the Real Audiencia to maintain,

carry out, and execute the directives to the letter, with no room for any differences

of opinion (Hernandez, 1989-1965).

On the same day (July 12, 1664), the King ordered Don Diego de Egües y

Beamount, who was the governor and field marshal of the New Kingdom of

Granada, to assign responsibility for the Rectorship to Cristóbal de Araque and

Ponce de León (or their representatives), and remove Fr. Tomás Navarro and Fr.

Juan Del Rosario from the Rector and Vice-Rector positions, respectively. The

King also authorized the appointment of Juan Pelaez Sotelo as Vice-Rector of the

Guzmán Cabeza de Baca, Alonso de Mesa Villoría".

141

College45. Juan Pelaez was authorized to receive, from Fr. Tomás Navarro and Fr.

Juan del Rosario, a report on the status of the properties, furniture, and other

assets donated to the Dominicans by Fr. Torres in 1645 for the maintenance of the

College (Hernández, 1969-1985).

The Dominicans wrote several letters to the King, which gave their

reasons for not returning the administration of the College to Fr. Araque. In spite

of entreaties from the Dominicans, the King sent the Real Cell (Cédula Real) of

March 17, 1665 in which he ordered the secularization of the college, the re-

possession of the Rectorship to Cristóbal de Araque Ponce de León, and the

installment of the Rector and Vice- Rector positions to Fray Tomas Navarro and

Fray Juan Rosario. In addition, the King asked them for an accounting of the

properties, furniture, and goods given in 1645 (Hernandez, 1989-1965).

Responding to this Real Cell, the Dominicans sent another letter to the King, in

which they gave two strong reasons for wanting to continue their management of

administration of the College (Hernandez, 1989-1965). The first reason was that

Fr. Cristóbal de Torres’ donation was inter vivos, which meant that the gift was

irrevocable and that the properties should pass into the Dominicans’ hands

(Hernández, 1969-1985; Guillén de Iriarte, 1994). The second reason was that

even though the province had not confirmed the acceptance of the donation, the

45 According to the Constitution, written by Fr. Torres and confirmed by the King, Fr. Araque had the right to appoint the Vice-Rector position.

142

order granted the College some privileges which allowed the Rector and Vice-

Rector the right to vote in the provincial chapters (Hernández, 1969-1985).

In another tactic to delay the turnover of College management, the

Dominicans sent another letter to the King through the scholars asking him to

allow an election for a Rector. Since the sitting Rector (Fr. Cristóbal de Araque)

was in Spain, and the Constitution stated that a sitting Rector could be replaced

when absent, the scholars had the right elect a substitute Rector (Hernandez,

1989-1965). This request was granted in favor of Fr. Cristóbal Torres. Sadly,

Araque died in 1667 before he could come back to New Granada and resume the

responsibilities of running the College. The Dominicans surrendered the

administration of the College to Juan Pelaez Sotelo, Vice-Rector (Gil, 1982).

As Fr. Cristóbal Torres foresaw, the Dominicans did not do the best job

managing the funds for the foundation and maintenance of the College. By June

22 of 1668, the Queen of Spain sent a letter to the governor and the Real

Audiencia46 of Santafé requesting a report about the organizational, academic, and

economic State of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (Hernández,

1969-1985). On May 8, 1669, the president of the Real Audiencia wrote a letter

to the Queen giving her a brief history of the College and pointed out the poor

economic situation in which the Dominicans had returned it (Hernández, 1969-

1985). In October 23 of the same year, the Archbishop of Santafé also sent a

143

letter to the Queen explaining the academic and economic situation of the

College; that the income of the College was reduced to 500 patacones and that

there were only two properties owned by the College which provided for its

maintenance. The Archbishop also stated that the election of the Rector, Vice-

Rector, and Advisors would be done annually. According to the Constitution, this

election was conducted by the scholars and approved by the Audiencia

(Hernández, 1969 -1985). On September 17, 1669, the Real Audiencia of Santafé

sent a letter to the Queen, informing her of the need for economic support for

continuing higher education. This letter described the deterioration of the

facilities, as well as the lower standard of the academics. By that time, the

College offered only Philosophy, Theology, and Law. Medicine was not being

offered due to lack of funding (Hernández, 1969-1985).

As a result of the letter to the Queen, the King, through the Real Cell of

December 7, 1680, requested another report about the academic situation at the

College which included the number of scholars registered, the number of Chairs

offered, teachers' salaries, income, and the financial requirements for its

maintenance. The Real Audiencia responded to this petition by sending a letter

dated December 30, 1681 informing the King of the deplorable condition of not

only the facilities, but also of the assets and incomes conferred by Fr. Cristóbal

Torres to the Dominicans for the administration of the College. The Real

46 The Real Audiencia consisted of a local court consisting of various judges and a president. The

144

Audiencia also pointed out in this letter that even though the College was

established for fifteen scholars, there were only eleven enrolled. They were

offered the Chairs of Scholastic Theology, Moral, Philosophy, Grammar, and

Canon Law, which in some cases were taught by priests and scholars with no

payment. Finally, the Real Audiencia suggested that the King sell some assets in

order to solve the College’s economic problems.

In 1715, the King of Spain enacted the Real Cell of September 19 in

which he awarded an amount of 500 ducados for the maintenance of the scholars

and the Chairs, according to the nobility’s educational requirements for future

government administrators. This economic support was extended for ten more

years by the Real Cell of April 2 of 1726. Later the College asked for this support

in perpetuity. However, the King rejected this petition by the Real Cell of

January 18, 1734 by extending aid for only ten more years (Hernandez, 1989-

1965).

In 1760 one of the most important academics who helped improve the

development of higher education especially in the scientific area; not only for the

College but also for the scientific development of the country, was the

distinguished clergymen and naturalist Jose Celestino Mutis. The "Wise Mutis",

as he was known, contributed to the academic development of the Great College

of Nuestra Señora del Rosario because he founded the Chairs of Mathematics,

Audiencia had jurisdiction over governorships, which controlled the cities.

145

Astronomy, Physics, and other sciences. He also changed the traditional method

of instruction by exposing his students to modern science and introducing the

Copernican System (Castro, 1996). Between 1783 and 1786 he directed a botanic

expedition, which was considered one of the most relevant and unique

explorations in scientific research during the colonial period. Several students

and teachers from the College participated in it. Unfortunately, Jose Celestino

Mutis had to stop offering Chairs in the College in order to attend to the many

duties the expeditions required. As a result, the Chairs remained vacant because

there was not enough money for their maintenance; therefore, the traditional

methods of instruction and their curricula were reinstated (Jaramillo, 1982; Gil,

1982).

On May 3, 1768, the King of Spain, Charles III, enacted a Real Cell in

which the Great College obtained the privilege of being a College of Statute

(Colegio de Estatuto). This meant that the College could certify the nobility and

purity of a student’s blood by doing a background investigation of his personal

information (informaciones). According to Guillén de Iriarte (1994), “purity of

blood” meant that the person was of pure Christian ancestry with no traces of

Moorish or Jewish blood, and no evidence that any non-Catholic ancestor had

converted back to the Catholic faith. It also served to prove that the individual

would not be punished by the Spanish Inquisition. Also, this information

supposedly proved that the prospective student, in addition to having pure blood,

146

was a nobleman. Charles III also gave them the right to perform “three probes for

information (tres pruebas de información)”, which certified the nobility of their

scholars (Hernandez, 1989-1965, p. 26.)

In order to start information-gathering, the applicant had to write a letter to

the Rector and the College for consent to present it. The cloister then deliberated

and analyzed each case. If the cloister agreed, the approval for presentation was

given. Third, the Secretary appointed the witnesses (at least three people). Once

the process was complete, the cloister formalized the approval. The individual

was notified immediately, and on the following day he received a scholarship

(beca), along with all the privileges and perquisites due a noble scholar. In cases

where the student did not receive approval, the College was under no obligation to

give an explanation; he was simply informed that he had not made the cut

(Guillén de Iriarte, 1994). In 1802, the Chair of Medicine was inaugurated in the

Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, through the Real Cell of April 2,

1802 dispatched by Charles IV, King of Spain. He appointed Miguel Isla as a

Professor of this Chair and approved the curriculum developed by Jose Celestino

Mutis. It is important to point out that although the Great College was chartered

to offer the Chairs of Medicine, Law, and the Saint Thomas doctrine, the Chair of

Medicine was never actually created due to lack of resources. During the colonial

period (1580-1819), there were several unsuccessful attempts to establish the

Chair of Medicine. Even though it was founded on October 21, 1802, it was only

147

in effect for a few days, because at that point the Independence War began. It was

re-opened in 1819 after the country had won its independence (Quevedo &

Duque, 2002).

REPUBLICAN UNIVERSITY (1819-1842)

During the post-independence period (at the end of the eighteen century

and beginning the nineteenth century), the College played an important role in the

politics of the country. The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario educated

important heroes, such as Maza, Girardot, D'Elhuyart, Cabal, Caycedo, Camacho,

Caldas, Camilo, Torres, Lozano, Garcia, Toledo, Torices, Fernandez de Madrid,

and Villavicencio, among others; who fought for the independence of the country

(Lozano, 1908). The College also contributed to the education of Bishops and

Archbishops, not only for Colombia but also for other countries. By 1816, the

Spaniards decided they wanted to take control of the country. As a result, the

College was transformed into a prison, where several martyrs were incarcerated

and later executed (Lozano, 1908).

Following the country’s independence, the College continued to be

governed by the former Constitution. However, its Sponsor changed from the

King of Spain to President Simón Bolivar. Therefore, as of July 5, 1820,

President Simón Bolivar assumed the patronage of not only the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, but also of the other colleges and universities

(Guillén de Iriarte, 1998). Law 271 of March 18, 1826, created the Central

148

University of Bogotá. This Law was ratified by the Decree of October 3, 1826,

which established that the university would be in charge of higher studies,

including the Faculties47 of Philosophy, Law, Ledicine, Theology, and Natural

Sciences (National University of Colombia, 2001). This meant that both Great

Colleges, San Bartolomé and Nuestra Señora del Rosario would come under the

aegis of the Central University of Bogotá (Guillén de Iriarte, 1998) which would

then become a degree-conferring institution (Quevedo & Duque, 2002).

BEGINNING OF THE MODERN UNIVERSITY (1842-1930)

During this period, the country was governed by both extreme federalism

(liberals) and centralism (conservatives). The ideology of each political party had

a strong influence on the evolution of higher education and therefore in the

development of the Great College of Rosario. The College underwent several

changes where it lost or gained its autonomy48 according to which political party

governed the country. For instance, the first time the College lost its autonomy

was in 1842 during the governorship of Mariano Ospina Rodriguez. The Decree

of April 10, 1842 stated that the Chairs of Medicine and Law would belong to the

Central University of Bogotá (Lucero, 1987; Salah 1997).

47 As Colombian Higher Education evolved, the Chairs were transformed into Faculties. 48 According to Antonio Rocha (1972), the autonomy of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del RosarioNuestra Señora del Rosario implied three essential characteristics: (1) Independence from the public university; (2) private, rather than public, ownership of its property, and (3) the right to operate under its own Constitution (Rocha, 1972, p.7)

149

By 1850, universities and colleges were closed and academic degrees were

eliminated by President Jose Hilario Lopez, who was recognized for his freedom

of thought in politics and professional conduct. With the enactment of the Law of

May 15, 1850, universities were transformed into national college, and although

the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was an exception to this law; its

property and rent management were turned over to the Provincial Chamber of

Cundinamarca (Cámara Provincial de Cundinamarca). In 1853, the College

regained its autonomy through Decree of March 10, which stated that:

“The College of Rosario in Bogotá would revert back to the same curriculum it had prior to being declared a university of higher studies. Since the sanction of this decree, the College of Rosario will be independent of the Provincial Chamber of Bogotá, and will be governed according to the Constitution its illustrious founder left to the College, in all aspects that do not contradict the Constitution and Laws of the Republic"49 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1950b, p. 411). In 1860, Governor Mariano Ospina Perez expropriated some of the

College’s property. Despite this, the College was still able to continue its

academic work. On August 24, 1861, during the presidency of Tomás Cipriano

de Mosquera50, the College lost its autonomy for the second time. The buildings

and facilities of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the Great

49 "Se reestablece el Colegio del Rosario de Bogotá al estado que tenia antes que se declararan universitarias las enseñanzas de las facultades mayores. En consecuencia, desde la sanción de este decreto, queda dicho Colegio independiente de la Cámara Provincial de Bogotá, y será regido con acuerdo a las instituciones que le dejo su ilustre fundador, en todo lo que sean contrarias al Constitución y leyes de Republica".

150

College of San Bartolomé were converted into a Military College. At that time,

the College’s main function was to train officers in the sciences of engineering,

artillery, cavalry, and infantry, and so on. The funding for this new College would

be based on the incomes and rents both Colleges received (Lucero, 1987). These

events occurred between 1850 and 1867, when, under the presidency of Jose

Hilario López, universities were closed and academic degrees anulled.

The autonomy of the College was recovered again in 1865 under the

presidency of Manuel Murillo Toro (1864-1866 and 1872-1874). Article 1 of the

May 18 Decree stated that “The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

would continue to operate independently as mandated in the legislative Decree 10

of March, 1853, and it would be governed according to the Constitution

established by its founder, providing they were compatible with the national

legislation"51 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1907, p. 44).

In 1885, under the presidency of Rafael Nuñez (1880 - 1882 and 1884 -

1888), the College lost its autonomy for the third time, when the College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario was declared a part of the National University of the

United States of Colombia. According to Juan Manuel Rudas, who was the

appointed Rector at that time, the reason for his loss of autonomy was that he had

failed to provide a report about his administration of the College to the Sponsor as

50 Tomás Cipariano de Mosquera was president of Colombia for two terms; the first from 1845 to 1849, and the second between 1861-1867.

151

required by the Constitution (Lucero, 1987). Even though the College was

established with four the Faculties of Letters, Medicine, Theology, and Law,

Theology and Medicine were closed.

By 1888, The Junior College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was created in

order to increase the opportunity for high school students to get into the higher

education system of the country. However, in 1899 it too was closed, and in

1890, the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was reduced to a lyceum

(Perrier, 1910). In 1888, Carlos Holguin was elected President of the country.

During his term (1888-1892), he appointed priest Rafael Maria Carrasquilla as

Rector of the College. Rafael Maria Carrasquilla had three main objectives: to

recover the autonomy of the College, update the Constitution according to the

new challenges that the College was facing, and to establish the Faculty of

Philosophy and Letters (Lucero, 1987).

Per Decree 62, signed on January 29, 1889 by President Carlos Holguin,

the Faculty of Law at the Great College was transferred, together with the student

body and the Professors, to the National University:

“Article 1º. The Faculty of Law will be moved from the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario to the National University.

51 "Artículo 1o. El Colegio de Nuestra Señora del Rosario continuará independiente como lo reconoció el decreto legislativo 10 de marzo de 1853, y se regirá conforme a las instituciones que estableció su fundador en cuanto sean compatibles con la legislación nacional".

152

Article 2º. This Faculty will be established in a separate building. It will have a Rector, a Vice-Rector, a Secretary, the Professors, a Pasante (a student who assisted the Vice-Rector) and a Porter.

Article 3º. The Rector of the Faculty of Law will become an eligible member of the University Council" (Salah, 1997, p.130).

In 1892, the President, Miguel Antonio Caro, reinstated the College’s

autonomy under Father Rafael Maria Carrasquilla; however, the College’s

freedom to appoint or remove the Rector was later revoked by the Congress of the

Republic. Law 89 of December 13, 1892 recognized the autonomy of the College

in Article 10:

“The Government recognizes the autonomy of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Therefore, the Rector’s appointment or removal will be at the discretion of the President of the Republic, and will be ruled by the Constitution of the College with pre-determined modifications that the times require52 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1950b, p. 413).

Considering Law 89 of 1892, the Advisory Senate of the College, along

with the Government, made an agreement that the College would be autonomous,

ruled by its own Constitution, and that the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters

would be able to grant Bachelor and Doctoral degrees. However, the degrees

granted by the College had to be authenticated by the Minister of Public

Instruction (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1950b).

52 "Al Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario se le reconoce su autonomía, quedando bajo el patronato del Gobierno. En consecuencia, el Rector será de libre nombramiento y remoción del Presidente de la Republica, y seguirán rigiendo la Constitución del Colegio, con las

153

In order to update the Constitution as written by Fr. Cristóbal de Torres,

Carrasquilla began analyzing it, paying special attention to the four features that

made the College so unique53. Once the analysis of the Constitution was done,

Rafael Maria Carrasquilla, Juan de la Santamaría, Jose Ignacio Trujillo, and

Antonio Gutierrez wrote a new version of the Constitution, which was approved

by the Sponsor and incorporated into the former Constitution (Lucero, 1987).

Finally, Rafael Maria Carrasquilla created the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters

in 1893 (Lozano, 1908).

At the end of the nineteenth century, the College was transformed into an

army headquarters due to the long and devastating civil war -- the War of a

Thousand Days (1899 -1902). The College again suffered destruction and

deterioration of its property. However, once the war was over, the College

received monetary compensation from the government for the damage. The

College began reconstruction, sponsored by the President of the country, Rafael

Reyes (Lozano, 1908). Thus, the autonomy of the College was confirmed once

more by Law 39 of 1903 on its Article 24, which stated that

“Under the patronage of the President of the Republic, who has the Executive Power in the country, the autonomy of the Great College of

modificaciones que los tiempos reclamen y que se introduzcan con arreglo a lo que por ellas mismas esta previsto". 53 First, enrolled students had to reside at the College. Second, the College was considered a higher education institution. Third, because the College was private, it could make its own decisions autonomously. Fourth, it was created in order to teach Catholic Doctrine and the philosophy of Santo Tomás.

154

Nuestra Señora del Rosario is recognized. Therefore, it will be ruled by the founder's Constitution in accordance with the amendments which were made to the previous Constitution”54 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1952 -1954, p. 46).

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the College only had two

Faculties: Philosophy and Letters and Law. The former’s objective was to train

teachers and Directors for institutions of higher education. This Faculty granted

the Bachelors degree. This degree served as preparation for professional studies in

Faculties directed and supported by the govenrment (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1912). The Law Faculty, reopened in 1905, was established to

help those students who did not have the tuition for higher education. The Law

and Political Science School of the National University of Colombia and the

Faculty of Law of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario offered the

same curriculum, provided similar books, and shared some teachers. However, the

Faculties differed in one aspect; the students of the Great College were residents,

while the students of the Law and Political Science School were commuters. In

addition, the students of the Great College were on scholarship, which meant that

they could study for free, and the only condition for being accepted in the College

was that they not have any family living in Bogotá (Carrasquilla, 1915). Finally,

the Faculty of Law granted Doctoral Degrees only.

54 "Al Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario se le reconoce su autonomía, bajo el patronato del presidente de la Republica o de quien haga sus veces en el ejercicio del Poder Ejecutivo. En consecuencia, seguirán rigiendo las Constitución del fundador con las adiciones que se hayan dictado o se dicten en lo sucesivo, con arreglo a lo previsto en las Constitución mismas”.

155

By 1923, the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario acquired some

property located in the Chapinero quarter named the Quinta of Mutis in honor of

the “wise” Jose Celestino Mutis. This land was bought to create space for student

sports and physical education. The construction of the facilities was made

possible by a gift of 24,000 pesos given by the Congress of the Republic in 1924.

This economic aid continued for several years (Carrasquilla, 1929).

REFORM OF THE MODERN UNIVERSITY (1930-2000)

The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Institute was created in 1940. It required

people who specialized in communication and physical rehabilitation with

children who were brain-damaged. The Audiology program was established in

the same year (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, March 3, 2004).

The Faculty of Economy was established in the beginning of the 1960s. It

put strong emphasis on foreign trade (Comercio Exterior) and finance (Colegio

Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, March 3, 2004). In 1965, the Faculty of

Medicine was reopened after an agreement was signed by the Great College and

the Surgery Society of Bogotá. This Faculty offered a modern curriculum of two

academic semesters that lasted five years. The former students started on March

10, 1966 and finished their studies in 1971 (Peña, March 28, 2004). In the same

year, the Business Administration Program (Programa de Administración de

Empresas) was established (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1964).

156

In 1968, the Faculty of Occupational Therapy was established through the

National Foundation of Rehabiliation. Since then, it has been affiliated

academically with the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. The

agreement was signed by both institutions and later modified (in 1985), with the

participation of members of the Foundation and the College. These changes

required major participation of the College in both the economic and

administrative management apects (Tafur, 1986).

In 1971, the Simultaneous Translation and Interpretation School (Escuela

de Traducción y Interpretación Simultánea) was established through Agreement

No. 005 enacted by the Advisory Senate on August 19 of the same year.

Likewise, during the Rectorship of Alvaro Tafur Rodriguez (1978-1986), the

Humanistic Education Center (Centro de Educación Humanística) was

established to administer the continuing education program of the University. The

French Higher Institute (Instituto Superior de Francés) was created in order to

promote teacher training programs. In 1979, the Graduate Studies and

Specialization School (Escuela de Especialización y Estudios de Postgrado) was

established to manage the graduate programs of the College. In the beginning of

the 1980s, the Welfare and Student Services Department (Departamento de

Bienestar Universitario) was created to contribute to the physical, spiritual, and

social development of students (Guillén de Iriarte, 2003).

157

In 1999, the College underwent an academic and administrative

reorganization. As a result, the Physiotherapy, Audilogy, and Occupational

Therapy Faculties became one, named “Rehabilitation and Human Development

Faculty” in order to efficiently manage the administrative and academic resources

of the College. This new academic structure established common courses for the

three programs (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, March 3, 2004).

By 2000, the International Business Administration Undergraduate Program

(Programa de Negocios Internacionales) was created through the Rectoral Decree

626 of March 8.

EVOLUTION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE OF THE GREAT COLLEGE

The first research topic, the Analysis of the Evolution of the Organization

and Governance Dimensions of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

was elucidated through an internal review of the College’s legislation (Kaplin &

Lee, 1995). The most important legislation was the Constitution of 1654, which

gave basic structure to the organization and governance dimensions of the

College. As the author mentioned in the previous section, the former Constitution

had three main modifications which addressed the challenges and uncertainties

facing the College. This resulted in The New Constitution of 1893, created via

Agreement 3 of 1974, and a final modification done via Agreement 77 of 1995.

There were more descriptions of internal legislation introducing some new

positions and collegial bodies. These will be included in each section described.

158

Constitutions of 1654

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was governed by the

Constitution as written by Fr. Cristóbal Torres in 165455, which was approved by

King Philip IV through the Real Cell of July 12 of 1664 (Colegio Mayor de

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996). This Constitution emulated the structure of the

Constitution of the Great College of Salamanca, due to the close relationship

between and this Great College and the Archbishop prior to his arrival in the New

World. It is important to point out that the Constitution of the Great College of

the Archbishop of Salamanca was inspired by the Constitution of the Great

College of Santa Cruz of Valladolid. Both of these then followed the Constitution

of the Great College of San Bartholomew (Old College of Anaya) that was the

model for all the Spanish Great Colleges (Agueda, 1977).

The Constitution as written by Fr. Torres has governed the College,

including its organization and governance dimensions almost since its

establishment, with few changes (See Figure 1). These modifications were the

result of the historical evolution of the country and the College, and have been

gathered into different legal documents as follows: the first in 1893 with the New

Constitution of 1893; the second in 1930 by Agreement 5; the third in 1974 by

Agreement 3; and in 1995 by Agreement 77 of June 2. Fr. Cristóbal foresaw the

need to make changes to the Constitution by stating that in Title II, Constitution I,

159

it could be revised by the Sponsor only if the changes were approved by the King

of Spain (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario between 1654 and 1893.

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORYSENATE SCHOLARS

RECTOR

VICE-RECTOR PROCURATOR

SPONSOR

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Constitutions of 1654

The Constitution was general in some respects and very specific in others

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995). It contained five Titles

(títulos) as follows:

55 Even though Fr. Torres wrote the Constitution of the College, after he died it was printed by Fr. Cristóbal de Araque and approved by the King.

160

Title I: This title was about College finances, and included management

of lands, ranches (haciendas), endowments and other assets.

First: An inventory of lands, ranches, and livestock.

Second: The manner in which those lands, ranch and animals were to

be managed.

Third: An inventory of buildings and facilities of the College (Guillén

de Iriarte, 1994, p. 20).

Title II: This title dealt with the organization of the College, including

the Rector (President), Vice-Rector (Vice-president), Consiliarios (Advisory

Senate), and Sponsors (Sponsors). It was divided into thirteen sections that were

also part of the Constitution:

Constitution I and II: Related to the Sponsor (sponsor) duties and their

benefits.

Constitution III, IV, V, and VI: Election of the Rector.

Constitution VII: Election of the Vice-Rector

Constitution VIII: Insignia for the Rector and Vice-Rector following

the Great College of Salamanca pattern.

Constitution IX: Election of the advisors.

Constitution X: Positions the Advisors should hold. This Constitution

also included the appointment of the first three Advisors.

Constitution XI: Duties of the Rector and Vice-Rector.

Constitution XII: Salaries of the Rector and Vice-Rector.

161

Constitution XIII: Economic requirements that the Rector had to

fulfill in order to be appointed to this position. (Guillén de Iriarte,

1994, p. 20).

Title III: This title related to scholars. It was divided into twelve

Constitutions:

Constitution I: Number of scholars.

Constitution II and III: Characteristics and requirements for being

selected as scholars. These requirements were associated with nobility

and lineal purity.

Constitution IV: Information required to prove nobility and lineal

purity.

Constitution V: Characteristics of paying students (convictores)56 and

the financial support required for their studies at the College.

Constitution VI: Related to the way that special student scholarships

(supernumerarios) could be created by wealthy people.

Constitution VII: The handling of paying students and their textbooks.

Constitution VIII: Student privileges and honors.

Constitution IX: The food menu for scholarship and paying students.

Constitution X and XII: Related to students known as familiares57.

56 Convictores were students who had to pay tuition. 57 Familiares were poor students who did not have money to pay tuition. However, they did have to fulfill the educational requirements for admission.

162

Constitution XI: Related to requirement, salary and characteristics

required for appointment as a Priest of the College (Guillen de Iriarte,

1994, p. 21).

Title IV: Related to the scholars’ duties. It was divided into four

Constitutions:

Constitution I: Schedule of the scholars.

Constitution II: Celebration of religious holidays and confession of

the scholars.

Constitution III: Related to the organization of religious holiday

observations, such as Nuestra Señora del Rosario, as well as others.

Constitution IV: Urbanity, good manners, and scholars’ behavior

according to the Constitution of the Great College of Salamanca

(Guillen de Iriarte, 1994, p. 21).

Title V: This title was associated with the Professors (catedráticos). It

also was divided into ten Constitutions:

Constitution I: Related to the obligation of following the Saint

Thomas Doctrine.

Constitution II: Appointment by the Chairs of Professors and what

their faculty salaries would be.

Constitution III, IV, V: Associated with the Arts Chair; texts and

number of years required to move to other Faculties.

Constitution VI: Degrees.

163

Constitution VII, VIII, and IX: Related to the Faculty of Theology, the

texts, and time required to complete the degrees.

Constitution X: Regarding secular Professors (Guillén de Iriarte,

1994, p. 21).

Sponsor The Sponsor was the highest authority of the College in Title II of the

Constitution of 1654. This Constitution set out the original structure by which the

Great College of Nuestra Señora was organized (See Figure 4, p. 158). When the

Constitution was first written, Fr. Cristóbal Torres stated that the Sponsor position

would be held by the Archbishops of the city as was stated in Title II, Constitution

I. However, when the settlement of litigation between Fr. Torres and the

Dominicans was handed down in favor of Fr. Torres, King Philip IV appointed

himself as Sponsor of the College through the Real Cell of July 12, 1664 (1665 -

March 7 "…… I order that in accordance with what has been established [by Fr.

Torres] that I be appointed as a Sponsor of said College"58 (Hernández, 1969-

1985, p. 125).

The King of Spain continued as a Sponsor during the colonial period.

However, once the country was independent of Spanish dominance, the President

of the country took the position as Sponsor of the College. He continued to do so

until 1995. When the country won its independence, the Great College of Nuestra

58 "…..yo os ordeno que en conformidad de lo dispuesto últimamente por él, nombrándome por patrón del dicho Colegio".

164

Señora del Rosario had several different Sponsors, depending on what was

happening during the country’s political instability (See Table 15, p.163). After

1880, the President of the country continued to be the Sponsor as was stated in

several pieces of legislation which confirmed the autonomy of the College as well

as the legitimacy of the Constitutions .

Table 15. Sponsors and Co-sponsors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario between 1653 and 1819.

DATE POSITION NAME

1653– 1810 Sponsor King of Spain 1665-1666 Co-sponsor President of the Real Audiencia of Santafé 1666-1674 Co-sponsor President of the New Kingdom of Granada 1675-1674 Co-sponsor President of the Real Audiencia of Santafé 1675-1679 Co-sponsor Viceroy of the New Kingdom of Granada 1679-1719 Co-sponsor President of the Real Audiencia of Santafé 1719-1731 Co-sponsor President of the New Kingdom of Granada 1731-1733 Co-sponsor Viceroy of the New Kingdom of Granada 1733-1740 Co-sponsor Supreme Board of Government 1740-1810 Co-sponsor Viceroy 1811-1816 Sponsor President of the Republic 1816-1819 Sponsor King of Spain 1816-1819 Sponsor Viceroy 1819-1849 Sponsor President of the Republic 1849-1850 Sponsor Provincial Chamber of Cundinamarca 1850-1852 Sponsor Governor of Bogotá 1853-1863 Sponsor President of the Republic 1863-1880 Sponsor President of the Sovereign State of Cundinamarca 1880- present Sponsor President of the Republic

From "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillén de

Iriarte, M. 2003, p. 22.

165

According to the Constitutions, the patrono (sponsor) was in charge of:

(a) sponsoring the college; (b) overseeing the Rector’s work; (c) making the

Rector responsible for his own properties and goods in case of bankruptcy; (d)

making an inventory of the properties and incomes each three years; (e) finding

new endowments for the maintenance of the college; (f) authorizing the removal

of any scholarship (beca); (g) reforming the constitutions previous authorization

of the King. Finally, his vote was valid for two votes, and it was decisive in the

decisions made (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura)

The Advisory Senate was the most important governing body of the

College, and it had similar duties and responsibilities to those of a Board of

Trustees. It had three Advisors who reported to the Rector and Vice-Rector.

When the College was established, the main function of the Advisory Senate was

to manage the finances of the College and its properties. The Advisors also had

the authority to punish any scholar by revoking his scholarship. As the College

evolved, the Advisory Senate began to take on academic and administrative duties

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Title II, Constitution IX, stated that the scholars should also elect three

Advisors at the same time as the elections for the Rector and Vice-Rector. The

main requirement for becoming an Advisor was to have been a scholar. The first

three Advisors appointed by Fr. Cristóbal Torres were his nephew, Don Cristóbal

166

Venegas Torres as Head Advisor, along with Don Jerónimo de Berrio and Don

Fernando Mendoza (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Rector

The Rector position would come under the Advisory Senate. This position

was deemed the highest authority that could be held by an scholar. The selection

of the Rector was made by the scholars using a democratic elective process,

which at the same time followed the Salamancan Model of elections as was stated

in Title II, Constitution III and V (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1995). If there were not enough nominees to present to the Sponsor, the list of

candidates and the number of votes each received were sent to the Sponsor for his

selection of the best candidate. If there was only one candidate, he or she would

be appointed. Title II, Constitution V pointed out that when the scholars were

choosing the candidates, they must swear they were conducting the election

independently without being influenced by anyone in the College (Colegio Mayor

de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

The first Rector and Vice-Rector selected by Fr. Torres were from the

Dominican Order. They were Fr. Tomás Navarro and Fr. Juan del Rosario,

respectively. When Fr. Torres retracted his promise to turn over the management

of the College to the Dominicans, he reserved the right to appoint the first Rector.

Title II, Constitution III expressed his intent and Fr. Cristóbal de Araque Ponce de

León was named as a lifetime Rector of the College. "….we reserve the right to

167

appoint Rectors, and to continue with the gentleman Doctor Don Cristobal of

Araque Ponce of León in perpituity…."59(Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995, p.18).

The Rector was considered the head of the College. The requirements for

being elected (as stated in Title II, Constitution III) were that the Rector should be

an active scholar or an alumnus, as well as a wealthy nobleman who had

contributed to the College's growth and development. The Rector was responsible

for the finances of the College, including the administration of the ranches,

properties and lands. He was required to prepare an annual report of the College's

budget and expenditures and present it to the Sponsor. If there was any

overspending or profligacy, the Rector or his Sponsor would have to dip into his

own financial resources. The Rector also had the right to name the Vice-Rector.

Title II stated that the durection of the position would be limited to one year,

which meant there would be annual elections. However, per Real Cell of March

20, 1806 Charles III ordered that the Rectorship be a term of three years (Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1950b).

Even though Fr. Araque was named as lifetime Rector of the College, he

never tenured in the position. Fr. Araque went to Spain in order to follow up on

the ten-year litigation between the Dominicans and Fr. Torres. Unfortunately, he

59 ".....reservamos en nosotros el nombramiento de los Rectores, y cuanto es de nuestra parte, perpetuamos el que tenemos hecho en el señor Doctor Don Cristóbal de Araque Ponce de León...."

168

died in 1667 before he could come back to the New World. At that point, Juan

Peláez Sotelo, who was designated Vice-Rector by Fr. Araque, was chosen to take

over the College from the Dominicans after the litigation settlement had been

declared in favor of the College. In accordance with the laws of the Constitution,

on December 18, 1665, the scholars elected Juan Peláez Sotelo as Rector (Guillén

de Iriarte, 2003) (See Appendix A). Henceforth, as of that date, the tradition of

scholars electing Rectors continued to be December 18. This elective process

continued until January 30, 1880, at which point the College became dependent

on the Federal Executive Power, and a Rector was appointed by Decree. As a

result, the scholars lost their right to elect a Rector until 1930 (Guillén de Iriarte,

1991).

The candidate had to notify the academic community of his or her desire

to run for the position of Rector six days prior to December 18 (also elected at

that time were Vice-Rector, Attorney, Master of Ceremonies and Advisors). The

Rector would then ask the secretary to make a list of possible scholars who could

vote in the elections, and the voting procedure was completed on December 18 in

the Chapel of "La Bordadita". Then the candidate having the largest number of

votes was elected, and a few days later, took office (Guillén de Iriarte, 1991).

This elective process continued until 1875 (See Appendix C, Section 1).

About 99 nine Rectors were elected in this manner. The last Rector elected by

democratic elections was Gil Colunje, who was in office between 1875 and 1880

169

(See Appendix C, Section 2). Between 1880 and 1930, the Sponsor appointed

eight Rectors of the College as follows: Januario Salgar (1880), Manuel Ezequiel

Corrales (1880 – 1882), Juan Manuel Rudas (1882), Manuel Ancízar (1882), Juan

Manuel Rudas (1882 – 1885), Carlos Martínez Silva (1886 – 1887), José Manuel

Marroquín (1887 – 1890), Rafael María Carrasquilla (1890-1930), and Jenaro

Jiménez (1930) (See Appendix C, Section 3).

Vice-Rector

The position of Vice-Rector reported to the Rector. Title II, Constitution

III, mandated that it should be filled by holding an election. However, at certain

times, the Vice-Rector was elected, and other times he was appointed by the

Rector. The candidate for the position of Vice-Rector needed to have the same

educational background and characteristics as the Rector, because in case of the

Rector’s death, resignation, disability or disqualification, the Vice-Rector would

be in charge for the remaining period of vacancy.

In Title II, Constitution III, Fr. Cristóbal de Araque appointed himself as

Vice-Rector. He thought it would be more convenient for his administration. Fr.

Cristóbal named Juan Pelaez Sotelo, who occupied the position of Rector while

Fr. Araque was in Spain waiting for the outcome of the litigation. Once the

sentence was given in favor of the College, King Phillip IV gave the order to the

Dominicans to turn over the management of the properties to the College, Juan

Pelaez Sotelo became the administrator and received the inventory of the assets.

170

Pelaez Sotelo was also the first Rector elected by the scholars following the

procedures given in the Constitution (Guillén de Iriarte, 1994).

Other positions

There were other officers who were not listed in the Constitution written

by Fr. Cristóbal Torres, but who had an important place in the day-to-day

academic management of the College. As it evolved, several positions were

created in order to maintain the its high standards. One was the Procurator

(Procurador), who was in charge of the economic and financial matters of the

College, another was Master of Ceremonies (Maestro de Ceremonias), who was

responsible for training the new scholars on the protocol regarding the

celebrations of the College (this position was eliminated at the end of nineteenth

century), and lastly, an Informant Secretary (Secretario Informante) whose duties

and responsibilites were related to record-keeping and preparing the minutes of

the meetings associated with the elections, scholarship assignment, and the

selection of Professors, among others. This position eventually became the

General Secretary (Secretario General) (Guillén de Iriarte, 2003).

New Constitutions of 1893

Revision of the Constitution was done based on the tenets of the

Constitution of 1654. As mentioned before, Fr. Cristóbal foresaw the need to

revise the Constitution whenever the development of the College required it.

171

Therefore, Title II, Constitution I stated that any revision to the Constitution

required the approval of the King of Spain (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995). These changes were also supported by Law 89 of December of

1892, which gave the College the autonomy to announce the appointment of the

College Sponsor to the President of the country, who needed to approve and

confirm any changes to the Constitution. This reform was proposed by the

Advisory Senate, which by that time was made up of Don Rafael Maria

Carrasquilla, Rector; the three Advisors Don Juan de la Cruz Santamaria; Senator

of the Republic; Don Jose Ignacio Trujillo, ex-minister of Public Instruction; and

Don Antonio Gutierrez Rubio. It was noted that the New Constitution did not

countermand the first Constitution (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1995).

This New Constitution was divided into six titles (títulos) as follows:

Title I: This title dealt with the finances of the College. In spite of the

fact that almost all the properties and rents donated by Fr. Cristóbal Torres had

been squandered, the Congress of the Republic gave the College a total of

410,670 pesos in stocks (títulos de renta). This title also called for an inventory of

the College’s revenues and endowments, and assigned the task of managing the

properties and rents to the Advisory Senate. This was a major re-organization,

because in the Constitution of 1654, this role had been handed over to the

Rectorship. This Title was subdivided into two sections:

172

Section I: Declared that the Advisory Senate was in charge of the

management of rents, endowments, and appropriations. It also stated

that any contract signed by the Rector would be invalid if it cost more

than 100 pesos, unless it had budget approval from the Advisory

Senate. (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995, p.31).

Once it was approved by the Advisory Senate, the Rector became the

legal representative of the College. In addition, this subtitle affirmed

that the Advisory Senate did not have the right to sell or exchange

property belonging to the College if the Sponsor did not authorize it.

Finally, at the beginning of each year, the Advisory Senate was to

present the College’s budget of income and expenditures.

Section II: Related to a new position named the Syndic (Síndico). This

position replaced the Procurator, who was in charge of the economic

and financial matters of the College in the Former Constitution

(Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Title II: This title was associated with the organization of the College as it

was the case with the Constitution of 1654 (See Figure 2). A difference from the

former Constitution was the elections of Rector, Vice-Rector, and Advisors

(Consiliarios). These were not democratic due to the historical period that the

country was facing (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

173

Figure 2. Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario between 1893 and 1930.

ADVISORYSENATE RECTOR

SECRETARY

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

SPONSOR

DEAN(1923)

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the New Constitutions of

1893

These positions were appointed by the Sponsor since they were under his

jurisdiction. This was one of the most important changes to the Constitution.

However, it did not preclude the possibility of returning to the election process as

set out in the Constitution of 1654. The Archbishop of the city was named as

Honorary60 Rector of the College. This position was described in the following

sections:

Section I: The Sponsor

Section II: Election of the Rector

Section III: Election of the Vice-Rector

174

Section IV: Duties and responsibilities of the Rector

Section V: Privileges of the highest academic-administrative positions

Section VI: The Advisors (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995, p. 31-34)

Title III: As in the former Constitution, this title dealt with scholars. It

was also divided into seven sections.

Section I: Election of scholars

Section II: The scholars’ origins

Section III: Scholars’ privileges

Section IV: Related to the familiares61. These students studied free of

charge

Section V: Students known as Convictores (they lived on the College

campus and had to pay tuition and fees)

Section VI: Priest

Section VII: Commuting students (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995, p. 34-36)

Title IV: Covers the scholars’ duties and responsibilities. It was divided

into two sections:

Section I: Christian Piety

60 This gave the Archbishop the right to be by the Sponsor’s side in all official acts of the College.

175

Section II: Student behavior (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995, p. 35-36)

Title V: This title was associated with the Professors. It also was

subdivided into four sections:

Section I: Elections of Professors…

Section II: The manner of teaching and the curriculum….

Section III: Philosophy instruction…..

Section IV: Degrees (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1995, p. 38-40)

Title VI: This title was about the benefactors of the College (Colegio

Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Sponsor

Section I of Title II formally recognized the president of the Republic of

Colombia as the Sponsor (sponsor)62 of the College (Colegio Mayor Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1995). According to a report presented by Rafael Maria

Carrasquilla to the Sponsor of the College on December 4th of 1907, the rights and

responsibilities of the Sponsor were to:

1) Freely elect the Rector and Advisors

61 Familiares (non paying students) was one of the student classifications at the College. By then, students were classified as Colegiales (scholars), Convictores (fee-paying students), and Familiares.

176

2) Approve or reject the appointment of the Vice-Rector, Advisors, and

Syndic.

3) Have the right to appoint Professors.

4) Freely fill the first colegiatura63 that became vacant.

5) Review and close the accounts presented by the Syndic through the

General Court of Accounts.

6) Exercise sole discretion to expel a student when necessary.

7) Allow or deny the sale of any College property in order to dispose of

the corresponding capital.

8) Ensure that the laws of the Constitution were followed, and to make

any necessary corrections.

9) Preside over any official act by the Minister of Public Instruction.

(Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1908, p. 30)64.

62 As mentioned previously, the President became the Sponsor of the College when the country gained its independence. 63 Colegiatura was the name given to the collective positions occupied by the scholars. 64 1. “Nombrar y renovar libremente al Rector y a los Consiliarios. 2. Aprobar ó improbar los nombramientos de VicerRector, Consiliarios, y Syndic (Síndico). 3. Ejercer igual derecho respecto de los nombramientos de Catedráticos. 4. Proveer libremente la primera colegiatura que vacare, previa la información Constituciónal. 5. Revisar y fenecer en la segunda instancia, por medio de la Corte General de Cuentas, las que presenta el Syndic (Síndico) del Colegio .6. Decretar la expulsión de colegial de número que llegaré a merecerla. 7. Dar o negar la licencia para vender las fincas raíces del Colegio, cuantas veces lo creyere. conveniente, para corregir lo que hallaré opuesto a las Constitución ó perjudicial a la buena puesta en marcha del Claustro. 9. Presidir por sí mismo ó por el Ministro de Instrucción Pública, todos los actos solemnes del Colegio.”

177

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura):

The Advisory Senate was the highest governmental body of the College. It

consisted of the Rector, the Vice-Rector, the Advisors and the Professors. The

appointment of the Advisors was done by the Sponsor, the Rector and Vice-

Rector. The Advisory Senate held regular meetings at their own discretion. The

main duties and responsibilities of the Advisory Senate were (a) the overall

budget and accounting of incomes and expenditures; (b) approving candidates for

the Syndic and Professorships; (c) naming the colegiaturas,65 with the exception

of the first one, who was selected by the Sponsor; (d) expulsion of convictores

and familiares; (e) noting and analyzing the more salient topics presented by the

Rector. An absolute majority vote was required for each decision. However, like

the Constitution of 1654, the vote of the Rector and one Advisor would prevail

over the other two votes. According to the report presented by Rafael Maria

Carrasquilla in 1907, the Advisors were also required to develop the rules,

regulations and agreements to ensure the smooth functioning of the College

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1908)

65 Colegiatura was the name given to this group of scholars. It is important to point out that for this New Constitution, the number of scholars continued to number fifteen, and they had the same privileges as they did under the former Constitution. However, as the number of students grew, the scholars were more likely to be selected by concensus (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

178

Rector

By 1893, there was a big change in the method of electing a Rector. It is

important to remember that between 1654 and 1893, the Rector was elected by the

scholars. This new Constitution eliminated the students’ right to elect the Vice-

Rector and the Advisors. As a result, these positions were appointed by the

College Sponsor. Nevertheless, the term of this position continued to be a three-

year term, as established by Charles IV in the Real Cell (Cédula Real) of May 20

of 1810, and as described in the previous section (Great College of Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1950b). The most important qualification for being elected

Rector was that he be an alumnus and hold a Doctorate in Philosophy and Letters

conferred by the College.

Section III of Title II of the New Constitution of 1893 described the

responsibilities of the Rector. His main duties consisted of judicious management

of the College according to the policies established by the Sponsor and the

Advisory Senate.

Vice-Rector

As mentioned in the previous section, the democratic election was

eliminated. According to Title II, Section IV, the appointment of the Vice-Rector

was made by the Rector with the approval of the Sponsor. In the event the

Sponsor did not agree with the Rector´s choice, he had to choose another

179

candidate. Section V of this Title described the main functions of the Vice-

Rector, which consisted of the direction of the internal discipline of the College.

Syndic (Síndico)

The Syndic (Síndico) was the person in charge of the College’s finances.

The Advisory Senate created this position with a term of two years. The Syndic

could not be re-elected for another term. The main requirement for appointment

was experience in this area of expertise, and required the approval of the Sponsor.

The Syndic was expected to present the financial records to the College Sponsor

annually, once they had been approved by the Advisors (Colegio Mayor Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Secretary

Title II, Section III allowed for the possibility of creating a new position of

Secretary, who would report to the Rector and the Advisory Senate. The primary

responsibilities of this position were the same as those described for the Informant

Secretary in the previous section.

Dean

In 1923 the position of Dean was created for the Faculty of Law. In 1924,

the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters was appointed through

Agreement 9 of the same year (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

180

1924). The researcher did not find any descriptions of the Dean’s duties and

responsibilities during this period.

Other positions

In 1910, the Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) enacted Agreement 1o, which

created the positions of “internal prefect,” who was an older student given some

authority to help control the behavior of students residing in the College. Two

other student prefects were given the authority to discipline the commuting day

student population. There were some administrative positions supporting the day-

to-day administration of the College, which included three inspectors

(inspectores), three internal watchmen (vigilantes internos), and two doormen

(porteros). These positions were filled by scholars who were pursuing Bachelor

degrees (Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1910).

Agreement 5 of 1930:

In 1930 a new era began. The democratic election of the Rector and

Advisors was reinstated at the College through the Decree 517 of 1930, which

was signed by the Minister of Education, Miguel Abadia Mendez (Colegio Mayor

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1930). It is important to remember that from 1893

until 1930 these appointments were made directly by the Sponsor and not by the

scholars. The elective process was reestablished after the death of Rafael Maria

181

Carrasquilla,66 who was appointed as Rector of the College between 1890 and

1930.

Figure 3. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1969.

ELECTOR BOARD


RECTOR

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

SPONSOR

SECRETARY

INVESTMENT ANDCREDIT

CONSULTANT (1969)

INVESTMENT ANDCREDIT CONSULTANT

BOARD

DEAN

ASSISTANTSECRETARY OFFACULTY (1970)

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Agreement 5

of 1930.

66 Rafael Maria Carrasquilla was appointed as a Rector of the College for first time on December 15, 1890 when the President of Colombia was Carlos Holguin. He was also reappointed for

182

Resulting from Decree 517 of 1930, the Advisory Senate enacted some

internal legislation. Agreement 5 of 1930 gave instructions for the reinstatement

of the elective process as follows:

1) The only voters who could participate in the election process were

the Rector, the Vice-Rector, Advisors, the Secretary and the

scholars. These scholars were regular students and resided at the

College.

2) Those who could be elected as Rector should meet the following

requirements: (a) be a scholar who graduated from the Faculty of

Philosophy and Letters; (b) be a scholar and an alumni from

established Faculties (and possible future ones); (c) be a secular,

ecclesiastical, or lay person who was distinguished as an intellectual

and was of the Catholic faith (following the Saint Thomas Doctrine).

3) The day for elections was designated by the Constitution of 1654,

Title II, Constitution VII. It was to be December 18 of every year;

however, it could be held before the term of each position expired, if

necessary. It also required the authorization of the Sponsor if there

wasn’t a quorum among the Rectors or Advisors.

several terms as Rector by the different presidents of Colombia (Sponsors of the College) until March 30, 1930 (See Appendix C, Section 3).

183

4) The Rector had the right to appoint or remove the Vice-Rector;

however, these actions had to be approved by the Sponsor (Colegio

Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1930a, p. 404-405)67.

The reinstatement of the elective process was not easy. There were several

problems in electing the Rector and the Advisors. However, a process was

initiated by the Agreement 6 of 1930 (June 3), which established June 14 as

election day. This Agreement also ratified the term of three years for the

Rectorship (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1930a, p. 409-410).

The appointment of the Vice-Rector was handled by the Rector according

to the New Constitution. Jose Vicente Castro Silva proposed Don Carlos Alberto

Rodriguez as a Vice-Rector of the College through Decree 1 of 1930 (August 20).

The appointment of Carlos Alberto Rodriguez was approved and confirmed by

the Sponsor of the College through the Decree 1310 of 1930 of August 20

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1930b).

The problems occurring during the reinstatement of democratic elections

for the highest administrative positions led to a new beginning for the

67 1) Los electores son únicamente los señores Rector, Vice-Rector, consiliarios y secretario, y los demás colegiales actuales, que son precisamente los colegiales que viven en el Colegio y están estudiando en él. 2) Son personas elegibles: a) Los colegiales graduados en nuestra facultad de filosofía y letras; b) Los colegiales y demás alumnos graduados en alguna de las facultades establecidas, o que se establezcan en lo futuro en el Colegio; c) Otras personas seculares, eclesiásticos o laicos, que se distingan muy notablemente por sus grandes prendas en prudencia y letras, y por su adhesión inquebrantable a la fe católica y a la filosofía del angélico doctor Santo Tomás de Aquino. 3) El tiempo para las elecciones señalado por el Fundador en la Constitución VII del Titulo II, puede anticiparse a juicio de la Consiliatura, con la aprobación del Excelentísimo señor Patrón cuando ocurra la vacante del Rector o de los consiliarios antes de

184

organization and governance of the College, and the election process established

in the Constitution of 1654 returned to its original State. The term for the

Rectorship was 1933 to 1935. The only change occurring during this process was

the date for the election; it was originally set for December of 1932. This

modification was made to accommodate the academic calendar of the College. In

December of every year, the scholars, employees and voters were on vacation, so

it was difficult for them to participate in elections. The Advisory Senate asked the

Sponsor to approve a new date for conducting the elections through Agreement 4

of 1932 (October 12). The Sponsor approved this petition by the Decree 1748 of

1932. Since that time, elections for the Rectorship and the Advisory Senate were

conducted every three years. Don Jose Vicente Castro Silva was re-elected as

Rector of the College for several terms, from 1930 until 1968 (See Table 16).

Table 16. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario between 1930 and 1973.

NORMATIVE

NAME DATE

CONSILIATURA MINUTES

GOVERNMENTAL DECREE

1930-1933 August 13 of 1930 - 1933-1935 October 20 of 1932 - 1936-1938 October 29 of 1935 2002 of 1935

1939-1941 November 4 of 1938 MEN Letter November 16 of 1938

José Vicente Castro Silva

1941-1945 October 22 of 41 MEN Letter terminar el periodo.4) Sea el Vice-Rector de libre nombramiento y remoción del Rector, debiendo ser sometido el nombramiento a la aprobación del Excelentísimo señor Patrón.

185

NORMATIVE

NAME DATE

CONSILIATURA MINUTES

GOVERNMENTAL DECREE

November 4 of 1941 1945-1948 November 10 of 1944 2773 of 1944 1948-1950 November 13 of 1947 1951-1953 November 28 of 1950 1954-1956 October 26 of 1953 1957-1959 1960-1962 November 25 of 1959 1963-1965 November 19 of 1962

1966-1968 November 25 of 1965 Marco Tulio Cruz

Vice-rector and temporary Rector

1968-1968 The historical archives of

the college were missed

1968-1971 Decree No. 2496 Antonio Rocha Alvira 1972-1973 December 18 of 1972

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de

Iriarte, M. 2003.

Investment and Credit Consultant:

Rectoral Decree No. 32 of 1969 created the position of Investment and

Credit Consultant (Asesor de Inversiones y Crédito). This position was

established as a result of changes in the academic and cultural development of the

College. Its main function was to establish and manage a Planning Office. Once

the Planning Office was created, this person would be responsible for finding the

economic resources to finance university research. The Investment and Credit

Consultant (Asesor de Inversiones y Crédito) would only work part time. The

186

salary would be paid according to hours worked (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra


Investment and Credit Consultant Board

The Investment and Credit Consultant Board (Junta Consultiva de

Inversiones y Crédito) was established by Rectoral Decree No. 32 in 1969. It

consisted of the Syndic, the Academic Director of Studies of the Faculties of Law,

Economy, Business Administration, and the Investment and Credit Consultant,

who presided over Board meetings68 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1969, p.142). Academic Directors of studies other than those mentioned

above were allowed to attend the meetings. The Rector could attend the meetings

as he pleased. If the Rector attended the meeting, he would preside over it.

This Board met at least twice a month. One of the Board members would

assume the duties of Secretary. The main function of this Board was to approve or

reject projects presented by the Planning Office. The Rector was to inform the

Advisory Senate and the Investments and Credit Consultant of the Board’s

activities. The Advisory Senate would approve the projects whenever it was

necessary to explain contracts or other items that required the commitment of the

College (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1969).

68He had the right to participate, but not the right to vote.

187

Faculty Assistant Secretary

The Faculty Assistant Secretary (Secretario Auxiliar de Facultades)

assisted the Dean or Academic Director of Studies on any of the Faculty’s

academic or administrative tasks. Traditionally, this position had been filled by

students in their respective Faculties. However, Rectoral Decree No. 12 of March

12, 1970 stated that there would only be two Faculty Assistant Secretaries; one

from the Faculty of Law, who would be the Secretary of that Faculty, and a

second one, who would be from the Faculty of Economy or Business

Administration. He or she would be the Auxiliary Secretary for both Faculties69

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1970, p. 160).

Colegiatura

The Colegiatura was the position performed by the scholars. The former

Constitution of the College and subsequent revisions described their rights, duties,

and responsibilities. However, on February 5, 1972, Agreement No 2 was enacted

by the Advisory Senate, which authorized the duties, privileges, and other

academic aspects of the College (Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1975). This Agreement established that the scholars would have to meet at least

once a month. It also defined the following responsibilities: (a) to control and

supervise the smooth functioning of students practices (pasantías); (b) to serve as

69 “…dos estudiantes…. Uuno de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia, y otro de Economía o de Administración de Empresas. Este último será secretario auxiliar de ambas Facultades”.

188

a jury in disciplinary cases; (c) to provide advice to the Rector and the Advisors in

the appointment of Deans and Academic Director of Studies; (d) to assist the

Deans and the Academic Director of Studies in ensuring that the rules and

regulations were being followed by the Professors, and (e) to have a voice, but not

the right to vote, in any revision to the Constitution proposed by the Advisory

Senate (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1970).

Agreement 3 of 1974

This Agreement announced two main changes: the first was related to the

election of the Rector, Vice-Rector, and Syndic, among others (See Figure 4).

The second important reform was that the number of Advisors was increased from

three to five.

189


ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORYSENATE SCHOLARSRECTOR

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

SPONSOR

SECRETARY

FACULTY

DEAN

ASSISTANTSECRETARY

FACULTYCOUNCIL

RESEARCHCENTER CIEC

SPECIALISATIONAND GRADUATE

STUDIES SCHOOL

ASSISTANTRESEARCHCOMMITTEE

PLANNINGDEPARTMENT

PLANNINGCOUNCIL

STUDENTS DEAN ANDUNIVERSITY WELFARE

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Agreement 3 of 1974

The Constitution consisted of six sections as follows:

First Point: This point stated that the number of scholars would

remain at fifteen. (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1995, p. 44). It also included the requirements for the election process,

and the students’ rights and responsibilities.

190

Second Point: The election of the Rector

Third Point: The election of the Vice-Rector

Fourth Point: The Advisors

Fifth Point: The Faculty Councils

Sixth Point: The Syndic (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1995, p. 44-47).

Advisors (Consiliarios)

This Agreement also called for an increase in the number of Advisors

from three to five. Each Advisor would serve a term of four years, and could be

re-elected for future terms, with the condition that at least two of them be re-

elected for the succeeding term. The qualifications needed to be elected as an

Advisor were the same as those for the Rectorship (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra


On May 17, 1994, Agreement No 64 was enacted, which gave new

significance to the composition and the rights of the Advisory Senate. It stated

that the Advisory Senate would be made up of the presiding Rector and five

Advisors. The Vice-Rector could attend the meetings with the right to vote when

any of the Advisors were absent or when he or she was in charge of the

Rectorship” (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 64, 94, p.1). The Advisory Senate

could hold a formal meeting for the election of scholars as well as void the

election of any scholars without the Rector and Vice-Rector being present.

191

(Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 64, 194, p.1). Finally, the Advisors and scholars

were permitted to vote on the election or dismissal of a Rector (Colegio Mayor de

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Rector

The second point of Agreement No. 3, 1974, covered the election of the

Rector. The electors for the Rector were the Advisors and the scholars. To win

this position, it was necessary to carry two-thirds of the vote. If a candidate did

not get the majority of the votes, a new process would need to be created in which

the other two aspirants would be considered. In case neither of those aspirants

secured the majority of votes to be elected in the second process, their names

would be submitted to the Sponsor so he or she could decide who will be

appointed to the position (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

If the position of Rector was vacant, the Vice-Rector would assume the

position. He or she was required to hold an election for Rector within three

months; however, if the vacancy occurred within the last year of the term, the

Vice-Rector could stay in the position for the remainder of the year. In the event

that there was a vacancy in both the Rector and Vice-Rector positions, the

Advisory Senate would designate someone to assume both positions, and call for

an election sometime during the following three months. The main change to the

parameters of this position was that the term of the Rector was increased from

192

three to four years (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996). Table

17 shows the names of the dignitaries who held this office from 1974 until 1994.


NORMATIVE NAME DATE CONSILIATURA

MINUTES Carlos Holguín Holguín 1973-1978 December 12, 1973

1978-1982 September 9, 1978 Álvaro Tafur Galvis 1983-1986 Roberto Arias Pérez 1987-1990 October 21, 1986

Gustavo de Greiff Restrepo 1990-1992 October 24, 1990

Guillermo Salah Zuleta Vice-rector and temporary Rector

1992-1992 April 1, 1992

Mario Suárez Melo 1992-1994 September 24, 1992

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillén de

Iriarte, M. 2003.

Vice-Rector

As stated in the Constitution of 1654 and the New Constitution of 1893,

the appointment of the Vice-Rector continued to be done by the Rector; however,

once the candidate was chosen, the approval of the Sponsor was required. The

qualifications for the Vice-Rector position were the same as those for Rector. If

there was a vacancy in the Rectorship, the Vice-Rector would replace him or her

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

193

Faculty Council

The Faculty Council (Consejo de Facultad) was a governing body created

by the various Faculties which would advise the Dean or Academic Director of

Studies on policies, rules and regulations. This Council was composed of the

Dean or the Director of Studies, two Professors (one of whom could be an

alumnus of the College), the Secretary of the Faculty, and one senior scholar. In

the event that there were no eligible scholars in the Faculty, the Council could

meet with the remaining members. The Rector, Vice-Rector and The General

Secretary of the College could attend any Council meeting except when the

Council was making a list of candidates to be elected as scholars (Colegio Mayor


On June 19, 1980, the Advisory Senate enacted Agreement No. 006,

which authorized the participation of Professors in the Faculty Council as stated

in Agreement No. 3, 1974 of the revised Constitution. Agreement No. 006 said

that in order to be elected as a member of the Council, at least two candidates

were needed, one of which should be an alumnus of the College. This applied

only to Faculties having at least five full-time Professors. An evaluation was then

done by the Dean or the Director of the respective academic unit. It showed

which candidates had the majority of votes. The duration of a Professor’s term on

the Faculty Council representative was two years (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra


194

Assistant Research Committee

The Assistant Research Committee was the governing body responsible

for shaping the research function of the College. This Committee was created

through Rectoral Decree No. 003 of January 27, 1978. It was made up of the

presiding Research Center Chair and the Faculty Deans (Decreto Rectoral No.

003, 1978, p.1). Its main duties and responsibilities were (a) to establish new

research projects; (b) to promote, coordinate, and guide the research efforts of the

different Faculties of the College; (c) to align the College Research Center with

national and international centers having similar objectives; and (d) to obtain the

necessary financial aid for the development of the research projects (Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1978, p. 1). The Committee was required

to meet once a month. The extraordinary meetings of the committee were to be

held at the discretion of the Chairmen.

Planning Department70

The Assistant Research Committee was the governing body responsible

for shaping the research function of the College. This Committee was created

through Rectoral Decree No. 003 of January 27, 1978. It was made up of the

presiding Research Center Chair and the Faculty Deans (Decreto Rectoral No.

003, 1978, p.1). Its main duties and responsibilities were (a) to establish new

70 It is important to point out that in the minutes of the Consiliatura in the nineteenth seventies was found information about the budget of the Planning Office in the internal archives of the university. However, the researcher did not find any Agreement, Decree, or regulation establishing this office.

195

research projects; (b) to promote, coordinate, and guide the research efforts of the

different Faculties of the College; (c) to align the College Research Center with

national and international centers having similar objectives; and (d) to obtain the

necessary financial aid for the development of the research projects (Colegio

Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1978, p. 1). The Committee was required

to meet once a month. The extraordinary meetings of the committee were to be

held at the discretion of the Chairmen.

Planning Council

The Planning Council was the governmental body in charge of advising

the Planning Office. This Council was created by Agreement No. 005 of 1978,

which was composed of (a) the Vice-Rector, who presided over it; (b) an Advisor;

(c) the General Secretary; (d) the Syndic; (e) the Faculty Deans; (f) the Quinta de

Mutis71 Director; (f) the Planning Department Chair; and (g) a scholar who was the

secretary of the council (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 005, 1978, p. 2-3).

Specialization and Graduate Studies School

The Graduate School, which was created by Rectoral Decree No. 0043 of

February 23, 1979, established graduate programs in the academic fields offered

by the College. The Specialization and Graduate Studies School had a Directive

Council (Consejo Directivo), a School Chair, Program Coordinators, and a

Secretary (Decreto Rectoral No. 0043, 1979, p. 2). The Directive Council was

71 The Quinta de Mutis was a school for all ages, including pre-school.

196

made up of the Rector or his or her delegate, the School’s Chair (Director de la

Escuela de Posgrados y Especialización), the Research Center Chair (Director

del Centro de Investigación), and the Faculty Deans (Decanos de las Facultades)

(Decreto Rectoral No. 0043, 1979, p. 2). The main functions of the Council dealt

with the establishment of policies on the academic and disciplinary aspects of the

graduate programs.

The Chair of the School was in charge of (a) representing the school in all

the activities required for its smooth functioning; (b) presenting the list of

Professors approved by the Rector; (c) setting out the annual budget; (d)

establishing the rules and regulations for the approval of the Faculty senate

(Decreto Rectoral No. 0043, 1979, p. 2-3). The Program Coordinators were

responsible for (a) establishing and coordinating the academic programs; (b)

nominating Professors to be appointed by the Chair; (c) taking care of Professor

and student consultations, and (d) monitoring the Professors’ class attendance,

among others (Decreto Rectoral No. 0043, 1979, p. 3).

Finally, the Secretary’s duties and responsibilities were (a) recording,

preparing, and indexing the School’s Archives, (b) Professors’ class attendance,

(c) the academic records of students; (d) issuing grades and attendance records for

students (which had to be authenticated by the General Secretary); (e) serving as

secretary of the Council’s meetings; and (f) contacting students and Professors in

197

order to bring their concerns to the Chair (Decreto Rectoral No. 0043, 1979, p. 3-

4).

Research Center:

The proposal for the establishment of the Research Center was described

in the Minutes 20 of August 19, 1975. It stated the mission of the center and the

staff requirements to run it effectively. These positions included the Director of

the Center and Professors’ researchers and auxiliary personnel. However, there

was no specific procedure for establishing the center noted in a Rectoral Decree

or an Advisory Senate Agreement. On February 20, 1981, Rectoral Decree No.

113 was enacted, which established the purposes and functions of this center.

From the organizational and governance perspective, this center was located at the

same level as the Faculties, and hierarchically, it depended on the Rectorship

(Decreto Rectoral No. 113, 1981).

The main goals of the center were to conduct research, provide consulting

services, and disseminate the research results (Decreto Rectoral No. 113, 1981,

p.1). The main functions were (a) selecting the research topics according to the

College’s policies with approval from the Rector; (b) formulating research

projects and finding the respective financing; (c) communicating with the private

sector in order to find subjects to be researched; (d) staying in contact with the

national and international research agencies; (e) offering training to the

researchers according to the requirements of the center; and (f) providing

198

assistance to the researchers in those areas (Decreto Rectoral No. 113, 1981, p. 1-

2 ).

The Director of the Center was responsible for coordinating the activities

described in the above Decree, presenting a half-yearly report to the Rector about

the functioning of the center; and submitting a list of candidates for the Rector’s

approval (Decreto Rectoral No. 113, 1981, p. 2). This Rectoral Decree superseded

Rectoral Decree No. 003 of January 27, 1978.

Students Council

Rectoral Decree No. 306 of 1989 established two student organizations;

the Student Council (Consejo Estudiantil), and the Higher Students’ Committee

(Comité Superior Estudiantil). The Student Council was made up of delegates

from each Faculty (Law, Economy, Business Administration, Philosophy,

Medicine, Physiotherapy, Audiology, and Occupational Therapy). If the

academic program had more than one course or semester, there would be a

representative from each course or semester. These representatives were elected

for a term of one year (Decreto Rectoral No. 306, 1989, p. 1-2). The Chairman

and Vice-Chairman (presidente y vicepresidente) were elected by the students of

each Faculty who were members of the Council. Finally, this Council would be

put in charge of dealing with issues or problems involving the academic program.

The Higher Student Committee was made up of three representatives of each

Faculty, and elected by the Student Council representatives from each Faculty for

199

the period of a year. The Committee was responsible for studying University

concerns and making recommendations on University (Decreto Rectoral No. 306,

1989).

Students and University Welfare Dean

This administrative unit was created by Rectoral Decree No. 369 of March

8, 1993. According to this Decree, the unit reported to the Rectorship and was

made up of the Admissions Department, the Welfare Department, and the College

Chaplaincy (Decreto Rectoral No. 369, 1993, p.1). Rectoral Decree No. 393 of

December 15, 1993 provided operating guidelines to the Student Dean and

University Welfare (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1994). This

unit was in charge of providing support services for students, alumni, Professors

and administrative personnel of the College.

This unit was managed by a Dean whose responsibilities covered planning

and executing the policies of the College related to welfare and development of

the College community. It was also supported by an Advisory Committee, which

was in charge of defining and implementing the policies and regulations. It was

represented by the Rector, the Vice-Rector, the Administrative General Director,

the General Secretary, the Deans, the Student and University Welfare Dean and

also Promoting, Developing, and Services Coordinators (Coordinadores de

Promoción, Desarrollo y Servicios). The programs offered by this unit were

Health Services, Orientation and Advisory Services, Chaplaincy Service, Food

200

Services, Promotion and Development Program, and Cultural and Sporting

Activities (Decreto Rectoral No. 393, 1993, p.3).

Sindicatura

Agreement No. 3 of 1974 established that the term for the Syndic position

was to be four years, without automatic re-election. On March 8, 1993, Rectoral

Decree No. 370 was enacted, which reorganized this administrative unit into a

Budget Department, a Treasury Department, and an Accounting Department

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1993, p. 160).

Agreement 77 of 1995

The Constitution of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was

altered once more in order to adapt it to new higher education trends (See Figure

5, p. 201).

On June 2, 1996, a New Constitution was drawn up which incorporated

various changes made to the previous versions. These changes affected the

election process, the level of authority allowed each governmental body, the

allocation of assets; and the scope of alumni participation (Colegio Mayor de

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996, p. 11-15).

201


ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORYSENATE SCHOLARSRECTOR

VICE-RECTOR

SINDICATURASECRETARYPLANNING

LEGAL MATTERASSISTANCE

UNIVERSITY MEDIUMDEAN

GENERALADMINISTRATION

LAW

ECONOMY

MEDICINE

BUSINESSADMINISTRA

CONTINUEDEDUCATION

SOCIOLOGY

PHILOSOPHY

POLITICALSCIENCES

PHYSIOTHERAPY

OCCUPATIONALTHERAPY

AUDIOLOGY

RESEARCHCENTER CIEC

ALUMNI

JOURNAL

ARCHIVE

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

SPORTS

HEALTHSERVICE

SPIRITUALADVISING

PHYSICALSOURCES

COMPUTINGSERVICES

HUMANDEVELOPMENT

ADMISSION

AUDITING

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITYPRESS

FOOD

SCHOLARSHIPS

TREASURER

ACCOUNTING

BUDGET

From “Estructura Orgánica”, by Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1995), Bogotá

The New Constitution was divided into seven Titles as shown below

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996):

Title I: This title was related to finances of the College, and was

subdivided into two sections:

Section I related to the financial management of the College. It stated

that the Advisory Senate could purchase or sell any property of the

202

College without the authorization of the Sponsor. In the beginning of

each year, the Advisory Senate was in charge of the budget

Section II was related to the position of the Syndic.

Title II: As was the case in the Constitution of 1654, this title was associated

with the organization of the College, and was divided into six sections rather than

thirteen:

Section I: Sponsor

Section II: Election of the Rector

Section III: Election of the Vice-Rector

Section IV: Duties and responsibilities of the Rector

Section V: Privileges of the highest academic-administrative positions

Section VI: Advisors (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1996, p. 30-33)

Title III: As was the case in the former Constitution, this title was related to

the scholars, and was also divided into seven sections.

Section I: The election of scholars

Section II: The origin of the scholars

Section III: Privileges of the scholars

Section IV: Familiaries (the ten students who had the right to study

completely free of charge)

203

Section V: This was related to the students known as Convictores.

These students lived on campus, and had to pay tuition and fees

Section VI: Priest

Section VII: Day students (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del

Rosario, 1996, p. 34-36)

Title IV: Related to the scholars’ duties and responsibilities, which were

divided into two sections:

Section I: The Christian Piety

Section II: Behavior of the students…(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1996, p. 36-37)

Title V: This title was associated with the Professors. It was subdivided into

four sections:

Section I: Elections of Professors

Section II: Methodology of teaching and the curriculum

Section III: The instruction of Philosophy

Section IV: Degrees (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

1996, p. 37-39)

Title VI: This title concerned the benefactors of the College.

Title VII: This title was related to the Faculty Academic Council (Colegio

Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

204

Rector

The first modification related to the Rector’s function was the re-

instatement of the responsibility of electing the scholars. The main reason for

doing this change was the fact that the Rector knew scholars better than the

Advisors. This duty was eliminated in the last reform in order to give more

freedom to the Advisors when they were electing the Rector. On the other hand,

the former Constitution stated that the participation of the Rector was important.

By that time the scholars were elected by the Rector, the Vice-Rector, the Syndic,

the master of ceremonies and the other scholars.

The Advisors continued to be in charge of electing the Rector and the

scholars. The previous reform stated that in order to be elected Rector, a person

had to have two-thirds of the votes. This modification to the election protocol of

this position made it necessary to have at least two Advisors’ votes. This way, the

electoral body had to work as a team in order to elect the Rector. If no candidate

gained a majority of votes, there would have to be a new election between the two

top candidates. In the event that none of the candidates garnered the majority of

votes, or there were no votes of from least two Advisors, the names of the two

candidates would be submitted to the Sponsor to decide who would appointed to

this position (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

There were two additional changes made to the Rector’s appointment

procedure; the first included the definition of a quorum. It was necessary for two

205

thirds of the electoral body to be in attendance during the elective process, or at

least three Advisors. The other modification was related to the re-election of the

Rector. He or she could be re-elected for two consecutive terms. In other words,

a Rector could be appointed for a maximum term of twelve years (Colegio Mayor



NORMATIVE NAME DATE CONSILIATURA

MINUTE Mario Suarez Melo (He resigned in 1997) 1995-1997 October 3, 1994

1997-1999 February 8, 1997 Guillermo Salah Zuleta

1999-2001 September 28, 1998 Maria del Rosario Guerra Temporary Rector

2001 July 16, 2001

From: “Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de

Iriarte, M. 2003.

Advisors (Consiliarios)

For the election of the Advisors, this Agreement returned the Rector the

right to elect them. The Reform of 1974 suppressed the participation of the Rector

in his/her election. The Advisors could be re-elected indefinitely for four-year

terms. Nevertheless, two of them should be re-elected for the immediate term.

The Advisory Senate was made of up the Rector and the five Advisors. If after

voting there were an equal number of votes, the vote of the Rector was decisive.

206

The Vice-Rector could attend the Advisory Senate meeting with voice but

without the right to vote. The only cases in which the Advisory Senate could meet

without the presence of the Rector were in calling for Rector elections,,

determining the Rector’s salary, or solving any problems arising from a Rector’s

resignation (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996, p. 33).

The main duties and responsibilities of the Advisory Senate were similar

to those established in the former Constitution; however, Agreement 77 included

the function of advising the Rector in academic and administrative dimensions.

Another function assigned to the Advisory Senate was to oversee the proper

maintenance goods and properties. This Agreement stated that it was not

necessary to have formal approval from the Sponsor in order to buy or to sell any

property or asset of the Great College as was established in the former

Constitution and the following reforms. These decisions could only be made by

the Advisory Senate (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1995).

Due to the historical evolution of the Colombian Law, there was an

important change to the Sponsor’s rights to approve any amendment to the

Constitution. The Advisory Senate stated in Article 4 of Agreement 77 that the

modifications to the Constitution required the Sponsor’s approval. Therefore,

Resolution No. 436 of February 13, 1996, ratified the statutory amendments to the

Constitution (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996). However, on

February 16, 1996, The President of the country sent a letter (No. 01282) to the

207

College which stated that in the political Constitution of Colombia, Article 69o,

and mandated autonomy for the country’s institutes of higher education. This was

confirmed by Law 30, Article 28o of 1992, which recognized the autonomy of

universities to establish their own organizations and governance. In other words,

the government did not have the right to approve an amendment to the

Constitution (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996). As a result,

the Advisory Senate enacted the Agreement 83 of February 17, 1996, which

revoked Article 4 of Agreement 77 of 1995 (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora

del Rosario, 1996). That meant the Advisory Senate was the only governmental

body that could rule, interpret, and make amendments to the Constitution.

Vice-Rector

The principal difference of this amendment was related to the appointment

of a Vice-Rector. The previous Constitution established that the appointment of

the Vice-Rector would be approved by the Sponsor; in other words, the Vice-

Rector’s appointment and/or removal were at the complete discretion of the

Sponsor. The Vice-Rector should abide by the same rules as those established for

being elected as Rector (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

208

Sindicatura

Agreement 77, 1995, established that the Syndic would have a term of

four years. The Syndic was only to be re-elected for one term (Colegio Mayor de

Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

Faculty Academic Council

Each Faculty would have a Faculty Academic Council the responsibility

for advising the Dean or the Director of Studies. This Council was made of up the

Rector or his or her delegate, the Dean or the Director of Studies, two Professors

(one of those could be an alumnus of the College), the Secretary of the Faculty, a

scholar, a representative of the Student Council of the respective Faculty or

academic unit, and a representative from the Alumni Association. Therefore, three

new members were added to this council; the Rector or his/her delegate and

representatives from the Student Council and the Alumni Association (Colegio

Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

In a reorganization of the academic area of the university, Rectoral Decree

No. 452 of February 9, 1996, the Faculty Academic Council of the Physiotherapy,

Audiology and Occupational Therapy was created (Decreto Rectoral No. 452,

1996). On March 2, 1998, Rectoral Decree No. 534 was enacted, which called for

the inclusion the Graduate Program Director as a new member. As a result, all

209

the academic courses related to the graduate programs were included within the

agendas of the Councils (Decreto Rectoral No. 534, 1998).

Students and University Welfare Dean

The name was modified by the Rectoral Decree No. 497 of April 8, 1997

to be the Medium Dean (Decanatura del Medio). This unit continued to be in

charge of psychological, medical, and spiritual services for the university

community including students, Professors, and administrative personnel). The

University Welfare Dean also managed the food services, cultural, recreational

and sporting events (Decreto Rectoral 497, 1997).

Current Organizational and Governance Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario continued to be

organized and governed by Agreement 77 of 1995. There have been some

modifications to the organizational structure by the addition of new offices and

elimination of others. However, the most important changes were related to the

rearrangement of some positions and offices within the organizational structure

compared to the organizational chart shown in Figure 5 (p. 201). See Figure 6:

210

Figure 6. Organizational Structure of the University of Rosario 2004

ELECTOR BOARD


RECTOR

SECRETARY

DIRECTIVE COMMITTEE

UNIVERSITY MEDIUM DEAN

SPECIAL AUDITOR INTERNAL AUDIT

MERCHANDISINGAND

COMMUNICATION

INTERNATIONALRELATIONS

JURIDICALOFFICE

ACADEMICREGISTRAR

HISTORICALARCHIVE

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

ACADEMIC FACULTY COUNCILS

SINDICATURA

ADMINISTRATIVE &TECNOLOGICAL DIVISION

CHANCELLERY

FINANCING DIVISION

LIBRARY

VICE-RECTOR

LAW

ECONOMY

MEDICINE

BUSINESSADMINISTRA

CONTINUEDEDUCATION

SOCIOLOGY PHILOSOPHY

POLITICALSCIENCES

PHYSIOTHERAPY

OCUPATIONALTHERAPHY

PHONOAUDIOLOGY

RESEARCHCENTER

ADMISSION

PLANNING &ACADEMIC

DEVELOPMENT

From: “Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad del Rosario, retrieved May 24 of 2005, from

http://www.urosario.edu.co/FASE4/web_visitantes/estructura_org.htm#

211

CHAPTER 5

The Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions of a Public Higher Education Institution: the National University of

Colombia (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

In this chapter, the researcher attempts to answer the second part of the

first research question: How have the organization and governance dimensions of

higher education evolved in two selected higher education institutions of

Colombia? This is accomplished through a description of the organization and

governance dimensions of the historical evolution of the National University of

Colombia. Like Chapter 4, this one will be organized as follows: first, the

researcher will begin with an historical description of the National University of

Colombia from its foundation in 1867 to the year 2000. Next, the evolution of the

organization and governance dimensions of the National University of Colombia

will be examined through the analysis of primary and secondary sources such as

governmental legislation, archival records of the University regarding internal

policies, agreements, decrees, and minutes, among others.

HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA

The National University of Colombia was established in 1867 as the

National University of the United States of Colombia. However, it had its origin

in the Central University of Bogotá, which was the first public higher education

212

institution established in the country. Public education at the higher level, with the

ideology of free education, began after Colombia gained its independence, and

continued through establishment of the Central Universities, which were created

by the Vice-President of the Great Colombia72 (General Francisco de Paula

Santander) in the more influential cities of each country by the Decree of March

18 of 1826. As a result, the Central University of Quito (Ecuador), the Central

University of Caracas (Venezuela), and the Central University of Bogotá (New

Granada) were created (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

When the Central University of Bogotá was opened on December 25 of

1826, the University of Saint Thomas was closed. Article 62 of Law 271, 1826

stated that the only higher education institution was permitted grant academic

degrees was the Central University (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001):

Article 62º. The only universities permitted to grant degrees are those institutions which have been created by this Decree, with all the formalities, requirements and teaching methods contained herein73 (p.23).

Law 271 of October 3, 1826 provided the framework for the organization

and operation of the Central University of Bogotá. This Decree was composed of

33 chapters and 233 articles; which included buildings and facilities, admission

requirements, debts and responsibilities of students and Professors, reference texts

72 By that period the Great Colombia was composed of Ecuador, Venezuela and New Granada (Colombia).

213

for each course, examinations, the granting of degrees, and the organization and

governance of the University (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

It is important to remember that during the colonial period there were four

higher education institutions: the University of San Tomás, the Xaveriana

University, and the Great Colleges of Nuestra Señora of Rosario and Saint

Bartholomew. The Xaveriana University was closed when Charles III expelled

the Jesuits from Spain and its colonies. Only the Great Colleges continued to offer

higher education through the Chairs of Spanish and Latin Grammar but followed

the curriculum established for the Central University of Bogotá as it was

established in Article 6 of Decree October 20, 1826 (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2001). Similarly, Article 7 of the same Decree declared that the other

Chairs such as Languages, Natural Sciences, Medicine, Law, and Theology would

be offered by the Central University74.

The Central University of Bogotá was closed several years later. In the

1850s, the National University of Colombia was dissolved. As a result, the

Central University of Bogotá was changed to The College of the First District

(Colegio del Primer Distrito). Other universities, including the University of

Cauca, and the University of Magdalena and Itsmo were changed into a Second

73 Articulo 62º. En los sucesivo solo podrán obtenerse grados académicos en las universidades que se establecen por el presente decreto y con las formalidades y requisitos que contendrá el plan sobre establecimiento de escuelas y universidades y arreglo de su enseñanza.” 74 In addition, Article 141 of Law 271 of 1826 academically organized the Central University of Bogotá thorough the following Chairs: 1st Literature and Fine Letters (literatura y bellas letras),

214

and Third District Colleges respectively (Segundo y Tercer Distrito) (Garcia,

1951; Quevedo & Duque, 2002). The latter happened during the presidency of

Jose Hilario López. The freedom of education in sciences, arts, and letters

(libertad de enseñaza en los ramos de la ciencia, las artes y las letras) was

encouraged by educational reform of Law of May 15, 1850 (Universidad

Nacional de Colombia, 2001, p. 245-248).

Article 16o. The Universities in their present forms shall be closed. Their buildings and other assets shall be used for the creation of National Colleges, with the exception of the Great College of Rosario in Bogotá, whose buildings and other assets will come under provincial administration, according to the rules of the Provincial Camera (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001, p. 247)75.

In summary, universities no longer existed, and the requirement of having

an academic degree in order to practice a profession was eliminated. Although the

universities were closed, higher education was offered by the National Colleges.

These institutions also conferred degrees. The Bachelors degree was eliminated,

and the only types of degrees awarded were Doctorates in Law, Medicine and

Ecclesiastic Sciences. University and other college buildings, and assets were

used to create the National Colleges. These changes continued for 17 years,

2nd Philosophy and Natural Sciences, 3rd Medicine, 4th Law (jurisprudencia), and 5th Theology (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001). 75 Artículo 16º. Suprímanse las Universidades. Los edificios, bienes y rentas de que hoy disfrutan, se aplican para el establecimiento de los Colegios nacionales; exceptuando el Colegio del Rosario de Bogotá cuyo edificio, bienes rentas serán administrados como de establecimiento provincial, según las reglas que de la Cámara de provincia.

215

ending with the establishment of the National University of the United States of

Colombia.

In 1861, as prelude to the establishment of The National University, The

National Institute of Science and Arts was established under the presidency of

Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera. This Institute was made up of the Military College,

the Polytechnic School, the National Library, the Astronomic Observatory, the

Museum, the Mineralogy Hall, the National Historical Office, the Painting

Gallery, the Botanic Garden, and the Hall of Native Monuments (Garcia, 1951;

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1991). The National Institute of Science and

Arts was dissolved once The National University of the United States of

Colombia was established through Law 66 of September 22, 1867 (ICFES, 1974a,

p. 646-685). According to Article 2, this University would be organized into six

Schools as follows: (1) School of Law, (2) School of Medicine, (3) School of

Natural Sciences, (4) School of Engineering, (5) Institute or School of Arts and

Trades, and (6) the School of Literature and Philosophy. As well, the National

Library became a part of the University. The Astronomic Observatory and the

Museum became part of the School of Natural Sciences. Finally, the Chemistry

Laboratory and the Charity and Military Hospitals were incorporated into the

School of Medicine.

The University opened its doors in January of 1868. During its first year,

the University had 335 students and 45 highly notable and influential Professors

216

and had participated in the Botanic Expedition (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2001). By 1882, the National University of the United States of

Colombia was made up of only four Faculties as follows: the Faculty of

Philosophy and Literature, the Faculty of Law, the Faculty of Natural Sciences,

and the Faculty of Medicine. At that time, the University also offered secondary

education through the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature (Jaramillo, 1982)

During the end of the nineteenth century, the University faced a difficult

period due to political conflicts in the country. Between 1880 and 1900 it

experienced one of the most calamitous times in its history. There were four civil

wars; 1876, 1885, 1895, and 1899 (the One Thousand Days Civil War). Also,

there were other important events which affected the academic organization of the

University; these were that (a) the Faculty of Engineering came under the

ownership of the Minister of War between 1881 and 1884; (b) the National

Academy of Music, established in 1882 under the presidency of Rafael Nuñez,

was made a Conservatory; (c) in 1886 the Fine Arts School was established by

Law 60 under the direction of the Public Instruction; (d) the Civil War of 1899

interrupted all the academic and administrative activities of the University, and its

Faculties and Schools were absorbed by the different Ministers of the country

(Jaramillo, 1982); (e) the National School of Mines, attached to The University of

Antioquia in 1903, became part of The National University of Colombia in 1936,

217

as did the Conservatory and the Fine Arts Schools (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 1991).

The National University reopened its doors in the beginning of the

twentieth century. In spite of these upheavals, the National University did manage

to contribute to the development of the country through the training of Civil

Engineers, who participated in the construction of roads, bridges, and railways;

training Lawyers who participated in the establishment of the Constitutional and

Juridical Structure of the country; and finally, training Physicians who would help

develop the public health services for the country (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 1991).

In 1903, Law 39 was enacted. This law organized the educational

structure of the country into primary, secondary, industrial, and professional

levels (ICFES, 1974b, p. 646-685). The legislation demonstrated the conservative

ideology of the political party in power during that time. Also during this period,

there was a close relationship between the Catholic Church and the State. This

relationship was a continuation of the close connection between The State and

The Church, which was established under the presidency of Rafael Nuñez by the

end of the 1880s. In fact, The Constitution of 188676 and the Concordat

76 Constitution of 1886: Article 41: " Public Education will be organized and directed according to the Catholic religion..... the primary instruction financed with public funds will be free and not mandatory." [Article 41: La educación publica será organizada y dirigida en concordancia con la religión católica..... la instrucción primaria costeada con fondos públicos será gratuita y no obligatoria.."] (Jaramillo, 1982, p. 279). Concordate of 1887: Article 12. " In the universities, colleges, Schools, and other teaching centers, education and public instruction will be organized

218

(Concordato) signed between the Colombian Government and the Holy See

(Santa Sede) in 1887 formalized this association. This legislation gave total

control of education to the church until 1930 (Jaramillo, 1982; Helg, 1987).

Academic activities of the National University were reestablished by Law

39 of 1903 and Decree 491 of 1904, Articles 23o and 139o, respectively. Both

Articles stated that professional instruction would be offered by the Great College

of Nuestra Señora del Rosario through the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters; by

the National University through the Faculties of Natural Sciences and Medicine,

Mathematics and Civil Engineering, Law and Political Sciences, Medicine

Veterinary School, and the Dental College; and by the public State Faculties

(ICFES, 1974b). In addition, both Articles organized the National University of

Colombia academically and administratively. Article 25o of Law 39 and Article

141 of Decree 491 established that each Faculty (Medicine and Natural Sciences,

Mathematics, Civil Engineering, Law and Political Sciences) would come under

the direction of a Board of Trustees made up of the Rector and four Professors

appointed by the National Government. (ICFES, 1974b).

The outcome of the legislation, which established a decentralized type of

organization and governance for the National University, weakened the structure

and managed in accordance with the dogmas and the morals of the Catholic Religion. Religious instruction will be obligatory in such centers, and will be observed by the committed practice of the Catholic Religion". [Concordate of 1887: Articulo 12. "En las universidades y colegios, en las escuelas y demás centros de enseñanza, la educación e instrucción publica se organizara y dirigirá en conformidad con los dogmas y la moral de la Religión Católica. La enseñanza

219

of the University as an autonomous institution. In other words, the University was

converted into a formal entity without internal cohesion because of its location

and the fact that the academic and administrative organizations were separate

from each Faculty, School, and Institute. The University Board was headed by the

Public Instruction Minister and the Faculty Rectors served as a consulting body to

the Central Government for professional instruction (Universidad Nacional,

1991).

The decentralized nature of the University was changed in 1935 under the

presidency of Alfonso López Pumarejo. He was aware that education in general

needed an overhaul. However, he knew that in order to be successful, it would be

necessary to modify the relationship between the church and the government as

well as the amount of power wielded by the church. López Pumarejo proposed a

reorganization of education, taking into account the prosperous economic period

that the country was enjoying due to the indemnity from Panama and international

credits the country received during that period (Pumarejo, 2000).

The main aspect of the reform was to centralize; that meant consolidating

and co-locating faculties and schools onto one campus and modernizing the

curriculum by offering multidisciplinary courses. As a result, various science

departments were created. Students in specific courses of study could select

courses from other disciplines if they so chose (Pumarejo, 2000). This idea

religiosa será obligatoria en tales centros, y se observaran en ellos las prácticas piadosas de la

220

originated from the fact that in 1909, General Rafael Uribe proposed legislation

which would institute certain reforms, bringing education administration to a

higher level of professionalism in the National University, which meshed with the

ideology of the Conservatives, who had the most influence during that period.

The second proposed reform for the education system was given by the

German Pedagogic Mission (Misión Pedagógica Alemana) which occurred

between 1924 and 1926. This Mission was made up of Antol Eitel, Karl

Gloeckner, and Karl Decker. Anton Eitel was the Director of the mission, and

along with Emilio Ferrero, was in charge of higher education reform77. Karl

Gloecker was designated to conduct the reform of primary and normal instruction

with Gerardo Arrubla78. The secondary education reform was headed by Karl

Decker and Tomas Rueda Vargas. The German Mission wrote the Law Project,

which was finished in 1925, but it was rejected by the Conservatives in the House

of Representatives (Cámara de Representantes) due to the close relationship

between the Conservative party and the Catholic Church (Helg, 1987;

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1991).

Finally, Law 68 of 1935 was enacted, which reorganized the National

University of Colombia as López Pumarejo desired (ICFES, 1974b). Article 2

confirmed that the University would be organized from the academic perspective

Religión Católica (Jaramillo, 1982, p. 279). 77 Emilio Ferrero was Minister of Public Instruction between 1914 and 1918.

221

into Faculties, National Professional Schools, and Research Institutes, which

included the National Conservatory of Music, the National Astronomy

Observatory, the Museums, and the National Institute of Radium. Article 5 stated

that the national government should buy land in order to build the necessary

facilities for students and Faculties to ensure optimum utilization. This article also

authorized the Central Government to sell all the properties that the University

owned at that time in order to support this project (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2000).

Between 1905 and 1940, more than 20 professional programs were

created: Pharmacy (1906), Nursing (1916), Veterinary Medicine (1912),

Architecture (1929), Dentistry (1932), and Chemical Engineering (1938). During

the end of the 1960s, the first Master programs were created. In 1986 the first

Doctoral programs in the country in Physics and Mathematics were created

(Universidad Nacional, 1991). Table 19 shows the evolution of students,

Faculties, academic programs, Professors, and administrative employees of the

National University between 1960 and 2002.

78 Gerardo Arrubla was a conservative historian who directed the Public Instruction of Cundinamarca between 1918 and 1924.

222

Table 19. Evolution of the National University of Colombia between 1960 and 2002

TOPICS 1960 1966 1980 2002

Students 75001 11,1701 N.A1. 40,0372

Faculties (including the Branches) 121 N.A. 191 N.A. Academic Programs 321 631 1761 N.A. Professors 14201 17801 33001 32122 Administrative Employees N.A. N.A. N.A. 31392

N.A.: Not Available

From: 1“Catálogo 1991-1992”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1991), Bogotá.

From: 2“Presentación”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, retrieved July 23 of 2004, Bogotá

The National University Branches

The National University of Colombia has six branches. The first branch,

the National University at Medellín, was created in 1936 by Agreement 131,

which was enacted by the Board of Trustees. The establishment of this branch

was the result of the 1935 reforms to the University by López Pumarejo, who

wanted to extend higher education to more of the developing regions in the

country. The National School of Mines was included as indicated in this

agreement. Two years later the Tropical Agriculture School was incorporated,

whose name was changed to Agricultural Sciences Faculty. The Architecture

Faculty was created in 1954, and the Faculties of Sciences and Human Sciences

were established by Agreement 80 of 1975 by the Board of Trustees.

223

The second branch, the National University at Manizalez, was established

by the Engineering Faculty in 1948. This Faculty was the foundation for the

establishment of the Engineering, Architecture, Sciences and Administration

Faculties.

The third branch, the National University at Palmira, had its genesis in the

Tropical Agricultural High School. This School was created in 1934 and few

years later, it was donated to the National University by the Department of

Valle79.

The fourth branch, the National University at Leticia, was created on

December of 1989 by the establishment of the Scientific Research Station of

Leticia as a small interdisciplinary unit to support teaching, research and public

service in the Amazonian Region. In 1994 this center was changed into a

University branch.

The fifth branch, the National University at San Andrés, was established

by Agreement 6 of January 30, 1997. Finally, the last branch established was the

National University of Arauca, created by Agreement 40 of 1996 with the

Nursing and Environmental Engineering Faculties (Universidad Nacional, July

23, 2003).

79 Colombia is divided into 32 Departments and one capital district.

224

EVOLUTION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Before analyzing the evolution of the organization and governance of the

National University of Colombia, it is important to point out that this institution

has followed both external and internal laws. According to Kaplin & Lee (1995),

external laws are created and enforced by bodies external to the institution and

circumscribe the internal laws, reducing the institution's options in the creation of

internal laws. In this case, there were laws and decrees enacted by the Central

Government of the country which governed the organization of the University. In

contrast, internal law, defined as the core of the institution operations, is the law

that institutions create autonomously for their own self-rule. The National

University of Colombia enacted Agreements and Resolutions through the Board

of Trustees and the Rectorship, which ruled and complemented the external

legislation.

Law 271 of 1826

The Central University of Bogotá followed the following organization

(See Figure 7).

225

Figure 7 Organizational Structure of the Central University of Bogotá, 1826

GENERAL BOARD

SPECIFIC BOARD

RECTOR

ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR

FIRST BEDEL

SECOND BEDEL

GENERAL SECRETARY

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Law 271 of 1826.

The General Board (Junta General) of the University was made up of the

Rector, who, presided over the meetings; the Vice-Rector, Professors and

Doctors. The primary responsibilities of this General Board included overseeing

the implementation of educational policies established by the Central

Government, handling other issues that didn’t need to be dealt with by the

Particular Board or the Inspection and Governance Board; attending a monthly

meeting, and developing its own rules and regulations (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2001).

226

Particular Board

The Particular Board (Junta Particular) was also responsible for the

Inspection and Governance Board. This Board was made up of eight members,

the Rector, the Vice-Rector, and six Professors. This Particular Board was

responsible for the implementation of University teaching policies, the application

of the academic rules and regulations, and the financial management of the

University. This Board was to meet once a week. Both the General Board and the

Particular Board were responsible for preparing and recording the official Minutes

(Actas) and Agreements (Acuerdos) of each meeting, which were then reviewed

by the Rector. Once he approved, the Secretary was responsible for their

safekeeping (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

Rector

The Rector of the Central University of Bogotá was authorized to govern

the University. The Central Government of the country appointed the Rector,

Vice-Rector, and Secretary for the first time. Then the General Board chose the

Rector (for a three-year term), from a list of the active or retired Professors and

Doctors (who could not reject the appointment). The Rector was responsible for

academic affairs and the financial management of the University. In addition, the

Rector audited classes in order to verify that the rules and regulations were being

followed (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

227

Vice-Rector

The Vice-Rector was also elected by the General Board for a three-year

term. The Vice-Rector was in charge of (a) ensuring that rules and regulations

were met, (b) overseeing the order and maintenance of buildings and facilities of

the University; (c) informing the Rector and General Board about any aspect or

circumstance that should be known by them; (d) filling in for the Rector during

his absences; (e) and recording the Professors’ and students’ class attendance to

classes in a confidential file (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

First and Second Bedel

The first and second bedels (primero y segundo bedeles) were appointed

by the Government and Inspection Board. The first bedel (primer bedel) helped

the Vice-Rector to record the attendance of Professors and students. The Vice-

Rector was given this information on a daily basis, which was, at the same time,

shared with the Rector and the Inspection and Governance Board once a week. He

was also the assistant to the Secretary. The second bedel was in charge of the

security of the buildings and facilities, as well as their maintenance (Universidad

Nacional de Colombia, 2001).

Secretary

The Secretary was appointed by the General Board and confirmed by the

Rector. This officer was in charge of preparing, recording, and indexing the

228

official minutes of the University; having the custody of the University’s archives

and official seal; affixing the official seal, and notarizing all official documents

prepared in the name of the University (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001,

p. 56-57).

Decree of September 22, 1867

The academic and administrative organization of the National University

of the United States of Colombia was described in the Decree of September 22,

1867 (Decreto Orgánico de Septiembre 22 de 1867; ICFES, 1974a). Several

changes were made to the governance and organization dimensions, comparing it

to the organization of the Central University of Bogotá. The first major change

involved the academic organization of the University, which was divided into

Schools or Special Institutes (Article 1) that were set up as follows:

School of Law

School of Medicine

School of Natural Sciences

School of Engineering

School or Institute of Arts and Trades

School of Literature and Philosophy” (ICFES, 1974a, p. 646)

The organization and governance dimension also underwent several

changes, as shown in Figure 8.

229

Figure 8. Organizational Structure of The National University of the United States of Colombia, 1867

GREAT COUNCIL

INSPECTION ANDGOVERNANCE BOARD

SCHOOLS COUNCIL

RECTOR

SCHOOLS RECTORVICE-RECTOR OF LITERATURE,PHILOSOPHY AND ENGINEERING

SECRETARY

TREASURERNATIONAL LIBRARIAN

GENERAL DIRECTION OFUNIVERSITY INSTRUCTION

PASANTES

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Decree of September

22, 1867

These included:

General Direction of the University (Dirección General de la

Universidad)

Great Council of the University (Gran Consejo de la Universidad)

230

Inspection and Governance Board (Junta de Inspección y

Gobierno)

School Councils (Consejos de las Escuelas)

Rector of the University (Rector de la Universidad)

Rector of the Schools (Rectores de las Escuelas)

Vice-Rector of the Schools of Literature and Philosophy and

Engineering

Secretary (Secretario)

Treasurer (Tesorero)

National Librarian (Bibliotecólogo) (ICFES, 1974a).

General Director of University Instruction

The inspection and government (inspección y gobierno) function of the

University, defined in Article 2, was the responsibility of the duties and

responsibilities of several positions and governmental bodies, such as: the General

Director of University Instruction80 (Director General de la Instrucción

Universitaria), the Great Council of the University, the Inspection and

Governance Board, the Rector of the University, and the Rector and Council of

the Schools (ICFES, 1974a).

The main duties and responsibilities as described in Article 3 were to (a)

oversee the efficient management of the Schools; (b) ensure that the agreements

231

enacted by the Great Council did not contradict the policies of the National

Government; (c) verify that the doctrines and methodologies used by the Schools

were in line with the general policies established by the institution; (d) approve

the rules and regulations proposed by the Rector of the University; (e) approve

any extra expenditures proposed by the Inspection and Governance Board; (f)

appoint (or remove) the Rector of the University, the Rector of each School;

Professors, Librarian, Priest, Secretary, and Treasurer from a group of candidates

presented; (g) remove the Professors if they did not perform in the manner

required by the Council or by the Rector of each School; (h) to confirm the

establishment of new Chairs; and (i) preside over all the official acts of the

University (ICFES, 1974a, 646-647)81.

80 He was also the Internal Secretary of Education (Secretario del Interior). 81 1o. Invijilar los establecimientos de enseñanza, dictar los reglamentos orgánicos, necesarios para la buena marcha de ellos, i resolver las consultas que se hagan oficialmente los empleados que intervienen en este ramo. 2o. Examinar los acuerdos del Gran Consejo de la Universidad; suspender los que sean contrarios a disposiciones vijentes; i decidir las reclamaciones de nulidad que se intenten contra actos de esta corporación. 3o. Examinar por sí, o por medio de comisionados particulares, los métodos que se observen i doctrinas que se enseñen en las Escuelas de la Universidad, para corregir cualquier abuso que se introduzca. 4o. Aprobar los gastos extraordinarios que acuerde la Junta de Inspeccion. 5o. Elegir al Rector de la Universidad y a los Rectores de las Escuelas, los Catedráticos, el Bibliotecario, los Capellanes, el Secretario i el Tesorero, de acuerdo con las ternas que le pasen las respectivas corporaciones, i removerlos con arreglo a este decreto, cuando para ello hubiese causa justa. 6o. Remover a los Catedráticos que no cumplan con sus deberes, en el caso que su separación sea solicitada por el Consejo de la respectiva Escuela, o por el Rector de la Universidad. 7o. Acordar la creación de nuevas cátedras, i cuidar de que, tan luego como sea posible, se establezcan enseñanzas de aquellas materias que por falta de rentas o de profesores, o por cualquier otra causa, no hayan podido fundarse; i 8o. Presidir todos los actos literarios a que concurra.

232

Great Council of the University

The Great Council of the University (Gran Consejo de la Universidad)

was made up of the Rector of the University, the Rectors of the Schools, the Vice-

Rector, a number of Professors, as well as the National Librarian, the Treasurer,

and the Secretary of the University. The Rector presided over the meetings, which

were held three times a year (on February, June, and November) (ICFES, 1974a)

The main functions of this Council were to (a) elect, annually, a Professor who

would represent each School on the Inspection and Governance Board (Junta de

Inspección y Gobierno); (b) solve important issues presented by the Inspection

and Governance Board or, if necessary, present them to the University General

Direction; (c) to propose the establishment or elimination of new Chairs; (d)

annually visit the Library, Museums, and other University establishments during

the first days of February in order to assess their performance; (e) check the rules

and regulations of each School; and (f) remove the Secretary or the Treasurer, if

necessary (ICFES, 1974a, p.648)82.

82 1o. Elegir anualmente, en la reunion ordinaria de febrero, un Catedrático de cada Escuela para la Junta de Inspeccion i Gobierno; 2o. Resolver los negocios graves que le someta la Junta de Inspeccion i Gobierno o eleva los que no pueda resolver por sí a la Direccion General, con el informe conveniente; 3o. Denunciar a la Dirección general los abusos que se cometan en la instruccion publica universitaria; 4o. Proponer a la Direccion General el establecimiento de nuevas cátedras, o la supresion de algunas, i cuantas medidas juzgue oportunas para mejorar la enseñanza i disciplina de la universidad; 5o. Visitar anualmente, en los primeros veinte dias del mes de febrero, por medio de comisiones de su seno, las bibliotecas, Museos, Gabinetes de física e historia natural, Anfiteatros i demas establecimiento de la Universidad; i acordar lo conveniente para su conservacion y mejora; 6o. Formar los modelos de los sellos de la Universidad i de las Escuelas, i los de títulos de los grados; 7o. Formar las ternas para el nombramiento de Rector de la Universidad, Rectores de Escuelas, Tesorero, Secretario i Bibliotecario cuando vaque alguno de estos empleos; 8o. Designar el Catedrático que deba pronunciar el discurso en la sesión

233

Inspection and Governance Board

The Inspection and Governance Board (Junta de Inspección y Gobierno)

was made up of the University Rector, who presided over it; a Rector from each

School, and one Professor representing each School, selected by the Great

Council. The Secretary of the University should also be its Secretary. This Board

met the first and fifteenth day of each month. The main functions were related to

academics and finances, including approval of the University budget. This board

also approved any required modifications to each academic program, as well as

the list of students who were eligible to receive degrees (ICFES, 1974a).

Schools' Councils

The Schools' Councils (Consejos de las Escuelas) were headed by the

Rector of each School, the Secretary, and whole body of proprietary83 and

substitute Professors. The Rector of the School presided over the meetings. When

the Rector could not attend, he would be represented by the most experienced

Professor in the School. This Council would ordinarily meet once a month and

was limited to academic functions, which were to (a) formulate the questions for

the examinations that the students took; (b) prepare and present new projects or

solemne de distribucion de premios; 9o. Acordar el reglamento que ha de observar en sus reuniones; 10o. Remover al Secretario i Tesorero de la Universidad por mal desempeño de sus funciones. Para acordar la remocion de cualquiera de estos empleados se necesitan las dos terceras partes de los votos de los miembros presentes; i 11o. Cumplir los demas deberes que por este decreto se le imponen.

234

modify academic programs; (c) present a list of candidates to substitute for

proprietary Professors positions; (d) list the names of those Professors who

needed to be terminated; (e) hire or fire administrative employees; (f) present the

list of students who were eligible for degrees; and (g) establish official rules and

regulations for the School (ICFES, 1974a).

Rector

The Rector was the University head. He was in charge of managing the

economic, administrative, and academic aspects of the University. The students,

Professors, and all employees reported to the Rector. It had a four-year term. The

main functions of the Rector were:

(a) to call and preside over the meetings of the Great Council of the University (Gran Consejo de la Universidad), the Inspection and Governance Board (Junta de Inspección y Gobierno), the School Councils (Consejos de las Escuelas), the students’ examinations and commencements; (b) to approve the list of students who fulfilled the requirements to obtain their respective degrees; (c) to oversee the discipline of the University; (d) to visit and inspect the classes in order to verify that the policies of the University were fulfilled; (e) to keep a general record of Professors’ class attendance and verify that all the courses were being taught; (f) Present to the Director General courses deemed necessary or appropriate based on enrollment data; (h) to propose the removal of Professors and academic employees of the University; (i) to recruit and appoint substitute Professors to fill in for the proprietary Professors (catedráticos principales) when it was required; (j) to preside over the public events of the University; (k) to authorize expenditures established by the Treasurer, according to the budget; and (l) to prepare

83 The property Professor offered property Chairs or major Chairs (cátedra de propiedad) that were permanent. The substitute Chairs (cátedras de sustitución) were given to Professors filling in for those who were absent (Rodriguez, 1973).

235

economic rules and regulations for the University to be approved by the General Director of the University (Dirección General de la Universidad) (ICFES, 1974a, 651-652)84.

Rector of the School

This position oversaw the academic and administrative functioning of the

Schools. The Rector of the School had similar duties and responsibilities as those

established for a Dean in the general organization of other higher education

institutions. The Rector of a School was appointed for a period of four years,

having the following duties and responsibilities:

84 1º. Convocar i presidir el Gran Consejo i la Junta de Inspeccion, i presidir los Consejos de las Escuelas en sus reuniones mensuales, i en las demas, cuando lo estime conveniente. En los exámenes de cursos tanto anuales como intermedios, i en los grados, preside diariamente, alternando, alguno de los Consejos de las Escuelas; 2o Inspeccionar diariamente los pases i estudios que debe hacer las Escuelas, i visitar en cada mes, una vez por lo menos, las aulas durante las lecciones, para examinar si los cursantes asisten a ellas i si se observan las reglas establecidas; 3o. Velar para impedir que se relaje la disciplina que debe reinar en todos los actos; i cortar inmediatamente cualquier abuso corruptela que quiera introducirse; 4o. Presidir las asistencias i actos públicos de la Universidad; 5o. Remover libremente los Pasantes i demas empleados subalternos de las Escuelas, siempre que den motivo para ello; i nombrar interinamente la persona que debe reemplazarlo mientras el Consejo respectivo hace nuevo nombramiento; 6o. Espedir, en los términos prescritos en este decreto, los libramientos para que el Tesorero pague los sueldos i demas gastos de la Universidad; 7o. Velar por la buena administración i recaudación de las rentas de la Universidad i practicar mensualmente un exámen de los libros del Tesorero, i hacer subsanar toda falta u omisión que notare; 8o. Decretar la admision de grados, luego que el Consejo de la respectiva Escuela hubiere calificado el expediente; i someter su resolución a la Junta de Inspeccion i Gobierno; 9o. Llamar a los Catedráticos sustitutos, cuando falten los principales; i a falta de unos i otros, nombrar sustitutos provisionales, dando cuenta a la Direccion General, si la falta de aquellos debiere durar mas de dos meses; 10o. Proponer a la Dirección General los cursos que deben darse en cada año en las Escuelas con vista de los registros de matriculas; 11o. Poner en posesion de sus destinos a los empleados de la Universidad; 12o. Proponer a quienes corresponda, la remocion de los Superiores i Catedráticos que no cumplan con sus deberes; 13o Requerir a los Catedráticos que no concurran a dar las lecciones i a los demas actos que sean de su deber, para que lo verifiquen; 14o. Conferir los grados con las formalidades establecidas en este decreto;15o. Llevar un rejistro general de las faltas de asistencia de los Catedráticos, en el cual se incluirá mensualmente los registros de los Rectores de las Escuelas; i espedir con arreglo a estos registros i haciendo las deducciones debidas, los libramientos por sueldos; 16o. Formar el reglamento económico de la universidad, el de la Secretaria, i los demas que fueren necesarios para el arreglo de los diversos

236

(a) verifying that the courses were being taught properly by the Professors and keeping the Rector informed if the University when the Professors did not attend classes; (b) keeping student records including personal information (name, age, family origin, and parent’s name), attendance, and the respective grades; (c) to maintaining order and discipline in the School according to the rules and regulations; (d) ensuring that the rules and regulations were followed and taking disciplinary action if they were not; (e) informing the parents about a student’s bad behavior and performance; (f) managing enrollment in the classes offered by the Professors and to keeping the respective records; (g) making sure that the administrative employees of the School worked effectively and were punctual; and (h) assuming Rectoral duties in case of his absence, death, resignation, disability, or removal of the Rector (ICFES, 1974a)85.

servicios de la universidad, los cuales someterá aprobación de la Direccion Jeneral; i 17o. Cumplir con los demas deberes que le impongan este decreto i los reglamentos de la universidad. 85 1o. Cerciorarse de que los Catedráticos asisten con puntualidad a las clases, a la hora i por el tiempo señalado, dando cuenta al Rector de la Universidad de las faltas que note; 2o. Cuidar de la asistencia de los cursantes a las clases i demas actos a que deban concurrir, correjir a los que falten, i mantener el buen órden i disciplina durante dichos actos; 3o. Cumplir i hacer cumplir las órdenes superiores; 4o. Reemplazar al Rector de la Universidad cuando le corresponde, en sus faltas accidentales; 5o. Llevar un rejistro en el cual estén inscritos los nombres de todos los cursantes esternos, i de los internos si los hubiere con expresión de la edad i patria de cada uno, nombre de sus padres o acudientes, i delos cursos en que estén matriculados. En este rejistro incluirá todas las faltas en que incurrieren los cursantes, a paso, estudio o a cualquier otra funcion o ejercicio obligatorio, i asentará los actos de insubordinación e inmoralidad, o los de particular buena conducta que cada uno de ellos ejecutare. Tambien incluira en este rejistro las faltas de los cursantes a clase, i las notas relativas a aprovechamiento que consisten en los registros que deban pasarlo semanalmente los Catedráticos; 6o. Llevar un rejistro de asistencia de los Catedráticos en el cual anotará las faltas a clase o los actos a que tiene el deber de concurrir. El dia último de cada mes presentará al Rector de la Universidad una planilla de las faltas de asistencia de estos empleados durante el mes, a la cual acompañará los rejistros que deben pasarle los Catedráticos. 7o. Invilar los pasos, estudios i demas actos a que deben concurrir en comunidad los alumnos; presidir estos actos i mantener en ellos el buen órden i disciplina; 8o. Calificar las causales que presente los alumnos para no concurrir a pasos, estudios y otros actos obligatorios, i si las causales fueren suficientes, otorgar la licencia del caso hasta por veinticuatro horas; pero esta licencia no comprenderá la asistencia a las clases; 9o. Castigar las faltas que cometan los alumnos, i decidir las diferencias que se suciten entre ellos; 10o. Cuidar de que todos los empleados subalternos de la Escuela cumplan puntualmente sus deberes, dando cuenta al Rector dela Universidad en el caso de que las correcciones no basten para remediar las faltas; 11o. Dar aviso a los padres o recomendados de aquellos alumnos que no desmuestran disposición para el estudio, o que manifiesten absoluta desaplicación, i sobre los cuales no hayan hecho efecto las correcciones i consejos, a fin de que los saquen de la Escuela; 12o. Fijar, al principio de cada año escolar, los dias i horas en que se deben tener lugar los actos literios internos de la Escuela, i las horas en que deben comenzar las clases, los estudios i los pasos; i someter esta distribución a la aprobación del Rector de la Universidad sin cuyo requisito

237

Secretary

The Secretary of the University was also the Secretary of the Great

Council of the University (Gran Consejo de la Universidad) and of the Inspection

and Governance Board (Junta de Inspección y Gobierno). The Secretary was

appointed by the Great Council for a term of four years with the possibility of

being re-elected. Once the Secretary was appointed, he could not be removed by

the General Director of University Instruction. The main functions of the

Secretary were:

(a) to keep the minutes of the Great Council and Inspection and Governance Board meetings; (b) to write and authorize the Rector's agreements; (c) to keep the students’ records; (d) to maintain custody of the University documents ; (e) to maintain a file where grades and granted degrees were recorded; (f) to annually audit the inventory of university assets; and (g) to edit the University newspaper with support from the librarian and the Rectory (ICFES, 1974a, p. 654)86.

In the case of absence of the Secretary, he should be replaced by a

Professor who was a member of the Inspection and Governance Board. Reporting

no podrá llevarse a efecto; 13o. Hacer el recibimiento de los alumnos interno, si los hubiere; e 14o. Imponer la pena de expulsión de la Escuela, con acuerdo de Consejo respectivo, al alumno que se hubiere hecho acreedor de ella, dando inmediatamente cuenta al Rector de la Universidad. 86 1o. Presenciar las sesiones del Gran Consejo i de la Junta de Inspeccion i Gobierno, i estender i autorizar las actas de estas corporaciones; 2o. Redactar i autorizar las resoluciones del Rector del a Universidad; 3o. Llevar un libro en que asentará el Rejistro general de los alumnos inscritos en la Universidad; 4o. Custodiar los expedientes, documentos i demas papeles pertenecientes a la Universidad, i no dar copia de ellos sin mandato del Rector; 5o. Llevar los libros de grados, los registros de exámenes preparatorios i demas que exijan los reglamentos universitarios; 6o. Formar, al fin del año escolar, con vista de los inventarios que le deben pasar los Rectores de las Escuelas, el inventario general de la Universidad, i pasar una copia de él a la Dirección General; 7o. Desempeñar, con el Bibliotecario i bajo la dirección del Redactor del periódico de la Universidad.

238

to the Secretary was a Porter (portero-escribiente). He was appointed by the

Rector to help the Secretary with his duties as required (ICFES, 1974a).

Treasurer

The Treasurer was in charge of the collection and management of

University rents. The Great Council usually chose someone for this position. The

Treasurer was appointed for a term of four years with the possibility of being

reelected (ICFES, 1974a).

Vice-Rector and Pasantes

The position of Vice-Rector was created only in the Schools of Literature

and Arts and Civil and Military Engineering. It was a four year term, with the

option of re-election. The Vice-Rector’s main functions were related to the

behavior and discipline of the students in each School. Because of this, the Vice-

Rector was required to live in the same building as the students (ICFES, 1974a).

The Pasantes were students who assisted the Vice-Rector. The number of

Pasantes was determined by how many students were enrolled in each School.

The requirements for being appointed as a Pasante were to be a full-time student

who studied Literature and Philosophy. In addition, he or she had to be well-

behaved and of good character. The main functions of the Pasantes were to

support the Vice-Rector by monitoring student attendance, helping them solve

problems, applying the rules and regulations, and making sure that the buildings

239

and facilities were clean and maintained properly. The Pasantes were also on the

School Council; therefore, they could replace the first and second bedel when

necessary (ICFES, 1974a).

Decree of January 13 of 1868

This Decree clarified and expanded several aspects of the organizational

and governance dimension described in the Decree of September 22, 1867.

Article 1 stated that the Central Government would appoint the Rector of the

University, Rectors of Schools, Vice-Rectors, Secretary, Treasurer, Librarian, and

Pasantes. A Secretary of the Interior (Secretario del Interior) would be appointed

as the General Director of Public Instruction, according to the guidelines in

Decree 22 of 1867 (ICFES, 1974a).

Decree 1238 of 1892

This Decree reorganized the secondary and professional education of the

country. It had 35 Chapters and 347 Articles. This Decree made some changes in

academic and administrative areas of The National University of Colombia

(ICFES, 1974b). The difference between this decree and Decree 22 of 1867 was

that the University was organized academically organized into Schools. It

established an academic organization in the following Faculties:

Philosophy and Letters

Mathematic Sciences

240

Law and Political Sciences

Natural Sciences and

Medicine and Surgery (ICFES, 1974b, p. 1108).

In addition, the following Institutes and Schools would also be part of the

University:

School of Arts and Trades

Fine Arts School

National Academy of Music

School of Mines

Veterinary School

National Library

National Museum

Astronomy Observatory (ICFES, 1974b, p. 1108).

Figure 9. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1892

UNIVERSITY BOARD

RECTOR

FACULTY OR SCHOOLRECTOR

DIRECTIVE FACULTYCOUNCIL

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Decree 1238 of 1892

241

University Board

The University Board (Consejo Universitario) served as a higher

education consultant to the Central Government. The resolutions enacted by this

Council required governmental approval. Article 14 determined that this Council

be made up of the Minister of Education, who presided over it; the Rector of the

Minor College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario; the Rector of the National Lyceum;

the Rector of the College of Saint Bartholomew; the Rector of the Great College

of Nuestra Señora del Rosario; the Rector of the Faculty of Law; the Rector of the

Faculty of Mathematics; the Rector of the Faculty of Medicine and Natural

Sciences; and the Secretary of the University, who was also the Assistant Public

Instruction Minister (ICFES, 1974b).

Rector

The main changes made to the organization and governance dimensions of

the National University were that the Rector of the University was also made the

Minister of Public Instruction, and the Secretary of the University was the Sub-

Secretary of the Ministry of Public Instruction. The Rector was the head of the

University and was in charge of its academic and administrative aspects. He had

similar functions to those established in the Organic Decree of September 22,

1867. However, the Rector was not involved in verifying the class attendance of

Professors and students; instead, he had to verify the effectiveness of the

242

Faculties, Schools, and Institutes by establishing rules and regulations for each

one. He was also in charge of the salaries of the employees and approving leaves

of absence of up to ninety days, which could be remunerated or not remunerated,

depending on the case. Finally, he had to preside over the general degree

examinations and some academic activities (ICFES, 1974b).

Rector of Schools

The main change was that each Rector was named by the national Central

Government, which was different from the Decree of September 22, 1867 in

which the Rector’s term of office would be four years. This Decree established

that the position would be appointed without a fixed term. In other words, the

Rector could be appointed or removed at will. The Secretary of the University had

similar duties to those established in The Decree of September 22, 1867 (ICFES,

1974b).

Directive Faculty Council

The School Council was changed to a Directive Faculty Council (Consejo

Directivo de Facultad), which was made up of a Rector from each Faculty,

School, or Institute, and four Professors appointed by the Central Government of

the country. The substitutes participating in this Council were also named by the

Central Government. The main functions of this government body were

established by its own rules and regulations manual (ICFES, 1974b).

243

Law No. 039 of 1903 (October 26)

This legislation set out the rules and regulations of primary, secondary and

higher education. It established that education in the country should be organized

and directed by the Catholic Church. Regarding to higher education, Article 23

defined the institutions as follows:

Article 23: Professional Instruction will be offered by the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario in the Faculties of Natural Sciences and Medicine, Mathematics and Civil Engineering, Law and Political Sciences, in the Veterinary School and in the School of Dentistry, which were established in the capital of the Republic, together with the Departments of the Faculties listed in Article 33 of the present Law (ICFES, 1974b, p. 1238)87.

This legislation established the decentralization of the University

administration, which also weakened its organizational structure. The General

Rector position was eliminated; instead, each Faculty or School was managed by

a Rector. Article 25o established that each Faculty or School (Natural Sciences

and Medicine, Mathematics and Civil Engineering, Law and Political Sciences,

the Veterinary and Dental Schools) should be directed by a Directive Faculty

Council, the members of which were nominated by the Faculty or School Rector

and four Professors appointed by the Central Government (ICFES, 1974b). This

87 “Articulo 23: La instrucción profesional se dará la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, en las Facultades de Ciencias Naturales y Medicina, Matemáticas e Ingeniería Civil, Derecho y Ciencias Políticas, en la Escuela de Veterinaria y en el Colegio Dental establecidos en la capital de la Republica, así como en las Facultades de los Departamentos a que se refiere el Artículo 33 de la presente Ley".

244

Article was similar to Article 6o of the Decree 1238 of 1892 (ICFES, 1974b). The

National University had the following structure (See Figure 10):


UNIVERSITY BOARD

FACULTY RECTOR


Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Law 039 of 1903

University Board

Rector of Faculties


University Board

The University Board (Consejo Universitario) was a consulting entity for

the Central Government in matters relating to higher education as was stated in

the previous decree. However, several of the members, who had been appointed

by Decree 1238 of 1892, were asked to leave. Article 27o of this Decree declared

that this Council would be made up of the Minister of Public Instruction, who

presided over it; and the Rectors of Faculties and Schools (ICFES, 1974b, p.

1239).

245

Rector of Faculties or Schools

The Rector of Faculties or Schools was appointed for a three year term.

The autonomy of the University was reduced as stated in Article 26o, which

determined that the Professors (of the University were to be appointed by the

Central Government from a list of candidates presented by the Directive Faculty

Council of each Faculty or School. The Professors could not be removed if they

were members in good standing (ICFES, 1974b).

Decree No. 491 of 1904

This Decree also regulated the educational system of the country. Its

Articles were almost equal to those written in the Law 39 of 1903 (ICFES,

1974b). Therefore, it was not analyzed and discussed in the research.

Law 68 of 1935

This legislation was one of the most important ones because it restructured

the academic and administrative organization of the National University. It helped

centralize the organization and governance of the University by moving all

Faculties and Schools onto one campus. This legislation reestablished the

University’s autonomy by limiting intervention from the Central Government in

the decisions made and selection of head positions and Professorships. It was also

important because it allowed students to participate in academic decision-making.

246

In addition, the academic structure of the University was divided into different

Departments.

Law 68 had 5 chapters and 30 articles (Universidad Nacional, 2000).

According to Article 2, the National University of Colombia was organized into

Faculties, national professional Schools (escuelas profesionales nacionales) and

research Institutes as well as the National Conservatory of Music, the National

Astronomy Observatory, Museums, and the National Institute of Radium”

(Universidad Nacional, 2000, p. 93). The University structure was as follows (See

Figure 11):


FACULTIES ORSCHOOLS

DEAN OR HEAD

ADVISORY SENATE

RECTOR

ACADEMIC SENATE

PROCURATOR-SYNDIC

STUDENTBOARD

TEACHING ANDRESEARCH UNITS

FACULTYCOUNCIL

DIRECTOR

TEACHINGSECRETARY

ACADEMICSECRETARY

ADMINISTRATIVESECRETARY

TEACHING ANDRESEARCH COUNCIL

PROFESSIONALCOUNCIL

PUBLIC RELATIONCOMMITTEE

FINANCECOMMITTEE

STUDENTBOARD

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Law 68 of 1935

247

Board of Trustees (Consejo Directivo)

Rector

Syndic (Síndico)

General Secretary (Secretario General)

Academic Senate (Consejo Académico)

Student Council (Consejo Estudiantil)

Higher Faculty88 (Facultades Mayores)

Lower Faculty, or Professional Schools89 (Facultades Menores o

Escuelas)(Universidad Nacional, 2000, p. 94-99).

Board of Trustees (Directive Council)

The Board of Trustees was the most important governing body of the

University. This Board replaced the University Council. The most important

changes were related to its integration and duties. It was made up of nine

members: the Minister of Education, who presided over it; the Rector, who was

the Vice-President of the Board, and seven members who were able to vote and

were appointed for two-year terms. The members were two representatives from

the National Government who had held the position of Minister of Education,

Rector of the University, Dean, or University Professor (Universidad Nacional,

88 Each Higher Faculty was directed by a Dean, a higher Faculty Senate, and a Secretary. 89 Each Lower Faculty or Professional School, or the University Services was directed by a Head, a Council, and a Secretary.

248

2000, p. 94-95). Other members would be elected by the Faculties and Schools of

the University. The other four members were two Professors elected by their

peers, and two students elected by the Student Council (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2000).

The main functions of this Board were:

(a) to select the Rector of the University from a group of candidates presented by the President of the country; (b) to select the Deans of the Faculty, the Heads of the School and University Services from a group of candidates presented by the Rector; (c) to approve the granting of tenure to instructors and assistant Professors and the rest of the employees; (d) to approve the annual budget; (e) to approve any contract or agreement signed by the University that exceeded the amount of 100 pesos; (f) to accept or reject endowments and grants; (g) to create and organize new Faculties, Schools, and University services; (h) formulate or eliminate the academic and administrative rules and regulations for the whole University; (i) to run University services such as the Library, Physical Education, Publishing, and Public Service; (j) to approve plans, teaching methods, research methodologies, and other rules and regulations presented by the Academic Senate (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 95)90.

90(a) Elegir el Rector de la Universidad de terna presentada por el Presidente de la República. (b) elegir los Decanos de las Facultades y los Directores de las Escuelas y Servicios Universitarios que constituyen la Universidad, de ternas que presente el Rector; (c) aprobar los nombramientos que haga el Rector de profesores, instructores, asistentes y demás empleados administrativos y docentes; (d) hacer anualmente los presupuestos de la Universidad; (e) aprobar los contratos que celebre la Universidad y cuya cuantía exceda de cien pesos; (f) aceptar o repudiar donaciones, herencias o legados;(g) crear y organizar nuevas Facultades, Escuelas o Servicios Universitarios; (h) crear y suprimir, ajustándose a las normas de esta Ley, y de los reglamentos, los empleos administrativos y docentes de la Universidad; (i) crear y reglamentar los Servicios Universitarios, como de biblioteca, de educación física, editoriales, de extensión universitaria, etc;(j) dictar los reglamentos de la Universidad; (k) aprobar los planes, métodos de enseñanza y de investigación y demás reglamentos que le someta el Consejo Académico; y (l) las demás que se desprendan de la Ley.

249

Rector

The requirements for the appointment of Rector were: to be over 30 years

of age, Colombian citizen, and had been appointed on positions such as Minister

of Education, Rector, Dean, or University Professor. The most important Rectoral

functions were:

(a) “to present to the Board of Trustees the list of candidates for the selection of Deans of Faculty and Heads of Schools and University Services; (b) to appoint professors and the rest of administrative staff after having had the approval of the Board of Trustees; (c) to present, to the Board of Trustees, the annual budget proposal for the University; (d) to authorize the Syndic (Síndico) the fulfillment of contracts required for the smooth functioning of the University; (e) to ensure the implementation of the rules and regulations and the arrangements provided by the Board of Trustees and the Academic Senate; and (f) to present an annual report about the functioning of the University” (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 95-96)91.

Syndic

The Syndic was in charge of University finances, and was appointed for a

term of two years. The Syndic replaced the Treasurer position which had been

established in Decree of September 22 of 1867. The main requirements were to

have had experience in this field and be approved by the Board of Trustees and

91 (a) presentar al consejo Director trenas para la elección de Decanos de las Facultades y Directores de Escuelas y Servicios Universitarios que constituyen la Universidad; (b) nombrar, con la aprobación del Consejo directivo, los profesores, instructores, asistentes y demás empleados administrativos y docentes de la Universidad; (c) presentar al Consejo Directivo los proyectos de presupuestos anuales de la universidad;(d) autorizar al Syndic (Síndico) para la celebración de todos los contratos necesarios para el gobierno y administración de la Universidad; (e) velar por el fiel cumplimiento de las leyes y de los estatutos, reglamentos y demás disposiciones emanadas por el Consejo Directivo y del Consejo Académico;(f) rendir

250

the National Auditing of the Country (Contraloría Nacional). The most important

functions of this position were:

(a) to be the legal representation in the civil and juridical acts of the University; (b) to develop, under the Rector’s direction, the University annual budget; (c) to conduct an annual inventory of all University assets, (d) to collect and receive the money and goods owed to the University; (e) to pay expenses and debts; and (f) to prepare a detailed report for the Board of Trustees and the National Auditor of the country (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 96-97)92.

General Secretary

The General Secretary and the Syndic were appointed for a period of two

years. The General Secretary had the following duties:

(a) to authorize and disseminate the minutes resulted from the Board of Trustees meetings along with the decisions made there; (b) to authorize resolutions proposed by the Rector; (c) to maintain the books, archives, and records of the University and dispatch authentic copies of them when required; and (d) to certify the degrees conferred by the University (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000)93.

anualmente al Consejo Directivo un informe sobre la marcha de la Universidad; y (g)las demás funciones que le correspondan conforme a las leyes o los reglamentos universitarios. 92(a) Llevar la presentación jurídica de la Universidad en todos los actos civiles y en toda clase de actuaciones judiciales o extrajudiciales en que aquélla haya de intervenir como persona jurídica; (b) elaborar, de acuerdo con el Rector, los proyectos de presupuestos anuales de la Universidad;(c) hacer, al entrar en funciones y anualmente, un inventario de los bienes muebles e inmuebles, títulos, acciones, etc., que pertenezcan a la Universidad; (d) cobrar y recibir todos los dineros u otras especies que se adeuden a la Universidad y hacer los pagos de cualesquiera obligaciones de la misma; (e) llevar la contabilidad general de la Universidad bajo inspección del Consejo Directivo y de la Contraloría General de la República; y (f) las demás funciones que le correspondan conforme a las leyes o reglamentos universitarios. 93 (a) Extender y autorizar las actas de las sesiones del Consejo Directivo de la Universidad y los acuerdos que emanen dicha entidad;(b) autorizar con su firma las resoluciones del Rector;(c) llevar los libros, archivos y registros de la Universidad y expedir copias auténticas tomadas de ellos por orden del Rector; (d) autorizar los títulos expedidos por la Universidad; y (e) las demás funciones que le correspondan conforme a las leyes o reglamentos universitarios.

251

Academic Senate

The Academic Senate advised the Rector and The Board of Trustees in all

academic matters. It was made up of the Deans of the Faculties and the Head of

the Schools and University Services. The duties and responsibilities of this Senate

were:

(a) to select a President for the Academic Council, who would represent the Senate under the Rector and the Board of Trustees; (b) to preside over the teaching and research methods; promotion in the academic ranks; requirements for granting certificates, grades, and degrees, admission requirements, and the annual academic schedule for exams and tests. These features required the approval of the Board of Trustees (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p.97-98)94.

Dean The Dean of each Faculty was elected by the Board of Trustees from a

group of candidates presented by the Rector. The Dean´s main functions were:

(a) to ensure that the rules and regulations from the the Board of Trustees, the Rector, the Academic Senate, and the Faculty Senate were carried out; (b) to present an annual budget of the Faculty to the Rector of the University according to the Faculty Senate; (c) to present an annual report on Faculty management; (d) to present guidelines regarding teaching and research methods, (which would require the approval of the Faculty

94 (a) Nombrar su Presidente, quien lo representará ante el Consejo Directivo y el Rector de la Universidad; b) Reglamentar, con la aprobación del Consejo Directivo, lo relativo a planes y métodos de enseñanza e investigación; ascenso en el Escalafón Académico; requisitos para otorgar certificados, títulos, grados y calificaciones de los estudiantes y para la admisión y matrícula de los mismos; la división del año académico y su calendario y los exámenes y pruebas de trabajo y estudio y, en general, las funciones puramente académicas de la Universidad.

252

Senate); and (e) to set out the Secretary’s duties (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 98-99)95.

Higher Faculty Senate

The Faculty Senate was made up of five members. These included the

Dean, who presided over it; two Professors elected by their peers for a term of

four years, one Professor, and one student elected by their peers for a term of two

years (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 99). The main functions of

this Senate were:

(a) to select the Secretary of the Faculty, (b) to establish the rules and regulations of the Faculty according to the policies established by the Board of Trustees; (c) to approve the annual budget proposal; and (d) to approve the projects related to teaching and research methods (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000, p. 99)96.

Lower Faculties, School, and University Service

As mentioned before, the National University was organized academically

into Higher Faculties and Lower Faculties. Each Lower Faculty, School, or

University Service was directed by a Head, a Lower Faculty Senate, and a 95 (a) cumplir y hacer cumplir los reglamentos, acuerdos, resoluciones y órdenes emanados del Consejo Académico y del Consejo de la respectiva Facultad, así como las leyes y decretos sobre la materia; (b) presentar anualmente, de acuerdo con el Consejo un anteproyecto de presupuesto de su respectiva Facultad al Rector de la Universidad para los efectos del ordinal c) en el artículo 11 de la presente Ley; (c) rendir un informe anual sobre la marcha de la Facultad al Rector de la Universidad; (d) presentar al Consejo Académico, de acuerdo con el Consejo de la Facultad, los proyectos de reglamentación de los planes y métodos de enseñanza y de investigación y demás materiales a que se refiere el ordinal b) del artículo 14 de la presente Ley; (e) señalar las funciones del Secretario de la Facultad, y (f) las demás que le correspondan conforme a las leyes o a los reglamentos universitarios. 96 (a) Expedir el reglamento interno de la respectiva Facultad, de acuerdo con el Consejo Directivo de la Universidad; (b) aprobar el anteproyecto de presupuesto anual de la respectiva Facultad; y (c) aprobar los proyectos a que se refiere el ordinal b) del artículo 14o. de la presente Ley.

253

Secretary who had the same responsibilities as the Dean, the Higher Faculty

Senate, and the Secretary, respectively (Universidad Nacional de Colombia,

2000).

Student Council

Each Faculty or School was to have a Student Council whose members

had a proportionate number of years to those in their respective fields of study.

The student representing each year of study should be elected by the majority of

votes obtained by a voting process. All Student Councils representing each

Faculty or School would establish the University Assembly that elected the

students who would be a representative at the Board of Trustees meetings

(Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2000). As a result, the concept of students’

participation in the governmental bodies of the University was introduced.

Agreement No. 66 of 1939 (Board of Trustees)

This agreement was enacted by the Board of Trustees in order to fix and

complement the internal statutes of the University given in the Law 68 of 1935.

This Agreement ruled, added, and clarified some duties related to the academic,

administrative, and economics aspects described in the Law 68 of 1935. For

instance, it stated that the Syndic, Deans, Head of Schools and Institutes could

attend the Board of Trustees meetings depending on the agenda subjects and their

need to know. These guests were welcome to participate, but could not vote

254

(Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939, p. 1). In addition, it established

that the Directive Councils of the Faculties and Schools should regularly send

copies of the minutes of their meetings to the Board of Trustees. The Secretaries

of the Faculties and Schools, and other employees who managed cash should give

to the Syndic a deposit according to the policies established by the National

Auditing of the Republic (Contraloría Nacional de la República) (Acuerdo del

Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939)

Rector

In addition to those functions described in Article 11 of Law 68 of 1935,

Agreement 66 established that the Rector was in charge of (a) coordinating the

activities organized by the Faculties, Schools, Institutes, Departments, and

University Services; (b) giving permission to leave the University for a term not

to exceed ninety days; (c) appointing, with the approval of the Board of Trustees,

Professors, assistants, instructors, and the administrative employees; and (d)

delegating to the Deans and Heads the hiring and firing of the services personnel.

The appointment of the Rector position was confirmed by the Board of Trustees

(Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939).

General Secretary

Agreement 66 of 1939 added other responsibilities to this position which

were:

255

(a) to be the Secretary to the Rector, Board of Trustees, and Academic Senate and keep a record of the new regulations enacted by them; (b) to keep on file all official documents, books, agreements, resolutions, and acts (among others) of the Board of Trustees, Academic Senate, and the Rectorship; and (c) to ensure that the Personnel Chief of the University kept an accurate record of student enrollment as well as for academic and administrative personnel (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939, p.3-4)97.

Syndic The duties of the Syndic were also expanded under Agreement 66 of 1939

as follows: (a) maintain university assets according to the inventory; (b) ensure

the implementation of appropriate audit procedures for the University by

appointing an Auditor. This person had the responsibility of freely reviewing any

and all financial documents, Syndic activities and witnessing, authorizing, and

signing the financial reports. The duties and responsibilities of the Audit were

determined by the General Audit of the country; and (c) delegate the custody of

the Laboratories by giving them the responsibility of the inventory of these goods

and equipments on the Secretaries of the Faculties, Schools, and Institutes

(Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939) (Universidad Nacional de

Colombia, 2000).

97 (a) Desempeñar las funciones de Secretario del Rector, del Consejo Directivo y del Consejo Académico; llevar el registro de los Actos emanados de esas entidades y autenticar sus providencias; llevar y custodiar los libros de Acuerdos, Resoluciones, Proposiciones, etc., del Consejo Directivo, del consejo académico y de la Rectoría; mantener bajo su cuidado los archivos de las autoridades universitarias y expedir y autenticar las copias que ordene la Auditoría. b) Vigilar que el Jefe del personal universitario lleve registro permanente de matrículas y del personal docente y administrativo de la universidad.

256

Dean of Faculties and Head of Schools and Institutes

Agreement 66 of 1939 decreed that the Deans’ or Heads’ additional

responsibilities would be:

(a) to remain in his or her office at least four hours a day; (b) to ensure that the teaching, research plans, academic planning and programs, academic schedules, and course schedules were met; (c) to authorize the enrollment and implementation of the academic program for students; (d) to present a monthly report about the development, activities, and fulfillment of duties performed in the Faculty or School; (e) to preside over the respective School or Faculty Council; (f) to apply the appropriate sanctions to the students when rules and regulations were broken; (j) to present, according to the Faculty or School Council, the proposed annual budget; and (k) to propose modifications to the rules and regulations of the University as required (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939, p.6)98.

Faculty or School Directive Council

The main duties and responsibilities of the Faculty or School Directive

Council (Consejo Directivo de Facultad ó Escuela) were (a) to create and enforce

the rules and regulations of the respective academic unit for the approval of the

Board of Trustees; (b) to prepare the annual Faculty or School budget; (c) to

approve the Faculty academic schedule, which also required the approval of the

98 (a) Asistir por lo menos cuatro (4) horas a su despacho. b) Velar porque se cumplan los programas de enseñanza; porque se desarrollo se haga completo durante el año, por la competencia docente de cada profesor y por la asiduidad de éste y de los alumnos. Dentro del espíritu de este reglamento, se entiende que los profesores decanos y profesores directores son responsables de los puntos que anteceden, para lo cual deben visitar permanentemente los distintos cursos que se dicten en la dependencia a su cargo; c) Autorizar las matrículas de los estudiantes, ciñéndose estrictamente a los planes de estudio aprobados por el Consejo Directivo; d)Informar mensualmente al Consejo Directivo sobre la manera como cumplen sus deberes los profesores y empleados de la Facultad o Escuela respectiva; e) Mantener conforme a este reglamento el orden y la disciplina dentro de la dependencia a su cargo…… (g) Elaborar y hacer cumplir los horarios de clases y demás actos internos del establecimiento;….l) Elaborar de cuerdo con el Consejo, el anteproyecto de presupuesto de gastos de la Facultad o Escuela;…..Llamar por analogía de interpretación vacíos en los reglamentos, previo concepto del Consejo y dando de ello cuenta a la Rectoría;….n) Proponer las modificaciones reglamentarias que estime conveniente…..

257

Academic Senate; (d) to propose the promotion of Professors according to their

academic rank; and (e) to elect a Secretary from a list of candidates presented by

the respective Dean or Head (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939).

Secretary of the Faculty or School

The Secretaries of the Faculties or Schools had to be in their offices for at

least four hours a day. They were in charge of:

(a) assisting the Dean or Head; (b) maintaining a file or special archive on the Faculty or School, the enrollment, grades, and attendance records of students; (c) providing student records and books containing the resolutions and agreements enacted by the Dean or Head, to the General Secretary of the University; (d) ensuring that supplies needed for the development of curricula were provided to the Professors; (e) keeping a record of Professors and administrative personnel attendance; (f) assisting the Dean or Head in the enforcement of rules and regulations; and (g) performing an annual inventory of assets of the respective Faculty or School (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66, 1939, p.7-8) 99.

Decree No. 0136 of 1958

This Decree established that the University would be autonomous, with

legal and political status of its own (personería jurídica). It introduced important

changes to the academic and administrative organization of the University. From

99 (a) Desempeñar las Secretarías del Decano o Director y del Consejo de la dependencia; b) Conservar el archivo especial de la Facultad o Escuela; c) Llevar el libro de matrículas y remitir a la Secretaría General de la Universidad, quince días después de cerradas la matrículas, una relación pormenorizada de éstas;….. e) Llevar los libros de Resoluciones y Actas del Decano o Director y del Consejo; f) Cuidar de que oportunamente sean provistos de los elementos de clase y de trabajo de la Facultad o Escuela; g) Registrar la entrega de los elementos e instrumental requerido por el profesorado para funciones docentes y de investigación, previa autorización del Decano o Director; h) Contribuir con el Decano o Director al cumplimiento de la disciplina del

258

an academic perspective, the University would be divided into Faculties,

Professional Schools, Departments, Institutes and Teaching and Research Units

(Unidades Docentes e Investigativas) (ASCUN, 1961). From the organizational

and governance point of view, the University was organized as follows (See

Figure 12):


FACULTIES ORSCHOOLS

DEAN OR HEAD

ADVISORY SENATE

RECTOR

ACADEMIC SENATE

PROCURATOR-SYNDIC

STUDENTBOARD

TEACHING ANDRESEARCH UNITS

FACULTYCOUNCIL

DIRECTOR

TEACHINGSECRETARY

ACADEMICSECRETARY

ADMINISTRATIVESECRETARY

TEACHING ANDRESEARCH COUNCIL

PROFESSIONALCOUNCIL

PUBLIC RELATIONCOMMITTEE

FINANCECOMMITTEE

STUDENTBOARD

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Decree 136 of 1958.

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura)

establecimiento y de las disposiciones de orden académico y administrativo de la Universidad; i)

259

Academic Senate (Consejo Academico)

Rector

Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries (Secretarios

de Docencia, Académico y Administrativo)

Procurator (Procurador)- Syndic (Síndico)….

Dean or Head of Faculties, Schools, or Teaching and Research

Units (Decano o Director de Facultades, Escuelas o Unidades

Docentes e Investigativas) …” (ASCUN, 1961, p. 46).

Advisory Senate

The Board of Trustees was replaced by the Advisory Senate. According

to Article 4, one of the main functions of this body was to prevent the influence of

any political or governmental party in the administration and teaching of the

University (ASCUN, 1961, p. 46). Even though it had nine members like the

Board of Trustees in the former legislation, its composition changed drastically as

follows:

the Minister of Education or his or her delegate;

the Minister of Economy or his or her delegate;

a delegate from the Permanent Higher Council of Education (should be a former Rector of the University);

Las demás que le asignen los reglamentos y resoluciones y que corresponden a su cargo.

260

a Dean or Head of the School or Teaching and Research Unit (should be elected by the Academic Senate);

a delegate elected by fellow Professors of the University;

a student delegate elected by his or her peers in the different collegial bodies;

a delegate from the National Associations and Corporations elected from a group of candidates presented previously to the Academic Senate by the representatives of those organizations;

a delegate from Catholic Church (appointed by the Archbishop of Bogotá); and

a delegate from the parents of the students He or she must have at least one child enrolled in the University and on a list of eight representatives from a general list of parents that in each opportUnit should be presented to the Academic Senate. The Rector could voice his opinions, but did not have a vote (ASCUN, 1961, p. 55).

The Advisory Senate had regular meetings twice a month and established

its own rules and regulations as well as the responsibilities that each of its

members would have in each meeting. The term of appointment for each member

was as follows: the delegate from the Permanent Higher Council of Education,

three years; the Dean or Head of the School or Teaching and Research Unit, the

delegate from the National Associations or Corporations, the delegate of the

Professors, and the delegated of the students' parents were named for two years;

and finally, a student representative was appointed for one year (ASCUN, 1961).

The main duties of the Advisory Senate were similar to those stated in the

Law 68, 1935, but it had some variations. In general, this governmental body

261

appointed the Rector, elected the Deans and Heads of Schools and Teaching and

Research Units from a group of three candidates presented by the Rector. It chose

the representatives for the different governmental bodies of the University,

approved the establishment of new academic programs or units previously

approved by the Academic Senate, and finally, it approved the University annual

budget (ASCUN, 1961).

The requirements to be member of the Advisory Senate were to be a

native Colombian, over thirty years old, hold a professional degree, held office as

a Rector, Dean of a Faculty, or Director of a Scientific or Research Institute for a

term not less than a year, or to have been a University Professor for no fewer than

five years. The fulfillment of these requirements was waived for the Minister of

Education, the Minister of Economy, the representative of the students' parents,

and the student representative (ASCUN, 1961).

Academic Senate

The composition of the Academic Senate had few modifications compared

to the Law 68, 1935. It was made up of the Rector, the Deans of the Faculties, the

Heads of the Schools and Teaching and Research Units, the Teaching, Academic,

and Administrative Secretaries, and the Syndic, who played more of a supportive

role (ASCUN, 1961, 46). This legislation added administrative functions to the

Senate’s responsibilities. It is important to point out that this Senate had only

academic responsibilities in the Agreement 66 of 1939, which meant that the

262

academic and administrative aspects of the University were managed by the

academic community to stop any outside political interference. The main duties of

this Senate were:

(a) to appoint the President and the Secretary, and create its own rules and regulations; (b) to select the teaching, administrative, and academic secretaries, as well as the Syndic, from a list of candidates presented by the Rector; (c) to select the subjects of study that the teaching, administrative, and academic secretaries would be responsible for; (d) to structure the teaching, research, students, and administration according to this Law; (e) to present proposals for new programs or academic units for presentation to the Advisory Senate; (f) to approve the teaching and research plans presented by the different Faculty, Schools or academic units; (g) to equalize the academic load on the Professors as well as the employees’ administrative load; (h) to make rulings on the academic rank of Professors; and (i) to create a Relationship Committee. From an administrative perspective, this Senate had the responsibility for approving the annual budget and eliminating positions; (l) accepting or refusing endowments or gifts offered to the University; (m) to approve agreements made by the University; (n) ruling on university academic programs; and (o) keeping the rules and regulations, policies, and statutes current and making sure they are always correct (ASCUN, 1961, p. 47)100.

100 (a) Elegir su Presidente, designar su secretario y darse su propio reglamento; b) Elegir los Secretarios docente, académico y administrativo y el Procurator (Procurador) - Syndic (Síndico), de ternas presentadas por el Rector; c) Reglamentar la distribución según la naturaleza de las materias de los asuntos que deban ser atendidos por las Secretarías decente, académica y administrativa; d) Organizar la estructura de las dependencias decentes, investigativas de acuerde con las normas establecidas en este Estatuto; e) Aprobar, para que sea aceptada por la Consiliatura, la creación de nuevas dependencias o unidades decentes o de investigación; y f) Aprobar los planes de enseñanza o de investigación que le ser atendidos que le sometan los Consejos de las diferentes unidades decentes o investigativas, g) Fijar el sistema de calificaciones de exámenes de pruebas de admisión o matrículas; aceptar la división del año académico y su calendario, y establecer los requisitos para el otorgamiento de certificados de estudios, de títulos y grades; h) Aprobar el presupuesto anual de la Universidad, presentarlo por el Rector, para su adopción definitiva por la Consiliatura. i) Servir de cuerpo consultivo a las entidades encargadas de autorizar el ejercicio profesional; j) Aprobar el presupuesto anual de la Universidad y que sobrepasen la cuantía que fija el mismo Consejo; k) Aceptar o repudiar donaciones, herencias y legales; ll) Fijar las asignaciones del personal decente, investigativo y administrativo de la Universidad; m) Organizar la Carrera Administrativa de la Universidad; n) Organizar la carrera del profesorado en la Universidad y reglamentar el escalafón académico; o) Declarar la vacancia de las cátedras de acuerde con el estatuto profesoral; p) Integrar y reglamentar el

263

Rector

The Rector of the University continued to be considered as the head of the

institution. He was appointed by the Advisory Senate for a term of four years. The

requirements for being named to this position were like those established for

being member of the Advisory Senate. The Rector was in charge of coordinating

the different teaching and research units of the University with the support of the

teaching, academic, and administrative secretaries and the Syndic. The main

duties of the Rector were similar to those established in the former legislation.

The most important differences were those related to the appointment of

individuals for the new positions established in this legislation (ASCUN, 1961).

Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries

The Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries were appointed

by the Academic Senate from a list of candidates presented by the Rector. These

Secretaries were in charge of advising and supporting the Rector in all aspects

related to the academic development of the University. Their main functions were

to present an annual report of the Secretary’s activities, and ensure that the rules

and regulations enacted by the Advisory Senate, the Academic Senate, and the

Rector were enforced (ASCUN, 1961).

Comité de Relaciones; q) Velar por el fiel cumplimiento de las leyes, estatutos, reglamentos y demás disposiciones relacionadas con la Universidad, y r) Las demás que se desprendan de la Ley, los estatutos y reglamentos.

264

Syndic

The Syndic was appointed by the Academic Senate (Consejo Académico)

from a list of candidates presented by the Rector. In general, he was in charge of

the economics and financial aspects of the University, and had the same duties as

those established in Law 68 of 1935 (ASCUN, 1961).

Dean or Head of the Teaching and Research Units

As mentioned before, the University was academically organized into

Faculties, Schools, or teaching and research units. Each unit was managed by a

Dean or a Head, a Council, and a Secretary. The Dean or Head was appointed by

the Academic Senate. In order to qualify for this position, the person must be a

Colombian citizen, hold a professional degree, and have been a Professor of any

course of study related to the academic unit. The main duties of this position were

similar to those described in the former legislation; however, Decree No. 0136 of

1958 added some duties: (a) to present to the Rector the list of Professors and

research personnel for his or her approval; (b) to present to the Academic Council

the list of students who fulfilled the requirements for granted degrees; and (c) to

name or remove the Secretary from the respective academic unit (ASCUN, 1961).

Academic Units Council

This Council was made up of the Dean or the Head, who presided over it;

a full time Professor designated by the Advisory Senate, a Professor elected by his

265

or her peers in the same academic unit, a student elected by the student body of

this academic unit, and a representative of the National Association or

Corporations appointed by the Advisory Senate. The term of appointment for the

members of this Council was of two years (except for the Dean or the Head and

the Professor, who were designated by the Advisory Senate for three-year terms),

and the student who was named for a year. This Council had similar functions to

those established for the Higher Faculty Senate described in Law 68 of 1935.

However, the most important change was that it had to present the list of

candidates for the Dean or Head position to the Rector (ASCUN, 1961).

Relation Committee

This Committee was created in order to promote and maintain

relationships with people, associations and foundations at the national and

international level which could bring support and collaboration to the University

in the academic, economic, teaching, and/or research fields. The Academic Senate

was was responsible for presenting the rules and regulations for this Committee to

its members (ASCUN, 1961).

Financing Committee

The Financial Committee was established to study and prepare proposals

related to creating and obtaining different sources of incomes as well as helping to

plan the investment that the University should make for its development. The

266

Advisory Senate was in charge of defining this mission, as well as determining

each member’s term of service (ASCUN, 1961).

Law 65 of 1963 (December 10)

This Law changed the organizational structure of the University by

restructuring the academic units and therefore their organization and governance.

Academically, it was organized into Faculties, Institutes, Schools, and

Departments according to Article 3. Similarly, Article 4 confirmed the autonomy

of the University to organize, govern and write its own rules and regulations at the

academic and administrative levels (ICFES, 1974c). The government of the

University was organized as follows:

Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario)

Rector

Academic Senate (Consejo Académico)

Directive Council of Faculties and Schools (Consejo Directivo de

las Facultades y Escuelas)” (ICFES, 1974c, p. 2380)

Faculty Deans or School Heads (Decanos de Facultades o

Directores de Escuelas)

General Secretary (Secretario General)

Syndic (Síndico)

267

Board of Trustees

This law reinstated the Board of Trustees (nine people) and did away with

the Advisory Senate. Therefore, the positions of Permanent Higher Council of

Education, Parents’ Representative, and the representatives from the National

Association and Corporations were eliminated. The new Board members included

an alumni representative101, another representative from the student body who

was elected by the Student Assembly; and one representative of the National

Academies elected by the Presidents of the Academies. The other members of this

Board listed in Decree 0136 of 1958 remained the same. The Rector could

participate in the meetings, but did not have the right to vote (ICFES, 1974c).

These changes meant that its main duties were also changed; the academic

and administrative responsibilities were reinstated. According to Article 10, the

most important functions were:

(a) to establish and adopt its own rules and regulations; (b) to elect the Rector for a term of three years, and to elect the Deans of Faculties and Heads of Schools from a list of candidates presented by the Rector for a term of two years; (c) to enforce the rules and regulations for the Professorship, student organizations, alumni associations, and the administrative personnel of the University; (d) to approve the proposals of the Academic Senate for the creation, modification, or elimination of Faculties, Schools, Institutes, Departments, and Academic Units; (e) to approve teaching and research plans, student grades, examinations, tuition systems, the Academic Schedule, the requirements for study certifications, and degrees presented by the Academic Senate; (f) to implement the University budget; (g) to create or eliminate academic or administrative

101 This representative was elected by the alumni members of the Directive Council of the Faculties or Schools.

268

positions; (h) to confirm the appointment of Professors and administrative personnel; (i) to accept or reject endowments and gifts; (j) to approve agreements and contracts; (k) to impose disciplinary sanctions according to the rules and regulations of the University; (l) to create the Advisory Committees for Faculties and Schools; (m) organize a student affairs services and Professors' services according to the Higher Student Council, and the Professors' Association; and (n) to approve the internal rules and regulations of the Faculties and Schools presented by the Academic Senate (ICFES, 1974c, p. 2381)102.

Academic Senate

The composition of the Academic Senate continued to be similar to that

established in Decree No. 0136 of 1958 but with a few changes. Some of them

were related to the academic modification to the University’s structure. This

Senate now included representatives from the Faculties or Schools established in

102 (a) Expedir su propio reglamento; b) Expedir el Estatuto Orgánico de la Universidad en desarrollo de la presente ley, y dictar los reglamentos respectivos; c) Elegir el Rector para el período de tres (3) años; d) Elegir Decanos de las Facultades y Directores de Escuelas e Institutos para períodos de dos (2) años, de ternas que presente el Rector, quien las elaborará de acuerdo con lo que se dispone en el ordinal a) del artículo 17º de la presente ley; e) Expedir los estatutos del profesorado, de las organizaciones estudiantiles, de las asociaciones de antiguos alumnos y del personal administrativo con base en la relación de derecho público que lo vincule a la Universidad; f) Aprobar, a propuesta del Consejo Académico, la creación, modificación o supresión de Facultades, Escuelas, Institutos, Departamentos, decanatos de estudios; g) Aprobar los planes de enseñanza o de investigación, los sistemas de calificaciones, de exámenes y de matrículas, el calendario académico y los requisitos para la expedición de certificados de estudios, títulos y grados que le someta el Consejo Académico. h) Expedir el presupuesto anual de la Universidad; i) Crear y suprimir los cargos docentes y administrativos de la Universidad y fijar las asignaciones y prestaciones; j) Confirmar los nombramientos de profesores y auxiliares de docencia, una vez cumplido lo que disponga el estatuto del profesorado para las designaciones respectivas; k) Autorizar la aceptación y repudiación de auxilios, donaciones, herencias y legados; l) Aprobar los contratos celebrados por la Universidad y que sobrepasen la cuantía que fijen los reglamentos; ll) Imponer las sanciones disciplinarias cuya aplicación le esté reservada por el estatuto orgánico, y conocer en segunda instancia de las sanciones para las cuales dicho estatuto conceda recurso de apelación ante el Consejo Superior; m) Crear comités asesores de la Universidad o de las Facultades y Escuelas; n) Organizar los servicios de bienestar estudiantil y del profesorado, de acuerdo con el Consejo Superior Estudiantil y la Asociación de Profesores; ñ) Aprobar los reglamentos internos de las Facultades, Escuelas o Institutos que le someta el Consejo Académico. o) Las demás que le atribuya la ley, el Estatuto Orgánico y los reglamentos.

269

the branches of the University. The Syndic and the General Secretary attended the

Academic Senate meetings but could not vote. Another important modification

was the participation of the representative of the student body, who could

participate as well as vote (ICFES, 1974c).

The main difference in the duties of this Senate was that in Decree 0136 of

1958, it had administrative and academic responsibilities. In this legislation, its

main duties and responsibilities were related only to academic matters as follows:

(a) to propose the creation, modification, or elimination of Faculties, Schools, or Institutes to the Board of Trustees; (b) to review and adopt the teaching and research plans presented by the Directive Councils of the Faculties and Schools; (c) to present teaching and research plans to the Board of Trustees for their approval; (d) to advise the Rector on the creation or elimination of Professors’ positions; (e) to resolve any issues related to teaching and research presented by the Rector, Directive Councils of Faculties and Schools, Deans or Heads of Faculties and Schools, and Higher Student Council; (f) to serve as a consultant to the entities in charge of professional activities (ejercicio professional) of alumni; (g) to propose to the Board of Trustees the teaching and research plans, grades, examinations, and tuition systems, the Academic Schedule, and the requirement for certifications, and degrees; (h) to review and adopt internal rules and regulations presented by the Faculties or Schools Directive Councils, and Institute Heads in order to present them to the Board of Trustees for approval; (i) to elect a member to represent the Senate on the Board of Trustees (ICFES, 1974c, p.2382-2383)103.

103 (a) Proponer al Consejo Superior Universitario la creación, modificación o supresión de Facultades, Escuelas e Institutos; b) Revisar y adoptar los planes de enseñanza o de investigación que le someten los Consejo de las Facultades, Escuelas y proponerlos al Consejo Superior Universitario; c) Conceptuar ante el Consejo Superior Universitario sobre la creación, supresión de los cargos docentes, y respecto al estatuto del profesorado; d) Resolver las consultas que le formulen el Rector, los Consejos de las Facultades y Escuela, los Decanos y Directores y el Consejo Superior Estudiantil, sobre todo lo referente a la enseñaza, la investigación y la docencia; e) Servir de cuerpo consultivo a las entidades encargadas de autorizar el ejercicio profesional; f) Proponer al Consejo Superior Universitario los sistemas de calificaciones, de exámenes y de matrículas, el calendario académico y los requisitos para la expedición de certificados de estudio, títulos y grados; g) Revisar y adoptar los reglamentos internos de las

270

Rector The Rector was appointed for a term of three years. Qualifications for

appointment were to have been born in Colombia, be over thirty years old, to hold

a professional degree, and to have been a University Professor for a term of no

fewer than five years. The Rector could not be involved with the performance of

any other public position (cargo público). The main duties of the Rector were

similar to those established in Law 68 of 1935 and the Decree 0136 of 1958.

However, the most important change was related to the appointment of the Dean

of Faculties and the Heads of Schools. This legislation established that the list of

candidates presented to the Board of Trustees to fill these positions should include

at least two candidates from the six presented by each Directive Council of their

respective Faculty, School, or Academic Unit (ICFES, 1974c).

Directive Council of the Faculties, Schools or Institutes

As was the case in the Decree of September 22, 1867, each academic

unit104 was governed by the Dean or the Head, the Secretary and the Directive

Council. This Council was made up of the Dean or the Head, depending on the

situation; a Professor designated by the Board of Trustees, a Professor elected by

Facultades, Escuelas e Institutos y proponerlos al Consejo Superior Universitario. h) Elegir a uno de sus miembros como representante al Consejo Superior Universitario. i) Las demás que la atribuyan la ley, es estatuto orgánico y los reglamentos. 104 According to Article 19, each Faculty or School would be directed by a Dean or Head (director) respectively. Each Institute or Department would be directed by a Head (director).

271

his peers, a student elected by his or her Faculty or School peers, and an alumni

graduated from the respective Faculty or School designated by the National

Professional Association of the corresponding profession. The main duties of

these Councils were similar to those established for the Higher Faculty Senate in

Law 68 of 1935 with a few modifications as follows: (a) to give details on the

teaching and research plans to be presented to the Academic Senate, as well as the

internal rules and regulations; (b) to specify and present the budget project to the

Rector; (c) to serve as a full-time consulting body from the academic unit; (d) to

provide the Rector with a list of Professor and teaching assistantship candidates;

and (e) to present to the Rector the list of six candidates for the Dean or Head

positions (ICFES, 1974c).

Students' Council

Each Faculty or School was to appoint a Student Council that would

represent the respective student body. This Council would be made up students

from each course of study, and be elected democratically. The collective Student

Councils made up the Student Assembly. This Assembly was represented by the

Higher Student Council (Consejo Superior Estudiantil) (ICFES, 1974c).


This Agreement, enacted by the Board of Trustees, had the main objective

of structuring, expanding, and clarifying the organization of the National

272

University established in Law 65 of 1963. This Agreement also called for the

establishment of some new positions with their respective duties and

responsibilities, and improved the functioning of some positions. However, the

descriptions of several positions remained the same as those described by Law 65.

For that reason the analysis of the Agreement 108 of 1964 only includes the new

positions which were not described or modified in Law 65. Finally, an

organizational chart of the University was presented for the first time, and was

included in this Agreement (See Figure 13).


BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTORACADEMIC SENATE

SINDICATURAGENERAL ADMIN

TEACHING VICE-RECTOR

BRANCHES

GENERAL SECRETARY

PLANNINGCOMMITTEE

PLANNING

ORGANIZATIONAND METHODS

CULTURALEXTENSION

INTER-FACULTYCOUNCIL

LEGAL MATTERSOFFICE

GENERALCOMMITTEE

TEACHING UNITS

STUDENTAFFAIRS

COMPUTINGSERVICES

FINANCINGSERVICES

HEALTHSERVICES

ATHLETICS

LIBRARYREGISTRAR

ANDADMISSION

FINANCIALDIVISION

BUILDINGOFFICE

ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES OFFICE

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1964). Bogotá

273

According to the Agreement 108, 1964, the organization of the University

was as follows:

I. Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario)

II. Rectorship (Rectoria)

1. Planning Office (Oficina de Planeación)

2. Organization and Methods Office (Oficina de Organización y

Métodos)

3. Legal Matters Office (Oficina Juridica)

III. Academic Senate (Consejo Académico)

IV. General Secretary (Secretario General)

V. Vice-Rectorship (Vice-Rectoria)

1. Teaching and Research Units (Unidades de docencia e

investigación).

2. Student Affairs Office (Bienestar Estudiantil)

(a) Business Affairs Section (Sección de Bienestar Económico)

(b) Health Services Section (Sección de Servicios de Salud)

(c) Sports Section (Sección de Deportes)

3. Admission and Registrar Section (Sección de Admisión y Registro),

4. Library Department (Departamento de Biblioteca)

5. Computing Center (Centro de Computación)

VI. Sindicatura-General Administration (Sindicatura-Administración

General)

1. Financing Division (División Financiera)

2. Administrative Services Division (División de Servicios

Administrativos)

3. Building Division (División de Construcción)

274

VII. Faculties or School Directive Councils (Consejos Directivos de

Facultades o Escuelas)

VIII. Committees and Commissions (Comités y Comisiones):

1. General Coordination Committee (Comité de Coordinación

General)

2. Planning Committee (Comité de Planeación)

3. Administrative and Financing Committee (Comité Administrativo

y Financiero)

4. Library Committee (Comité de Biblioteca)

5. Research Committee (Comité de Investigación)

6. Budget Commission (Comisión de Presupuesto)

7. Purchasing Board (Junta de Compras)

8. Inter-Faculties Committee (Comité Interfacultades)

9. Personnel Commission (Comisión de Personal) (Acuerdo No.

108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964, p.1-2)

Planning Office

In summary, the Planning Office was in charge of (a) preparing, updating,

and evaluating plans, programs, and University development projects in

cooperation with the academic and administrative units of the University; (b)

studying and submitting recommendations for the general organization structure

of the University including the Professors’ workloads, cost of education, uses of

the buildings, facilities, and equipment required for effective management; (c)

participating in the preparation of the University’s annual budget; (d) helping to

establish priorities in the expenditures program; (e) studying the annual programs

275

presented by the academic and administrative units to see if they met the

objectives stated in the University development plan; (f) being responsible for the

statistical program of the University by gathering data using the respective forms

and establishing methods needed for the compilation of the academic and

administrative information; and (e) working with the Building Division (División

de Construcción) on construction or remodeling of buildings and facilities to suit

changing needs (Acuerdo No. 108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

Organization and Methods Office

This office was responsible for the organizational structure of the

University and encouraging efficiency and efficacy in its administrative and

academic processes. The main functions were (a) establishing the Operating

Procedures Handbook, job rankings, job titles, job descriptions, personnel

administrative programs, personnel training, education and development

programs, as well as salaries and benefit programs for employees, among others;

(b) studying and proposing a more simplified system for admission and

enrollment procedures; (c) being the direct channel between the University and

the General Audit Office of the country; (d) proposing to the Board of Trustees a

new grade and examination system, academic schedule, the requirements for the

expedition of study's certificates and degrees; (e) reviewing and adopting the

internal rules and regulations of the Faculties, Schools and Institutes proposed by

the Academic Senate and the respective Directive Council of the Faculties,

276

Schools, and Institutes and presenting them to the Board of Trustees for its

approval (Acuerdo No. 108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

General Secretary

The main duties of the General Secretary were (a) to represent the Rector

in official activities when requested by the Rector; (b) to take charge of the public

relations of the University; (c) to advise the Rector regarding the implementation

of University policies and procedures; (d) to be in charge of organizing,

coordinating, promoting, and disseminating information on activities related to

the public service function and the cultural activities organized by the University

in the academic unit of the University; and (e) to be Secretary to the Board of

Trustees, Academic Senate, and Inter-Faculty Council meetings (Acuerdo No.

108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

Vice-Rectorship

The Vice-Rectorship was re-established105 in this legislation. The Vice-

Rector had responsibility for conducting academic and students' affairs for the

University. The appointment to this position was done by the Rector with the

approval of the Board of Trustees. The most important responsibilities were (a) to

provide assistance to the Rector in the implementation of the plans, policies, and

105 Law 271 of 1826 created the Vice-Rector position. The Vice-Rector was in charge of the disciplinary aspects of Professors and students.

277

procedures regarding academic and student affairs, including admissions, course

registration, libraries, and computing center; (b) to represent the Rector in the

official activities designated by him, and to fill any vacancy for a term not to

exceed thirty days; (c) to coordinate and contribute to the development of

academic activities organized by the different academic units of the University;

(d) to evaluate the establishment, modification, or elimination of teaching and

research programs, academic units, and the academic schedule proposal; (e) to

create agreements and resolutions regarding teaching and research personnel; (f)

to review and make recommendations for Professors’ academic distinctions

according to the rules and regulations; (g) to ask the academic units for reports on

the activities, development, and functioning of each unit; (h) to organize the units’

work under the Vice-Rector in cooperation with the Organization and Methods

Office; (i) to attend Academic Senate meetings; and (j) to temporarily coordinate

and oversee the graduate School as its scope permitted (Acuerdo No. 108 del

Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

Student Affairs Division

This division was in charge of creating procedures and policies regarding

University student services in coordination with the Board of Trustees. These

services included institutional, national and international scholarships and

fellowships, loans, housing and food, among others. The concept of student’s

welfare and services as an academic-administrative unit was introduced. The main

278

functions of this division were (a) to create a loan program for students; (b) to

provide assistance to Deans and Heads of Faculties and Schools regarding the

enforcement of student rules and regulations; (c) to participate in the students’

proposals for any changes or additions, and present it to the Vice-Rector for

approval by the Board of Trustees; and (d) to coordinate relationships between the

Alumni and Student Associations (Acuerdo No. 108 del Consejo Superior

Universitario, 1964).

Syndic Administrator

The Syndic-Administrator (Síndico-Administrador), along with the Rector,

was responsible for the administrative and financial management of the

University. The main duties and responsibilities were (a) directing and executing

the budget processes; (b) organizing and managing operations with the

Organization and Method Office, and overseeing the offices which were part of

the Sindicatura-General Administration; (c) cooperating for the implementation of

the procedures for the offices’ effective development and operations, which was

overseen by the Syndic-Administrator; and (d) attending Academic Senate and

Board of Trustees meetings when required (Acuerdo No. 108 del Consejo

Superior Universitario, 1964).

279

General Coordination Committee:

This Committee was made up of the Rector, who presided over it; the

Vice-Rector, the General Secretary, the Syndic-Administrator (Síndico-

Administrador), a representative of the Board of Trustees, a representative from

the Academic Senate, the Planning Office Chief, and the Organization and

Method Office Chief. This Committee was in charge of coordinating the academic

and administrative affairs of the University. The regular meetings of the

Committee were held once a month at the discretion of the Rector (Acuerdo No.

108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

Planning Committee:

The Planning Committee was made up of the Rector, who presided over it;

a representative of the Board of Trustees, the Vice-Rector, the Syndic-

Administrator, four Deans selected by the Rector, the Planning Office Chief, and

the Organization and Method Office Chief. The main duties and responsibilities

of this Committee were to make recommendations related to policies, objectives,

and goals by defining long-range plans for programs involving the physical

facilities, and the academic and economical development of the University

(Acuerdo No. 108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).

280

Administrative and Financing Committee:

This Committee was made up of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees

(Presidente del Consejo Superior Universitario), who presided over it; the Rector,

who could be represented by the Vice-Rector; the Syndic-Administrator, the

Financial Division Chief; and the Organization and Method Office Chief. This

Committee was in charge of coordinating and advising the University in financial

and administrative affairs of the University. The regular meetings of the

Committee were held once a month or at the discretion of the Chairman (Acuerdo

No. 108 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1964).


This Agreement reestablished the Academic organization of the University

including teaching units. Academically, the University was organized into

Faculties, Institutes, Departments, and Sections. The Faculty was defined as the

primary academic division of the University with teaching and research functions.

Its main function was to manage professional program or programs assigned to it,

including the teaching and research areas. A Faculty included a Dean, Vice-Dean,

and a Secretary. A Department was considered the primary academic unit of a

Faculty. A Department was governed by a Chairman and a Department Chair

Committee. An Institute was an academic unit that mainly performed research.

The Academic Sections were considered as secondary academic divisions of a

281

Faculty. Each Section was headed by its own Chairman (Acuerdo del Consejo

Superior Universitario No 59, 1964).

Dean

This Agreement ratified the Dean as the executive authority of each

Faculty as it was established in Law 65 of 1963, Article 22o. The main duties and

responsibilities continued to be similar as those established in this law. However,

some functions were added. In summary, they were:

(a) to ensure that the policies and regulations set out by the Board of Trustees, Academic Senate, the Rector, and the Directive Faculty Council were being followed; (b) to present to the Directive Faculty Council the list of candidates to be elected as Faculty members according to the institutional rules and regulations; (c) to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees about honorific titles that could be awarded to a Faculty member; (d) to present rules and regulations proposals as well as teaching and research plans to the Academic Senate for approval; (e) to present the budget proposal to the Syndic-Administrator; and (f) to prepare an annual report regarding the development of the Faculty (Acuerdo No 59, 1964, p. 2-3)106.

106 (a) Cumplir y hacer cumplir en su dependencia los actos emanados del Consejo Superior Universitario, del Consejo Académico, del Rector y del Consejo Directivo de la Facultad. b) Presentar al Consejo Directivo la lista de candidatos para profesores y demás miembros del personal docente e investigativo de acuerdo con las normas del Estatuto del Profesorado. c) Presentar al Consejo Superior los nombres de las personas que a juicio del Consejo de la Facultad se hagan acreedoras a títulos o distinciones académicas. d) Presentar al Consejo Académico para su aprobación, los proyectos de reglamentos, planes de enseñanza o de investigación elaborados por el consejo y por los profesores directivos de Departamento de la dependencia a su cargo. e) Presentar al Syndic (Síndico) Administrador el anteproyecto de -presupuesto anual, elaborado en colaboración con los Profesores o Directivos de Departamento, para su unidad docente e investigativa. f) Rendir un informe anual al Rector acerca de la marcha de la respectiva dependencia. g) Las que le correspondan de acuerdo con las leyes, estatutos y reglamentos. h) Las que no estén atribuidas a ningún otro funcionario dentro de su facultad.

282

Vice-Dean

The Vice-Dean was selected by the Rector from a group of candidates

presented by the Dean. The main duties and responsibilities of a Vice-Dean were

to assist and support the Dean. They include:

(a) tasks assigned by the Board of Trustees; (b) to provide assistance to the Dean in the management of the Faculty; (c) to participate in, but not vote at, the Directive Faculty Council meetings; (d) to help ensure that teachers’ duties and responsibilities related to the teaching and research functions were met; (e) to ensure that the rules and regulations were being followed; and (f) to fill in for the Dean during his absence (Acuerdo No 59, 1964, p. 4-5)107.


This Decree called for a few changes to the organizational structure of the

University. Thus, it modified and created new positions underneath the Rectorship

as follows (Acuerdo No 77 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1969). See Figure

14:

107 (a) Las que sean fijadas por el Consejo Superior Universitario crear el cargo. b) Asistir al Decano en la Dirección de la facultad. c) Participar con derecho a voz, en las reuniones del Consejo Directivo de la Facultad. d) Colaborar con el Decano en la vigilancia de los servicios docentes e investigativos de la Facultad y velar por el cumplimiento de los reglamentos generales de la Universidad y particulares de la propia unidad. e) Suplir al Decano en ausencias temporales menores de 30 días previa resolución del Rector. f) Las que le delegue el Decano o la sean asignadas por el reglamento de la respectiva Facultad.

283


BOARD OF TRUSTEES

SYNDIC

RECTOR

SECRETARY

BRANCH VICE-RECTOR

PLANNING OFFICE

JURIDICAL OFFICE

STUDENTS AFFAIRSDIRECTOR

FOODTEACHING DIVISION

HEALTH

FINANCIALAID FUND

ATHLETICS

HOUSINGDEAN

SECRETARY

VICE-RECTOR

DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR

SECTIONCHIEF

PROFESSORS

PROGRAMSDIRECTORS

VICE-DEAN

TEACHINGDIRECTION

ADMISSION

REGISTRAR

UNIVERSITYPRESS

COMPUTINGCENTER

LIBRARY

ACADEMIC SENATE


Vice-Rector

The main duties of the Vice-Rector were the academic administration and

the promotion of the Professorship, in collaboration with the Deans and the

Teaching Division Chairman (Acuerdo No 77 del Consejo Superior Universitario,

1969).

284

Students’ Direction

The Director of Students was responsible for student affairs, including

housing and food, health, sports, and the Economic Fund for Students. In carrying

out these duties, the Director of Students worked with the Faculty Secretaries

(Acuerdo No 77 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1969).

Teaching Direction

The Teaching Director was in charge of coordinating academic program

planning proposed by the Vice-Deans, as well as the Registrar’s office and

student admissions, and the administration of academic services such as the

library, Public Service, Publications, and the Computer Center (Acuerdo No 77

del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1969).


This Agreement included the establishment and administration of graduate

studies by modifying Article 4 and 5 of the Agreement 59 of 1965, (Acuerdo No

82 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1977). These articles were related to the

academic functions of Faculties. Article 4 was expanded to include two more

functions, which were to manage graduate program(s) created in the Faculty as

authorized by the Board of Trustees, and promote the establishment and

development of interdisciplinary research groups. Article 5 also had changes; it

established that professional and graduate programs would be directed by the

285

Dean of the Faculty and the Directive Faculty Council. It stated that the direction

and orientation of the scientific, technical, or artistic level of each program would

be defined by the Program Director (undergraduate or graduate) and the

Department Chairman. Other Department Chairmen or Institute Directors could

contribute to the Graduate Programs when the academic areas of each program

were related. Finally, the Agreement stated that each undergraduate or graduate

program should have an Academic Director (Director Académico), and it created

two governmental bodies; a Program Advisory Committee (Comité de Asesores

de Carrera), and a Graduate Committee (Comité o Junta de Postgrados)

(Acuerdo No 77 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1969).


This Agreement established the requirements, duties, and responsibilities

of the Academic Director for undergraduate and graduate programs. It also

defined the Program Advisory Committee and Graduate Committee functions and

abolished the Teaching Director position, along with its respective duties and

responsibilities (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83, 1977).

Academic Director for Undergraduate and Graduate Programs

The requirements to be appointed as Academic Director were to be a

Professor or Associate Professor, and to have been a Faculty member for at least

for two years. The main duties and responsibilities for this position were:

286

(a) to be responsible for the organization and management of the academic program under the Board of Trustees and the Dean of the respective Faculty; (b) to assess the Professors’ needs; (c) to report to the Department Chairmen and the Institute Directors about the quality and fulfillment of the courses offered by the Professors who belonged to the respective Institute or Department; (d) to submit the academic program schedule to the Secretary of the Faculty prior to the start of each academic period, for approval by the Directive Faculty Council; (e) to find ways of bringing academic and professional people together in order to create more relevant courses of study; (f) to regularly call and preside, over the Program Assistant Committee meetings; (g) to record, prepare, and index the minutes of the regular and special Committee meetings; (h) to present a semester report to the Board of Trustees about the functioning of the program; (i) to review each student’s file in order to verify that he or she fulfilled the academic and curriculum requirements for receiving the respective degree (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83, 1977, p.2-3)108.

Program Advisory Committee

The Program Advisory Committee (Comité Asesor de Carrera) was made

up of the Academic Program Director, who presided over it; the Professors in the

program, and a student representative. The number of Professor and student

108 (a) Responder ante el Consejo Directivo y el Decano de la respectiva Facultad por la organización y buen funcionamiento de la Carrera. b) Coordinar con los Directores de Departamento e Institutos las necesidades docentes para la Carrera a su cargo. c) Informar a los Directores de Departamento o Institutos sobre la calidad de las asignaturas recibidas y sobre el cumplimiento de los programas por parte de los Profesores del respectivo Departamento o Instituto. Los Profesores que dictan asignaturas a una carrera responderán ante el respectivo Director Académicos de Carrera por el cabal cumplimiento de los programas a su cargo. d) Remitir a la Secretaria de la Facultad donde esta radicada la Carrera, la programación académica de esta, antes de la incitación de cada período académico para su aprobación por el consejo Directivo de Facultad y para su oportuna publicación. e) Hacer efectivos los mecanismos de intercomunicaciones con el estudiantado y el profesorado de la carrera. f) Establecer relaciones con entidades o asociaciones académicas o profesionales que tengan que ver con la carrera con el fin de lograr información utilizable en el mejoramiento de los planes de estudio y de los métodos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. g) Resolver consultas referentes a la carrera respectiva. h) Convocar periódicamente y presidir el Comité Asesor de Carrera y suscribir las actas de dichas reuniones. i) Presentar al Consejo Directivo de la Facultad un in forme semestral

287

representatives on this Committee was determined by the Directive Faculty

Council. The term of office was a period of one year. This Committee had the

following duties and responsibilities: (a) to study and make recommendations on

the main objectives of the program and course syllabi; (b) to ensure that the

general and specific objectives of the curriculum were met; (c) to analyze and

evaluate the general and specific objectives of each curriculum on an ongoing

basis and propose modifications to the Directive Faculty Council; (d) to request,

through the Academic Director Program, the syllabus of each course according to

the requirements of the program; (e) to establish a relationship with the public and

private sector in order to improve the curriculum and teaching methods; (f) to

establish a communication channel between Professors and students for the

purpose of improving the curriculum and providing suitable academic and

professional counseling; (g) to propose rules and standards for the evaluation of

the admissions tests to the Directive Faculty Council; (h) to study and verify that

the theses fulfilled the requirements and regulations established for obtaining a

degree; (i) to ensure that the schedule and syllabus presented by Professors were

met (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83, 1977, p.3-4)109.

sobre la marcha de la carrera. j) Revisar el Kardex del estudiante, para constatar que ha cumplido todos requisitos Académicos y planes de estudio para la obtención del título profesional. 109(a) Estudiar y señalar los objetivos generales propios de la respectiva carrera y derivar de ellos los objetivos específicos y contenidos de las asignaturas. (b) Velar por el cabal cumplimiento de los objetivos generales y específicos del plan de estudios y por el logro de las condiciones académicas y operativas requeridas para su realización. (c) Analizar y evaluar permanentemente los objetivos generales y específicos del plan de estudios y proponer las modificaciones o cambios pertinentes al Consejo Directivo de la respectiva Facultad. (d) Solicitar oportunamente a los

288

Academic Directors Committee

This Committee was made up of the Dean and the Program Academic

Directors in the Faculties which had more than one program. The main duties of

this Committee were related to the general academic policies of the programs in

the respective Faculty. These included: (a) advising the Directive Faculty Council

to the establishment of academic policies and curriculum; (b) recommending the

academic evaluation of students according to the rules and regulations; and (c)

making recommendations in order to define the number of places to offer for new

students in the Program (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83,

1977, p.5-6)110.

Departamentos, a través del Director Académicos de la Carrera, las asignaturas correspondientes de acuerdo con las necesidades de la carrera. (e) Buscar y establecer a través del Director Académicos de la Carrera, relaciones con otras Unidades de la Universidad Nacional y con entidades externas relacionadas con la respectiva carreras con el fin de lograr informaciones utilizables en el mejora miento de los planes de estudio y los métodos de enseñanza y de aprendizaje. (f) Establecer y mantener sistemas de intercomunicación con profesores y estudiantes de la carrera con el fin de lograr una evaluación continuada del Plan de estudios y proveer una adecuada orientación académica y profesional. (g) Proponer al Consejo Directivo de Facultad, mecanismos y criterios para la elaboración, realización y evaluación de las pruebas de conocimiento de los exámenes de admisión, para los estudiantes que aspiran a ingresar a la carrera. (h) Estudiar los proyectos de trabajos de grado presentados por los estudiantes, analizar su adecuación a lee objetivos de la carrera, evaluar su factibilidad junto con el Director del Departamento, Instituto o Institución donde se realice el trabajo, y si es el caso, proponer su aprobación al Consejo Directivo de la Facultad, de acuerdo con las reglamentaciones vigentes.(i) Supervisar el cumplimiento de la disposición que exige a los profesores presentar programas-calendarios de las asignaturas. 110 (a) Asesorar al Consejo Directivo de Facultad en el establecimiento de políticas académicas y criterios referentes a los planes de estudio de las carreras adscritas a la Facultad. (b) Recomendar sistemas de evaluación académica de los estudiantes de la Facultad en concordancia con el reglamento estudiantil. (c) Conceptuar ante el Consejo Directivo sobre cupos de las carreras de la Facultad para cada período Académico, de acuerdo con las disponibilidades de los Departamentos. (d) Los demás que le asigne el Consejo Directivo.

289

Decree 82 of 1980

It is important to point out that at the beginning of the 1980s, one of the

most important reforms marking the development of the higher education system

of the country took place. This reform was regulated through Decree 80 of 1980,

which defined the principles and norms of post-secondary private and public

education. At the same time, the Decree 82 of 1980, (enacted by the President of

the country), made some changes to the organizational structure of the National

University of Colombia as stated by Law 65 of 1963. From a governance

perspective, the National University had the following structure:


II. Rectorship (Rectoria)


IV. Deans´ Council (Consejos de Decanos)

V. Directive Council Faculty (Consejos Directivos de Facultad)

VI. Deans (Decanos)

VII. Advisory Committees (Comités Asesores):

1. For the University:

1.1. Area Committees (Comités de Área)

1.2. Research and Scientific Development Committee (Comité

de Investigación y Desarrollo Científico)

1.3. Graduate Studies Committee (Comité de Estudios de

Postgrado)

1.4. University Administration Committee (Comité de

Administración Universitaria)

290

2. For the Faculty:

2.1 Department and Institute Directors Committee (Comité de

Directores de Departamento e Instituto)

2.2. Teaching Personnel Committee (Comité de Personal

Docente)

2.3. Academic Program Directors Committee (Comité de

Directores de Carrera)

2.4. Advisory Academic Program Committee (Comité de

Asesores de Carrera)

2.4. Advisory Graduated Committee (Comité de Asesores de

Postgrado) (ICFES, 1987, p. 52-53).

From the organizational perspective, the University had the following

structure:

I. Rectorship

1. Rector

2. Vice-Rectors

3. General Secretary

4. General Administrative Director

II. Faculties

1. Dean

2. Vice-Dean

3. Faculty Secretary

III. Academic Units

1. Department Chair or Institute Director

2. Section Chief (Jefe de Seccion)

IV. Programs

1. Academic Director of the Undergraduate Programs

291

2. Academic Director of the Graduate Programs (ICFES, 1987, p.

52-53)

Board of Trustees

The composition of the Board of Trustees was similar to that established

by Law 65 of 1963. The main difference was that the number of members on this

Board was reduced to eight members as follows:

the Minister of Education or his or her delegate

the Minister of Economy or his or her delegate

a representative of the Deans elected by the Academic Senate

a representative of the professors

an alumnus

a representative of the student body

a former Rector of the University selected by the Board of Trustees

a Rector who could participate, but not vote (ICFES, 1987, p. 4).

The Secretary of the Board was also the General Secretary of the

University. The Professor, student, alumni representatives and the ex-Rector were

appointed for a period of two years. The Professorial representative’s term was at

least five years. The alumni representative had to be a Professor of the University

with at least part-time status. In general, the duties and responsibilities of the

Board of Trustees were similar to those established in the Decree 0136 of 1958

and Law 65 of 1963. There were a few modifications, including the appointment

of representatives from each governing body since there were no big changes in

their responsibilities (ICFES, 1987).

292

Rector Qualifications for the position of Rector were the same as those

established in Law 65 of 1963. In summary, the Rector was in charge of (a)

appointing the academic and administrative head positions such as Vice-Rectors,

General Secretary, General Administrative Director, and the Advisors that the

University required for its effective management; (b) naming Vice-Deans,

Department Chairs, Institute Directors, Academic Program Directors, and

Graduate Studies Directors from a list of candidates presented by the Deans of

each Faculty; (c) hiring or firing Professors and administrative, technical, and

service personnel; (d) authorizing leaves of absence for academic and

administrative personnel; (e) ensuring that the policies, rules and regulations were

followed; (f) coordinating and directing the financial business of the University,

including preparation of the budget proposal for approval by the Board of

Trustees; and (g) authorizing the degrees granted (ICFES, 1987, p. 56)111.

111 (a)…..Designar los Vice-Rectores, el Secretario General y el Director Administrativo General. (b) Nombrar y remover el personal docente, conceder licencias y designar interinos de conformidad con el estatuto respectivo y las normas pertinentes de este Decreto. (d) Nombrar y remover el personal administrativo, técnico y de servicio, conceder licencias, nombrar interinos y encargados, de conformidad con las normas pertinentes y los estatutos y reglamentos dictados para tal efecto. (e) Presentar a consideración del Consejo Superior listas de cuatro nombres como candidatos para decano de Facultad, tres de los cuales deber ser propuestos por el respectivo Consejo Directivo y uno por el propio Rector. (f) Designar Vice-decanos de Facultad a propuesta del respectivo Decano. (g) Designar directores de departamento, instituto, de carrera y de postgrado de listas de cuatro nombres que presente el Decano de la respectiva Facultad. (h) Autorizar con su firma los títulos que la Universidad confiera. (i) Presentar para aprobación del Consejo Superior, el proyecto de presupuesto; una vez aprobado, ejecutarlo y someter a su consideración los proyectos de traslados y de adiciones. (j) Dirigir todo lo relacionado con la conservación y la administración del patrimonio de la Universidad. (k) Nombrar o contratar, previa autorización del Consejo Superior, los asesores que requiera la Universidad para la ejecución cabal de sus programas académicos y administrativos. (l) Las demás que le correspondan conforme a las leyes, el Estatuto General y los reglamentos de la Universidad y que no estén expresamente atribuidos por tales normas a otra autoridad universitaria.

293

Academic Senate

Decree 82 of 1980 established that the Academic Senate was made up of

the Rector, who presided over it; the Vice-Rectors, the Deans, and the General

Secretary of the University. There were big changes in the composition of this

Senate compared to the Decree 0136 of 1958112. However, its main duties and

responsibilities were similar to those established in Law 65 of 1963. The main

change was related to the inclusion of public service obligations into student

responsibilities in higher education (ICFES, 1987).


This Decree, enacted by the Board of Trustees, enhanced some duties and

responsibilities of some positions established in the Decree 082 of 1980, created

new positions, and also described the requirements and functions of the following

positions that were not included on the Decree 82 (See Figure 15):

112 The Decree 0136 of 1958 stated that the Academic Senate was made up of the members described above plus the Heads of the Schools, the Head of the Teaching and Research Units, the Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries, and the Syndic (Síndico) who could not vote.

294


BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR

ACADEMICSENATE

DEANS COUNCIL

DIRECTIVEBOARD

FACULTY

ACADEMICSECRETARY

VICE DEAN

ADVISORYACADEMIC

COMMITTEE

ADVISORYGRADUATECOMMITTEE

TEACHINGPERSONNELCOMMITTEE

DEPARTMENTAND INSTITUTE

COMMITTEE

DEAN


ACADEMIC DIRECTORGRADUATE PROGRAMS

ACADEMIC DIRECTORUNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVEDIRECTOR

GRADUATESTUDIES

COMMITTEE

UNIVERSITYADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE

RESEARCHAND

SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE

AREACOMMITTEE

ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR GENERAL VICE-RECTOR

ADMISSION ANDPROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

REGISTRAR AND ENROLMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNELAFFAIRS

SPORTS CENTER

TEACHING PERSONNELAFFAIRS

AUDIO-VISUAL AIDSLIBRARY

INTERDISCIPLINARYPROGRAM

FINANCING DIVISION

GOODS AND SUPPLIES

GENERAL SERVICES

SECURITY ANDVIGILANCE

INDUSTRIAL SECURITY

CINDEC

GENERAL SECRETARY

CULTURAL DIFFUSION

ARCHIVE

UNIVERSITY PRESS

CHAPLAINCY


Academic Vice-Rector:

The requirements for being appointed to this position were to be a

Colombian citizen over 30 years of age, and be a Faculty Associate or Professor

of the University. The main changes to the functions described in Agreement 124,

1980, regarding the Agreement 108 of 1964, were the main duties and

295

responsibilities related only to the academic affairs, excluding the admission and

functions of the Registrar that were stated in the Agreement 108 of 1964

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980). This position was

subdivided as follows:

Audiovisual Aids Center (Centro de Ayudas Audiovisuales)

Library Sections (Dependencias de Biblioteca)

Interdisciplinary Programs (Programas Interdisciplinarios)

(Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p.3).

In addition, the Academic Vice-Rector presided over the following

Committees:

Research and Scientific Development Committee (Comité de

Investigaciones y Desarrollo Científico)

Graduate Studies Committee (Comité de Estudios de Post-grado)

Areas Committee (Comité de Áreas)

Library Committee (Comité de Bibliotecas) (Acuerdo No. 100 del

Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p.3).

General Secretary

This Agreement did not establish any requirements for being appointed to

this position. Nevertheless, The General Secretary was in charge of the following

offices:

Cultural Distribution Department (Departamento de Divulgación

Cultural)

Archive and Microfilm Division (División de Archivo y

Microfilmación)

University Press (Sección de Publicaciones)

296

Chaplaincy (Capellanía) (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior

Universitario, 1984, p.4).

General Administrative Director

The General Administrative Director replaced the Syndic and its

corresponding responsibilities. This position was in charge of the administrative,

economical and financial affairs of the University. This position was subdivided

in the following offices:

Financing Division (División Financiera)

Goods and Supplies Division (División de Bienes y Suministros)

General Services Division (División de Servicios Generales)

Health and Safety Division (División de Seguridad y Vigilancia)

Industrial Security and Sanitation Office (Oficina de Higiene y

Seguridad Industrial) (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior

Universitario, 1984, p.4).

Faculty Directive Council

The Faculty Directive Council (Consejo Directivo de Facultad) performed

its duties in the University’s branches (sedes). It was made up of the Vice-Rector,

who presided over it; Faculty Deans, the Administrative Director; a Professor’s

representative; and a student representative. This Council was in charge of the

academic, administrative, economic and fiscal affairs of the Faculty or branches

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980).

297

Area Committees

The Area Committees (Comités de Area) were in charge organizing the

areas of study. They supported the Board of Trustees, Rectorship, Academic

Senate, and Faculty Directive Councils related to the improvement of the

programs and formulation of the University policies. Each Committee was made

up of a Support Group and a Coordinating Group. The support group was

integrated by a Professor, who was a member of the Advisory Graduate

Committee, and the Department and Institute Directors Committee. The

Coordinating Group was made up of seven Professors selected from the Support

Group. In order to be selected as Committee’s members one had to be an

Associate Professor or Professor specializing in the respective area of knowledge


Research and Scientific Development Committee-CINDEC

This Committee was in charge of establishing the guidelines, policies, and

standards for research and development. In addition, it served as an Advisor to the

Board of Trustees, Rectorship, Academic Senate, and the Faculty Directive

Councils in all the aspects related to the research function of the University. It

was composed of the Academic Vice-Rector, the Executive Director of the

CINDEC, a representative from the Department and Institute Directors

Committee, and a representative from the Inter-Faculty Institutes. The Director of

298

the Advisory Graduate Committee, the Library Director, and the Planning

Director were allowed to attend meetings on an ongoing basis (Acuerdo del

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980, p. 17).

Research and Scientific Development Director

The Director of the CINDEC had to be an Associate Professor or a

Professor who had been appointed by the Rector. The main duties and

responsibilities included: (a) providing assistance to the Academic Vice-Rector in

the management of the CINDEC; (b) calling the regular and special meetings of

the committee; (c) obtaining public or private sector funding for research projects;

(d) coordinating the relationship between the Committee and national and

international organizations related to the promotion and development of research;

(e) listing the approved research projects of each faculty; (f) maintaining a record

of the research programs and projects; (g) controlling the research budget

execution and giving a periodical report of it to the Academic Vice-Rector; (h)

attending to the Advisory Graduate Committee meetings” (Acuerdo del Consejo

Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980, p. 18)113.

113 (a) Asesorar al Vice-Rector Académico en la dirección y los asuntos del CINDEC. b) Citar a las reuniones del Comité y actuar como Secretario, c) Promover la obtención de recursos financieros, tanto de entidades oficiales como privadas, para los proyectos de investigación, d) Coordinar las relaciones del Comité con entidades nacionales e internacionales dedicadas al desarrollo y fomento de la investigación, e) Registrar, según la información de las Facultades, los proyectos de investigación aprobados por estas. f) Mantener un archivo actualizado de los programas y proyectos de investigación que se realicen en la Universidad, g) Llevar un control de la ejecución del presupuesto asignado para la investigación y rendir informes periódicos al Vice-

299

Graduate Studies Committee

This Committee was in charge of formulating the criteria, policies, and

rules of all aspects regarding the graduate studies of the University. In addition, it

had to serve as Advisor to the Board of Trustees, Rectorship, Academic Senate,

and the Faculty Directive Councils on these matters. It was made up of the

Academic Vice-Rector, who presided over it; the Committee Director; and a

representative from each Faculty Graduate Committee. The Research and

Scientific Development Committee (CINDEC) Director and the Planning Director

were also invited to attend (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124,

1980, p. 20).

University Administrative Committee

This Committee was responsible for studying, evaluating, and making

recommendations regarding the administration, economic, and financial aspects of

the University. It was made up of the Rector, who presided over it; the General

and Academic Vice-Rectors, the Presidents of the Dean’s Councils; the General

Administrative Director, who was the Secretary, and the Planning Director

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980, p. 21).

Rector Académico. h) Asistir al Comité de Estudios de Postgrado, i) Las demás que le asignen el Vice-Rector Académico y los reglamentos de la Universidad.

300

Faculty Directive Council

The composition of this Council underwent some modifications. Law 65

of 1963 established that this Council was to be made up of five members, while

Agreement 124 of 1980 stated that there would be seven: the Dean, who presided

over it; a Professor designated by the Board of Trustees, a Professor elected by his

peers, and a student elected by their peers in their respective Faculty. The alumni

representative was dropped. Other members were a Department or Institute

Director (Director de Departamento o Instituto), a Graduate Studies Director

(Director Académico de Posgrados), Academic Program Director (Director

Académico de Programa). The Secretary of the Faculty took on the Committee

Secretary’s duties (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980, p.

23).

The main functions of these Councils were related to academics, including

teaching, research and public service. Even though they were similar to those

described in Law 65 of 1963, there were a few modifications, including (a)

establishing and applying academic program evaluation systems; (b) the hiring of

academic personnel; and (d) drawing up a list of candidates to be appointed in the

Department, Institute, undergraduate program, and graduate program positions,

among others (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980).

301


This Agreement created new positions as follows (Acuerdo No 100, 1984):

Vice-Rector of Students Affairs and University Welfare

University Welfare Committee

Faculty Students Affairs and University Welfare Director

Faculty Advisor in University Welfare Affairs Committee

(Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p.1-6)

Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare

The Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare (Vice-Rector

de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario) was responsible of all the aspects

related to student services and activities and personnel welfare. The Vice-Rector’s

duties and responsibilities were (a) to coordinate and promote all the activities

required to encourage and maintain a participative and hospitable environment for

the human, cultural, and social aspects of University life; (b) to advise the Board

of Trustees, the Rectorship, the Academic Senate, and the Deans in all matters

relating to University welfare and the successful integration of students into

University life; (c) to preside over Bogotá’s Committee of University Welfare

Affairs; (d) to attend the Academic Senate, University Administration Committee,

and Board of Trustees meetings; and (e) to maintain communication with other

302

offices related to Student Affairs and University Welfare of the other University

branches (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p.1-2)114.

This office was subdivided into the following Divisions:

Financial Aid (Asistencia Económica)

Social Aid (Asistencia Social)

Academic Aid (Asistencia Académica)

Culture

Athletics (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario,

1984, p.4). This unit belonged to the General Vice-Rectorship. The

Agreement 100 of 1984 assigned this unit to Vice-Rector of

Student Affairs and University Welfare.

General Secretary

The General Secretary continued to have the same duties and

responsibilities as those established in the former legislations. However, the

Agreement 100 of 1984 added the Communication and Press Divisions, which

established the respective functions related to these areas (Acuerdo No. 100 del

Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984).

114 (a) Impulsar y coordinar las actividades necesarias para crear y mantener un clima de participación y de valoración de los aspectos humanos, culturales y sociales de la vida universitaria, dentro de la dignidad y el pluralismo propios de la Universidad. (b) Asesorar a la Rectoría y a los Consejos Superior, Académico y de Decanos en asuntos relacionados con el bienestar universitario y con la integración de los estudiantes a la vida de la Universidad. (c) Dirigir y coordinar las Divisiones adscritas a esta Vice-Rectoría. (d) Presidir las reuniones del Comité de Asuntos de Bienestar Universitario de la Sede de Bogotá. (e) Formar parte del Consejo Académico, del Consejo de Decanos de la Sede de Bogotá, y del Comité de Administración Universitario, y asistir al Consejo Superior Universitario. (f) Mantener comunicación con las seccionales de la Universidad, para una mejor coordinación de los asuntos concernientes a su

303


The University Welfare Committee (Comité de Bienestar Universitario)

was made up of the Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare (Vice-

Rector de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario), who presided over it; a

Representative of the Faculty Students and University Welfare Director (Director

de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario) selected by the Deans’ Council, two

student representatives from the Faculty Advisory Committees of University

Welfare Affairs (Comités Asesores en Asuntos de Bienestar Universitario); a

representative from the Professors attending the Directive Faculty Councils; a

student representative elected by the student body, the Heads of the offices

ascribed to the Vice-Rector of Student Affairs, and University Welfare (Acuerdo

No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p. 2).

The main functions of this Committee were (a) to advise the Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare in related matters; (b) to propose and evaluate the policies related to the Student Affairs and employee welfare; (c) to propose and evaluate the execution of cultural, athletic and other recreational activities presented by the Faculties; (d) to collaborate in the advancement of organized and related programs, projects and activities (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p. 2-3)115.

cargo. (g) Las demás que le asignen el Consejo Superior Universitario, el Consejo Académico, el Consejo de Decanos de la Sede de Bogotá y 1as que le delegue el Rector. 115 (a) Asesorar al Vicerrector de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario en los asuntos de su competencia. (b) Proponer y evaluar las políticas generales de las Divisiones de la Vice-Rectoría de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario. (c) Proponer la realización de eventos culturales, recreacionales y deportivos, y evaluar las iniciativas que en esta materia provengan de las facultades, de la respectiva división o de otros miembros u organizaciones de la comunidad universitaria. (d) Colaborar con la Vicerrectoría de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario en la

304

Faculty Student Affairs and University Welfare Director

The Faculty Student Affairs and University Welfare Director (Director de

Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario) had to meet the same characteristics

required for being appointed as a Dean. In addition, it was required to have been

Professor of the National University for at least five years previous to his or her

appointment. The main duties and responsibilities were (a) to develop and

administer plans and policies established by the Vice-Rector of Student Affairs

and University Welfare; (b) to make a proposal to the Vice-Rector of Student

Affairs and University Welfare regarding general University welfare and student

affairs policies for the respective Faculties, previous approval of the Directive

Faculty Council; (c) to present to the respective Directive Faculty Councils the list

of candidates who should receive scholarships in accordance with University

policies; (d) to develop and implement services for students in their respective

Faculties; (e) to attend the Directive Faculty Councils and the Academic

Programs Directors Committee, and (f) to give personal attention to students who

need it (Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p. 1)116.

oportuna divulgación de los programas y proyectos de actividades. (e) Las demás que le asignen el Consejo Superior Universitario y el Rector.

116 (a) Impulsar y coordinar las actividades necesarias para crear y mantener un clima de participación y de valoración de los aspectos humanos, culturales y sociales de la vida universitaria, dentro de la dignidad y el pluralismo propios de la Universidad. (b) Asesorar a la Rectoría y a los Consejos Superior, Académico y de Decanos en asuntos relacionados con el bienestar universitario y con la integración de los estudiantes a la vida de la Universidad. (c) Dirigir y coordinar las Divisiones adscritas a esta Vice-Rectoría. (d) Presidir las reuniones del Comité de Asuntos de Bienestar Universitario de la Sede de Bogotá. (e) Formar parte del Consejo Académico, del Consejo de Decanos de la Sede de Bogotá, y del Comité de Administración

305

Faculty Advisor in University Welfare Committee

The Faculty Advisor of the University Welfare Committee was made up

of: “the Faculty Student Affairs and University Welfare Director who presided

over it; two Academic Program Directors designated by the Directive Faculty

Council; two students elected by the regular students of the Faculty, one of them

should have completed at least half the courses’ program (Acuerdo No. 100 del

Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984, p. 5). The main duties and responsibilities

were related to advising the Faculty Student Affairs and University Welfare

Director in all matters and plans involving the organizational climate, Student

Affairs, personnel services, and financial aid for students. This Agreement also

stated that the financial aid given to students through loan-scholarships (becas-

prestámo) would replace the housing and food services previously provided

(Acuerdo No. 100 del Consejo Superior Universitario, 1984).


This Agreement made some modifications to Agreement 124 of 1980 and

Agreement 100 of 1984. The organization of the University continued to be the

same (See Figure 16).

Universitario, y asistir al Consejo Superior Universitario. (f) Mantener comunicación con las seccionales de la Universidad, para una mejor coordinación de los asuntos concernientes a su cargo. (g) Las demás que le asignen el Consejo Superior Universitario, el Consejo Académico, el Consejo de Decanos de la Sede de Bogotá y las que le delegue el Rector.

306

Figure 16. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1986.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR

ACADEMICVICE-RECTOR

GENERAL SECRETARY

ACADEMICSENATE

DEANS BOARD

DIRECTIVEBOARD

AREACOMMITTEE

PROFESSORREPRES.

COMMITTEE

PROFESSORDESIGNATEDCOMMITTEE

CURRICULARPROGRAM

COMMITTEE

RESEARCHCOMMITTEE

WELFAREVICE-RECTOR

GENERALVICE-RECTOR

ADMINISTRATIVEDIRECTION

FINNANCING

SUPPLIESAND GOODS

GENERALSERVICES

LANGUAGESCENTER

ADMISSION

COMPUTINGSERVICES

LIBRARY

CINDECDIRECTION

CURRICULARPROGRAMSDIRECTION

I.C.T.A.

INTERDISCIPLINARYCURRICULARPROGRAMS

ACADEMIC PLANNINGUNIT

DEAN

ACADEMIC SECRETARY

VICE DEAN

STUDENTS VICE DEAN

FINANCIALASSISTANCE

SOCIALASSISTANCE

ACADEMICASSISTANCE

PROFESSIONALWELFARE

SPORTSCENTER


Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario)

II. Rectorship (Rectoría)


IV. Deans´ Council (Consejo de Decanos)

V. Directive Faculty Council (Consejo Directivo de Facultad)

VI. Deans (Decanaura) (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario

No. 44, 1986, p.1)

However, there were a few modifications and these were as follows:

307

I. In the Rectorship:

1. Rector

2. General Vice-Rector (Vice-Rector General)

3. Academic Vice-Rector (Vice-Rector Académico)

4. Student Affairs and University Welfare Vice-Rector (Vice-

Rector de Estudiantes y Bienestar Universitario)

5. University Sources Vice-Rector (Vice-Rector de Recursos

Universitarios)

6. Branch Vice-Rectors (Vice- Rector de Sede)

7. General Secretary (Secretario General)

8. General Administrative Director (Director Administrativo

General)

II. In the Faculties:

1. Dean (Decano)

2. Vice-Dean (Vice-Decano)

3. Faculty Secretary (Secretario de Facultad)

III. Other Academic Units:

1. Department Chair or Institute Director (Jefe de

Departamento of Director de Instituto)

3. Unit Chief (Jefe de Unidad)

V. Programs

1. Academic Director of the Undergraduate Programs

(Director Académico de Programas de Pregrado)

2. Academic Director of the Graduate Programs (Director

Académico de Programas de Posgrado) (Acuerdo del

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986, p.1-39).

308

As mentioned before, this organization was similar to that which was

established in Agreement 124, 1980 and the Agreement 100, 1984. However,

some positions and committees were created below the Rector. The University

Sources Vice-Rector position was formed. In addition, the Curricular Programs

Committee (Comité de Programas Curriculares), The Professor Representatives

Committee (Comité de Representantes de Profesores), and the Professors

Committee designated by the Board of Trustees (Comité de Profesores

designados por el Consejo Superior) were established (Acuerdo No. 44 de 1986).

However the duties and responsibilities of some positions and governmental

bodies saw a few changes (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44,

1986). These are presented in Figure 16 (p. 306).

Academic Senate

The main change made to the Senate was related to its composition. The

regular members continued to be the Rector, who presided over it; the Vice-

Rectors, and the Deans. Also invited on an ongoing basis were two Professors and

two students. The Professors were elected by their peers who attended the

Directive Faculty Councils. The students were elected by the student body from a

group of representatives from the Directive Faculty Councils (Acuerdo del

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

309

University Sources Vice-Rector

This position was related to the administration of academic support and

University publicity. These included references information, University press

policies, and students’ enrollment registrar (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior

Universitario No. 44, 1986).

General Secretary

The main duties and responsibilities of this position continued to be the

same, except for a few changes including (a) the coordination and oversight of the

Enrollment and Registrar Department and (b) crediting, via a resolution, the

elected members of the Board of Trustees, Deans’ Council, Directive Faculty

Councils, Area Committees, CINDEC, Curricular Programs Committee (Comité

de Programas Curriculares), and the University Welfare Committee. The

responsibility of collaborating and coordinating the Cultural Program (Programa

de Divulgación Cultural) was eliminated (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior


Deans Council

The main change was in the composition of the Council. One permanent

member, the Rector of the University, was included. In addition, the Advisors to

the Rectorship, the Director of Scientific Development and Research Committee,

the Curricular Programs Committee, and the Director of the Teaching Personnel

310

Affairs Division were invited to attend, but could not vote. This Agreement also

established that this Council would have two regular meetings a month and

special meetings at the discretion of its Chairman. The main change regarding the

duties and responsibilities of this Council was the elimination of the

administrative functions listed in Agreement 124, 1980. Agreement 44, 1986,

stated that this Council was in charge of the academic affairs of the Faculties only


Curricular Programs Committee

The Curricular Programs Committee (Comité de Programas Curriculares)

was composed of the Academic Vice-Rector who presided over it, the CINDEC

Director, the Curricular Programs Committee Director, and the Faculty Vice-

Deans. This Committee was in charge of advising the Board of Trustees, the

Rector, the Academic Senate, and the Deans in those aspects related to the

graduate and undergraduate curricular programs standards and general rules. In

addition to this Committee the University Curricular Programs Committee

Director was created (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).


The main reform to this Committee was also related to its composition.

Two Vice-Deans of Students Affairs designated by the Academic Senate, a

representative Dean of the Academic Senate, and an increased number of

311

students’ representative from two to three were included. The Student Affairs and

University Welfare Director as well as the Heads of the offices assigned to the

Vice-Rector of Student Affairs and University Welfare, were excluded from

attending to this committee (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44,

1986).

Research and Scientific Development Committee-CINDEC

New members were added to this Committee: Curricular Programs

Committee Director, two Coordinators of the Area Committees, and three Deans,

who were representatives of the Academic Senate. On the other hand, a

representative from the Department and Institute Directors Committee, and a

representative from the Inter-Faculty Institutes were excluded (Acuerdo del


Professors Committee

This Committee was created in order to present recommendations for

reforms to the University statutes and to select its representation under the

Academic Senate, Deans’ Council, and University Welfare Affairs Committee. It

was made up of the representatives of Professors for the Directive Faculty

Councils (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

312

Professors Committee designated by the Board of Trustees

This Committee was created in order to give advice to the Board of

Trustees on the statutes of the University. It was made up of the representatives of

Professors for the Directive Faculty Councils and the representative of Professors

to the Board of Trustees, who coordinated it (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior

Universitario No. 44, 1986)


The main modifications to this Committee were those added to existing

duties and responsibilities, including (a) determining the maximum number of

students who could be admitted in each undergraduate and graduate programs, (b)

defining policies regarding Student Affairs, and (c) assigning loan-scholarships

for students. These functions were added because the Faculty Advisors in

University Welfare and Student Affairs was eliminated (Acuerdo del Consejo

Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

Student Affairs and University Welfare Vice-Dean

This position replaced the Faculty Advisors in University Welfare and

Student Affairs. The main duties and responsibilities continued to be similar to

those established for the Faculty Advisors in University Welfare and Student

Affairs. However, some duties were added, such as their attendance at the

Directive Faculty Council, and the Curricular Programs Committee able to attend,

313

but not vote. In addition, the Vice-Dean had to advise the Dean and the Directive

Faculty Council in all aspects related to the integral development of students,

which had to be included in undergraduate and graduate academic programs


Decree 1210 of 1993

This Decree complemented a Higher Education normative reform that the

government of the country completed in 1992 through Law 30, which is the

primary legislation of higher education today. This law contributed to the

organization of higher education as a public service by (a) outlining the

fundamental principles of education, (b) limiting its areas of responsibility, (c)

defining academic programs and classifying higher education institutions, (d)

categorizing degrees, (e) defining the limits of the University’s autonomy, (f)

providing support and an assessment of the institutional quality of higher

education. It also helped institutions to gain autonomy by recognizing its

academic, administrative and economic freedom.

Decree 1210 of 1993 reorganized the organizational and governmental

structure of the National University of Colombia by introducing several

modifications described in Figure 17. The organization of the University

underwent some changes as follows:


II. Rectorship (Rectoría)

314


IV. Branch Vice-Rectors (Vice-Rectores de Sede)

V. Branch Councils (Consejos de Sede)

VI. Deans (Decanatura)

VII. Faculty Councils (Consejos de Facultad)

VIII. Other governing bodies or organizational forms added in the

internal statutes (Pacheco, 2001, p. 295).


BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR

ACADEMICSENATE

BRANCH DEANSBOARD

UNIVERSITY WELFAREVICE-RECTOR

GENERALADMINISTRATIVE

DIRECTION

UNIVERSITYSOURCES VICE-

RECTOR

INTERNALAUDITING

LEGAL MATTERSOFFICE PRESS OFFICE

PLANNINGOFFICE

GENERALSECRETARY

INSTITUTIONALARCHIVE

DIRECTION

UNIVERSITYPUBLICATIONS

ARTS FACULTY

ECONOMIC SCIENCEFACULTY

NURSERING FACULTY

AGRICULTURALFACULTY

SCIENCES FACULTY

LAW FACULTY

MEDICINE FACULTY

HUMAN SCIENCESFACULTY

ENGINEERINGFACULTY

DENTISTRY FACULTY

VETERINARY FACULTY


CINDECDIRECTION

CURRICULARPROGRAMSDIRECTION

ACADEMICPLANNING UNIT

UNIVERSITYPRESS

INTER-FACULTIES UNIT

CENTERS INSTITUTES

GRADUATEPROGRAMSCOMMITTEE

AREACOMMITTEE

CURRICULARPROGRAM

COMMITTEE

CINDEC

HEALTH

SOCIALPROMOTION

ACADEMICINTEGRATION

CULTURALDIFFUSION

SPORTS

PHYSICALPLANNING

CHAPLAINCY

GENERAL VICE-RECTOR

TEACHINGPERSONNEL

ADMINISTRATIVEPERSONNEL

SECURITYPERSONNEL

PROCESS OFFICE

FINANCINGOFFICE

GENERALSERVICES

INDUSTRIALSECURITY

SUPPLIESOFFICE

LIBRARY

COMPUTINGSERVICES

REGISTRAR ANDADMISSION

AUDIO-VISUALAIDS

UNIVERSITYRADIO

INTERINSTITU.RELATIONS


315

Comparing this organization to the one established in Decree 82 of 1980,

Agreement 124 of 1980, and Agreement 44 of 1986, the Branch Vice-Rectors,

and Branch Councils were added, and the Deans’ Council and the General

Administrative Director positions were eliminated. Their duties and

responsibilities were distributed among the General Vice-Rector, the Student

Affairs and University Welfare Vice-Rector and the University Sources Vice-

Rector. The main duties and responsibilities of the University Sources Vice-

Rector were transferred to the Academic Vice-Rector, while the functions of the

Student Affairs and University Welfare Vice-Rector were turned over to the

National Director of University Welfare. Finally, the “Directive Faculty Council”

was changed to “Faculty Council.”

Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees underwent some important modifications in its

structure and responsibilities. The number of its members was increased from

eight to nine as follows; the Minister of Education or the Vice-Minister; two

members designated by the resident of the country, one of which had to be an

alumnus of the University; a former Rector of the University selected by former

Rectors; a member designated by the National Higher Education Council

(Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CESU), a member of the Academic

Senate, a representative from the student body, a representative of the Professors,

and the Rector, who took part, but did not vote. The Minister of Economy, an

316

alumnus, and a representative of the Deans elected by the Academic Senate were

no longer part of the Board of Trustees (Pacheco, 2001).

Most of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees were the

same as those established in the Decree 82 of 1980. However, others included (a)

approving, modifying, and evaluating the general development plan of the

University presented by the Academic Senate; (b) the appointment or removal of

a Rector at any time during the three-year term; (c) establishing and supervising

the institutional evaluation system including teaching, research, and public

service; (d) assuring the establishment and development of the accreditation

process; (e) establishing policies and programs of University welfare and Student

Affairs; and (f) developing policies and guidelines related to intellectual property

(Pacheco, 2001).

Rector

To be appointed in this position, the candidate had to meet an additional

requirement, which was related to the development of academic activities for a

minimum term of eight years. Decree 82 of 1980 stated that to be appointed in

this position, it was necessary to have been a Professor for at least five years. The

age stipulation was eliminated. The Rector’s main duties and responsibilities

remained the same, although other functions were added: (a) directing the

University planning process; (b) presenting the general development plan to the

Academic Senate; (c) an annual self-assessment of his or her performance; (d)

317

conducting ongoing evaluations on the University’s development; and (e)

attending the National Higher Education Council and the National Science and

Technology Council meetings (Pacheco, 2001).


The government of the University remained the same as that established in

Article 10 of Decree 1210, 1993. However, this decree expanded and enhanced

the organizational structure including duties, responsibilities, creation or

suppression of positions, and governing bodies among others. It further defined

(Article 6) three organizational levels for the University. They were the National

level, Branch level, and Faculty level (Acuerdo No 13, 1999).

The national level included (See Figure 18):

I. Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior)

II. General Rector (Rector General):

III. General Vice-Rector (Vice-Rector General)

IV. Academic Vice-Rector (Vice-Rector Académico)

V. Inter-Branches Committee (Comité Inter-sedes)

VI. General Secretary (Secretario General)

VII. University Welfare Unit – UNIBIENESTAR (Unidad de Bienestar

Universitario) (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No.

13, 1999, p. 4).

318

Figure 18. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1999.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR


GENERAL SECRETARY

ACADEMIC SENATE

NATIONAL DIRECTION OFDATA PROCESSING AND

COMMUNICATIONS

BRANCHSECRETARY

INTER-BRANCHESCOMMITTEE

GENERAL VICE-RECTOR

PERSONNEL NATIONALDIRECTION

ADMINISTRATIVE ANDFINANCING NATIONAL

DIRECTION

UNIBIENESTAR

BRANCH COUNCIL

BRANCH VICE-RECTORSHIP

ACADEMICDIRECTION


FINANCINGDIRECTION

FACULTYCOUNCIL

DEAN

ACADEMIC VICE-DEAN

ACADEMICSECRETARY

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC-ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC

UNITS COMMITTEE

WELFARE VICE-DEAN

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC-ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS

DEPARTMENTS

SCHOOLS

INSTITUTES

CENTERS

INTERNALCONTROL OFFICE

INTERNATIONALOFFICE

LEGAL MATTERSOFFICE

NATIONAL PLANNINGOFFICE

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OFCURRICULAR PROGRAMS

RESEARCHNATIONALDIRECTION

ADMISSIONNATIONAL DIRECTION

CURRICULARPROGRAMS NATIONAL

DIRECTION


The branch level included:

VIII. Branch Council (Consejo de Sede)

IX. Branch Rector, Vice-Rector or Director (Rector, Vice-Rector o

Director de Sede)

319

X. Branch Secretary (Secretario de Sede) (Acuerdo del Consejo

Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999, p. 4)

The faculty level incorporated:

XI. Faculty Council (Consejo de Facultad)

XII. Dean (Decano)

XIII. Vice-Dean (Vice-decano)

XIV. Basic Academic-Administrative Performance Units (Unidades

Básicas de Gestión Académico-Administrativo) (Acuerdo del

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999, p. 5)

Branch Council

This Council was made up of the Branch Rector, Vice-Rector or Director,

the Deans, a representative from the Institutes and Inter-Faculties Centers; a

Professor elected by direct voting, an undergraduate student elected by direct

voting, two external representatives from the business world; and the Branch

University Welfare Director, who participated, but did not vote. The main

functions of this Council were similar to those established for the Board of

Trustees but at the branch level (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No.

13, 1999).

Faculty Council

The Faculty Council underwent changes in its composition. Even though

the number of members continued to be seven; there were some new members,

such as an alumni representative who must belong to an alumni association

320

recognized by the University; and three representatives from the Basic Academic-

Administrative Performance Units. In the last statutes there were two Professors’

representatives; one of them was designated by the Board of Trustees and the

other elected by the other Professors. Agreement 13, 1999 allowed the

representative elected by the Professorship of the respective Faculty to remain,

but eliminated the Professorship’s member designated by the Board of Trustees.

In addition, Article 21o stated that the Council could increase the number of

members who take part in the Council up by two additional members in order to

give adequate representation to the Basic Academic-Administrative Performance

Units (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999, p. 15). On the

other hand, the attendance of the Department or Institute Director (Director de

Departamento o Instituto), Graduate Studies Director (Director Académico de

Posgrados), and Academic Program Director (Director Académico de Programa)

were eliminated (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999).

In general the duties and responsibilities of the Faculty Council continued

to be the same. However, some functions were added and some eliminated. The

duties included were (a) to coordinate and direct the participative process of the

Faculty in the formulation of the Faculty General Developing Plan, and (b) to give

recommendations on general policies for the University and specific policies for

the Faculty. The eliminated functions were those related to the appointment of

teaching and administrative personnel, including the presentation to the Rector of

321

a list of candidates for being selected as a Dean or Department, Institute,

Academic Program, or Graduate Studies Director (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior


Dean

The main changes to this position were related to the requirements for

being appointed as a Dean. The age requirement (30 years) was eliminated;

however, a candidate was required to have been teaching in higher education for

at least five years and to hold at least the title of Associate Professor. The Dean

continued being in charge of the academic and administrative management of the

Faculty (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999).

Basic Academic-Administrative Performance Units

These units were created by the Board of Trustees. Their main functions

were to (a) recommend the establishment, administration, and organization of

undergraduate, graduate, research, curricular programs for public service; (b)

implement, evaluate and monitor Faculty Development Plans and Programs; (c)

review the internal organization and performance of the Faculty at least once a

year; (d) propose initiatives to the Faculty Council which guarantee successful

development of the curriculum and any required modifications; (e) consider and

help resolve student issues according to the rules and regulations of the

University; and (f) perform a periodical evaluations of curricular program quality

322

and students’ performance (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13,

1999, p. 18)117.

These Institutes were created to sponsor the research activity of the

University. These would be organized and governed by an Institute Council and

an Institute Director. The former is made up of the Institute Director; the Faculty

Deans who participated in the organization of the Institute; a Professor elected by

the academic personnel of the Institute; the Branch Rector, Vice-Rector or

Director, and an external researcher of the Institute designated by the Branch

Council. The main duties and responsibilities of this Council were to serve as an

advisor to the academic-administrative management and organization of the

Institute. The Director of the Institute is in charge of the direction and

administration of the Institute. To be appointed as a Director, a candidate should

fulfill the same requirements than those for being appointed as a Dean (Acuerdo

del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999).

117 1. Recomendar la elaboración y proponer, administrar y organizar programas curriculares de pregrado, postgrado, investigación y extensión, de carácter disciplinario o interdisciplinario. 2. Ejecutar, evaluar y hacer seguimiento a los programas y proyectos del Plan de Desarrollo de la Facultad que se relacionen con su objeto, así como evaluar las actividades académicas de los profesores adscritos. 3. Revisar su organización interna y evaluar su gestión por lo menos una vez al año. 4. Proponer al Consejo de Facultad las iniciativas que garanticen el desarrollo adecuado de los programas curriculares y el seguimiento de la actividad académica, con base en la naturaleza y fines para los cuales fue creada la Unidad Básica o forma de organización, y proponer al Consejo de Facultad las modificaciones que estime convenientes. 5. Considerar y decidir sobre los asuntos de orden estudiantil que, conforme a los reglamentos de la Universidad, sean de su competencia. 6. Evaluar periódicamente el cumplimiento y la calidad de los programas curriculares, así como el rendimiento de los estudiantes, y proponer los correctivos necesarios. 7.

323

Inter-Faculty Centers

The main objective for the establishment of these Centers is to perform the

Public Service function of higher education. Like the Inter-Faculty Institutes,

these centers have a Center Council and a Center Director with the same

functions, integration, and requirements. The only change in the composition of

the Council is that the external researcher is replaced by an external Professor of

the Center (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999).

University Cloister (Claustro) and Colegiatura

The University Cloister (Claustro) and Advisory Council (Colegiatura)

were two governing bodies created to establish a flexible environment for the

University community that would bring about the participation of academic

personnel and students in the self-evaluation process, in the formulation of

general policies and in the general development plan of the University. The

University Cloister must present documents and reports in order to be analyzed by

the Advisory Council. The difference between the Cloister and the Advisory

Council was that the University Cloister was at Faculty level while the Advisory

Council was at University level. Both the Cloister and the Advisory Council must

meet privately every three years for a minimum of three days (Acuerdo del


Las demás que los reglamentos de la Universidad y los Consejos de Facultad les asignen o deleguen.

324

University Welfare Unit (UNIBIENESTAR)

This unit replaced the National Direction of University Welfare, which

was in charge of the management and coordination of the policies, plans, and

programs related to student and personnel affairs. The unit has the following

structure:

University Welfare Council (Consejo de Bienestar Universitario)

Director

Faculty and Branch University Welfare Committee (Comité de

Bienestar de Sede y de Facultad)

Faculty and Branch University Welfare Director (Director de

Bienestar de Sede y de Facultad)” (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior

Universitario No. 13, 1999, p. 23).

The University Welfare Council was made up of the General Vice-Rector,

who presided over it; a UNIBIENESTAR Director, two Deans elected by the

Academic Senate, two Professor representatives, and two student representatives

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999, p. 23). The main

duties and responsibilities of this Council were (a) to evaluate the programs and

the structure of the University welfare, and proposing modifications where

required; (b) to advise the Board of Trustees, Academic Senate, and the Rector in

matters related to student and personnel affairs; and (c) to propose and coordinate

policies, strategies, and programs related to student and personnel affairs. The

UNIBIENESTAR Director is in charge of the academic and administrative

325

management of the unit (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13,

1999).

Current Organizational and Governance Structure of the National University of Colombia

The National University of Colombia continued to be governed and

organized by Agreement No 13 of 1999. This Agreement made some

modifications to the appointment of positions such as the Rectors and Deans and

to their duties and responsibilities to University governing bodies. In addition,

there were some changes to the composition and selection of the representatives

from some governmental bodies, including the Board of Trustees, and the

Academic Council, among others (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2004).

However, a few modifications have been done to the organizational structure as

shown in Figure 19.

326


BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR


GENERAL SECRETARY

ACADEMIC SENATE

NATIONAL DIRECTION OFDATA PROCESSING AND

COMMUNICATIONS

BRANCHSECRETARY

INTER-BRANCHESCOMMITTEE

GENERAL VICE-RECTOR

PERSONNEL NATIONALDIRECTION

ADMINISTRATIVE ANDFINANCING NATIONAL

DIRECTION

UNIBIENESTAR

BRANCH COUNCIL

BRANCH VICE-RECTORSHIP

ACADEMICDIRECTION


FINANCINGDIRECTION

FACULTYCOUNCIL

DEAN

ACADEMIC VICE-DEAN

ACADEMICSECRETARY

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC-ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC

UNITS COMMITTEE

WELFARE VICE-DEAN

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC-ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS

DEPARTMENTS

SCHOOLS

INSTITUTES

CENTERS

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OFCURRICULAR PROGRAMS

RESEARCHNATIONALDIRECTION

ADMISSIONNATIONAL DIRECTION

CURRICULARPROGRAMS NATIONAL

DIRECTION

INTERNNAL CONTROL OFFICE

INTERNATIONAL &INTERINSTITUTIONAL OFFICE

NATIONAL JURIDICAL OFFICE

NATIONAL PLANNING OFFICE

ARAUCA BRANCHLETICIA BRANCH

SAN ANDRÉS BRANCH

BRANCH HEAD

UNIVERSITY PRESS

HEALTH SERVICES

COMMUNICATION

From: “Organigrama Institucional”, by National University of Colombia, retrieved May 24 of

2005, from http://www.unal.edu.co/contenido/sobre_un/sobreun_organigrama.htm

327

CHAPTER 6

Characteristics of the Spanish and French Model reflected in the Organization and Governance of the Great College of Nuestra

Señora del Rosario and the National University

This Chapter addresses the second question of the research related to the

influence of The Spanish and French models of higher education over both

Universities, the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National

University of Colombia. This section focuses on the organization and governance

dimensions of these models. In order to examine and analyze the factors that

influenced each University, the researcher briefly reviewed the evolution and

history of the Spanish and French higher education by placing emphasis on the

organization and governance of the University of Salamanca and the French

Imperial University. Then the researcher analyzed the influence of the Spanish

model on the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, as well as the

influence of the Imperial University on the National University of Colombia.

UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA (SPANISH MODEL)

As mentioned elsewhere, Colombia was conquered and colonized by the

Spaniards when they discovered America in 1499. The establishment of higher

education institutions in the New World was influenced by the Spanish higher

education model through two types of Universities: The University of Salamanca

and the University of Alcalá de Henares. However, the University of Salamanca

328

had more impact in the foundation of Latin American Colleges and Universities

as can be seen in the Real Cells118 that established them119. The foundation of higher

education institutions in the New World was established by having the same

rights and privileges as the University of Salamanca (Rodriguez, 1977). The only

exception to the Salamanca model was the University of Santo Domingo, which

followed the University of Alcalá de Henares pattern (Rodriguez, 1972).

Consequently, Colombia was inspired by this model for establishing of

higher education institutions by the University of Salamanca and its respective

Great Colleges by founding the University of The Santo Tomas (1571) and the

Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (1580) (Rodriguez, 1973);

(Rodriguez 1977). In order to understand the influence of the Spanish model in

the organization and governance in the Colombian higher education system and

the Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario, it is important to describe the

history and evolution of The University of Salamanca and its respective Colleges.

History of the University of Salamanca

In the beginning of the Lower Middle Ages, the development of a new

educational institution (the Studium) began, which was composed of a select

group of Professors and students who were looking to improve knowledge in the

different disciplines in Europe, including Theology, Arts, Law and Medicine.

118 Refers to the legal document enacted by the King of Spain during the Colonial Period.

329

Particularly in Spain, the oldest remaining University was founded about 1218 by

King Alphonse IX in the city of Salamanca. The University was known as the

University of Salamanca. It ranked at the same level as other European

Universities such as Paris, Bologna and Oxford. In the expansion of the Spanish

Empire during the end of fifteenth century, Salamanca also played an important

role in the development of Latin American Higher Education (Fernandez,

Rodriguez & Alvarez, 1991).

The University of Salamanca was created following the democratic model

of Bologna where students govern the teachers. As Schachner states, this

University was one “in which students dictate their Masters what lectures shall be

delivered, what hours shall be kept, what absences permitted, what penalty

inflicted.” (1938, p.147). King Alphonse X “The Wise” became protector of the

University and in 1254 conferred its Statute known as the Magna Carta; which

recognized the University jurisdiction and endowed the first Chairs in Civil Law,

Canon Law, Arts and Medicine with the respective salaries. Thus, the University

was established and financed by the King of Spain. However, in Medieval

Christianity, it was not feasible to establish the Studium without the support of the

Pope and the Catholic Church due to the necessity of granting degrees which were

internationally recognized. As a result, the King requested permission from the

119 The University of Mexico (September 21, 1551), University of Lima, Peru (July 25 of 1571), and the University of Santiago de Chile, Chile (February 9 of 1798).

330

Pope, (which was subsequently given through the Pontific Bull120 (Bula Pontifica)

by Pope Alexander IV in 1255. This Bull conceded the validity of the degrees

awarded by The University of Salamanca, and also gave its graduates the

privilege of teaching in any medieval higher education institution, with the

exception of The University of Paris and Bologna (this was later changed).

Finally, it gave the priests and clergy the right to study Civil Law, which forbade

them to study in Paris and other European Universities (Schachner, 1938;

Fernandez et al, 1991).

In the beginning of the fifteenth century, the University was supported and

influenced by the Papacy. The Popes who assisted in the consolidation of the

Studium were Benedict XIII and Martin V. The former consolidated the

University income that allowed it to grow and create the twenty-four Chairs for

the Faculties of Theology, Civil Law, Canon Law and Medicine. Martin V gave

the University its Statutes of 1422, which were the base of this scholarly

organization. Once the University was established, King Alfonso IX gave the

scholars the power to elect the Rector. This election process continued until the

mid-fifteenth century when the University suffered a State of anarchy in which

there were three Rectors governing it at the same time. By 1480 the Catholic

Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, put end to this situation by taking control of

the University as it had done during the medieval times (Fernandez et al, 1991).

120 It was an authorization for establishment of Colleges and universities given by the Pope in the

331

The University of Salamanca was opened to all scientific development

until the seventeenth century, when it fell into a state of dissolution, losing most

of the best teachers and students. By the eighteenth century there were some

attempts to reform the University, but by the end of that century Spain was

invaded by the Napoleon’s troops. It could not remain isolated from this conflict.

As a result, the nineteenth century brought a new University model with

Napoleonic influence, imposed by France. By the middle of nineteenth century,

the University continued to decline because of a drastic reduction in the number

of Faculties, students, and the number of academic programs, and by only

offering studies in Law, Philosophy and Letters, and only offering Licentiate

Degrees to 150 students. Nevertheless, several years later, Faculties of Medicine

and Science were reopened, which brought about a slight recovery of the

University (Fernandez et al, 1991).

The Great Colleges

During the Medieval Era, University Colleges were established to provide

housing and food for students in order to improve their learning and help poor

scholars. These Colleges were created in countries such as England, France, and

Italy and later in Spain. Some of them were religious and others were secular.

There were two kinds of Colleges from the organizational and governance

perspective; the first model, known as the Bolognese model, was a democratic

colonial period.

332

system where the Rector (President) was a student who was democratically

elected by the student body. The second model, known as the Parisian model, was

hierarchical, where the scholars had to accept the sitting Rector. In Spain, most of

the Great Colleges were founded following the Bolognese system, with the

exception of Colleges belonging to The Alcalá de Henares University, which

followed a combination of the two models described above (Rodriguez, 1977).

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Great Colleges in Spain

were created in order to provide less fortunate students who had outstanding

talent, abilities, and virtues the opportunity of studying. In this way poverty would

not be a factor in whether or not one could receive a University degree.

Accordingly, six Great Colleges were founded under the protection of The

University of Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares. Four of them belonged to The

University of Salamanca: the Colleges of Anaya (or San Bartholomew), Cuenca,

Oviedo and Fonseca. The first Great College, Saint Bartholomew, was founded by

the Bishop Diego de Anaya in the beginning of fifteenth century. The second

College was established in 1500 by a former member of the Great College of

Saint Bartholomew, Don Diego Ramirez de Villaescusa. Seventeen years later,

Don Diego de Muros, who was Bishop of Oviedo, founded the third Great

College named San Salvador (also recognized as the Great College of Oviedo).

The last Great College was established in 1521 by the Archbishop of Toledo

333

Alonso de Fonseca y Ulloa. This College was known as the College of

Archbishop or Fonseca (Fernandez et al, 1991).

In general all great Colleges had generous incomes, which allowed them

to create great buildings, libraries, hostelry, and chapels. However, the most

important privilege these Colleges gave to their alumni was that they occupied the

most important position in the Royal courts. This benefit was also enjoyed by the

alumni of the Great College of Rosario in Colombia. The Great Colleges

disappeared not only from The University of Salamanca, but also in the whole

country of Spain. This was the result of a reform made during the Enlightenment

Era (Fernandez et al, 1991).

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was created using the

democratic model of the University of Salamanca and the Great Colleges.

However, there was a significant difference between the Great Colleges of Spain

and the Great College of Rosario in Colombia. The former Great Colleges were

created in order to serve as housing for poor students who were enrolled in the

University of Salamanca. These Colleges did not offer any classes or Chairs to the

students. Therefore, the Constitutions of these Great Colleges no longer defined

them as institutes of higher learning. They referred only to the rules and

regulations related to community life; clothing, food, ceremonies, holidays,

administrations and management of the properties and rents, among others. On

the other hand, the Great College of Rosario had two functions; first, to house

334

students, and second, to educate them. It is important to remember that during the

colonial period, the Great College of Rosario did not have Faculty that awarded

degrees. As a result, the students had to take examinations in the University of

Santo Tomás in order to grant bachelor, licentiate, masters, or doctoral degrees

(Guillén de Iriarte, 2003).

Organization and Governance of the University of Salamanca

The administration of The University of Salamanca rested on sets of

Constitution and Royal statutes as follows: the Constitution of Martin V (1422),

the statutes of 1538, the Covarrubias Reform (1561), Zuñiga (1595), and Caldas

(1604), Gilimón de la Mota (1618), and the reforms of 1625 (Rodriguez, 1979).

These statutes supplemented rather than replaced each other, according to the

needs of the University as it evolved. One of the most important reforms in the

organizational and governance dimensions of the University was determined by

the Constitution of Martin V of 1422. This Constitution established two important

positions in the organizational structure; the Chancellorship and the Rectorship.

The first was also known as the Maestroescuela (Chancellor). This was a lifetime

position. The Chancellor was a pious man, and bonded to the Cathedral chapter;

he was also the judge of the Scholastic Court. In other words, he was the special

judge (juez privativo) for all civil and most criminal cases involving the academic

community. He also had absolute authority, representing the king and the Pope in

335

conferring University degrees and one of only three keepers of the University

coffer’s keys.

The Chancellor could not involve himself any academic affairs except to

restore order. In 1595, the maestroescuela developed a considerable organization

of a judge (juez), special attorney (fiscal), notaries (notarios) and constable

(alguacil). The University of Salamanca, the Chancellor became the most

important authority of the institution, surpassing even the Rector’s power. In

contrast, in Latin American Universities he had practically no authority, although

his presence was required when degrees were being handed out. This merely

represented his jurisdiction in all Spanish Royal Universities (Maier &

Weatherhead, 1979); (Fernandez et al, 1991).

The second one was the Rector, who had absolute authority. His office

was the power base of the University. In the beginning, the election of the Rector

followed the Bologna Model, in which that position was held by a student, not a

Professor. The Rector position was established in order to help the Chancellor in

the government of students. Nevertheless, the Rector’s position started to gain its

own independence. As a result, there were some rivalries among those positions.

The Chancellor usually was successful, because this position was for life, while

the Rectorship was only for the term of one year. On some occasions, the Crown

had to mediate in order to impose harmony.

336

The requirements for being elected Rector changed along with to the

historical evolution of the University. The Constitution of Martin V established

the appointment of one Rector. There was no age requirement, but the Rector

needed to be enrolled in the University. Carlos V, in the reform made to the

statutes at the end of eighteenth century, stated that to be elected as Rector and

Advisors, it was necessary to be at least twenty-four years old. Carlos III, in the

Real Cell of December 11 of 1770, increased the term of the Rectorship from a

one-year to a two-year term, and established the requirement that the candidates

must hold a Licentiate121 or Doctor degree (Rodriguez, 1977).

The candidate for Rector was selected from the nobility of the city because

it was an honorary voluntary position which was not paid. In addition, the person

elected had to study and perform academic duties which required large financial

resources. The Rector had several duties related to the academic affairs of the

University. The most important were (a) to call and preside over various types of

Cloister meetings; (b) to be present at the examinations for a bachelor degree, and

verify the fulfillment of the requirements for earning a degree; (c) to preside over

the assignment of topics for the oral exams; (d) to be present at the ceremonies for

granting academic higher degrees; (e) to receive the oath of obedience from the

students; and (f) to visit the classes in order to ensure that the regulations

concerning class work were maintained. When the Rector was absent or requested

121 It is important to remember that by that time, four types of academic degrees were granted as

337

a leave of absence, the Vice-Rector replaced him temporarily. As the University

and the country’s development evolved, the Rector’s position began to expand

into the academic and administrative as it had done in the Napoleonic model

(Addy, 1966; Rodriguez, 1977; Fernandez et al, 1991).

Another important position in the organizational structure was held by the

Advisors. There were eight advisors who assisted and advised the Rector in all

aspects of academic administration of the University, and who also participated in

the election of the Rector among the students. This simply meant that the Rector

did not have absolute power over the University because the government was

constitutional and democratic. The Councilors were elected annually by the Full

Cloister (Claustro Pleno), and they were organized into a governmental body

known as the Claustro de Consiliarios (Advisory Senate). The election of the

Advisors and the Rector was done every year on the eleventh of November. To

ensure that the Rector represented the student body, the statutes excluded

members of the Cathedral, Chapter, Canons, Collegians, Monks, Priests and

Professors (Maier & Weatherhead, 1979; Fernandez et al, 1991).

There were others officers who assisted in the day-to-day administration

of the University. Among these, the most important was the Secretary. He was

the only person outside the Cloister membership who attended the meetings. He

was the equivalent of a registrar, clerk, treasurer, public notary, and Secretary to

follows: Bachelo, Licentiate, Master, and Doctor (See Chapter 2).

338

the Board. He gave certificates to those who successfully passed their

examinations, had good class attendance, and paid their fees on time. The second

important position was the Bedel. There were two categories of Bedel; the chief

Bedel (Bedel mayor) or attendance Bedel, and the assistant Bedel (Bedel menor)

or messenger Bedel. The former was charged with keeping track of the

punctuality and attendance of Professors, and the assistant Bedel (Bedel menor)

had the duty of personally informing the members of the Advisory Senate of

upcoming meetings. The third, and probably the least important of the heads of

the University, was the primicenio. He convoked the Full Cloister of Doctors and

Masters (claustro pleno) for regular meetings (Addy, 1966; Pesset, 1983).

In addition to these positions, there were two elective and representative

bodies in the University administration which had extensive influence (Addy,

1966). The first one was the Full Cloister (claustro pleno) consisting of Doctors,

Licentiates, and Masters of Arts who had graduated from the University or whose

degrees entitled them to teach there. They established the general policies of the

University by executive decree, or Acuerdos. The second was the Curator of the

University Chest (claustro de diputados) who managed a great deal of the

University’s financial business (Maier & Weatherhead, 1979).

339

INFLUENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA ON THE GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA OF ROSARIO

The University of Salamanca and its Great Colleges had strong influence

on the establishment of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and its

evolution through to present day. The Real Cell of 1651 stated that the Great

College of Rosario had the same privileges as those of the Great College which

the Archbishop enjoyed. Indeed, Fr. Torres wrote the Constitution of the Great

College of Rosario based on the Constitution of the Great College of the

Archbishop. However, it is important to point out one of the greatest

philosophical differences between the Spanish Great Colleges and the Colombian

College was that the Spanish Great Colleges were established to provide

accommodations for poor students who were enrolled at The University of

Salamanca; however, this situation changed over the years by admitting students

from the nobility. They had to prove their lineal purity (limpieza de sangre). On

the other hand, the Great College of Rosario accommodated students who were

economically less fortunate, as well as offering them an education. Therefore, the

Constitution of the Great College of Rosario changed slightly compared to the

Great College of the Archbishop. The latter only addressed aspects related to

University community life; while the former included aspects related to the

community life and also described the academic rules and regulations that Fr.

Torres created and adapted (Rodriguez, 1977; Guillén de Iriarte, 2003).

340

Rodriguez (1977) noted that there were several similarities between the

Salamanca University and the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. The

Great College was considered as representative and genuine pattern of Salamanca

model than that of the Great Colleges created in Latin America (p.134). On the

other hand, the differences in objectives between the Salamanca Great College

and the Great College of Rosario, as it was explained above, produced some

academic, administrative, organizational, and economical variations in the

Constitution of the Great College of Rosario.

From an organization and governance perspective, there were also some

similarities and variations in the structural organization of the Salamanca Great

Colleges and the Great College of Rosario which changed some of their duties

and responsibilities. Among the similarities, one of the most important aspects

that strongly influenced the College was the participation of students in the

government of the University. This democratic model was handed down to the

University of Salamanca in the Constitution of 1422 of Martin V. In fact, this

democratic trend helped it to survive the challenges of a changing country. It is

important to remember, that the scholars were in charge of the election of the

Rector and the Advisory Senate, and at the same time they were responsible for

the academic and economic management of the College, as well as the

appointment of Professors and administrative positions. The Rector and the

Advisors were advised by the Chancellor, the Advisory Senate, and the Deputies.

341

This model has continued until the present day, although there were some periods

in which this privilege was rescinded or even abolished, but then reestablished

years later.

Another important aspect on which the University of Salamanca had

strong influence over the Great College of Rosario was the qualifications and

appointment of the Rector. According to the former Constitution, Fr. Torres stated

that the first Rector should be named in perpetuity, as was established in the

Constitution of the Spanish Great Colleges. Likewise, the scholar who was

elected as Rector had to demonstrate his wealth, lineal purity and legitimate birth.

The Vice-Rector and the Advisors were elected among the scholars following the

same elective process as the Rector election. The Advisors assisted the Rector in

solving important problems of the College. Other positions were the Chaplain,

Master of Ceremonies, Secretary, and Bedeles. The chaplain was in charge of

organizing the religious activities of the College. The Master of Ceremonies was

in charge of protocol of the official ceremonies, following the formality and

procedures established in the Constitution of the Great College of the Archbishop.

The Constitution of the Great College of Rosario also described the wardrobe that

the scholars (colegiales) had to wear depending on the activities that they had to

perform (Rodriguez, 1977).

As in the Spanish Great Colleges, the scholars had to demonstrate their

lineal purity and legitimate birth in order to be admitted to the Great College of

342

Rosario. Lineal purity served to demonstrate that the scholar was a nobleman with

great expectations who had a Christian ancestry of parents and grandparents. It

also meant that his parents would not be working in positions of low prestige. The

students´ life in the College was dedicated to order, austerity, and discipline, as it

was in the Spanish Great Colleges (Rodriguez, 1977; Laverde, 1986).

As explained elsewhere, the former Constitution of the Great College of

Nuestra Señora of Rosario underwent some modifications as stated in various

legal and internal documents as follows: New Constitution of 1893; Agreement 5

of 1930; Decree 1065 of 1964; and Agreement 77 of 1995. Even though the

changes were the result of the historical evolution of the country and the College,

they maintained the same basic structure created by Fr. Cristóbal Torres. These

modifications were minor, reflecting the evolutionary changes the College was

experiencing, rather than a real reform of its essence.

On the other hand, there were a few differences between the structure of

the Spanish Great Colleges and the Great College of Rosario. One of the most

important dissimilarities in the organization and governance dimensions of both

institutions was the role played by the Chancellor on each institution. This

position had strong power in the governance of the Spanish Great Colleges that in

some cases surpassed the Rector’s authority. In contrast, the power of this

position in the Great College of Rosario was almost nil. Indeed, this position was

343

not included anywhere in the Constitution of the College (Maier & Weatherhead,

1979).

IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY (FRENCH MODEL)

Once Colombia became independent from the Spaniards, the country

began modifying the socioeconomic structures of the colony, replacing the

peninsular authorities by the criollos. The same elements used for the Illustration

Movement served as ideological support for the Independence Campaign during

the end of seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century. As a

result, colonial higher education was reformed following the French Model of

education designed by Napoleon. This model distinguished itself by its emphasis

on professionalism, fragmentation of the education, and the substitutions of the

research function of the University by other types of units (academies and

Institutes). The University operated under the support and protection of the State,

which was interested in training the professionals required for public

administration of social needs (Tünnermann, 1997).

In order to understand how the French Model influenced the Colombian

higher education system, it is important to briefly review of the evolution of

French education, with more emphasis on the Republican Period. The University

of Paris was one of the most famous Universities of the Middle Ages, and also

served as a model for the establishment of other European Universities during that

period. Prior to the middle of the eleventh century, Paris was considered a major

344

learning center; however, not until the end of the same century did students begin

to congregate in Paris. The University of Paris was created and governed by its

Professors or Masters (Schachner, 1938; Huerta and Perez, 2002). It was divided

into three higher Faculties: Theology, Canon Law, and Medicine and one Lower

Faculty (Arts). Each Faculty was directed by a Dean (Cobo, 1979).

The University of Paris began to decline during the fifteenth century, and

continued into the sixteenth and seventeenth century. This was primarily due to

wars and religious conflicts that as well as disputes between the Catholic Church

and the King of France. In 1679, during the reign of Louis XIV, the Law School

was established by introducing courses in civil law, which were based on Roman

law. This was one of the most important reforms in higher education at that time,

which put an end to the autocratic management of the higher education system by

the Catholic Church, and divided administration equally between the Crown and

the Church (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

Evolution of the French Higher Education since the French Revolution

The French Revolution of 1789 brought about the abolition of the Ancient

Regime of Colleges and Universities122 by the Republican Convention Decree of

122The most important differences between the University established in the Middle Ages and the Imperial University of Napoleon's time, was that the former was operated independently from social, civil and religious control in spite of its decline during fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. On the contrary, the academic freedom, pluralism, and democratic organization which were hallmarks of the University before the Napoleon era, were replaced by a unique new concept of what Napoleon thought a university should look like. He brought the University under the control of the state, upon which it was dependent financially and academically. The Napoleonic

345

1793. As a result, during the eighteenth century, higher education institutions

were established. These were known as Academies to differentiate them from the

University system, where the students could obtain degrees. The Imperial

University was made up of these Academies, which were located in Paris and

other French provinces, and they offered the Faculties of Theology, Medicine,

Law, Sciences and Letters and Arts. The model of the Napoleonic University was

followed not only by France but also by other European countries such as

England and Germany (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

The French Revolution brought remarkable changes in the public

education system. Educational institutions were emancipated from religious and

political power. As a result, primary education was free for French citizens;

secondary education was considered a necessity for entry to higher education; and

higher education was offered by Universities123 as well as polytechnic institutions,

and central and special Schools124 (grandes écoles and écoles normales

supérieures), and higher education scientific institutions125. The polytechnic

model had strong influence in other European countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy. Model (Cobo, 1979). 123 The most important University established during the beginning of nineteenth century was the University of Paris, which granted the Baccalauréat License (degree) and Agrégation Exam (an advanced competitive examination for teachers), and the teaching diplomas for Lycée teachers (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005). 124 These types of institutions, created during the nineteenth century, were both research institutions and teaching institutions characterized by a competitive examination for being admitted to them (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005). 125 The higher education scientific institutions were the home for the most dynamic research laboratories of the era, among them were the Museum of Natural History, the Collège de France, and the Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

346

institutions were created in order to train engineers and doctors needed during the

war. The Special Schools were established in order to train teachers for secondary

Schools. According to the legislators, the establishment of Central Schools

should be considered an option for the development of the encyclopedic model,

which would create a new infrastructure for both the Secondary Education System

and the Higher education system of the country (Verger, 1986). The Higher

Education Scientific Institutions were established for the development of the

research function (Huerta and Perez, 2002; Napoleon Series.org, January 8,

2005). Figure 20 contains the different types of organizations that the education

system followed between 1789 and 1804.

With reference to higher education, a new National Higher education

system was developed and designed by revolutionary legislators of the French

Revolution. There were previous events that also gave aid to develop this

proposal. Among the most important was the foundation of several specialized

research institutions outside the University, the creation of the State Higher

Technical Institutions, and the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1762, which allowed

State intervention in education, bringing about secularization (Verger, 1986).

Consequently, Technical Institutions were established in order to provide fields of

learning that the University could not. These were the College of France (1530),

the Plant Garden (1626), the Academy of Sciences Observatory (1672), Schools

of Bridges and Roads (1747), the Engineering School (1748), and the Mines

347

Schools (1783), etc. In addition, other specialized institutions such as the

Polytechnic and the Higher Normal School (1794), the Eastern Languages

Schools (1795), and the Engineering and Artillery School (1802) were set up (The

University of Paris, 2005).

Figure 20. Organization of the Education System in France between 1789-1804.

From: La Revolución Francesa y la educación, la universidad napoleónica y la universidad en

Francia hasta 1968. Italia y España, In “Simposio Permanente sobre la Universidad”, by Borrero,

A. 1999.

Higher education in France was reorganized into seventeen academies or

districts. Each one was governed by a Rector and a Council. They also relied on

the Minister of Public Instruction (Ministerio de Instrucción Pública). This

reform also organized the higher education system into special or professional

Central

Schools

Institutions Professional

Schools

1789 Terror Regime Directory

Special Schools

Lyceums Lyceums

1792Convention

1800 Consulate 1804 Empire

“Middle Empire” Secondary Level

University and their AcademiesLaws of 1802, 1804, and 1808

348

Schools known as Faculties. They were in charge of training physicians, lawyers,

and teachers for Imperial service. On the other hand, research activities were

separated from the teaching institutes, converting the higher education system in

France into a set of professional schools, bureaucratized and subject to the

protection and guidance of the State, which sought to utilize its workers according

its own interests. The four higher and lower Faculties created in the Middle Ages

were replaced by the establishment of some Faculties or Schools that the State

considered necessary (Cobo, 1979; Verger, 1986; Tünnerman, 1992; Huerta and

Perez, 2002).

After 1815, with the downfall of the Napoleonic Empire and the

Restoration Era, the Church formed an alliance with royalty in order to retain

control of the higher education system. Again, the idea was to decentralize higher

education, thus changing the administration by separating the seventeen existing

national Universities. Unfortunately, this idea was not popular, and the centralized

management of education continued. However, there was an important change by

which control of the higher education system was turned over to a commission of

five members who were under the direction of the Minister of the Interior. There

were a few changes to the Imperial University due to some financial difficulties

the country was experiencing at that time. The most important was the dissolution

of the Chairs and academic facilities, which were seen by the State as superfluous

to their objectives (Verger, 1986).

349

In summary, higher education during Napoleonic era had three specific

features; first, education was professionalized and specialized according to the

needs of the State. In other words, National Specialized Institutes or School

Networks were created in order to train students in academic programs required

by the government. These included medicine, law, business administration, and

engineering. The establishment of new Faculties of Science and Letters served the

purpose of integrating professions with public requirements through a Final Test

students were required to take. In addition, these Faculties were in charge of

administering the required test for teachers so they could get licenses to teach in

the country’s best Schools. It is important to point out that this reform retained the

relative autonomy of the Normal Schools and the existing studies of Medicine and

Law.

The second feature was related to the division and compartmentalization

of the education system. The main functions of the academy (teaching and

research) were separated by creating institutions that only conducted research

separately from the University. Each knowledge area or profession had its own

Institute or School located nearby, but there was no contact between them. The

third characteristic was the heavily centralized management of the system which

varied according to the regime at the time, and the Faculty or School involved.

For instance, the Faculties of Law and Medicine could appoint their own

Professors, but Professors of Sciences and Letters were appointed by the

350

government, and were obligated to teach according to their methods (Drouard,

1977; Verger, 1986).

The Imperial University

The Imperial University was created during the nineteenth century by

Napoleon as a public service institution governed by the State according to its

own interests. This University had absolute control over the educational system. It

was founded through the Law of May 10, 1806, which was derived from the Laws

of 1802 and 1804. This legislation demonstrated the importance of public

education by creating the Corps Enseignant (the Imperial University) which was

exclusively in charge of the Empire’s public training and education. The main

function of higher education was to train civil servants and professionals for

public service. This legislation also established a fixed salary for the Professors

who were attracted to the University’s community life. The Imperial University,

which had Faculties, had the right to manage its properties and budget

autonomously (Borrero, 1999).

The Law of May 10, 1806 allowed four years for the establishment of the

Imperial University, but it was actually created in 1808126. Its organization and

principles were formulated by this legislation. The Imperial University was

organized into seventeen academies or districts, and was the administrative

126 This legislation appointed Louis Fontanes as the Great Master of the University, Bishop Casal as the Chancellor, and Delambre as Treasurer (Borrero, 1999).

351

authority of the higher education system. Each academy was governed by an

Academic Senate (composed by ten members appointed by the Grand Maître), a

Rector and a Council which at the same time relied on the Minister of Public

Instruction. Under the Academies, there were special Schools, or professional

Schools known as Faculties and Lyceums. They were in charge of training

physicians, lawyers, and teachers for imperial service.

Title II of the same law created five Faculties; three professional and two

academic Faculties. The Professional Faculties or Special Schools were Law,

Medicine, and Theology. The Academic Faculties were Science, Mathematics and

Physics, and the Letters Faculty included History, Rhetoric, Logic, and

Geography. The Academic Faculties were offered by the Lyceums, which was a

more general education, and the Professional Faculties offered full professional

academic programs. The research function was separated from the teaching

Institutes, turning the higher education system in France into a set of professional

schools, which were subject to the protection and guidance of the State that

sought to train its workers according its own agendas (Cobo, 1979; Verger, 1986;

Tünnerman, 1992; Huerta and Perez, 2002).

Administration and Organization of the Imperial University:

Napoleon can be considered as the first person to put the University

system under the control of the State in the modern time. He completely

reorganized the system in the University by separating the research activities and

special training institutions for teachers, engineers, physicians, lawyers and so

352

forth. In other words, the Universities became a series of isolated and loosely

organized professional schools. This model was in effect from the end of the

eighteenth century until the end of the nineteenth century.

The Imperial University was organized via Decree March 17, 1808

(Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005). Title I stated that Public Education could

be offered only by the University. The academic hierarchy was as follows: (a)

academies, (b) lyceums, (c) colleges or secondary schools, (d) institutions, (e)

pensions, and (f) primary Schools. From the organization and governance

perspective, Title IV described the academic and administrative ranks and their

respective functions as follows: (a) Grand Maître (Grand Master), (b) Chancellor,

(c)Treasurer, (d) Councilors for life, (e) ordinary Councilors, (f) University

inspectors, (g) academy Rectors (h) inspectors of academies, (i) Faculty Deans,

(j) heads of lyceums, (k) principals of colleges, (l) institution heads, and (m)

boarding school masters (Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

The Imperial University was managed by the Great Master (Grand

Maître), who was appointed by the Emperor, and was the legal administrator of

the University; applying the rules and regulations, appointing the academic and

administrative personnel, granting degrees, managing the financial aspects of the

University, and collaborating with the University Council. He also presided over

the University Council, appointing its members as well as members of the

Academic Councils (Borrero, 1999; Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

353

The University Council was made up of thirty members who were in

charge of setting the budget for the educational institutions and establishing

disciplinary rules and regulations for the University community. Ten of these

members were permanent, six of whom were chosen from among the Inspectors

and the remaining four from among the Rectors. The remaining twenty

Councilors were reappointed each year from among the inspectors, Deans and

Faculty Professor and the Headmaster of the lyceums. The University Council

was divided into five sections which were in charge of (1) ongoing improvement

of studies, (2) administration and polices of Schools; (3) University finances; (4)

legal matters; and (5) the affairs of the seal of the University. The minutes

University Council meeting minutes were to be sent each month to the Minister of

the Interior (Borrero, 1999; Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

The Inspectors of the University and Academies were requisitioned by the

Grand Master from a selection of University officers who were between 20 and

30 years old. They monitored the quality of studies and disciplines in the

Faculties, Lyceums, and Colleges; the teaching quality and accuracy of

Professors, Regents and Masters of Study; to examine the scholars, and finally to

oversee the administration and the management of the finances (Napoleon

Series.org, January 8, 2005).

The Rector was the head of each Academy, and reported directly to the

Grand Master. He was chosen from among the Academy officers for a five-year

354

term. Externally, the Rector served as a communications channel between the

Faculty and the Minister of Education. Internally, the Rector worked principally

as the Chairman of the Academic Senate. Finally, the Rector was in charge of

overseeing the tasks performed by the Deans of the Faculties, headmasters of the

lyceums and principals of the schools, regarding their disciplinary and financial

administration (Kerr, 1963; Napoleon Series.org, January 8, 2005).

INFLUENCE OF THE IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY (FRENCH MODEL) ON THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The French University had a strong influence on the establishment of The

National University in 1867, including the previous University, which was created

in 1826 -- the Central University of Bogotá. It is important to remember that after

the independence of the country had been won, education was a public

commodity, free of charge, as were the Schools in the French Education System

after the French Revolution. Therefore, Higher Education was emancipated from

religious influence. In fact, the University of Santo Tomás was shut down by Law

271 of 1826 that stated that the only higher education institution that could grant

academic degrees was the Central University.

The three main features of the Napoleonic model described above were

followed in a similar way to the Colombian higher education system. The first

feature was the professionalism and specialization of higher education according

to government requirements. As a result, six Schools, or specialized Institutes,

were created according to Law 66 of September 22 of 1867, Article 1. This law

stated that education was a public service, free for every student who was

355

interested. This article also established the Institutes and Schools that made up the

National University. They were Law, Medicine, Natural Sciences, Engineering,

Arts and Trades, Literature and Philosophy. In 1892, an era of academic and

administrative reorganization began in order to respond to government labor force

requirements. By then, the academic area of the University was reorganized into

five Faculties; Philosophy and Letters, Mathematic Sciences, Law and Political

Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Medicine and Surgery. This trend continued

throughout the evolution of the University by creating and eliminating programs

which did not meet the government objectives and requirements.

The second feature, defined as a compartmentalization of the teaching and

research functions of the academy, also appeared in the National University

system. By 1892, the schools of Arts and Trades, Fine Arts, Mines, and

Veterinary Medicine, the National Academy of Music; the National Library, the

National Museum; and the Astronomy Observatory were added, along with the

Schools and Faculties listed above. The University was transformed into a formal

entity that wasn’t quite workable, because the location and administration of its

Faculties, Schools, and Institutes were independent. Regarding the governance

and organization dimensions, each School or Faculty had its own Rector and the

Faculty Directive Council, which was in charge of its academic and economic

administration. Following decentralization of the University, in 1903 the position

of Rector was eliminated, and instead, each Faculty or school was managed by a

Rector and the Faculty Directive Council. Likewise, the French model, there was

a Rector of the University and University Council. However, its composition,

356

duties and responsibilities were different due to the characteristics of each higher

education system of both countries.

On the other hand, even though there was a decentralization of the

organization and governance of the University, the educational system was

centrally managed by the government. Clearly, the University was not free to

make academic or administrative decisions. For example, the Colombian Central

Government appointed or removed Professors, Rectors and other head positions.

Likewise, in the composition of the Board of Trustees, the Minister of Education

has always been attending and even presiding over the Board meetings. Beyond

that, there have been other governmental representatives who had attended or had

been part of the Board. The main function of the Board during the Republican

period was to serve as a consultant to the Central Government on subjects related

to higher education.

Finally, this decentralized University organization with a centralized

administration was brought together in 1935 under the presidency of Alfonso

López Pumarejo, through Law 35 of that same year, and completely changed the

location of the University and its academic and administrative organizations. The

Law reinstated the University’s autonomy by reducing the intervention of the

Central Government in decision-making, as well as the selection of the head

positions and Professorships. Furthermore, since that time, students began

participating in the various academic committees and other University groups.

Nevertheless, the Central Government still had certain management privileges and

influence over the academic and administrative areas not only in the National

357

University, but in all public universities in the country by allocating economic

resources, enacting rules and regulations for Professors, and appointing the

Rector.

OTHERS MODELS AND MOVEMENTS THAT INFLUENCED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS OF BOTH INSTITUTIONS:

Although this research focused only on the influence of the Spanish model

and the French model on the organization and governance dimensions of the two

institutions, it was found that the Colombian higher education system was also

influenced by other higher education models as well as Latin American

Movements such as the Córdoba Movement of 1918. At the same time, these

models also had influence on the evolution of the organization and governance

dimensions in both higher education institutions, The Great College of Rosario

and The National University of Colombia.

The Córdoba Movement had its origins in The University of Córdoba,

Argentina, in response to the social, economical, and political situation that Latin

American countries were in during that period. According to Tünnermann, the

most important aspects formulated in The Reform of Córdoba were (a) University

autonomy, (b) elections of the heads of the University and the members of the

government, (c) academic freedom, (d) freedom to attend classes, (e) tuitions and

fees free of charge, (f) academic reorganization of the Universities, (g) selection

of Professors for their specific academic fields, (h) social assistance to students,

358

(i) democratization of University admissions, (j) public service, and (k) Latin

American Unit, “...fighting against the dictatorship and imperialism” (1997, p.72).

Furthermore, both institutions were influenced by the German Model, which

attached great importance to the teaching and research functions and graduate

studies. These functions were carried out through Faculties, Institutes,

laboratories, and seminars. The other model which influenced the academic and

administrative structure of both institutions was the American model. One of the

most important features of this model was the change in the academic structure of

the institutions to include departments with their own organizational structure

whereby Professors had more control over the academic affairs of the University

(Huerta & Perez, 2002).

359

CHAPTER 7

Comparison between the organization and governance of the National University and the University of Rosario

This chapter addresses the third research question about the differences

and similarities related to the organization and governance dimensions between

public and private Colombian higher education institutions, as reflected by two

case examples by providing a comparison between the organization and

governance dimensions of The Great College of Rosario and the National

University of Colombia. First, the researcher gives a general description of the

similarities and differences found when comparing the basic structure, each

position and governmental bodies of both institutions, starting with the

similarities and following with the differences. In the final chapter, the researcher

presents a summary of the findings.

The development of the organization and governance dimensions of the

Great College of Rosario and the National University of Colombia has been in

response to the challenges they have faced during the historical evolution of the

country. The growth in the number of students, number of programs and thus the

number of Professors, led to more complexity in the management of each

institution. As a result, it was necessary to add more administrative units and

academic and administrative personnel. This expansion did not occur at the same

time, because even though The National University developed more quickly than

360

The Great College of Rosario, they had similar organizations and structures with

few differences (See Table 20)

Table 20. Evolution of the Organization Dimension in The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University.

POSITION

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL

ROSARIO

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Sponsor (Patrono) (1653-1995)

BOARD OF REGENTS Scholars (colegiales)

and advisors (consiliarios) (1653)

General Direction of the University (1867)

Great Council (1867) University Council (1892) Directive Council (1935) Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) (1958) Board of Trustees (1963-1999)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) (1653)

Higher University Council (1999)

PRESIDENT Rector (1653) Rector (1867-2004)

General Vice-Rector (1980) Vice-rector (1964-1980) Academic Vice-Rector (1980) PROVOST OR

V.P. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Vice-rector (1653) Teaching Director (1969-1976)

Academic Director of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies (1977)

Treasurer (1867-1934) Syndic (Síndico) (1935) Sindicatura General Administration (1964) Sindicatura (1969)

V.P. BUSINESS AFFAIRS

Procurator (Procurador) (1653-1892) Syndic (Síndico) (1893)

General Administrative Director (1980)

SECRETARY Secretary (1653-1967) General Secretary (1967) General Secretary (1935)

ACADEMIC SENATE Faculty Council (1974) Academic Senate (1935)

FACULTY COUNCIL

Faculty Academic Council (1995)

Faculty Directive Council (1867)

Faculty or School Directive Council (1935)

Rector of Schools (1867) DEAN Dean (1923) Rector of Faculties (1892)

361

POSITION


ROSARIO

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Rector of Higher Faculties or Head of Lower Faculties (1935)

Faculty Dean or School Head (1958)

Dean (1963) Vice-Dean (1965)

Faculty Assistant Secretary (1970)

Faculty or School

Secretary(1939-1980)

Faculty Secretary (1980)

V.P. DEVELOP-MENT

Planning Department (1978) Planning Office (1964)

Students’ Affairs Office (1964) Students Director (1969)

Students’ Dean and University Welfare

(1993) Vice-rector of Students’ Affairs and University Welfare (1984)

V.P. STUDENT SERVICES

Medium Dean (1997) University Welfare Unit (1999)

DEAN GRADUATE SCHOOLS

Specialization and Graduate Studies School

(1979)

Academic Director of

Graduate and Undergraduate Studies (1977)

Academic Director of Graduate Programs (1980)

Director of Research Unities (1958-1979)

Research and Scientific Development Director (1980)

RESEARCH Research Center (1975-2004)

Interfaculty Institute (1999) STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION

Students’ Council (1989-2004) Students’ Council (1935)

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

There are some similarities in the basic structure of the organization of the

Great College and the University that included the Board of Trustees, the Rector,

the V.P. of Academic Affairs, the V.P. of Business Affairs, the General Secretary,

the Faculty Council, the V.P. of Planning, Students Services, the Dean of

362

Graduate Schools, Research, and Student Council. The main differences observed

were related to the time of establishment, composition and/or functions of each

position or governmental body that will be described later. However, there is one

important variation comparing the structure of both institutions, which is the

Academic Senate. This governmental body was established only in The National

University of Colombia.

It is important to point out that the Great College of Rosario, as well as the

National University, inherited some problems related to the academic and

administrative structure established in the medieval university. These have

endured to the present day, not only in both institutions but also other colleges

and universities in the world. Among these aspects were the academic

organization into schools and faculties; the right to grant academic degrees such

as doctorate, masters, and bachelors; and the privilege the Rector (President) had

of being the maximum authority in the University.

Comparing the organizational structure and functions of the Great College

and the University, some similarities and differences were found. First, the

similarities and then the differences will be listed for each position or

governmental body as follows:

363

BOARD OF REGENTS

The Board of Regents in the Great College of Rosario, was developed by

its Sponsor, the King of Spain, and after the independence period, by the

President of the country. This Sponsor (Patrono) gave financial support to the

College during the colonial period and oversaw the Rector’s duties and

responsibilities. In the National University, the Board of Regents was in charge of

making the decisions in matters relating to academic and administrative aspects of

the institution. This Board represented the Central Government, and was the

channel of communication between the government and the University through

the Minister of Public Instruction. However, it was eliminated in 1892 via the first

reform made to the organic structure of the University.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Several differences were found when comparing this governmental body

in both institutions; not just in its composition, but also in its duties and

responsibilities. The composition of The Board of Trustees was totally different

from the National University and The Great College of Rosario (See Table 21). In

The National University, the main functions described for the Board of Regents

were assumed by the Board of Trustees. This Board continued to be managed by

the Central Government of the country by having one or more representatives in

364

this collegial body. As an illustration, The Minister of Education has always been

part of the Board, playing the role of Chairman. The composition of the Board has

varied from one legislation to another, according to the policies of the University

and its historical period.

Table 21. Composition of the Board of Trustees in The National University.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

YEAR COMPOSITION

1867 1892 1903 1935 1958 1963 1980 1993 Number of Members 9 9 9 8 9 Minister of Education or Public Instruction

X X X X X X X

Rector X X X X X X Representative of the Academic Senate

X

Rector of each school or Dean Faculty

X X X X X X

Head of Schools or Institutes

X

Secretary X X Rector of the Minor College of Rosario

X

Rector of the College of San Bartolomé

X

Rector of the Great College of Rosario

X

Representatives of the National Government

2 X

Professor elected by the body of professors

X 2 X X X X

Students elected from the Students Council

2 X X X X

Minister of Economy X X X


365

Regarding The Great College of Rosario, this Board has maintained a

similar composition including the Advisors and the Rector. The main change

made to this collegial body was to increase the number and diversity of its

members in 1974. The main duties and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees

have been related to the establishment of academic and administrative policies

and regulations of the College. In addition, the Board had to ensure that those

duties were carried out in the way intended. This collegial body was also in

charge of appointing the head positions of the University such as the Rector,

Vice-Rector, Deans, Chairmen and heads of schools and institutes. In the

beginning, the Board of Trustees in the College and the University exercised full

authority. However, as institutions became more complex, this Board had to

delegate authority to the Rector. As a result, in addition to the duties described

above, this particular Board became more responsible for the future of the

institution and those aspects regarding its finances and planning including

endowments; obtaining required capital and operating funds, academic and

administrative development, quality of education, and personnel policies, among

others.

RECTOR

The Rector’s position, as the maximum authority of the University, had

wide managerial responsibilities that evolved and increased with the development

366

of each institution. Having analyzed the main functions of the Rector in the Great

College of Rosario and the National University of Colombia, the researcher found

that this position had similar duties and responsibilities. The main role was to

define, attain goals, and guide the College or the University in the academic,

administrative, physical, personnel, and economic areas. He or she was also

responsible for presenting an annual report about the functioning of those aspects,

granting degrees, appointing academic and administrative personnel, and

presiding over some institutional collegial bodies according to the policies of each

institution. When the College and University were founded, nearly all the

academic and managerial powers rested on the Rector’s shoulders. He had to

perform duties such as Secretary, offering classes, and soliciting funds among

others; but as both institutions began growing and becoming more complex, the

Rector also had to delegate some less important duties (but not the main

responsibilities), to other officers by creating new positions and adding more

offices. Other similarities were the term and the appointment of this position. The

term was set for three years in both institutions. The appointment was made by

the Board of Trustees of each institution.

One difference found was in the qualifications for appointment to this

position, which varied from one institution to the other. For instance, in the Great

College of Rosario, it is necessary to have high moral qualifications and to have

been enrolled in the College for at least two consecutive years. In The National

367

University of Colombia it is necessary to be a Colombian citizen, who must hold

a professional degree, and to have performed academic activities for at least eight

years (See Table 22).

Table 22. Requirements to be appointed in the Rector Position

CHARACTERISTIC UNIVERSITY OF ROSARIO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

TERM 1 year (1654) 3 years (1806) 3 years (1930)

4 years (1867-1962) Elimination of this position (1903) 3 years (1963)

APPOINTMENT

Scholars and advisors (1654-1879) (1930-2004) Central Government

(1880-1929)

Central Government (1867-1903)

The President of the country (1903-1935)

Confirmed by the Board of Trustees (1935-1957)

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) (1958-1963)

Board of Trustees (1963).

REQUIREMENTS

To be an active scholar or alumni, nobleman, and wealthy (1654)

To be a scholar holding a Doctoral Degree in Philosophy and Letters (1893).To have high moral qualifications and to have been enrolled in the College for at least two continuous years with outstanding grades (1974).

1867: To be the Minister of Public Instruction 1935: Over 30 years, Colombian citizen, to have been Minister of Education, professor or dean 1963: Over 30 years, Colombian citizen, to have held a professional degree, to have been professor for at least 5 years 1980: Colombian citizen, to have held a professional degree, to have been professor for at least 5 years 1992: To have performed

academic activities for at least 8 years.


368

VICE-PRESIDENT OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

In addition, the Board of Trustees and the Rector, the Academic Vice-

Rector (Provost or V.P Academic Affairs) was created. In both institutions, this

position has been appointed by the Rector. The requirements and characteristics

for being appointed to this position are the same as those for the Rector. However,

the term of the appointment is different in each institution. In the National

University of Colombia, between 1867 and 1892 the term of the V.P. of

Academic Affairs was four years. From 1963 until 2004, this term was reduced to

three years. In the Great College, by 1654 the period of Vice-Rector was for one

year, and by 1806 the term was increased to three years, but nowadays, the Vice-

Rector is appointed without a fixed term, and his tenure is subject to the discretion

of the Rector.

In the Great College of Rosario, this position was created during the

establishment of the College by Fr. Torres in 1654. However, in both institutions,

the Vice-Rector did not perform the same duties. In the beginning, the Vice-

Rector was in charge of the well-being and discipline of students, representing the

Rector in official activities when he could not attend, and filling in for the Rector

during his absence. By 1893, more duties and responsibilities were added, such as

those related to the academic area of the College. In the National University of

Colombia, this position was created in 1964. In general, for both institutions, this

369

officer was responsible for formulating academic goals for the institutions and

overseeing their implementation; managing academic affairs, including student

enrollment, curriculum; library, planning and development of academic programs

at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and promotion of Professors and other

academic personnel, among others.

VICE-PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS AFFAIRS

The Vice-President of Business Affairs was in charge of the financial

management of the University, which in both institutions was known as the

Syndic until 1969. The name of this officer was then changed to General

Administrative Director in the National University. In both institutions, this

position had similar duties and responsibilities, which were related to the financial

management and resources, business administrative operations, and

administration of personnel in non-academic areas. The main functions were

directing the budget process, overseeing the execution of the budget, preparing

the financial annual report, planning, developing, and coordinating of personnel

policies, procedures and benefits, training personnel of non-academic areas,

coordinating the disposition and management of assets; and financial control.

The Syndic in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario was

appointed by the Advisory Senate (Consiliatura). By 1654, the term of

appointment was for one year, by 1893 for two years, with the possibility of being

370

reelected, and for four years starting in 1974. In The National University, the

V.P. of Business Affairs was appointed by the Board of Trustees until 1964; after

that, the Rector appointed someone for this position.

GENERAL SECRETARY

The General Secretary was introduced as a formal position in the Great

College in 1893 and in the National University in 1935. This position has similar

functions with a few differences that addressed the historical evolution of each

institution. The Secretary was responsible for authorizing the Board of Trustees,

Rector, and Academic Senate agreements and resolutions; authorizing and

registering the degrees granted, keeping student grades and records, keeping

custody of the institution’s books, archives, and documents, and delivering

authentic copies when required.

The General Secretary has been appointed by the Rector in the Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario since 1654. On the other hand, in the

National University, the Secretary was appointed by the Board of Trustees from

1867 until 1958, and by the Academic Senate from 1958 to 1964, and by the

Rector from 1964 until the present days.

371

FACULTY COUNCIL

This is the governmental body in charge of the academic policies, rules

and regulations known as Faculty Directive Council (Consejo Directivo de

Facultad) in the National University and Faculty Council in The Great College of

Rosario. The Faculty Directive Council was established in 1867 while the Faculty

Council was created in 1974. However, in spite of the fact that they were created

in different periods, they have a similar form (See Table 23), and the main duties

and responsibilities could be summarized in advising the Dean or the head of

Schools or institutions in any academic aspect that the Faculty, Institute, or

School required.

Table 23. Composition of the Faculty Council in The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and in The National University.


ROSARIO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

YEAR YEAR COMPOSIT.

1974 1995 COMPOSIT.

1867 1892 1935 1958 1963 1986

Rector or his/her delegate X

Rector or Dean of each institute, schools or faculty

X X X X X X

Dean or The Study Director X X Secretary X X

Proprietary and substitute professors

X Representative of professors (one could be alumni)

2 2 Professors appointed by the Central Government

4

372



YEAR YEAR COMPOSIT.

1974 1995 COMPOSIT.

1867 1892 1935 1958 1963 1986

Senior collegial X X

Professors elected by the professors body

2 X X

Auxiliary secretary X X

Professor elected by the student body

X X X

A representative of the students’ council

X

Professors elected by the Board of Trustees

X X X

A representative of the alumni organization

X

Students elected by the students body X X X X

Representative of Productive Sector

X X

Academic Director of graduate studies

3

Alumni from the respective faculties

X


ACADEMIC SENATE

A remarkable difference relating to the creation of a central academic

body in charge of academic administration was found between both institutions.

It was called the Academic Senate. This collegial body was created during the

sweeping reform that the National University completed in 1935. In contrast, the

Great College of Rosario has never created this governmental body. This does not

mean that those duties and responsibilities were not present or developed in the

373

Great College of Rosario. The functions of the Academic Senate were distributed

to each Faculty Council. The composition of this Senate is shown in Table 24.

Table 24. Composition of the Academic Senate in The National University.

YEAR COMPOSITION 1935 1958 1963 1980 1986

Rector X X X X X Vice-rector of Academic Affairs X X Vice-rector of Business Affairs X X Faculty Deans X X X X X School Heads X X Heads of Teaching and Research Units X Teaching, Academic, and Administrative Secretaries X

General Secretary X X X Representative of the students body X 2 Professors elected by other professors who attended the Faculty Directive Council meetings

2


The Academic Senate has been in charge of the academic institutional

policies, rules and regulations. These included administration of curriculum,

teaching methods, research, public service; Professorial appointments, promotion,

and status; presenting the list of students earning degrees. In addition, it was

responsible for electing a representative from its ranks to the Board of Trustees;

participating in the creation of the development plan of the University; and

verifying that the rules and regulations were followed. Between 1958 and 1963,

The Academic Senate had academic and administrative functions, but after 1963,

374

administrative responsibilities were eliminated, returning it to its original

academic function.

STUDENTS COUNCIL

The evolution of student participation in the government of the College

and University had similarities and differences in both institutions. Among the

similarities was student participation in the College or University management.

The main objective of this arrangement was to develop leaders and improve

morale, but the most important was to help make decisions and have influence on

academic and student affairs. The composition of the Student Council is equal in

both institutions (See Table 25).

Table 25. Composition of the Students Council in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National University.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

YEAR YEAR COMPOSITION 1989

COMPOSITION 1935 1963

A representative from every year of study program.

X A delegate from each course of faculty (Law, Economy, Business Administration, Philosophy, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Audiology, Occupational Therapy).

X A representative from every course of the program.

X


375

However, there were differences in the time and manner in which student

participation began in the government of the College. Students have always been

part of the organization and governance of the Great College of Rosario due to its

democratic system of government. They have participated directly in the election

of the Rector and Advisors; however, student participation in other collegial

bodies and the establishment of the Student Councils only started in 1989. In the

National University, the students have only had a say in the management since

1935, when the Student Council was created.

RESEARCH

Regarding the research function, around the end of the 1950s for The

National University and in the beginning of the 1980s for The Great College of

Rosario, a new era started when the Student Council began to play an important

role in both higher education institutions. As a result, a Research Unit (or Center

or Institute, depending on the time of its establishment) was created. A Research

Unit was in charge of the policies, support, rules and regulations regarding the

research function, which included hiring and firing of research personnel;

obtaining private, public, national or international funds for the projects; listing,

recording, and approving research projects; coordinating activities related to

research; consulting services; disseminating research results; and preparing the

units’ budget, among others.

376

In both higher education institutions, The Great College of Nuestra Señora

del Rosario and the National University of Colombia, a governmental body

known as the Research Committee was established. It was in charge of supporting

and providing advice on the development of the Research function. Even though

this committee had similar functions in both institutions, the most important

difference was related to its composition (See Table 26).

Table 26. Composition of the Research Committee in The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University.



YEAR YEAR COMPOSITION

1978 COMPOSITION

1980

Academic Vice-Rector X Research Center Chair X Executive Director of the CINDEC (Research

and Scientific Development Committee) X

Faculty Deans X A representative from The Department and Institute Directors Committee X

A representative of the Inter-Faculties Institutes X Director of the Advisory Graduate Committee* X Library Director* X Planning Director* X

*Permanent Guests

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study

GRADUATE STUDIES

Graduate studies, based on the research function, were created in both

institutions in the mid-1970s. In the Great College of Rosario, it was established

377

in 1979 as the Specialization and Graduate Studies School. Similarly, The

National University established the position of the Academic Director of Graduate

and Undergraduate Studies (1977), which changed into Academic Director of

Graduate Programs (1980). This position has been in charge of the academics and

administration of the graduate studies, including those aspects related to the

curriculum of each academic program offered and the appointment or removal of

the Professors. The main duties are presenting annual reports about their

development, management of physics resources, students admission, grade

reports, student qualifications for receiving degrees, academic schedules,

presiding over the Committee meetings, disseminating the minutes, and preparing

and executing the annual budget.

As was the case with the Research Office, the Graduate Studies

department has a Committee in both institutions. However, there are differences

in the composition of this body between the Great College of Rosario and The

National University, as shown in Table 27.

Table 27. Composition of the Graduate Studies Committee in The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University.




1979 COMPOSITION

1977 1980

Rector or his/her delegate X

The duties and responsibilities of this board were in charge of The Faculty Senate

X

378




1979 COMPOSITION

1977 1980

School’s Chair X Academic Vice-Rector X Research Center Chair X Committee Director X

Deans of The Faculties X Representative of each Faculty Graduate Committee X

Research and Scientific Development Committee -CINDEC Director

X

Planning Director X


DEAN

The position of Dean was created in The National University of Colombia

in 1867, as opposed to the Great College of Rosario, which was created in 1923.

However, it is important to note that this position in the Great College has never

been described in The Former Constitution or in its reforms (1653, 1893, 1930,

1974 and 1995). In general, the Deans, Heads, or Chairs of the Faculties, schools,

departments, or institutions in the National University were in charge of the

academic and administrative management of those units, including the

administration of the curricula, guidance of students enrolled in the unit, and the

promotion of Professors. When the National University was created in 1867, the

Deans had similar duties and responsibilities to those of the University Rector due

to the decentralization of academic and administrative management. In fact, this

379

position was also known as just “Rector.” Nevertheless, since 1935, with the

reforms in the organization and governance of the University, the Dean became

more influential in the academic matters of each program the administrative

aspects.

The Dean was appointed by the Central Government between 1867 and

1935. Later, this responsibility was handed over to the Board of Trustees. The

term of appointment has fluctuated between two and three years, but at the present

time it is three years, with the possibility of reappointment for one consecutive

period.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The increasing size of the Great College of Rosario and the National

University of Colombia meant more complex management issues for these

institutions. It was necessary create a new office to address staff and additional

facilities needs.

The Office of Planning and Development was established in 1964, in The

National University of Colombia; whereas in the Great College of Rosario, it was

founded fourteen years later. In summary, this office has had similar duties and

responsibilities which included (a) preparing, elaborating, executing, and

evaluating the plans, programs, and projects toward the academic, economic, and

physical requirements for the effective development and performance of each

380

institution; (b) studying and submitting recommendations for the general structure

of the University or College; (c) participating in the formulation of the annual

budget of the University; and (d) being in charge of correct and timely

information for the institution’s Rector, Board of Trustees, Academic Senate, the

Deans, among others.

The Research and Graduate Studies and the Planning and Development

Office were supervised by their respective Boards. The composition of this Board

is similar in both higher education institutions (See Table 28).

Table 28. Composition of the Planning and Development Board in The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA

SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY YEAR YEAR

COMPOSITION 1978

COMPOSITION 1963

Rector X Academic Vice-rector X Academic Vice-rector X Consiliario X Representative of the Board of

Trustees X

General Secretary X

Syndic (Síndico) X Syndic (Síndico)-Administrator X Deans X Deans selected by the Rector 4 Quinta de Mutis Director X X Planning Department Chair X Planning Office Chief X Colegial who should be the secretary X Organization and Method Office

Chief X

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study

381

In summary, both institutions have divided their organizations and

governance dimensions into the three general functions of academic and student

affairs, University welfare, and business affairs. Academic Affairs includes the

Vice-Rector, the Deans of Faculties or heads of Schools, or Director of academic

programs (including undergraduate and graduate studies), heads of research units

or centers, Director of Libraries, and Registrar, among others. Student Affairs and

University Welfare units are in charge of food and housing services, counseling,

student bodies government, student and employee health, athletics, services, and

so on. The Business Affairs function is concerned with the financial operations of

the University, as well as personnel, benefit programs for employees, and

administrative computing. It is important to point out that due to the larger size of

The National University of Colombia compared to that of the Great College of

Rosario, its academic and administrative areas are divided into smaller units.

382

CHAPTER 8

Summary and Conclusions

This research focused on the evolution of the organization and governance

dimensions of two Colombian higher education institutions; one public and one

private. Three research questions were proposed, which were addressed in

Chapters 4, 5 6, and 7. Chapter 4 and 5 illustrated the development of these

dimensions in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National

University of Colombia, respectively. Chapter 6 contained a description of how

the Spanish and French models of higher education influenced each institution.

Chapter 7 makes a comparison between the organization and governance

dimensions of both Colombian Higher education institutions. Thus, this chapter

(8) is organized in 4 sections. First, a summary of the study, including the

purpose, questions, and methodology of the research is presented. Second, each

research question is addressed by a brief summary related to the findings. Third,

the conclusions of the study are explained. Finally, the implications of the inquiry

and recommendations for future research are described.

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY


dimensions: organization and governance of Colombian Higher Education. For

the purpose of this research, two higher institutions; one public and one private,

383

were selected to represent Colombian Universities. These two institutions

illustrated the evolution of higher education specifically on these two dimensions.

Three research questions guided this study:


education evolved in two selected higher education institutions of Colombia?


the organization and governance dimensions of private and public higher

education institutions?


governance dimensions between public and private Colombian higher education

institutions as reflected by two case examples?

The researcher selected the historical research method to conduct this

study. The selection process was based on purposeful sampling in order to choose

an institution sample from each sector (public and private), as well as the type of

institution (university), the date of its establishment (colonial and republican

period), location (Bogotá, Colombia), and the fact that these institutions have

been in operation continuously since their foundation and without interruption.

These institutions were the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario chosen

from the private sector, and The National University of Colombia from the public

sector. In order to obtain data for this research, the researcher selected reliable

published and unpublished primary and secondary sources. The published primary

384

and secondary sources included contemporary books, general treatises on

education, policy reports, legislation (Laws and Decrees), journals, newspapers

and periodicals. Related unpublished primary sources included archival records,

and institutional publications, and statutes in the form of Agreements and

Resolutions from both higher education institutions.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The researcher briefly illustrated the historical background of the political,

economic, and social context in which the Colombian higher education system

evolved (Chapter 2). In addition, an account of the development of the

institutions, students, and Faculty through the classification of the four main

historical periods of the Colonial University (1580-1819), the Republican

University (1819-1842), the beginning of the modern University (1842-1930), and

the reform of the modern University (1930-2000), was presented as a preface to

address the research questions. Following is a summary of the findings.

Evolution of the Organization and Governance Dimensions in Two Selected Higher Education Institutions in Colombia

The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

The evolution of the Great College of Rosario began in 1651. This College

was founded by Fr. Cristóbal Torres, a Dominican friar, who came to the country

mainly to indoctrinate natives in the Christian faith. This College followed the

385

model of Great Colleges established in The University of Salamanca in Spain.

The Great College of Rosario could be considered as one of the oldest higher

education institutions of Colombia. In spite of the fact that it was not the first

institution founded, it is the only one that has survived since its establishment

from the colonial period to the present.

There were several unsuccessful attempts to eliminate the Great College

of Rosario. The first attempt occurred after the country’s independence was won;

the Central University of Bogotá was established. The creation of the Central

University of Bogotá resulted in the reorganization of three Colombian Higher

education institutions created in the colonial period; the University of Santo

Tomás, The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The Great College

of San Bartolomé. The second was under the presidency of Jose Hilario López

when Colleges and Universities were closed and academic degrees eliminated. As

a result, the Universities were transformed into Provincial Colleges and the rents

and properties of the Great College of Rosario were given to The Provincial

Chamber of Cundinamarca (Camara Provincial of Cundinamarca). In 1860,

supported by legislation enacted by Mariano Ospina Perez, who was the president

of the country during that period, some College facilities were turned into into a

prison. Likewise, on August 24 of 1861, the buildings and facilities of The Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the Great College of San Bartolomé

were transformed into a Military College, for the purpose of training scientists in

386

Engineering, Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry. In 1885 the Great College became

part of the National University of the United States of Colombia. In 1892, the

Great College recovered its autonomy once more through Law 89 of December 13

of 1892.

Fr. Torres began to think about creating the College due to the poor state

of education t during the colonial period and the need of creating the Chairs

(cátedras) of Canon Law, Civil Law, and Medicine to address the interests of the

state and the church simultaneously. It is important to remember that the aim of

the colonial university was to educate the ecclesiastics and noblemen of the

country. As a result, the priests, lawyers, and physicians were trained according to

government requirements for an educated labor force.

By 1651, King Philip IV authorized the establishment of the College by

The Real Cell of December 31. It is important to point out that during the

establishment of the College, Fr. Torres faced litigation with the Dominicans over

the administration of the College that lasted several years. By that time, the Great

College was created with secular character; managed and directed by the scholars

(colegiales) economically, organizationally, and academically, and was self-ruled

by its own statutes (The Constitution).

The Constitution of the Great College was approved by the Real Cell

(Cédula Real) of July 12, 1654, which was dispatched by King Philip IV. It was

based on the Constitution of the Great College of the Archbishop in Spain. This

387

Constitution governed and organized the College into academic, economic,

organizational, physical, and disciplinary areas. The Constitution of 1654

described the basic organizational structure of the College. Some reforms were

introduced to respond to the evolution of the College according to the economic,

social, and political context of the particular historical period. Consequently, the

first reform was done in 1893 and carried through to the New Constitution. The

second modification occurred in 1930 by Agreement 5 of the same year. The third

change happened in 1974, and the last reform took place in 1995. The

organization and governance dimensions of the Great College are depicted in the

Figure 21s, which shows a summary of the organizational structure of the College

and its historical evolution according to modifications made to the Constitution

mentioned above and other official internal agreements.

The Patrono, (Sponsor), was considered to be the highest authority of the

College in The Constitution of 1653. Fr. Cristóbal initially appointed the

Archbishop127 of the city to this position. However, this position was given to the

King of Spain after he declared Fr. Torres the winner in his litigation with the

Dominicans. Once the country became independent in 1819, the patronage of the

College was given to the President of Colombia. Between 1820 and 1880, the

appointment and performance of this patronage changed continuously depending

127 The Constitution of 1893 established that the Archbishop of the city was named as Rector Honorarium of the College (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

388

on which political parties were governing the country at that time (See Table 15,

Chapter 4).

Figure 21. Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario from 1654 to 2000.

RESEARCHCENTER

(1975)

ELECTORAL BOARD(1654)

ADVISORYSENATE

(1654)

SCHOLARS(1654)RECTOR

(1654)

SECRETARY(1893)

VICE-RECTOR(1653)

SYNDIC(1893)

STUDENT´S AFFAIRSAND UNIVERSITY

WELFARE(1993)

SPONSOR(1654-1995)

DEAN(1923)

ACADEMIC FACULTYCOUNCIL

(1974)

PLANNINGDEPARTMENT

(1969)

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study.

389

By 1850 the Patrono of the College was the Provincial Chamber of Bogotá

(Cámara Provincial de Bogotá). In 1852, this position was held by the Governor.

Between 1863 and 1880 the president of the country again assumed the patronage

of the College. Nevertheless, from 1863 to 1880, this position was held by the

president of the Sovereign State of Cundinamarca (Estado Soberano de

Cundinamarca). Finally, from 1880 until now, the president of the country

continues to be the Patrono of the College.

The main functions of the Patrono were to give financial support, approve

academic and administrative personnel appointment or removals, to confirm

internal decisions made through resolutions and decrees, to expel a scholar if

necessary, and to oversee the Rector’s functions. These functions were modified

through the Reform of 1995 and Law 30 of 1993, and autonomy for higher

education institutions was reinstated. As a result, the functions of the Patrono

disappeared, and now the Patrono is a symbolic and honorable figure who only

attends some official acts of the College.

The Advisory Senate, a Board composed by three Advisors and the

Rector128 performed similar duties and responsibilities to those established for a

Board of Trustees in any higher education institution. The Advisors served as

consultants to the Rector and the Vice-Rector on any academic or administrative

matter. They had the right to make decisions on the financial management of the

390

College as well as rescind scholarships. In other words, the Advisory Senate was

in charge of the establishment of academic and administrative policies and

regulations of the College to ensure that they were carried out in the correct

manner. As the number of students grew, some functions had to be delegated to

the Rector; College programs, administration of Professors, and facilities

management. The Advisory Senate has become more responsible for the future of

the institution, as well as finances, academic, and economic planning.

Under the Advisory Senate, the Rector (President of the College) had the

most authority of the University. He was elected by the scholars through a

democratic electoral system like the Salamanca Great Colleges model described

in Chapter 6. However, there were some periods in which the Rector was

appointed by the Central Government due to the influence of the Napoleonic

model over the education system of the country. These occurred during the

presidential terms of Pedro Alcantara Herrán and Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera

(1842-1850); from 1850 to 1852, when The Provincial Chamber of Bogotá

(Cámara Provincial de Bogotá) appointed the Rector, and between 1893 and

1930, when the President of Colombia named Rafael Maria Carrasquilla to this

position.

In 1930, the electoral system was restored. The main duties and

responsibilities of this position were developed along with the growth of the

128 In the reform made in 1974, the number of Consiliarios increased to five. As a result, the

391

College; however, the Rector was in charge of performing several tasks including

being Secretary, offering classes, overseeing student behavior, granting degrees,

appointing academic and administrative personnel, presiding over some

institutional collegial bodies, and soliciting funds. As the College expanded, some

functions were delegated to other offices, and other duties were added, including

forecasting, defining, and guiding the College in its administrative, facilities,

personnel, and economic areas.

The position of Academic Vice-Rector (Provost or V.P Academic Affairs)

was described in the Constitution of 1654. It stated that this position was

appointed by the electoral system defined by the College. This means that the

scholars elected not only the Rector and Advisors, but also the Vice-Rector. The

New Constitution of 1893 modified the qualifications for appointment to Vice-

Rector as well as the main duties and responsibilities of this position. The

Constitution established that the Vice-Rector would be appointed by the Rector

with the approval of the Patrono. Regarding his functions, when the College was

established, the Vice-Rector was responsible for the behavior and discipline of

students, being the channel of communication between the Rector and students,

representing the Rector in official activities when he could not attend, and filling

the Rector’s position in case of death, resignation, disability, removal or

disqualification of the Rector. For that reason, the requirements for appointment

Consiliatura was comprised of the five Consiliarios and the Rector.

392

to both positions were the same. As mentioned above, by 1893 the role of the

Vice-Rector was modified with the addition of some functions related to the

academic area of the College. These included formulating the academic goals and

overseeing their implementation, managing academic affairs including student’s

enrollment, curriculum, library, planning and development of academic programs

and promotion of Professors and other academic personnel.

The financial management of the College was the responsibility of the

Procurator between 1653 and 1893, and by the Syndic after 1893. Even though

this position was not described in the Constitution of 1654, the duties and

responsibilities of this position were explained in the Constitution of the Great

College of the Archbishop. By 1893, through the new Constitution of 1893, the

name of this position was changed to Syndic (V.P. of Business Affairs). The

appointment of the Syndic was made by the Advisory Senate and the Rector with

the approval of the Sponsor.

The term of appointment was changed in each revision of the Constitution.

For instance, between 1653 and 1892 this term lasted one year. Between 1893 and

1974, it was for a term of two years without the right of reelection for the next

period. Between 1974 and 1995, The Syndic was appointed for a period of four

years without the right to be reelected for the following term, and since 1995, the

term has been for four years but with the right to be reelected for only the

following term.

393

Similarly, the other positions defined in this research, such as the main

duties and responsibilities of this position, have evolved and increased according

to the historical development of the College. The Syndic has been in charge of

(a)financial management and resources; (b) business administrative operations;

(c) administration of personnel in non-academic areas; (d) direction of the budget

process; (e) overseeing the execution of the budget; (f) preparation of the financial

annual report; (g) development and coordination of personnel policies, (h)

procedures, benefits and training for personnel of non academic areas; (i)

coordination of the disposition and management of College assets; and (j)

financial planning.

The Secretary has had the same duties and responsibilities since the

establishment of the College. He authorizes the Rector’s and Senate’s agreements

and resolutions, as well as registering the degrees granted, maintaining student

records and grades, maintaining custody of the institution’s books, archives, and

documents; and delivering authentic copies of them when required. However, this

position was formally acknowledged in The New Constitution of 1893, and

renamed as General Secretary in 1967.

With the expansion of the higher education system of the country and the

evolution of knowledge, the organizational structure of the College has been

adapted to its particular context by creating new offices which allowed the

College to meet its goals. These offices were the Planning Department, Research

394

Center, Graduate Studies, and Student and Employee Services. The Planning

Department was created in order to respond to changes in the environment of the

University such as the increasing number of students, Professors, facilities and

equipment which led to managing academic, economic, physical, and human

resources in an efficient and effective manner in order to meet the College’s

goals. The Research function began its development at the beginning of the

1980s. The Research Center was in charge of the policies, support, rules and

regulations related to research activities. Based on the Research function, the

Graduate Studies were established. This office was responsible of the academic

and administrative matters of graduate studies including curriculum, appointment

and removal of Professors and administrative personnel, schedules, and the

budget.

The National University of Colombia

This institution was created in 1867 as The National University of the

United States of Colombia. The establishment of this University was an important

event in the development of the National Higher Education System in the country.

This higher education institution had its roots in the establishment of The Central

University of Bogotá in 1826, after the independence of the country. The Central

University was closed on May 15, 1950 under the presidency of Jose Hilario

López, when in the name of education freedom and democratic equality, public

Universities and University degrees were abolished (See Chapter 4, p. 141).

395

The main goal of the establishment of the National University of

Colombia was to educate Colombian society in the disciplines required by the

economic development the country was experiencing during this time. The intent

was to not only respond to the labor market that the country required in areas such

as farming, mechanics, and industry, but also to the need for trained professionals

required by the government. As a result, the National University contributed to

the development of the country through the training of Civil Engineers who

participated in the construction of roads, bridges, and railways; Lawyers who

participated in the establishment of The Constitutional and Juridical Structure of

the country; and finally, Physicians who helped to develop the public health

services (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1991).

From the academic perspective, The National University followed the

world trends that gave recognition to Universities of that time, producing a

modification of several concepts that Colleges and Universities had been adhering

to in the Colonial Era. One of the most important developments was the

glorification of science over the humanities. As a case in point, the University was

organized into six schools; Law, Medicine, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Arts

and Trades, and Literature and Philosophy.

Due to the internal conflict the country was experiencing at the end of the

nineteenth century, the National University of Colombia faced several attempts to

interrupt its academic responsibility of offering educational services. Between

396

1880 and 1900 the country experienced one of its most unsettling periods, in

which four civil wars took place, altering the academic and administrative

activities of the University. The One Hundred Days Civil War took place in 1899,

which was considered to have been the cruelest and bloodiest; so much so that the

University had to be closed. However, its Faculties and Schools were distributed

among the different Ministers of the country. The academic activities of The

National University were re-established by Law 39 of 1903 and The Decree 491

of 1904 through Articles 23o and 139,o respectively. Both Articles stated that

professional instruction would be offered by The Great College of Nuestra Señora

del Rosario through the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters. By the same token, the

National University would offer this type of instruction through Natural Sciences

and Medicine, Mathematics and Civil Engineering, Law and Political Sciences,

Medicine Veterinary School, and the Dental College (See Chapter 5).

Between 1867 and 1935, the academic and administrative organization

and governance of the University was decentralized. As a result, each Faculty or

School was isolated not only academically and administratively, but also

geographically. As a result, López Pumarejo, who was the President of the

country at that time, proposed an academic and administrative reorganization of

the University whereby the Faculties and Schools would be located together on

one campus. Article 2 of Law 68 of 1935 confirmed that the University would be

organized, from the academic perspective; into Faculties, National Professional

397

Schools, and Research Institutes, including The National Conservatory of Music,

the National Astronomy Observatory, the Museums, and the Nations Institute of

Radium (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001). Moreover, Article 5 of the

same Law stated that the National government should buy some land in order to

build the buildings and facilities required for the functioning of the University and

for housing of academic community.

The organization and governance dimensions of the University were ruled

by both external (Laws and Decrees) and internal (Agreements and Resolutions)

laws. The administrators of the University were appointed by the central

government rather than by the University itself. The academic and administrative

organizational structure of the University is depicted in Figure 22. The highest

authority of the University, when it was established, was the General Director of

University Instruction (Director General de Instrucción Universitaria). It was

performed by the Internal Secretary of Education that belonged to the Public

Instruction Minister. This Director was in charge of communications between the

government and the University. In addition, The Internal Secretary had to inspect

and verify that the rules and regulations regarding academic and administrative

matters were being followed according to governmental educational policies. The

General Director, was also responsible for appointing the Rector of The

University, the Rector of each School, and other important positions, such as

Professors (catedráticos), librarians, priests, secretaries, and treasurers. He also

398

had the right to remove them, if necessary. Finally, he presided over official acts

of the University. This position was eliminated in 1892 through the first reform to

The Decree of September 22, 1867.

Figure 22. Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia 1867 to 2000.

RESEARCHCENTER CINDEC

(1958)

BOARD OFTRUSTEES

(1867)

RECTOR(1867)

GENERALSECRETARY

(1935)

ACADEMIC AFFAIRSVICE-RECTOR

(1964)

BUSINESSAFFAIRS

DIRECTOR(1867)

STUDENT´SAFFAIRS ANDUNIVERSITY

WELFARE(1935)

GENERALDIRECTION OF

THE UNIVERSITY(1867-1892)

DEAN(1867)

FACULTY ACADEMICCOUNCIL

(1867)

PLANNINGDEPARTMENT

(1964)

ACADEMICSENATE

(1958)

VICE-DEANS

ASSISTANTSECRETARY


399

Another major authority was the Board of Trustees, which helped to

preserve institutions’ independence by acting as a buffer between the government

and the University. In fact, by 1958 one of the main functions of this Board was to

block the influence of any political or governmental party in the administration

and teaching areas of the University. Its composition changed, depending on the

various reforms, and according to the policies of the University and its historical

period. However, there were some members who continued to be Board members,

such as the Minister of Education or Public Instruction, who presided over it; the

Rector of the university, a Representative of the Academic Affairs129 that had been

the Rector of the School, a Representative of the Professors, and a Representative

of Students (after 1958) (See Chapter 7).

It is important to point out that when the General Director of the

University’s Instruction (Director General de Instrucción Universitaria) position

disappeared, the Board of Trustees assumed its functions. The main duties and

responsibilities of The Board of Trustees were to oversee matters related to the

establishment of academic and administrative policies and regulations of the

College, and to ensure that those rules and regulations were carried out in the way

they were intended. This collegial body was also in charge of appointing the top

positions of the University such as Rector, Vice-Rector, Deans, Chairman and

heads of Schools and Institutes.

129 These representatives have been the Rector of Schools or Dean of Faculties.

400

As the head of the University, the Rector was in charge of defining and

attaining goals, as well as guiding the College or University in the academic,

administrative, physical, personnel, and economic areas. With the increase in the

number of students, Professors, administrative personnel and facilities, the role of

the Rector became more complex. Therefore, it was necessary to delegate some of

those duties to other leading positions and new offices which had been added to

the University.

As mentioned before, the first Rector was appointed by the central

government. The second Rector was named by the Board of Trustees. There was a

notable modification in the appointment of the Rector by making the selection

process more democratic. Thus, Agreement 13 of May 13, 1999 stated that the

Rector should be appointed by the Board of Trustees after having consulted the

academic community. In order to meet this goal, the candidates had to present his

or her plans and programs for the analysis and evaluation of the academic

qualities of such proposals.

The Vice-Rector of Academic Affairs was created in 1964. The

requirements for being appointed to this position were the same as those

established for the Rector because he or she had to fill this position in case of the

Rector’s absence, death, resignation, disability, removal, or disqualification. This

officer was in charge of conducting the academic affairs of the University,

401

performing the same duties and responsibilities as those described for this

position in The Great College of Rosario.

The Vice-Rector of Business Affairs position was established in 1867. He

was in charge of the financial management of the University. When the

University experienced an increase in the number of students, this office grew

along with it. More students meant more Professors, facilities, equipment, and

expenses, thus transforming the University into a complex administrative system.

As a result, it was necessary to create more administrative offices and hire

personnel with administrative experience to support the academic expansion of

the University. By 1980, the position of General Vice-Rector was created to

support to the Rector in the academic and administrative affairs. The necessary

qualifications for this position were the same as those for Rector. In fact, due to

the Rector’s heavy workload, some of his duties and responsibilities were

delegated to the General Vice-Rector.

The General Secretary’s position was established in 1935. The functions

of this position were similar to those described for the General Secretary of The

Great College of Rosario. However, according to the historical records of the

University, by 1964 the Secretary performed other duties, such as managing

public relations, editing the University newspaper, and coordinating the Cultural

Distribution Program. These activities were eliminated in 1986 through

Agreement 44 of the same year.

402

In 1935, the students became involved in the University College through

Law 65, initiating a new period in the life of the University. This Law created the

Student Council. The main objective of this Council was the participation of

students in College or University governance. There was another important

development in the University organization; that of student affairs services. The

increasing enrollment of students, not only from the capital of the country but also

from other regions in Colombia, led the University to provide additional tutorials,

housing, and extracurricular activities. As a result, a Student Affairs Office in

charge of designing and furnishing procedures and policies regarding student

services was established. These services included institutional, national and

international scholarships and fellowships, sports, loans, housing and food, and

tutorials. Years later some of these services were also offered to academic and

administrative personnel.

The Dean of The Faculty or Head of Schools performed an important role

when the National University was established. This position was also known as

Rector of The Faculty or School. His duties and responsibilities were similar to

the Rector’s, but in his own field of study. As mentioned before, the University

was made up of academic “islands” that were managed independently and without

much interaction among them. With the restructure of 1935, the academic and

administrative organization of the University was modified, as were the functions

of the Deans.

403

In summary, the Dean was in charge of the academic and administrative

management of the respective academic units, including the administration of

curricula, the guidance of students enrolled in the unit, the promotion of

Professors, and verifying that the rules and regulations were being carried out

according to the general policies of the University as approved by the Board of

Trustees, the Rector, the Vice-Rector and the Academic Senate. The term of

appointment for a Dean has had several modifications since 1867. It has

fluctuated from two to four years. However, between 1893 and 1903 the Dean

was appointed without a fixed term, subject to the discretion of the Rector.

Nowadays, the Dean’s term is for three years, with the possibility of being

reappointed once for a consecutive period.

Within the governance structure and regarding the academic area of the

University, the Directive Faculty Council was created. This collegial body was

established in 1867 in order to give advice and support to the Dean of Faculty or

Head of Schools in their academic areas. As the University grew, the functions of

these positions also changed. The main duties and responsibilities were

administration of the curriculum; teaching methods, research; public service;

Professors appointments, promotion, and status; presenting the list of students to

receive degrees; preparation of the budget; contributing the developmental plan of

the University; and verifying that rules and regulations were followed, among

others.

404

The restructure of the University in 1935 were aimed at centralization of

the academic and administrative aspects of the University. This reform created the

need for a central collegial body to set the academic policies, rules, and

regulations for the whole University. As a result, the Academic Senate (with

similar functions as those described in the Directive Faculty Council) was

established at the institutional level.

At the end of the 1950s, the Research Function gained importance in the

academic community. Consequently, a Research Unit was established during that

period. The name of this office changed depending on the developmental stage of

the institution. This office was in charge of the policies, support, rules and

regulations of the research function, which included: (a) appointing or removing

of research personnel; (b) obtaining private, public, national or international funds

for the projects; (c) listing, recording, and approving research projects; (d)

coordinating activities related to research; (e) consulting services; (f)

disseminating research results; and (g) preparing and executing of the unit’s

budget, among others.

The development of Graduate Studies took place in the mid-1970s. In the

beginning undergraduate and graduate studies were managed by one Director.

Accordingly, the Academic Director of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies

(1977) position was created. The management of graduate studies was separated

from the undergraduate studies by establishing an Academic Director of Graduate

405

Programs in 1980. This Director was in charge of the academic and administrative

aspects of graduate studies, including those related to the curriculum of each

academic program as follows:

a) the appointment or removal of the Professors,

b) presentation of annual reports regarding performance and

development,

c) management of physical resources,

d) student admissions,

e) grade reports, requirements for getting a degree,

f) creating the academic schedule, presiding over committee meetings

and distributing the minutes,

g) preparing and executing the annual budget.

Another important office in the University structure was the Planning

Office. This office was created in 1964 to address the challenges it faced during

the twentieth century, such as a demographic changes, expansion of facilities,

human resources, and the increasing competition for fiscal resources. These

challenges created the need for forecasting and anticipating decisions through a

formal planning process by redirecting and redefining University goals. This

function included the preparation, execution, and evaluation of plans, programs,

and projects to meet academic, economic, and physical requirements. In addition,

406

this position was in charge of studying and submitting recommendations for any

changes to the general structure of the University or College

Characteristics of the University of Salamanca (Spanish Model) and Imperial University (French Model) Reflected in the Organization and Governance Dimensions of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University of Colombia, Respectively

Understanding the organization and governance dimensions of both

institutions required an analysis of the University of Salamanca (Spanish model),

the Great College of Rosario, the National University of Colombia, and the

Imperial University (French model), which had a strong influence on the

evolution of the Higher Education System of the country. Based on these models

of education, the researcher analyzed aspects influencing the organization and

governance dimension of each higher education institution, as discussed below.

The University of Salamanca had a strong influence on the organization

and governance dimensions of the Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario

(see Table 29). The Statutes (Constitution) of the Great College of Rosario was

based on the Constitution of the Great College of the Archbishop that belonged to

the University of Salamanca. One of the most important features that the Great

College of Rosario has is its democratic elective system for appointing the

Advisors and the Rector, because they held the power in the academic and

economic management of the College. This also led to other important

407

characteristics of the College regarding its uninterrupted educational contributions

to Colombian society from its foundation to the present day.

Table 29. Organization and Governance dimensions of the University Salamanca and the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

POSITION/ GOVERNMENTAL BODY

UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA

DEL ROSARIO CHANCELLOR Maestroescuela - ELECTOR BODY: SCHOLARS ADVISORS

Scholars Advisors

Scholars (1653) Advisors (1653)

ADVISORY SENATE Claustro de Consiliarios Consiliatura (1653)

RECTOR Rector Rector (1653) VICE-RECTOR Vice-Rector Vice-Rector (1653) PROCURATOR SYNDIC Procurator Procurator (1654-1892)

Syndic (1893)

MASTER OF CEREMONIES Master of Ceremonies

Master of Ceremonies (1653-1892)

SECRETARY Secretary Secretary (1653-1967) General Secretary (1967)


The Elective Board of the Great College of Rosario was made up of

scholars (Colegiales), Advisors (Consiliarios), and the Rector. There were fifteen

scholars enrolled in the College and been selected from a list of the most

outstanding students. They enjoyed perquisites such as the right to elect or be

elected for head positions such as Rector, Vice-Rector, and Secretary,. Fr.

Cristóbal Torres appointed the first Rector, Vice-Rector, and the Advisors

408

(Consiliarios)130 when he founded the Great College of Nuestra Señora del

Rosario. He stated in the Constitution of 1654 that the Rector was Don Cristóbal

de Araque Ponce de León and that the Advisors (Consiliarios) were Don Cristóbal

Venegas de Torres, Don Jerónimo de Berrio, and Don Fernando de Mendoza. The

Constitution delegated the appointment of the Vice-Rectorship to Rector Araque

(Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996) who named Juan Pelaez

Sotelo to this position. By 1665, after the death of Fr. Araque, the election process

began, as it was established in the Constitution of 1654. Therefore, this would be

the first time in which the scholars (colegiales) exercised their right to vote on

these positions, and as a result, Juan Pelaez Sotelo was elected as Rector.

The requirements for appointment as Rector were similar to those of the

Great College of Rosario and the University of Salamanca. First, the candidate

must be an active scholar (colegial) or alumnus holding a Licentiate or Doctor’s

degree. Second, the candidate should be of noble status with purity of blood and

wealth. This was a voluntary position, but in cases of mismanagement, the Rector

had to use his own money. In addition to the academic administration of the Great

College of Rosario, the Rector also had other administrative functions, including

the management and administration of its assets. These responsibilities were

added to the Rector’s function in the University of Salamanca several years later.

130 It is important to remember that before the appointment of Fr. Araque as Perpetual Rector of the College. Fr. Torres named Fr. Tomas Navarro and Fr. Juan del Rosario as a Rector and Vice-Rector respectively when he gave the management of the College to the Dominicans. After the

409

Another important position in the organizational structure of the

University of Salamanca and the Great College of Rosario were the Advisors

which were comprised of the Advisory Senate in the Great College of Rosario and

the Claustro de Consiliarios (Advisory Senate) in the University of Salamanca.

Their main function was to assist and advise the Rector in the administrative and

academic organization of the University and also to participate in the election of

the Rector. In the University of Salamanca, this Senate was made up of eight

advisors, whereas in the Great College of Rosario there were three advisors and a

Rector. The Advisors were elected by the scholars, following the same process as

for the Rector. It is important to point out that during the seventeenth, the

eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the scholars, the Rector and the Vice-

Rector shared a similar election process. After 1930, only the scholars and the

Advisors (Consiliarios) had the right to participate in this process (Guillén de

Iriarte, 2004).

The Great College of Rosario established positions such as Chaplain,

Master of Ceremonies, Secretary, and Bedeles to perform the day-to-day duties as

it was the case with the University of Salamanca. Their responsibilities and duties

were not described in the Constitution, but they were important for the

development of the Great College. In summary, the structure of the College has

sentence given in favor of Fr. Torres regarding the litigation between him and the Dominicans, Fr. Torres removed them and appointed Fr. Araque.

410

evolved according to the historical, political, social, educational, and economical

context of the country.

Similarly, the influence of the Napoleonic model was remarkable not only

in the National University of Colombia, but also in the other Higher education

institutions of the country, including the Great College of Nuestra Señora del

Rosario. The Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario was influenced by the

French model not only in organization and governance aspects, but also in the

organization of its academic structure. In particular, between 1893 and 1930 the

scholars lost their right to elect for the top positions in the University. As

mentioned before, during this period the country’s central government appointed

the Advisors, Rector, and Vice-Rectors. Even though, the elective system was

reinstated in 1930, the central government continued to approve the appointment

of these positions.

There were some features of The Imperial University introduced to the

educational system of the country which also had influence on the organization

and governance of the National University of Colombia (see Table 30). These

features included education for the public good, emancipation from religious

influence, free tuition131, and management by the central government. The

Colombian central government appointed or removed Professors, Rectors and

other top positions via the Minister of Public Instruction. In fact, the first Rector

131 Education for students enrolled in public institutions was free of charge.

411

of the University was appointed by the central government. Likewise, the

Minister of Education has always been attending and even presiding over the

meetings of the Board of Trustees.

Table 30. Organization and Governance dimensions of the Imperial University and the National University of Colombia

POSITION/ GOVERNMENTAL BODY

IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

COLOMBIA GRAND MAÎTRE (GRAND MASTER)

Grand Maître (Grand Master)

Minister of Public Instruction

CHANCELLOR Chancellor - BOARD OF TRUSTEES Permanent Councilors Great Council RECTOR Rector of the Academy Rector VICE-RECTOR Vice-Rector Vice-Rector TREASURER Treasurer Treasurer SECRETARY Secretary Secretary

DEAN OF FACULTY Dean of Faculty Rector of School or Faculty

FACULTY DIRECTIVE COUNCIL - Faculty Directive Council


Another important French characteristic which influenced the organization

and governance the National University of Colombia was the division and

compartmentalization of the teaching and research functions of the Academy. As

a result, each knowledge area and profession of the University had its own

Institute or School with its own Rector and Faculty Directive Council (Consejo

Directivo de Facultad), which was in charge of its academic and economic

412

administration. In addition, those Faculties and Schools also had their own

buildings and facilities that were geographically located nearby, but had no

communication with the others. In other words, the University was made into a

formal entity without any sort of central organization, because the location and

administration of its Faculties, Schools, and Institutes were independent as was

the case in the French higher education system during the Napoleonic era.

This decentralized structure was modified through Law 65 of 1935 which

instituted a complete reform of the academic, physical plant, and administrative

organization of the University. This legislation returned autonomy to the

University by reducing the involvement of the central government in decision-

making and in the selection of the head positions and Professorships. As a result,

the Academic Senate was created, which served as to support the University in the

establishment of academic policies, rules, and regulations for the whole

University. Another important feature that helped to diminish the excessive

control of The Government over the University was the involvement of students

in the collegial bodies by the creation of the Students’ Council. Nevertheless, the

central government continued to have certain management influence over the

academic and administrative areas in all the universities by allocating economic

sources, enacting rules and regulations for the higher education system, and

appointing the Rector.

413

Differences and similarities related to the organization and governance dimensions between The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and The National University of Colombia

The completed comparative analysis suggests that there are more

similarities that differences between the two institutions. This was the focus of

the study. In general, both higher education institutions have similar

organizational structures (see Figure 23) to the other higher education institutions

of Colombia and around the world. Both institutions have a Board of Trustees, a

Rector, an Academic Affairs Vice-Rector, a Business Affairs Vice-Rector, a

General Secretary, Deans or Head of Schools, Research Centers or Institutes,

Graduate Studies, Students Affairs and University Welfare, Academic Faculty

Councils, a Planning Office, and a Student Council. Most of these positions and

governmental bodies have similar duties and responsibilities.

Both institutions have a Board of Trustees, a Rector, an Academic Affairs

Vice-Rector, a Business Affairs Vice-Rector, a General Secretary, Deans or Head

of Schools, Research Centers or Institutes, Graduate Studies, Students Affairs and

University Welfare, Academic Faculty Councils, a Planning Office, and a Student

Council. Most of these positions and governmental bodies have similar duties and

responsibilities.

414

Figure 23. Comparative Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario and The National University of Colombia.

RESEARCHCENTER

(1958)(1975)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES(1867)

ADVISORY SENATE(1654)

RECTOR(1654)(1867)

GENERALSECRETARY(1893)(1935)

ACADEMIC AFFAIRSVICE-RECTOR

(1653)(1964)

BUSINESSAFFAIRS

DIRECTOR(1867)(1893)

STUDENT´SAFFAIRS ANDUNIVERSITYWELFARE

(1935)(1993)

GENERAL DIRECTION OF THEUNIVERSITY(1867-1892)SPONSOR

(1654 - 1995)

DEAN(1867)(1923)

FACULTY ACADEMICCOUNCIL

(1867)(1974)

PLANNINGDEPARTMENT

(1964)(1969)

ACADEMICSENATE

(1958)

VICE-DEANS

ASSISTANTSECRETARY

SCHOLARS(1654)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OFCOLOMBIA

GREAT COLLEGE OFROSARIO


415

The major differences were related to size, character, resources, and

historical moment in which each position or governmental body was created. As a

large public institution, the National University played an important role in the

evolution of the educational system of the country. This University, free of charge

and supported with public funds, developed more rapidly than the Great College

of Rosario. The expansion of the academic area of the University created the need

to add administrators in greater proportion than that of students and Professors.

As a result, the administrative area of the University became a burgeoning

bureaucracy which supported the development of the academic area. On the other

hand, the Great College of Rosario was created as a small College financed with

private funds. For this reason, the academic and administrative structure was

organized and has evolved according to the number of students, Professors,

academic programs, and facilities. However, this College has a remarkable feature

that The National University started developing by the end of the twentieth

century which was the participation of scholars in the election of the highest

positions of the University.

Other remarkable difference found in the organizational structure was the

composition of The Board of Trustees. In the National University, the

membership of this Board varied from one legislation to another, according to the

policies of the University and the specific historical period. Alumni

representatives, students, Professors, students’ parents, ex-Rectors, academic

416

senate, business world, and Catholic Church have not been regular members.

However, the Board reflected the influence of the central government by having

its own representatives such as the Minister of Education and the Minister of

Economy attending the Board meetings. In the Great College of Rosario, this

Board has maintained a similar form, including the Advisors (Consiliarios) and

the Rector. The main change made to this collegial body was to increase the

number of its members in 1974.

The most important difference was the way the following offices were

organized within each organizational chart according to the historical time of each

institution: Board of Trustees, Rector, Academic Affairs Vice-Rector, Business

Affairs Vice-Rector, General Secretary, Deans or Head of Schools, Research

Centers or Institutes, Graduate Studies, Students Affairs and University Welfare,

Academic Faculty Councils, Planning Office, and Student Council.

CONCLUSIONS


dimensions of the Colombian Higher Education; organization and governance.

Two higher education institutions were selected (one public and one private) to

represent Universities which helped illustrate the evolution on these dimensions.

Analyzing the findings of this study, several conclusions can be drawn as follows:

First, the organization and governance dimensions of the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the National University of Colombia have their

417

genesis in the medieval University model, which instituted the use of

contemporary titles such as Rector, Vice-Rector (Provost), and Dean and others.

Second, the development of each higher education institution reflects a

complicated process derived from the historical development of the societal,

economic, political, and educational evolution of the country from its conquest to

the present.

Third, there was strong influence from the University of Salamanca

(Spanish model) on the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario and the

Imperial University (French model) on the National University of Colombia.

These university models were the basis of the development of several aspects of

the organizational and governance dimensions of each institution.

Fourth, the expansion of the Great College and the National University

due to an increasing number of students who would have access to higher

education, led to the expansion of each institution. This increase in the number of

students required more Professors, administrative personnel, buildings, facilities

and equipment, and economical sources, which changed the basic structure of

each institution. As a result, the organization of the Great College and the

National University became more complex.

Fifth, the evolution and growth of the Great College of Rosario and of the

National University of Colombia did not occur at the same time. As mentioned

above, the Great College of Rosario was characterized for being as a small private

418

College, whose organizational development occurred at the end of the 1960s,

according to the expansion of private higher education in the country. The

National University of Colombia was established as the largest public University,

free or with very low fees, whose development began in the 1930s. Thus, the

establishment of each position or governmental body took place in different

stages according to the historical evolution of the Great College and the

University. However, both higher education institutions share similar organization

and governance structure as depicted in Figure 23.

Sixth, the basic organizational structure by which each institution was

created included the Board of Trustees, Rector, Vice-Rectors, Secretary and

Deans, and required the addition of more offices to respond to the challenges that

these institution were facing during their development. Among these offices were

the Planning Department, Students, Academic, and Administrative Services,

Graduate School Programs, and Research Unit or Centers. The segmentation of

disciplines and professions led to the creation of departments, Institutes and/or

Schools that required Directors to manage them.

Seventh, the development of an academic area led to the formalization of

governmental bodies such as senates, councils, and associated committees in

order to advise the collegial bodies and the leadership positions. These

governmental bodies created a collaborative environment in the University

community with regard to decision-making. This environment also called for the

419

participation of two important groups from the University community; the

students and the alumni, who not only gained more influence in University

planning and decision-making through the establishment of Student Councils but

also attended College administration meetings. In the same way, the growth of the

College and the University led to an administrative expansion that required a

larger number of both employees and administrative units.

Finally, the evolution of the College and the University also generated

main duties and responsibilities of each position and governmental bodies that

had to be modified. As an illustration, when both institutions were founded, the

Rector was responsible for the behavior and morality of students and Professors.

However, as the University grew in size and complexity, its functions developed

into academic, administrative, policy-making, and managerial responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This research was limited to two higher education institutions in two

major dimensions only. Therefore, additional studies need to be conducted not

only in others fields of study such as economic and finance, curriculum

development, research, and public service, but also in the organization and

governance dimensions of other Colombian higher education institutions from

both the public and private sector. Even though the National University and the

Great College of Rosario represent two important higher education institutions,

each one had particular characteristics and development that do not permit the

420

generalization of the evolution of these dimensions to the entire Colombian higher

education system. Thus, it is suggested that it will be necessary to carry out

additional studies of other higher education institutions of the country. Finally,

based on the analysis of the organization and governance dimensions of the

formal organization of each institution, the researcher also recommends studying

the informal organization structure of both institutions in order to verify that their

hierarchical arrangement and functions, created in the formal organization, are

carried out in the way they were established.

421

APPENDIX A

Published Primary and Secondary Sources

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO

Public Seed of July 13, 1650. (Escritura Pública de Julio 13 de 1650)

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in Colombia]. (Vol 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 201-216

Consultation to The Supreme Council of Indies. Madrid - November 17, 1651. (Consulta al Consejo Supremo de Indias. Madrid- Noviembre 17 de 1651)


Real Cell of December 31, 1651 (Cédula Real de Diciembre 13 de 1651)

Rodríguez, A. (1977). Salamantina Docet. La Proyección de la Universidad de Salamanca en Hispanoamérica. [Salamantina Docet. The Projection of the University of Salamanca in Hispano-America]. Salamanca, España: Universidad de Salamanca.

Inaguration Minute of The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. December 18, 1653 (Acta de Inaguración del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Diciembre 18 de 1653)

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in Colombia]. (Vols 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 225

Fray Torres’ Will, July 7 Of 1654. (Tesatamento de Fray Torres, Julio 7 de 1654)

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in Colombia]. (Vols 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 76-80.

Real Cell July 12 of 1664 (Cédula Real de Julio 12 de 1664)

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in

422

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colombia]. (Vol 2). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 119-120

Letter Sent to The King by the Dominicans on January 9, 1665 (Carta enviada al Rey por los Dominicos en Enero 9 de 1665)


Letter Sent by the Colegiales to the King of Spain. January 13, 1665 (Carta enviada por los Colegiales al Rey de España. Enero 13 de 1665)


Real Cell of January 18, 1734 (Cédula Real de Enero 18 de 1734)


Real Cell of May 3, 1768 (Cédula Real deMayo 3 de 1768)


Constitutions of 1654 for The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (Constitutciones de 1654 para el Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 3-27

Real Cell of Carlos IV. March 20, 1806. (Cédula Real de Carlos IV, Marzo 20 de 1806)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1950b). Relación de Leyes y Decretos Dictados desde 1810 a 1950 relativos al Colegio Mayor. [Laws and Decrees related to the Great College from 1810 to 1950]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 45, p. 391

New Constitutions for The Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1893. (Nuevas Constitutciones para el Colegio Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1893)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 29-40

423

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Agreement 9 of 1924 (Acuerdo 9 de 1924)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1950a). Acuerdo No 9 de 1924 [Agreement No 9, 1924]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 29, p. 261.

Decree No. 517 of 1930. (Decreto No. 517 de 1930)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1930a). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, p. 402-403.

Agreement No 5 of 1930 (Acuerdo No. 5 de 1930)


Agreement No 6 of 1930 (Acuerdo No 6 de 1930)


Rectoral Decree No. 32 of 1969 (Decreto Rectoral No. 32 de 1969)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1969). Crónica Rosarista. Decreto Rectoral No 32 de 1969. [Rectoral Decree No 32, 1969] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 69, 483, p. 142-144.

Rectoral Decree No. 12, 1970 (Decreto Rectoral No. 12, 1970)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1970). Crónica Rosarista. Decreto Rectoral No 12 de 1970. [Rectoral Decree No 12, 1970] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 70, 487, p. 160.

Decree No. 1065 of 1974 (Decreto No. 1065 de 1974)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 43-47.

Agreement No. 77 of 1995 (Acuerdo No. 77 de 1995)


Resolution No 0436 of February 13, 1996 (Resolución No 0436 de Febrero 13 de 1996)


424

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Letter No. 01282 of 1996 (Carta No 01282 de 1996)


NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA

Decree of October 3 of 1826 (Decreto Octubre 3 de 1826)

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Reconstitución. [National University of Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 39-86.

Decree of October 20 of 1826 (Decreto Octubre 20 de 1826)

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Reconstitución. [National University of Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 33-35

Law of May 15, 1850 (Ley Mayo 15 de 1850)

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Reconstitución. [National University of Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 245-248

Law 66 of September 22, 1867 (Ley 66 de Septiembre 22 de 1867)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. El Federalismo [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. The Federalism], Vol 3 (1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 646-685

Organic Decree of 1868 (Decreto Orgánico de 1868)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. El Federalismo [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. The Federalism], Vol 3 (1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 685-688.

Decree No 1238, 1892 (Decreto 1238 de 1892)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a)

425

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. Reformo f 1886], Vol 4 (2,1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 1109-1167

Law 39, 1903 (Ley 39 de 1903)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. Reformo f 1886], Vol 4 (2,1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. p. 1236-1241.

Decree No 491 of 1904 (Decreto No 491 de 1904)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974b) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. Reformo f 1886], Vol 4 (2,1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 1265-1281.

Law 68 of 1935 (Ley 68 de 1904)

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2000). Alfonso López Pumarejo y la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. [Alfonso López Pumarejo and the National University of Colombia]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 93-102.

Decree No 136, 1958 (Decreto No 136 de 1958)

Decreto Legislativo No 0136 de 1958 [Lesgislative Decree No 0136 of 1958], Junta Militar de Gobierno de la República de Colombia, (Bogotá, 1958).

Law 65 of 1963 (Ley 65 de 1963) Ley 65 de 1963 [Law 65 of 1963], Congreso de la República de Colombia, (Bogotá, 1963).

Decree No 82, 1980 (Decreto 82 de 1980)

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES (1987). Reforma de la Educación Secundaria. Compilación Legislativa. Bogotá. p. 51-67.

Decree No 1210, 1993 (Decreto No 1210 de 1993)

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1993). Documentos de Reforma Universitaria. No 4.

426

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

[Reform Documents No 4]. 1993. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 3-20.

Agreement 13, 1999 (Acuerdo 13 de 1999)

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 13 de 1999 (Acta 10) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 13 of 1999 (Minute 10)] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1999). Retrieved July 27,2003, from http://www.dnic.unal.edu.co/estatutos/egeneral/egeca01.html

427

APPENDIX B

Unpublished Primary Sources

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO

Agreement of the Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) No 002 of 1972 (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 002 de 1972)

Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 002, [Agreement of the Advisory Senate No 002] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1975).

Agreement of the Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) No. 3 of 1976 (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 3 de 1976)


Rectoral Decree No. 003 of 1978 (Decreto Rectoral No.003 de 1978)

Decreto Rectoral No 003, [Rectoral Decree No 003] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1978).











Rectoral Decree No. 369 of 1993 (Decreto Rectoral No. 369 de 1993) Decreto Rectoral No 369, [Rectoral Decree No 369]

428

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1993).











Rectoral Decree No. 497 of 1997. (Decreto Rectoral No. 497 de 1997)




NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA

Agreement of the Board of Trustees No. 66 of 1939 (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 66 de 1939)

Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No 66 de 1939 (Acta No 32), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 66 of 1939 (Minute 32)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1939).


Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 108 de 1964 [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 108 of 1964], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1964).

Agreement of the Board of Trustees No. 59 of 1965 (Acuerdo

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 59 de 1964 (Acta 12) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees

429

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

del Consejo Directivo No. 59 de 1965)

No 59 of 1964 (Minute 12)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1965).


Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 77 de 1969 (Acta 46) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 77 of 1969 (Minute 46)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1969).

Agreement of the Board of Trustees 82 of 1977 (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No. 82 de 1977)


Agreement of the Board of Trastees No. 083 of 1977 (Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No, 83 de 1977)

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83 de 1977 (Acta 28), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 83 of 1977 (Minute 28)] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1977).




Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 100 de 1984 (Acta 51) [Agreement of the Borrad of Trustees No 100 of 1984 (Minute 51)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1984).



430

APPENDIX C

SECTION 1. COLONIAL PERIOD (1653-1819)

DATE No NAME POSSESION RETIREMENT

1 Fray Tomás Navarro, O.P. 12-18-1653 01-09-1662.

2 Fray Juan del Rosario, O.P. He was Vice-rector appointed by Fray Cristóbal and temporary Rector.

01-09-1662 03-19-1664

3

Cristóbal de Araque y Ponce de León y Ávila Lifetime Rector appointed by Fray Cristóbal and ratified by the Real Cell of July 12 of 1664. He never assumed the position.

4

Juan Peláez Sotelo He replaced the lifetime rector. He also was the first elected Rector by the Colegiales on December 18 of 1665

03-19-1665 12-18-1666

5 Juan de Mosquera Nuguerol (Temporary). 12-18-1666 1667

6 Cristóbal de Torres Bravo (Temporary). 05-07-1667

7 Enrique de Caldas Barbosa y Santiago 12-22-1667 12-18-1668 8 Nicolás de Guzmán y Solanilla 1669 1670 9 Enrique de Caldas Barbosa y Santiago 1671 1672

10 Juan de Mosquera Nuguerol 1673 1676 11 Nicolás Flórez de Acuña 1677 1677

12 Cristóbal de Torres Bravo (Temporary). 05-1677

13 Enrique de Caldas Barbosa y Santiago 1678 1678 14 Francisco Osorio Nieto de Paz y Herrera 1679 15 Enrique de Caldas Barbosa y Santiago 1680 1682 16 Cristóbal de Torres Bravo 1683 1684

17 Gregorio de Borja y Espeleta de Montenegro 1685 10-1687

18 Juan Agustín del Río 10-15-1687

431


(Temporary). 19 Nicolás Flórez de Acuña 10-24-1687 11-08-1687 20 Antonio de Mur Sol de Villa y Grijota 1688 1690

21 Gregorio de Borja y Espeleta de Montenegro 1691

22 Francisco de Agudelo Arias de Bolívar 1692 1693 23 Andrés del Río 1694 1696

24 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña Vice-rector and interim Rector 01-1697 04-1697

25 Sebastián Carlos Pretel y Cid Cuadrado 05-1697 12-1697

26 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña Vice-rector and temporary Rector 03-1698 12-1698

27 Cristóbal de Torres Bravo 03-1699 12-18-1701 28 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña 12-18-1701 12-18-1704 29 Juan Andrés Manzanarez y Juera 12-18-1704 1707 30 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña 1708 1710 31 Antonio Camacho de Guzmán y Rojas 1711 12-18-1714

32 Luis Antonio de Berrío y Mendoza de Castrillón 12-18-1714 02-1717

33 Fray Francisco Ramírez Floreano de Hoyos 03-19-1717 12-15-1718

34 Fray José de Mena Peláez Vice-rector and temporary Rector 12-18-1718 12-24-1719

35 Miguel Carlos de Sorza y Mena 12-24-1719 12-24-1722 36 Pedro José de Leyva y La Madrid 12-24-1722 12-22-1725

37 José Ignacio de Flórez y Vanegas (Temporary) 1725

38 Luis Antonio de Berrío y Mendoza 12-22-1725 07-1728

39 Cristóbal de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de Guevara Vice-rector and temporary Rector

07-1728 12-22-1728

40 Fernando Antonio Camacho de Guzmán y Rojas Reelected on December 19 of 1731

12-22-1728 12-20-1733

41 Francisco Lucas Pérez Manrique de Lara y Ospina 12-20-1733 12-16-1736

42 José Manuel de Tejeira y Mena 12-16-1736 02-19-1738 43 Antonio José de Guzmán y Monasterio 02-19-1738 05-31-1738

432


Vice-rector and temporary Rector

44 Francisco Javier Tello de Mayorga y Camacho 05-31-1738 1741

45 Luis Francisco de Guzmán y Monasterio Elected on December 18 of 1741 08-11-1742 12-1744

46 José Gabriel Manrique de Lara y Ospina He died before he assumed this position . 12-1744

47 Miguel José Masústegui y Archer Vice-rector and temporary Rector 05-14-1745 12-18-1745

48 José Ignacio de Flórez y Vanegas 12-18-1745 02-04-1748 49 Antonio José de Guzmán y Monasterio 04-02-1748 12-23-1750

50 Cristóbal de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de Guevara He died being appointed as Rector

12-23-1750 1752

51 Francisco Santiago de Gaona y Bastida Navarro Vice-rector and Rector

07-1752 01-06-1753

52 Nicolás Antonio de Vargas y Matajudíos 01-06-1753 02-1756

53 Francisco Javier Tello de Mayorga y Camacho Elected on December 18 of 1755

02-1756 20-12-1755

54 Francisco Javier de Caycedo y Fajardo He died being appointed as Rector 20-12-1758 01-03-1759

55 Juan Ignacio Moscoso y Bayo Vice-rector and Rector 01-03-1759 21-05-1759

56 José Joaquín de León y Herrera 21-05-1759 17-07-1763 57 Miguel José Masústegui y Archer 17-07-1763 23-12-1766 58 Bartolomé Ramírez Maldonado 23-12-1766 18-12-1769 59 Miguel José Masústegui y Archer 18-12-1769 02-05-1773

60 Manuel de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de Guevara 06-1773 21-12-1775

61 José Joaquín de Guzmán y Franqui 21-12-1775 23-12-1778 62 Miguel José Masústegui y Archer 23-12-1778 12-12-1780 63 Agustín Manuel de Alarcón y Castro 12-12-1780 29-12-1782 64 Antonio de Paniagua y Fajardo 29-12-1782 21-10-1783

65 Agustín Manuel de Alarcón y Castro He was reelected on December 18 of 1786

21-10-1783 15-04-1790

66 Santiago Gregorio de Burgos y 15-04-1790 06-01-1793

433


Villamizar

67 Fernando Caycedo y Flórez He was reelected on December 18 of 1792

06-01-1793 01-01-1796

68 Antonio Nicolás Martínez Caso y Murillo He retired because of an illness 01-01-1796 01-07-1796

69 Santiago Gregorio de Burgos y Villamizar He was temporary appointed

27-07-1796 21-02-1799

70 Fernando Caycedo y Flórez 21-02-1799 14-03-1802 71 José Rafael Torrijos y Rigueiro 14-03-1802 23-01-1803 72 Andrés Rosillo y Meruelo 23-01-1803 09-01-1806 73 Vicente de la Rocha y Flórez 09-01-1806 14-10-1808 74 Antonio Ignacio Gallardo y Guerrero 14-10-1808 06-01-1811 75 Felipe de Vergara y Caicedo 06-01-1811 02-16-1812 76 Francisco Javier de Vergara y Caicedo 02-16-1812 28-02-1814

77 Domingo Tomás de Burgos y Villamizar Reelected on December 18 of 1817 28-02-1814 26-01-1823

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de Iriarte, M. 2003.

434

SECTION 2. REPUBLICAN PERIOD (1819-1842)


78 Juan Fernández de Sotomayor y Picón Reelected on December 18 of 1829 26-01-1823 04-05-1832

79 José Tomás Nuñez Conto Vice-rector and temporary Rector 04-05-1832 19-12-1832

80 José María del Castillo y Rada He died as Rector 19-12-1832 23-02-1835

81 José Tomás Nuñez Conto Vice-rector and temporary Rector 20-02-1835 09-08-1835

82 Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez Temporary Rector 09-08-1835 19-11-1835

83 José María Duque Gómez Temporary Rector and elected on December 18 of 1835

19-11-1835 09-11-1837

84 José Manuel Fernández Saavedra y Torres Vice-rector and Rector. He resigned

09-11-1837 27-11-1837

85

Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez Temporary Rector and elected on December 18 of 1837

27-11-1837 31-12-1840

86 Vicente Antonio Gómez y Polanco 01-01-1841 20-01-1842


435

SECTION 3. BEGINNING OF THE MODERN UNIVERSITY (1842-1930)


87 Andrés María Pardo Álvarez First University Inspector of the First District and Rector.

1842 1843

88 Lorenzo María Lleras y González First University Inspector of the First District and Rector.

1843 01-01-1846

89 Venancio Restrepo Villegas First University Inspector of the First District and Rector.

01-01-1846 1849

90 Antonio Vargas Reyes 09-1850 11-1850 91 Rafael Rivas Mejía 01-11-1850 22-06-1951

92 Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez Temporary Rector. Elected as Rector on December 18 of 1851

22-06-1951 22-01-1852

93 Juan Nepomuceno Nuñez Conto Reelected on December 18 of 1855 22-01-1852 01-01-1859

94 Andrés María Pardo Álvarez 11-01-1859 08- 1864 95 Juan Agustín Uricoechea y Navarro 05-08-1864 19-02-1866

96 Francisco Eustaquio Álvarez Rivero Reelected on December 18 of 1868 19-02-1866 12-1870

97 Nicolás Esguerra Ortíz 01-01-1871 31-12-1871

98 Francisco Eustaquio Álvarez Rivero 01-01-1872 12-1874

99 Gil Colunje Last Rector according to the former Constitutions

01-01-1875 30-01-1880

100 Januario Salgar Appointed by the President of the country 30-01-1880 20-04-1880

101 Manuel Ezequiel Corrales Appointed by the President of the country 06-1880 02-1882

102 Juan Manuel Rudas Appointed by the President of the country 01-03-1882 08-04-1882

103 Manuel Ancízar Appointed by the President of the country. He died as Rector

17-04-1882 21-05-1882

104 Juan Manuel Rudas Appointed by the President of the country 05-1882 1885

436


105 Carlos Martínez Silva Appointed by the President of the country 1886 1887

106 José Manuel Marroquín Appointed by the President of the country 1887 1890

107

Rafael María Carrasquilla Appointed by the President of the country. He died during his tenure as Rector

15-12-1890 18-03-1930

108 Jenaro Jiménez Vice-rector and temporary Rector 28-03-1930 13-08-1930


437

APPENDIX D

Reform of the Modern University (1930-2000)


109

José Vicente Castro Silva First Rector elected according to the New constitutions. He died died during his tenure as Rector

13-08-1930 28-03-1968

110 Marco Tulio Cruz Vice-rector and temporary Rector 28-03-1968 24-10-1968

111 Antonio Rocha Alvira Reelected on October of 1972 24-10-1968 12-1973

112 Carlos Holguín Holguín 12-12-1973 24-10-1978

113 Álvaro Tafur Galvis Reelected on October of 1982 24-10-1978 24-10-1986

114 Roberto Arias Pérez 21-10-1986 24-10-1990 115 Gustavo de Greiff Restrepo 24-10-1990 01-04-1992

116 Guillermo Salah Zuleta Vice-rector and temporary Rector 01-04-1992 24-09-1992

117 Mario Suárez Melo He resigned 24-09-1992 01-1997

118 Guillermo Salah Zuleta Antonio Rocha Alvira Reelected on October 24 of 1998

01-1997 16-07-2001

119 Maria del Rosario Guerra de Mesa Temporary Rector 16-07-2001 20-08-2001

120 Rafael Enrique Riveros Dueñas 21-08-2001 24-10-2002 121 Hans Peter Knudsen Quevedo 24-10-2002 Nowadays


438

GLOSSARY

Academic Senate (Consejo Académico): Was a consultant body of the National

University of Colombia that served to advise the Rector and The Board

of Trustees in all academic matters.

Advisors (Consiliarios): Served as advisors to the Rector and the Vice-Rector in

the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario.

Advisory Senate (Consiliatura): The Consiliatura has been the most important

governing body of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario,

which had similar duties and responsibilities as a Board of Trustees. It

was comprised by three Consiliarios, the Rector and Vice-Rector. In the

National University of Colombia, the Board of Trustees was known as

Consiliatura between 1958 and 1963

Bachiller: Individual who has graduated from secondary education (high school).

Chair (cátedras): for the purpose of this study, Chair is defined as the courses

taught by professors in a specific field of study.

Colegiatura: The Colegiatura was the position performed by the scholars

(colegiales).

Colleges (Colegios): are institutions that in the Republican period provided

secondary instruction. In the colonial era Colleges were classified into

two groups: Great Colleges (colegios mayores), that provided education

439

leading to professional degrees. Minor Colleges (colegios menores) were

devoted to Latin or other secondary subjects preparatory to enrollment in

Great Colleges or Universities.

Convictores Students (Estudiantes Convictores): Were students who had to pay

for studying in the college.

Criollo: Spanish descendents born in the colonial settlements.

Dean (Decano): An administrative officer in charge directing a college, faculty, or

division in a university.

Directive Council (Consejo Directivo): This was a governmental body that played

the same role and functions as the Board of Trustees in the National

University of Colombia between 1935 and 1958.

Faculty (Facultad): It is defined as a program of studies on a specific subject. For

example Faculty of Law (Facultad de Derecho) refers to the School of

Law.

Faculty Council (Consejo de Facultad): Was a governmental body created by

each Faculty in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario that

would be in charge of advising the Dean or Academic Director of Studies

in order to establish the policies, rules, and regulations of the academic

area of the faculty.

Faculty Directive Council (Consejo Directivo de Facultad): Was a governmental

body created in the National University of Colombia between 1867 and

440

1935 in charge of advising the Rector of Faculty or School in the

academic and administrative matters.

Familiares Students (Estudiantes Familiares): Poor students that did not have

money to pay the tuition. However, they had to fulfill the requirements

for admission in the college.

General Administrative Director (Director General Administrativo): Was an

administrative officer in charge of the economic and financial aspects of

the National University of Colombia since 1980.

General Secretary (Secretario General): Was an officer in charge of approving

agreements and resolutions, authorizing and registering the degrees

granted; keeping the grades and records of students; having custody of

the institution’s books, archives, and documents; and delivering authentic

copies when required.

Great Council (Gran Consejo): This was a governmental body that played the

same role and functions as the Board of Trustees in the National

University of Colombia between 1867 and 1892.

Great Faculties (Facultades Mayores): university faculties offering studies

leading to the professional or doctorate degree.

Investment and Credit Consultant (Asesor de Inversiones y Crédito): This office

was in charge of finding economic sources in order to finance University

research.

441

Medium Dean (Decano del Medio): Refers to an office created in the Great

College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario in 1997, in charge of student

affairs providing services and support for students, alumni, professors

and administrative personnel of the college.

Minor Universities (Universidades Menores): Higher education institutions of the

colonial period that had restricted rights to grant degrees

Patrono (Sponsor): Refers to a position created in the Constitutions of 1654 that

played the role of sponsor of the college.

Planning Council (Comité de Planeación): Was a governmental body in charge of

advising the Planning Office.

Planning Office (Oficina de Planeación): Refers to an office in charge of the

planning and developmental aspects of the Great College and the

National University of Colombia.

Pontific Bull (Bula Pontífica): Authorization for establishment of colleges and

universities given by the Pope in the colonial period.

Procurator (Procurador): Was an administrative officer in charge of the economic

and financial aspects of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

since 1893.

Purity of Blood (Pureza de Sangre): In Spain originally meant certification that

all ancestors were of legitimate Christina descendent; in the New World

442

this meaning was extended to mean certification that all ancestors were

of Spanish, as opposed to Indian, Negro, or mestizo origin.

Real Cell (Cédula Real): Refers to the legal document enacted by the King of

Spain during the Colonial Period.

Rector (President): This was the highest authority and performed the head

position of the Great College and the National University of Colombia.

Rector of Faculty: an administrative officer in charge directing a faculty or school

in the National University of Colombia between 1867 and 1935.

Royal Charter: Refers to the authorization for establishment of colleges and

universities given by the Crown in the colonial period.

Santanderistas: Adherents to the General Francisco de Paula Santander.

Scholars (Colegiales): They are fifteen scholars enrolled in the Great College of

Nuestra Señora del Rosario that enjoyed several privileges including the

right of electing the head positions of the college, lodging and teaching

free of charge.

Specialization and Graduate Studies (Estudios de Posgrado y Especialización):

This office was in charge of administering graduate studies in the Great

College and in the National University of Colombia.

Students and University Welfare (Bienestar Universitario y de Estudiantes):

Refers to an office in charge of the student affairs providing services and

support for students, alumni, professors and administrative personnel of

443

the Great College (from 1993 to 1997) and the National University of

Colombia (since 1964).

Students Council (Consejo de Estudiantes): Refers to a council comprised by

representatives from each Faculty or School of the Great College or the

National University.

Syndic (Síndico): Was an administrative officer in charge of the economic and

financial aspects of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario

since 1893. In the National University of Colombia, this position was

established this position between 1935 and 1980

The Supreme Council of the Indies (Consejo Supremo de las Indias): This

Council centralized the administration of the colonies and had legislative,

executive and legal functions.

Treasurer (Tesorero): Refers to a person who was in charge of the collection and

management of the rents of the National University of Colombia between

1867 and 1934.

Universities: Educational institutions which provide instruction leading to

professional degrees. In the colonial period, only universities granted

degrees.

University Council (Consejo Universitario): This was a governmental body that

played the same role and functions as the Board of Trustees in the

National University of Colombia between 1892 and 1935.

444

Vice-Rector (Vice-President of Academic Affairs): This is an important position

under the Rectorship that managed the academic affairs of the university

or college.

445

REFERENCES


Acuerdo de la Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) No 003, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 003] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1976).

Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 002, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 002] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1975).





Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No 66 de 1939 (Acta No 32), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 66 of 1939 (Minute 32)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1939).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 13 de 1999 (Acta 10) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 13 of 1999 (Minute 10)] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1999). Retrieved July 27,2003, from http://www.dnic.unal.edu.co/estatutos/egeneral/egeca01.html

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 100 de 1984 (Acta 51) [Agreement of the Borrad of Trustees No 100 of 1984 (Minute 51)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1984).


446





Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83 de 1977 (Acta 28), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 83 of 1977 (Minute 28)] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1977).

Addy, K. (1966). The Enlightenment in the University of Salamanca. Durham: Duke University Press.

Ali, S. (1978). History: It's theory and Method. Madras: The Macmillan Company of India Limited.

Alvarez, M., Rodríguez, L., Alvarez, J. (1991). The University of Salamanca. Eight Centuries of Scholarship. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Asociación Colombiana de Universidades -ASCUN. (1961). Régimen Legal Universitario Vigente. [University Legal In-Force Regime]. Bogotá: ASCUN.

Asociación Colombiana de Universidades -ASCUN. (1967). Efemérides e Historias de las Instituciones de Educación Superior. [Ephemerid and Stories of Higher Education Institutions]. Bogotá: ASCUN.

Asociación Colombiana de Universidades -ASCUN. (2000).Universidad Colombiana. Catálogo. [Colombian University. Catalogue]. (1st ed.). Santafé de Bogotá: ASCUN

447

Balridge, V. Curtis, D., Ecker G., & Riley, G. (1977). Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education. In: Riley, G.,& Baldridge, V. Governing Academic Organization. (pp. 11-27) Berkley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Beltrán, V. (1980). La Universidad en Santafe de Bogotá. [The University in Santafe de Bogotá]. In Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino Cuatrocientos Años. Bogotá: Centro de Enseñanza Desescolarizada Universidad Santo Tomás.

Birbaum, R. (1983). ASHE Reader in Organization and Governance in Higher Education. (1st ed.). Lexington, MA: Ginn Press.

Birbaum, R. (1988). How College Work. The Cybernetics or Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Borrero. (1999). La Revolución Francesa y la educación, la universidad napoleónica y la universidad en Francia hasta 1968. Italia y España. [The French Revolutina and the education, the Napoleonic University and the French Universiy until 1968. Italy and Spain]. In: Simposio Permanente sobre la Universidad. Bogotá

Brundage, A. (1997). Going to the Sources. A Guide to Historical Research and Writing. (2nd ed.). Wheeling: Harlan Davidson.

Campbell, W. G. (1990). Form and Style in Thesis Writing, a Manual of Style. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Caro, B. (1993). Autonomía y Calidad. [Autonomy and Quality]. Bogotá: Magíster en Dirección Universitaria. Universidad de Los Andes.

Carrasquilla, R. M. (1915). Actos Oficiales. Informe del Señor Rector. [Official Acts. Report from the Rector]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 9, 104, 274-281.

Carrasquilla, R. M. (1929). Actos Oficiales. Informe del Señor Rector [Official Acts. Report from the Rector]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 24, 231, 1-19.

Castro, J. (1996). Definición del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. [Definition of the Great Collage of Nuestra Señora of Rosario] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 89, 571/572, 119-131.

448

Central Intelligent Agency [CIA]. (n.d). The World Fact Book 2002. Colombia. Retrieved August 2, 2003, from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/co.html

Cobo, J. (1979). La Enseñanza Superior en el Mundo. Estudio Comparado e Hipótesis. [Higher Education in the World. Comparative Study] Madrid: Nancea S.A. Ediciones

Cohen, A. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Colegio de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1924). Acuerdo 9 de 1924. [Agreement 9 of 1924]. In: Revista del Colegio de Nuestra Señora del Rosario 19, 185, p. 261.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1907). Actos Oficiales [Official Acts]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 2, 11, 44-45.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1908). Informe. [Report]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 4, 11, 29-39.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1910). Acuerdo No 1o de 1910. [Agreement No 1º, 1910] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 6, 11, 94-95.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1912). Actos Oficiales. Informe. [Official Acts. Report] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 8, 11, 303-307.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1924). Real Cédula Carlos IV. [Real Cell Charles IV]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 46, 429, 391.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1930a). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, 247, 401-447.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1930b). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, 248, 533-547.

449

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1950a). Acuerdo No 9 de 1924 [Agreement No 9, 1924]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 29, 185, 261.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1950b). Relación de Leyes y Decretos Dictados desde 1810 a 1950 relativos al Colegio Mayor. [Laws and Decrees related to the Great Collage from 1810 to 1950]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 45, 423, 411-421.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1952-1954). Documentos. [Documents]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 47, 435, 42-57.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1964). Nueva Facultad. [New Faculty]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 58, 468, 139.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1969). Crónica Rosarista. Decreto Rectoral No 32 de 1969. [Rectoral Decree No 32, 1969] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 69, 483, p. 142-144.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1970). Crónica Rosarista. Decreto Rectoral No 12 de 1970. [Rectoral Decree No 12, 1970] In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 70, 487, p. 160.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1995). Estructura Orgánica [Organizacional Structure]. Santafé de Bogotá.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1996). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de Bogotá.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (n.d). Facultad de Economía. [Economy Faculty]. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://economia.urosario.edu.co/planestu/fincomint.htm

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (n.d). Facultad de Rehabilitación y Desarrollo. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.urosario.edu.co/planes/rehabilitacion/index.htm

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (n.d). Pregrado en Fisioterapia. [Phisiotherapy Program]. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.urosario.edu.co/planes/rehabilitacion/pregrado/fisioter/index.htm

450











Departamento Administrativo de Nacional de Estadística [DANE]. (n.d.). Población y tasas de crecimiento medio anual, según departamentos 1999 y 1996-2015. Retrieved March 23, 2003 from http://www.dane.gov.co/snie/snie.htm

Departamento Administrativo de Nacional de Estadística [DANE]. (n.d.). XVI Censo Nacional de Población y de Vivienda 1993. Retrieved March 23, 2003 from http://www.dane.gov.co/snie/snie.htm

Dix, R. (1967). Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Drouard, A. (1977). Analyse Comparative des Processus de Changement et Des Mouvements de Réforme de L’enseignement Supérieur Français. [Comparative Analysis of the French Higher Education Reform Movements]. Paris : Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

451

Duryea, E. (1973). Evolution of University Organization. In Brown, C. (Ed). Organization and Governance in Higher Education. (5th ed). United States of America: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Encarta Encyclopedia. (2002). Colombia. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2003 CD-ROM.

Fals-Borda, O. (1962). La Educación en Colombia. [The Education in Colombia]. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Fernandez, M., Rodriguez, L. Alvarez, J. (1991). The University of Salamanca. Eight Centuries of Scholarship. Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Forest, J., & Kinser, K. (2002). Higher Education in the United States. An Encyclopedia. Santa Bárbara, CA: ABC-Clio.

Gaitán, B. (1982). La Constitución Política de Colombia y la Educación. Autonomía. [Colombian Political Constitution and the Educational Autonomy]. In: ASCUN-ICFES. Simposio Permanente sobre la Universidad. Santafé de Bogotá: ASCUN-ICFES.

Garcia, J. (1951), Antigüedades de las facultades universitarias. [Antiquity of the University Faculties]. In Boletín de Historia y Antigüedades, Vol. 39, 551-545.

Gil, F. (1982) Historia y Arte en el Colegio Mayor del Rosario. [History and Arts in the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario]. Bogotá: Ediciones Rosaristas.

Goodchild, L. (1996). G. Stanley Hall and the Study of Higher Education [Electronic version]. In: The Review of Higher Education, 20.1, 69-99.

Granados, R. (1978). Historia General de Colombia. [General History of Colombia]. (8th ed). Bogotá: Imprenta Antonio Nariño.

Guillén de Iriarte, M. (1991). La elección de Rector. [The Election of the Rector]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 553, 41-61.

Guillén de Iriarte, M. (1994). Nobleza e Hidalguia en el Nuevo Reino de Granada. Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. 1653-1820. [Nobility in the New Kingdom of Granada. Great Collage of Nuestra Señora of Rosario. 1653-1820]. Bogotá: Ediciones Rosaristas.

452

Guillén de Iriarte, M. (1998). La Universidad más Antigua de Colombia. [The Oldest University of Colombia]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 91, 579, 82-84.

Guillén de Iriarte, M. (2003). Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1653-2003. [Rectors and Rectorships of the Great Collage of Nuestra Señora of Rosario from 1653 to 2003]. Colombia: Editora Guadalupe Ltda.

Helg, A. (1987). La Educación en Colombia 1918-1957. Una Historia Social, Económica y Política. [The Education in Colombia 1817-1957. A Social, Economic, and Politic History].Bogotá: Fondo Editorial CEREC.

Hernández, (1953). Analectas del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Bogotá: Banco de la República.

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in Colombia]. (Vols 1-6). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly.

Hernández, G. (1980). Panorama de la Universidad en la Colonia. [Situation of the University in the Colony]. In: Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino Cuatrocientos Años. Bogotá: Universidad Santo Tomás, Centro de Enseñanza Desescolarizada, Sección de Publicaciones.

Howell, M., Prevenier, W. (2001). From Reliable Sources. An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hoy, W. & Miskel, C. (1996). Educational Administration, Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Huerta, J. Perez, I. (2002). Influencia de algunos modelos universitarios en la Universidad de Guadalajara. [Influence of some university models in the University of Guadalajara]. México: UDUAL.

Información Sectorial. Educación. [Sectorial Information. Education] (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2002 from Departamento Nacional de Planeación - DNP. Web Site http://www.dnp.gov.co/02_sec/educaci/EDUCA.HTM

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior -ICFES-. (2002) Estadísticas de la Educación Superior 2002. [Higher Education Statistics 2002]. Retrieved May 1, 2003 from http://www.icfes.gov.co/esp/monitoreo/estadistica/boletin2002def.pdf

453

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. El Federalismo [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. The Federalism], Vol 3 (1). ICFES: Bogotá.

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974b) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. Reform of 1886], Vol 4 (1) ICFES: Bogotá.

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974c) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. El Frente Nacional [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. The Nacional Front], Vol 7 (1) ICFES: Bogotá.

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES (1987). Reforma de la Educación Secundaria. Compilación Legislativa. Bogotá.

Instituto Internacional para la Educación de América Latina [IESALC]- United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2002). La Educación Superior en Colombia. Informe. [Colombian Higher Education. Report]. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.

Jaramillo, J. (1982). El Proceso de la Educación de Virreinato a la Época Contemporánea. [Education Process in the Viceroyalty of the Contemporary Era] In: Manual de Historia de Colombia. (Vol III). Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de la Cultura.

Jaramillo, W. (1996). Real Colegio Mayor y Seminario de San Bartolomé. [Real Great College and Seminar of San Bartolomé]. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de la Cultura Hispánica.

Kaplin, W. A., Lee, B. (1995). The Law of Higher Education. (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kerr, C. (1963). The Uses of University. United States: Harvard University Press.

Kline, H. (1984). Colombia. Portrait of Unity and Diversity. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Ley 65 de 1963 [Law 65 of 1963], Congreso de la República de Colombia, (Bogotá, 1963).

454

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988a). Colombia Historical Development. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0051).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988b). Colonial Administration. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0016).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988c). Colonial Society 1580-1810. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0015).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988d). Developments Leading to Independence. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0019).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988e). Exploration and Conquest. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0014).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988f). Growth and Structure of Economy. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0077).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988g). New Granada. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0023)

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988h). Urbanization, migration and immigration. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0049).

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988i). The Colonial Church. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0018)

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988j). The Colonial Economy. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0017)

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988k). The Consolidation of Political Divisions. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0024)

455

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988l). The Federalists. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0025)

Library of Congress Country Studies. (1988m). The Great Colombia. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0022)

Liebman, A., Walker, K., & Glazer, M. (1972). Latin American University Students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

López, A. (2000).Balance de la Educación y objetivos de la Reforma de la Universidad Nacional, 1935. [Balance of the Education and the objectives of the National University Reform]. In: Alfonso López Pumarejo y la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS.

López. H. (1991). Historia de la Universidad de La Salle. [ History of the University of La Salle]. Bogotá: Editorial Presencia.

López. L. (1990). Obra Educativa de Santander 1827-1835. [Educative Labor of Santander]. Bogotá : Fundación Francisco de Paula Santander.

Lozano, V. M. (1908). El Colegio del Rosario. [The College of Rosario]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 4, 593-604.

Lucero, L. (1987). Autonomía y Patronato: Un Forcejeo de Siglos: Primera Parte. [Autonomy and Patronage. A Struggle of Centuries: First Part]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 80, 539, 142-163.

Lucio, R., Serrano, M. (1992). La Educación Superior. Tendencias Políticas y Estatales. [Higher Education. Politic and State Trends]. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo Editores.

Maier, J., Weatherhead, R. (1979). The Latin America University. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

McCulloch, G., Richardson, W. (2000). Historical Research in Educational Settings. Great Britain: Open University Press.

Melo, J. (1988). La Evolución Económica de Colombia 1830-1900. [Economic Evolution of Colombia from 1830-1900]. In: Manual de Historia de Colombia. (Vol II). Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de la Cultura.

456

Mertens, D. (1998). Research Methods in Education and Psychology. Interacting Diversity with Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. United States: SAGE.

Morales, O. (2001). La Universidad del Cauca, Santander y el Carácter Democrático de Colombia.[The University of Cauca, Santander and the Democratic Character of Colombia] Revista Historia de la Educación Colombiana, 3 & 4, 9-25.

Múnera. A. (1998). Reflexiones para una Historiografía de la Universidad de Cartagena. [Considerations for a Historiography of the University of Cartagena]. In Soto, D. (Ed.) Historiografía y Fuentes. Tunja: Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia.

Napoleon Series.org (n.d.). Decree for Organizing the Imperial University, March 17, 1808, Retrieved January 8, 2005, from http://www.napoleonseries.org/reference/political/legislation/education.cfm

Ocampo, F. (1978). Reforma Universitaria 1960-1980. [University Reform 1960-1980]. In Controversia (79). Bogotá: CINEP

Ocampo, J. (1984). Historia Básica de Colombia. [Basic History of Colombia]. Colombia: Plaza & Janes.

Ocampo, J. (1998). Historiografía de la Universidad Republicana.[Historiography of the Republican University]. In Soto, D. (Ed.) Historiografía y Fuentes. Tunja: Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia.

Ocampo, J. (2001). Los Orígenes Oficiales de las Universidades Republicanas en la Gran Colombia 1826-1830. [Official Origin of the Republican Universities in the Great Colombia between 1826 and 1830]. In Revista Historia de la Educación Colombiana, 3 & 4, 27-43.

Pacheco, I. (2001). Nuevo Compendio de Normas sobre la Educación Superior. [New Compendium of Legislation related Higher Education]. Bogotá: Editorial ICFES

Palacios, M. (1980). Coffee in Colombia, 1850-1970. An Economic, Social and Political History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parra, R. (1992). La Calidad de la Educación. Universidad y Cultura Popular. [Education Quality and Popular Culture]. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo Editores.

457

Parra, R. (1996). Escuela y Modernidad en Colombia: La Universidad. [School and Modernity in Colombia: The University]. Colombia: Tercer Mundo Editores.

Peña, J. (n.d.). La historia de nuestra escuela de medicina. "Una historia de mas de 300 años". [The history of our Medicine School. A history for more than three hundred years]. Retrieved March 28, 2004, from http://medicina.urosario.edu.co/La_Facultad/Historia/index2.asp

Perrier, J. (1910). La Universidad de Lovaina. [The University of Lovaina]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 6, 449-457.

Pesset, J. Pesset, M. (1983). Carlos IV y la Universidad de Salamanca. [Charles IV and the University of Salamanca]. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Pombo, M., Guerra, J. (1951).Constituciones de Colombia. [Colombian Constitutions]. Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana.

Quevedo, E. Duque, C. (2002). Historia de la Cátedra de Medicina 1653-1865. [History of the Medicine Chair]. Bogotá: Centro Editorial Universidad del Rosario.

Rama, G. (1970). El Sistema Universitario en Colombia. [The University System of Colombia]. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Rausch, J. (1999). Territorial Rule and the Llanos Frontier. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Real Cédula Carlos III. [Real Cell of Charles III] (1935). In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 31, 301, 389.

Renier, G. (1965). History. Its Purpose and Method. New York: Harper Torchbooks

Renner, R. (1971). Education for a New Colombia. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.

Rivadeneira, A. (1986). Desarrollo Histórico de la Universidad Colombiana. [Historical Development of the Colombian University]. In Laverde, M. Reflexiones Universitarias. Universidad Historia e Investigación. Bogotá: Publicaciones Universidad Central.

458

Rocha, A. (1972). ¿Qué es el Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario? [What is the Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario?]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 71, 492, 7-9.

Rodriguez, A, (1979). El oficio del Rector en la Universidad de Salamanca y en las Universidades Hispanoamericanas. [the Rector’s job in the Hispano-American Universities] Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Rodríguez, A. (1973). Historia de las Universidades Hispanoamericanas. [History of the Hispano-American Universities]. Bogotá: Imprenta Patriótica del Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Rodríguez, A. (1977). Salamantina Docet. La Proyección de la Universidad de Salamanca en Hispanoamérica. [Salamantina Docet. The Projection of the University of Salamanca in Hispano-America]. Salamanca, España: Universidad de Salamanca.

Safford, F. (1976). The Ideal of the Practical. United States: University of Texas Press.

Safford, F. (1995) Agrarian System and the State: The Case of Colombia. In Hubber & Safford (Eds). Agrarian Structure & Political Power. Landlord & Peasant in the Making of Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Salah, G. (1997). El Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. [The Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 90, 576, 128-132.

Schachner, N. (1938). The Mediaeval Universities. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Schachner, N. (1938). The Medieval Universities. Edinburgh. Great Britain: T. and T. Constable Ltd.

Schmidtlein, F. (1987). Administrative Structures and Decision-making Processes. In Peterson, M. and Mess, L. (Eds.). Key Resources on Higher Education Governance, Management, and Leadership: A Guide to the Literature. (pp. 139-149). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pubishers.

Shafer, R. (1980). A Guide to Historical Method. (3 rd ed.). Homewood: The Dorsey Press.

459

Silva, R. (1992). Universidad y Sociedad en el Nuevo Reino de Granada. [The University and Society in the New Kingdom of Granada]. Bogotá: Banco de la República

Suescun, E., (1994). Universidad Proceso Histórico y Jurídico. [University Historic and Legal Process]. Santafé de Bogotá: Editorial Grijalbo S.A.

Tafur, A. (1986). Informe presentado por el doctor Alvaro Tafur Galvis, al finalizar su gestión como Rector del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. [Report presented by Alvaro Tafur Rodríguez finishing his term as Rector of the Great College of Nuestra Señora of Rosario]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 79, 566, 128-132.

The Information Database on Education Systems in Europe. The Education System in France 2001-2002. (n.d). Retrieved January 15, 2005, from http://www.eurydice.org/Eurybase/Application/frameset.asp?country=FR&language=EN

The University of Paris. (n.d). Retrieved January 15, 2005, from http://www.univ-paris1.fr/universite/historique/article179.html

Timaná, Q. (1998). Historia de la Universidad de Antioquia. [History of the University of Antioquia]. In Soto, D. (Ed.) Historiografía y Fuentes. Tunja: Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia

Torres, F. (1975). Trayectoria Histórica de la Universidad Colombiana. [Historic Path of the Colombian University]. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Pedagogía -ICOLPE.

Tünnerman, C. (1997). Aproximación Histórica a la Universidad y su Problemática Actual. [Historical Approximation to the University and its Now a Day Set of Problems]. Santafé de Bogotá: Magíster en Dirección Universitaria. Universidad de los Andes.

Tünnerman, C. (1999). La Universidad. Evolución Histórica y Visión de Futuro. [The University. Historic Evolution and Future Overview]. Managüa: Fondo Educativo CIRA. Colección Educación y Sociedad.

Tünnerman, C. (1992). Universidad, Historia y Reforma. [University, History, and Reform]. Nicaragua: Editorial UCA.

Turabian, K. L. (1987). A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. 5th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

460

Universidad del Rosario. (n.d). “Estructura Organizacional”. [Organizational Structure], retrieved May 24 of 2005, from http://www.urosario.edu.co/FASE4/web_visitantes/estructura_org.htm#

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1964). Estructura Orgánica [Organizational Structure]. Bogotá.




Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1991). Catálogo 1991-1992. [Catalogue 1991-1992]. Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1993). Documentos de Reforma Universitaria. No 4. [Reform Documents No 4]. 1993. Santafé de Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1993). Estructura Orgánica [Organizacional Structure]. Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1999). Estructura Orgánica [Organizacional Structure]. Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2000). Alfonso López Pumarejo y la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. [Alfonso López Pumarejo and the National University of Colombia]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Reconstitución. [National University of Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2004). Estatuto General. [General Statute]. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.unal.edu.co/estatutos/menu.html

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (n.d). Presentación. [Presentacion]. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from: www.unal.edu.co/paginas/presentacion.html

461

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (n.d). “Organigrama Institucional”. [Institutional Organizational Chart]. retrieved May 24 of 2005, from http://www.unal.edu.co/contenido/sobre_un/sobreun_organigrama.htm

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (n.d). Reseña de las Sedes. [Branches Review]. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from www.unal.edu.co/paginas/resena_historica_sedes.html

Verger, J. (1986). Histoire des Universites en France. [History of the Universities in France]. Toulouse: Bibiotheque Historique Privat

Wares, I. (1963) A History of Education in Colombia. Austin: The University of Texas.

Weingartner, R. (1996). Fitting Form to Function. A Primer on the Organization of Academic Institutions. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Westmeyer, P. (1990). Principles of Administration and Governance in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher.

World Bank. (n.d.). Colombia-Higher Education Financing Reform. Retrieved March 21, 2002 from http://www.worldbank.org/pics/pid/co74138.txt

Young, L. (1994). La Reforma Universitaria de la Nueva Granada (1820-1850). [The University Reform of New Granada (1820-1850)]. Bogotá: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional-Instituto Caro y Cuervo.(Original work published 1972)

462

VITA

Maria Andrea Contreras Nieto was born in Zipaquirá, Colombia,

South America, on April 22 of 1968, the daughter of Nelson Gustavo Contreras

Caballero and Alicia Nieto de Contreras. After earning her high school diploma in

the Colegio del Sagrado Corazón in Bogotá, she went to study English in

Colchester, England. In 1986, she began her studies in Veterinary Medicine in the

Corporación Universitaria de Ciencias Agropecuarias - U.D.C.A. Having

fulfilled all the requirements, she graduated in September, 1991.

In 1994 she married Eliseo Acevedo Olaya and started working in

the U.D.C.A. by April of that year as Coordinator of the Inter-Institutional

Relations Office. She has two children Maria Juliana, who was born in November

of 1994, and Mateo, who was born in July of 1997. By 1996, she started directing

the Department of Public Service, and in 1999 she worked as a Consultant of the

Convenio Andres Bello in Bogotá. She began her graduate studies in Higher

Education Administration at The University of Los Andes in Bogotá in 1997 and

earned a Master’s Degree in September, 2000. In June of 2001, she started her

doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Austin in Higher Education

Administration.

Permanent Address: Carrera 12 # 138 – 61. Apt 601. Bogotá, Colombia,

South America.

This dissertation was typed by the author.