Copyright by Maria Andrea Contreras 2005

Home , Education in Colombia, Gustavo de Greiff, Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Manuel Murillo Toro, Tunja, University of Cartagena

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

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZATION AND

GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS OF TWO SELECTED

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

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

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

v 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.

vi HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE DIMENSIONS OF TWO SELECTED COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

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

vii 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

viii 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.

ix 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 x 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 xi 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 xii 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

xiii 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 xiv 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

xv 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 xvi 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 xvii 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 xviii 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

xix 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

xx 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

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

APPENDIX D 437

GLOSSARY 438

REFERENCES 445

VITA 462

xxii 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

xxiii 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

xxiv 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

xxv 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 Figure 4. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1974...... 189 Figure 5. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del 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

Figure 10. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1903...... 244

Figure 11. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1935...... 246 Figure 12. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1958...... 258

xxvi Figure 13. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1964...... 272 Figure 14. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1969...... 283 Figure 15. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1980...... 294 Figure 16. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1986...... 306 Figure 17. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1993...... 314 Figure 18. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1999...... 318 Figure 19. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 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

xxvii List of Exhibits

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

xxviii 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

1 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,

2 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

3 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). 4 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.

5 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.

6 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,

7 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.

8 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).

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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:

13 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),

14 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

15 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

16 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.

17 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

18 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.

19 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).

20 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).

21 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,

22 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).

23 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

24 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

25 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).

26 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

27 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

28 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).

29 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).

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

YEAR YEAR YEAR RELIGIOUS NAME CREATION CLOSED REOPENED ORDER University Santo Tomás 1580 1861 1966 Dominicans de Aquino Real College-Seminar of 1605 - - Jesuits San Bartolomé University Xaveriana 1622 1767 1931 Jesuits College-Seminar San 1639 - - Jesuits Francisco of Popayán Great College Nuestra 1653 - - Dominicans Señora del Rosario University San Nicolás 1694 1775 - Augustinians de Bari Great College of San 1715 1861 1961 Franciscans Buenventura 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

31 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, 32 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

33 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 34 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

35 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). 36 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 37 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

38 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

39 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. 40 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 41 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 42 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)

43 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 44 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.

45 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).

46 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) 47 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

48 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%

New Granada 1,327,000 Indians 35% Whites 22% Mestizos, Mulattoes and Blacks 59% Venezuela 800,000 Whites 26% Indians 15% Indians 90% Ecuador 550,000 Whites 6% 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 49 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 50 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 51 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). 52 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

53 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

54 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).

55 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).

56 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

57 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 58 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). 59 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.

60 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

61 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. 62 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). 63

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. 64 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) 65 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 66 society during the nineteenth century showed struggles among the different socioeconomic 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

67 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.

68 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

69 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). 70 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,

71 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. 72 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

73 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). 74 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).

75 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

76 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

77 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 78 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). 79 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

80 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

81 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).

82 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

83 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).

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

FACULTY STUDENTS INSTITUTION SIZE 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.

85 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). 86 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

87 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. 88 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

89 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

90 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

91 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

92 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).

93 (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).

94 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. 95 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. 96 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:

Tercer Mundo Editores.

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

97 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,

98 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.

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).

100 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

101 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). 102 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

YEAR STUDENT ENROLLED 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

103 YEAR STUDENT ENROLLED 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:

Tercer Mundo Editores.

2 From La Educación Superior en Colombia, by IESALC-UNESCO (2002). Bogotá: Instituto

Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.

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).

104 Table 11. Student Enrollment in Colombian higher education by Gender, 1935- 2000

YEAR STUDENT ENROLLED 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.

2 From La Educación Superior en Colombia, by IESALC-UNESCO (2002). Bogotá: Instituto

Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.

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

105 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 YEAR Technician Technologist Professional 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

106 UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE YEAR Technician Technologist Professional 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.

2 From La Educación Superior en Colombia, by IESALC-UNESCO (2002). Bogotá: Instituto

Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.

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 107 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 108 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:

Tercer Mundo Editores.

2From Estadísticas de la Educación Superior 2000 by Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la

Educación Superior -ICFES- (2002).

109 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

110 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.

111 Table 14. Distribution of Colombian higher education Faculty by the Number of Hours Employed, 1965-2000

PUBLIC PRIVATE YEAR TOTAL % % % % % % Full Half Part Full Half Part Time Time Time Time Time 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:

Tercer Mundo Editores.

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.

112 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.

113 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

114 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

115 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

116 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 117 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.

118 Exhibit 1. Trends and Events in Colombian Higher Education

I. II. III. IV Colonial Republican Beginning of the Reform of the PERIODS university University Modern University Modern University (1580-1819) (1819-1842) (1842-1930) (1930-2000) Topics Trends Political Context Expanding the nation, and

Social Context economy. Ideological Economic Context 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.

119 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:

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?

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

120 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

121 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

122 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).

123 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

124 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).

125 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

126 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

127 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). 128 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

129 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.

130 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.

131 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

132 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. 133 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).

134 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. 135 39 the administration of the College by the Dominicans 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. 136 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

137 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,

138 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

139 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". 140 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. 141 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

142 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

143 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. 144 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,

145 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

146 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

147 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) 148 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".

149 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.

150 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". 151 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

152 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.

153 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”. 154 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).

155 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).

156 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.

157 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,

158 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.

SPONSOR

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORY SCHOLARS SENATE RECTOR

VICE-RECTOR PROCURATOR

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. 159 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.

160 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. 161 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.

162 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". 163 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.

164 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 165 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 166 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...." 167 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

168 (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. 169 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.

170 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:

171 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).

172 Figure 2. Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario between 1893 and 1930.

SPONSOR

ADVISORY RECTOR SENATE

SECRETARY

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

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

173 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.

174 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.

175 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.” 176 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). 177 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

178 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,

179 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

180 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.

SPONSOR

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORY SCHOLARS SENATE RECTOR

SECRETARY

INVESTMENT AND CREDIT CONSULTANT BOARD

INVESTMENT AND CREDIT CONSULTANT (1969)

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

DEAN

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FACULTY (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

181 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). 182 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

183 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 DATE NAME CONSILIATURA GOVERNMENTAL MINUTES DECREE 1930-1933 August 13 of 1930 - 1933-1935 October 20 of 1932 -

1936-1938 October 29 of 1935 2002 of 1935 MEN Letter José Vicente 1939-1941 November 4 of 1938 Castro Silva November 16 of 1938 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. 184

NORMATIVE DATE NAME CONSILIATURA GOVERNMENTAL MINUTES 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 The historical archives of Vice-rector and 1968-1968 the college were missed temporary Rector Antonio Rocha 1968-1971 Decree No. 2496 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

185 salary would be paid according to hours worked (Colegio Mayor de Nuestra

Señora del Rosario, 1969).

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. 186 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”. 187 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.

188 Figure 4. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1974.

SPONSOR

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORY RECTOR SCHOLARS SENATE

SECRETARY PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNCIL STUDENTS DEAN AND UNIVERSITY WELFARE

VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC

SPECIALISATION RESEARCH ASSISTANT AND GRADUATE FACULTY RESEARCH STUDIES SCHOOL CENTER CIEC COMMITTEE

DEAN

FACULTY COUNCIL

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

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.

189 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 reelected 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

Señora del Rosario, 1995).

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. 190 (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

191 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.

Table 17. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario between 1974 and 1994.

NORMATIVE NAME DATE CONSILIATURA MINUTES Carlos Holguín Holguín 1973-1978 December 12, 1973 Álvaro Tafur Galvis 1978-1982 September 9, 1978 1983-1986 Roberto Arias Pérez 1987-1990 October 21, 1986

Gustavo de Greiff Restrepo October 24, 1990 1990-1992 Guillermo Salah Zuleta April 1, 1992 Vice-rector and temporary Rector 1992-1992

Mario Suárez Melo September 24, 1992 1992-1994

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).

192 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 de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

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

Señora del Rosario, 1980).

193 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

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. 194 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;

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. 195 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

196 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 197 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 198 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 199 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).

200 Figure 5. Organizational Structure of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1995.

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORY RECTOR SCHOLARS SENATE

VICE-RECTOR

LEGAL MATTER ASSISTANCE

UNIVERSITY MEDIUM GENERAL PLANNING SECRETARY SINDICATURA DEAN ADMINISTRATION

TREASURER PHYSICAL ALUMNI CULTURE SOURCES

COMPUTING JOURNAL SPORTS ACCOUNTING SERVICES

HEALTH HUMAN ARCHIVE SERVICE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT LAW PHILOSOPHY SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION ADVISING ADMISSION MEDICINE PHYSIOTHERAPY SCHOLARSHIPS AUDITING

ECONOMY POLITICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY BUSINESS OCCUPATIONAL UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRA THERAPY PRESS

CONTINUED FOOD EDUCATION AUDIOLOGY

SOCIOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER CIEC

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

201 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)

202 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).

203 Rector

The first modification related to the Rector’s function was the reinstatement 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

204 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 de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1996).

Table 18. Rectors of the Great College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario between 1994 and 2001.

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 2001 July 16, 2001 Rector

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.

205 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

206 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).

207 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

208 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:

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

ELECTOR BOARD

ADVISORY SCHOLARS SENATE

SPECIAL AUDITOR RECTOR INTERNAL AUDIT

MERCHANDISING AND DIRECTIVE COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE JURIDICAL INTERNATIONAL OFFICE RELATIONS ACADEMIC FACULTY COUNCILS

ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY MEDIUM DEAN REGISTRAR SECRETARY

CHANCELLERY HISTORICAL ARCHIVE

VICE-RECTOR SINDICATURA

LAW RESEARCH CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE & TECNOLOGICAL DIVISION CONTINUED MEDICINE EDUCATION FINANCING DIVISION ECONOMY ADMISSION

PLANNING & LIBRARY BUSINESS ACADEMIC ADMINISTRA DEVELOPMENT

SOCIOLOGY PHILOSOPHY

OCUPATIONAL POLITICAL THERAPHY SCIENCES

PHONOAUDIOLOGY PHYSIOTHERAPY

From: “Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad del Rosario, retrieved May 24 of 2005, from http://www.urosario.edu.co/FASE4/web_visitantes/estructura_org.htm#

210 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

211 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).

212 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),

213 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. 214 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

215 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,

216 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 217 (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

218 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

219 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.

220 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. 221 Table 19. Evolution of the National University of Colombia between 1960 and 2002

1960 1966 1980 2002 TOPICS 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.

222 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. 223 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).

224 Figure 7 Organizational Structure of the Central University of Bogotá, 1826

GENERAL BOARD

GENERAL SECRETARY

SPECIFIC BOARD

SECOND BEDEL

RECTOR

ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR

FIRST BEDEL

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).

225 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).

226 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

227 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.

228

Figure 8. Organizational Structure of The National University of the United States of Colombia, 1867

GENERAL DIRECTION OF UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTION

GREAT COUNCIL

SECRETARY

INSPECTION AND GOVERNANCE BOARD

RECTOR

SCHOOLS COUNCIL

VICE-RECTOR OF LITERATURE, SCHOOLS RECTOR NATIONAL LIBRARIAN TREASURER PHILOSOPHY AND ENGINEERING

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)

229 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

230 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). o 81 1 . 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. 231 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.

o 82 1 . 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 232 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.

233 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). 234 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

235 (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. o 85 1 . 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 236 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. o 86 1 . 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. 237 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

238 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

239 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

DIRECTIVE FACULTY COUNCIL

FACULTY OR SCHOOL RECTOR

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Decree 1238 of 1892

240 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

241 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).

242 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". 243 Article was similar to Article 6o of the Decree 1238 of 1892 (ICFES, 1974b). The

National University had the following structure (See Figure 10):

Figure 10. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1903

UNIVERSITY BOARD

DIRECTIVE FACULTY COUNCIL

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 Directive Faculty Council

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).

244 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.

245 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):

Figure 11. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1935

ADVISORY SENATE

ACADEMIC SENATE

RECTOR

PROFESSIONAL TEACHING COUNCIL SECRETARY

PUBLIC RELATION ACADEMIC COMMITTEE SECRETARY

FINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE SECRETARY

FACULTIES OR TEACHING AND PROCURATOR- SCHOOLS RESEARCH UNITS SYNDIC

FACULTY TEACHING AND COUNCIL RESEARCH COUNCIL

STUDENT STUDENT BOARD BOARD

DEAN OR HEAD DIRECTOR

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study based on the Law 68 of 1935 246

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. 247 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. 248 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

249 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. 250

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. 251 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. 252 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

253 (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:

254 (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. 255 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….. 256 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

257 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):

Figure 12. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1958

ADVISORY SENATE

ACADEMIC SENATE

RECTOR

PROFESSIONAL TEACHING COUNCIL SECRETARY

PUBLIC RELATION ACADEMIC COMMITTEE SECRETARY

FINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE SECRETARY

FACULTIES OR TEACHING AND PROCURATOR- SCHOOLS RESEARCH UNITS SYNDIC

FACULTY TEACHING AND COUNCIL RESEARCH COUNCIL

STUDENT STUDENT BOARD BOARD

DEAN OR HEAD DIRECTOR

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) 258 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. 259 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

260 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 261 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 262 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. 263 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

264 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

265 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)

266 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. 267 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. 268 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 269

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). 270 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).

Agreement 108 of 1964

This Agreement, enacted by the Board of Trustees, had the main objective of structuring, expanding, and clarifying the organization of the National

271 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).

Figure 13. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1964

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

PLANNING PLANNING COMMITTEE ACADEMIC SENATE RECTOR ORGANIZATION AND METHODS CULTURAL GENERAL EXTENSION COMMITTEE GENERAL SECRETARY INTER-FACULTY COUNCIL

LEGAL MATTERS OFFICE

TEACHING VICE- SINDICATURA RECTOR GENERAL ADMIN

REGISTRAR STUDENT COMPUTING FINANCIAL BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE LIBRARY AND AFFAIRS SERVICES ADMISSION DIVISION OFFICE SERVICES OFFICE

FINANCING SERVICES

HEALTH SERVICES

ATHLETICS BRANCHES TEACHING UNITS

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1964). Bogotá

272 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)

273 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

274 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, 275 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. 276 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 277 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).

278 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).

279 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).

Agreement 59 of 1965

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

280 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. 281 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.

Agreement 77 of 1969

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. 282 Figure 14. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1969

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

ACADEMIC SENATE RECTOR

SECRETARY PLANNING OFFICE

BRANCH VICE-RECTOR JURIDICAL OFFICE

STUDENTS AFFAIRS TEACHING VICE-RECTOR SYNDIC DIRECTOR DIRECTION

FOOD HOUSING ADMISSION LIBRARY TEACHING DIVISION DEAN COMPUTING HEALTH ATHLETICS REGISTRAR CENTER SECRETARY

FINANCIAL UNIVERSITY AID FUND PRESS

DEPARTMENT VICE-DEAN DIRECTOR

SECTION PROGRAMS CHIEF DIRECTORS

PROFESSORS

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1969). Bogotá

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).

283 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).

Agreement 82 of 1977

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

284 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).

Agreement 83 of 1977

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:

285 (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

286 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 287 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. 288 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:

I. Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario) II. Rectorship (Rectoria) III. Academic Senate (Consejo Académico) 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)

289 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

290 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). 291 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. 292 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).

Agreement 124 of 1980

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. 293 Figure 15. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1980

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RESEARCH GRADUATE UNIVERSITY AREA AND STUDIES ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE SENATE RECTOR CULTURAL DIFFUSION

DEANS COUNCIL ARCHIVE GENERAL SECRETARY UNIVERSITY PRESS DIRECTIVE CHAPLAINCY BOARD

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR GENERAL VICE-RECTOR DIRECTOR

FINANCING DIVISION DEPARTMENT TEACHING ADVISORY ADVISORY AND INSTITUTE PERSONNEL ACADEMIC GRADUATE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ADMISSION AND PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES INTERDISCIPLINARY CINDEC PROGRAM

REGISTRAR AND ENROLMENT ENERAL ERVICES LIBRARY AUDIO-VISUAL AIDS G S

FACULTY TEACHING PERSONNEL SECURITY AND AFFAIRS VIGILANCE

DIRECTIVE FACULTY ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL COUNCIL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

DEAN SPORTS CENTER

ACADEMIC SECRETARY

VICE DEAN

ACADEMIC DIRECTOR ACADEMIC DIRECTOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS GRADUATE PROGRAMS

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1980). Bogotá

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

294 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) 295 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).

296 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

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 124, 1980).

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

297 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- 298 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. 299 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).

300 Agreement 100 of 1984

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

301 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

302 University Welfare Committee

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 303 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 304 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).

Agreement 44 of 1986

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. 305 Figure 16. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1986.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

CURRICULAR PROFESSOR PROFESSOR RESEARCH AREA PROGRAM REPRES. DESIGNATED COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE

ACADEMIC SENATE RECTOR

GENERAL SECRETARY DEANS BOARD

DIRECTIVE BOARD

ACADEMIC WELFARE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE VICE-RECTOR VICE-RECTOR VICE-RECTOR DIRECTION

CURRICULAR FINANCIAL LANGUAGES PROGRAMS ACADEMIC PLANNING FINNANCING ASSISTANCE CENTER DIRECTION UNIT

CINDEC SOCIAL SUPPLIES IRECTION INTERDISCIPLINARY ADMISSION D ASSISTANCE AND GOODS CURRICULAR I.C.T.A. PROGRAMS ACADEMIC COMPUTING GENERAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES SERVICES DEAN

PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY WELFARE ACADEMIC SECRETARY

SPORTS VICE DEAN CENTER

STUDENTS VICE DEAN

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1986). Bogotá

Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario) II. Rectorship (Rectoría) III. Academic Senate (Consejo Académico) 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:

306 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).

307 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).

308 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

Universitario No. 44, 1986).

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

309 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

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

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).

University Welfare Committee

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

310 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

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

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).

311 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)

Directive Faculty Council

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,

312 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

(Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No. 44, 1986).

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:

I. Board of Trustees (Consejo Superior Universitario) II. Rectorship (Rectoría)

313 III. Academic Senate (Consejo Académico) 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).

Figure 17. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1993

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECTOR

CURRICULAR GRADUATE AREA INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM CINDEC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE RCHIVE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE A DIRECTION GENERAL ACADEMIC SECRETARY SENATE UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS BRANCH DEANS BOARD INTERNAL LEGAL MATTERS PLANNING PRESS OFFICE AUDITING OFFICE OFFICE

UNIVERSITY WELFARE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR GENERAL VICE-RECTOR GENERAL VICE-RECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SOURCES VICE- DIRECTION RECTOR CINDEC CURRICULAR HEALTH PROGRAMS DIRECTION DIRECTION TEACHING FINANCING PERSONNEL OFFICE SOCIAL ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PROMOTION PLANNING UNIT PRESS ADMINISTRATIVE GENERAL PERSONNEL SERVICES COMPUTING SERVICES ACADEMIC SECURITY INDUSTRIAL NTER ACULTIES NIT INTEGRATION I -F U PERSONNEL SECURITY REGISTRAR AND ADMISSION SUPPLIES PROCESS OFFICE CULTURAL FFICE O AUDIO-VISUAL DIFFUSION CENTERS INSTITUTES AIDS

SPORTS UNIVERSITY RADIO

PHYSICAL ARTS FACULTY SCIENCES FACULTY HUMAN SCIENCES INTERINSTITU. RELATIONS PLANNING FACULTY ECONOMIC SCIENCE ENGINEERING LAW FACULTY ACULTY ACULTY CHAPLAINCY F F

NURSERING FACULTY MEDICINE FACULTY DENTISTRY FACULTY

AGRICULTURAL VETERINARY FACULTY FACULTY

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1993). Bogotá

314 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 315 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) 316 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).

Agreement 13 of 1999

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).

317 Figure 18. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 1999.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

INTER-BRANCHES RECTOR COMMITTEE

ACADEMIC SENATE

GENERAL SECRETARY

GENERAL VICE-RECTOR BRANCH COUNCIL ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR

ACADEMIC FACULTY INTERNAL CONTROL OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE AND DIRECTION COUNCIL FINANCING NATIONAL DIRECTION FINANCING INTERNATIONAL DIRECTION DEAN OFFICE

UNIBIENESTAR LEGAL MATTERS OFFICE ACADEMIC VICE- ACADEMIC DEAN SECRETARY NATIONAL PLANNING OFFICE PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC- WELFARE VICE- ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS COMMITTEE DEAN

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC- ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS

DEPARTMENTS

SCHOOLS

INSTITUTES

CENTERS

From:”Estructura Orgánica”, by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1999). Bogotá

The branch level included: VIII. Branch Council (Consejo de Sede) IX. Branch Rector, Vice-Rector or Director (Rector, Vice-Rector o Director de Sede)

318 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

319 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

320 a list of candidates for being selected as a Dean or Department, Institute,

Academic Program, or Graduate Studies Director (Acuerdo del Consejo Superior

Universitario No. 13, 1999).

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

321 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.

322 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

Consejo Superior Universitario No. 13, 1999).

Las demás que los reglamentos de la Universidad y los Consejos de Facultad les asignen o deleguen. 323 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

324 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.

325 Figure 19. Organizational Structure of the National University of Colombia, 2004

BOARD OF TRUSTEES INTERNNAL CONTROL OFFICE

INTERNATIONAL & INTERINSTITUTIONAL OFFICE INTER-BRANCHES RECTOR COMMITTEE NATIONAL JURIDICAL OFFICE

NATIONAL PLANNING OFFICE ACADEMIC SENATE UNIVERSITY PRESS

HEALTH SERVICES GENERAL SECRETARY

COMMUNICATION

GENERAL VICE-RECTOR BRANCH COUNCIL ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR

RESEARCH NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL CURRICULAR PROGRAMS NATIONAL DIRECTION OF DIRECTION DATA PROCESSING AND BRANCH VICE-RECTORSHIP COMMUNICATIONS CURRICULAR ADMISSION PROGRAMS NATIONAL NATIONAL DIRECTION DIRECTION BRANCH ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL NATIONAL SECRETARY DIRECTION DIRECTION ARAUCA BRANCH LETICIA BRANCH ACADEMIC FACULTY SAN ANDRÉS BRANCH ADMINISTRATIVE AND DIRECTION COUNCIL FINANCING NATIONAL BRANCH HEAD DIRECTION FINANCING DIRECTION DEAN

UNIBIENESTAR

ACADEMIC VICE- ACADEMIC DEAN SECRETARY

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC- WELFARE VICE- ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS COMMITTEE DEAN

PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC- ADMINISTRATIVE BASIC UNITS

DEPARTMENTS

SCHOOLS

INSTITUTES CENTERS

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

326 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

327 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.

328 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). 329 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

330 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. 331 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

332 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

333 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

334 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.

335 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

336 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). 337 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).

338 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).

339 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.

340 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

341 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

342 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

343 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 344 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). 345 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

346 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.

1789 Terror Regime 1792 1800 Consulate Directory Convention 1804 Empire

Special Professional Schools Institutions Schools Central

Schools

Lyceums Lyceums

“Middle Empire” Secondary Level

University and their Academies Laws of 1802, 1804, and 1808

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

347 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).

348 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

349 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). 350 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

351 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).

352 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

353 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 354 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,

355 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

356 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,

357 (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).

358 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

359 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.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY POSITION SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO Sponsor (Patrono) (1653-1995) BOARD OF General Direction of the University (1867) REGENTS Scholars (colegiales) and advisors (consiliarios) (1653) Great Council (1867) University Council (1892) BOARD OF Advisory Senate Directive Council (1935) TRUSTEES (Consiliatura) (1653) Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) (1958) Board of Trustees (1963-1999) Higher University Council (1999)

PRESIDENT Rector (1653) Rector (1867-2004) Vice-rector General Vice-Rector (1980) PROVOST OR (1964-1980) Academic Vice-Rector (1980) V.P. ACADEMIC Vice-rector (1653) Teaching Academic Director of Graduate AFFAIRS Director (1969- and Undergraduate Studies 1976) (1977) Treasurer (1867-1934) Procurator (Procurador) Syndic (Síndico) (1935) V.P. BUSINESS (1653-1892) Sindicatura General Administration (1964) AFFAIRS Syndic (Síndico) (1893) Sindicatura (1969) General Administrative Director (1980) Secretary (1653-1967) SECRETARY General Secretary (1935) General Secretary (1967) ACADEMIC Faculty Council (1974) Faculty Academic Senate (1935) SENATE Directive FACULTY Faculty Academic Council Faculty or School Directive Council COUNCIL Council (1995) (1867) (1935) DEAN Dean (1923) Rector of Schools (1867) Rector of Faculties (1892)

360 GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY POSITION SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO Rector of Higher Faculties or Head of Lower Faculties (1935) Faculty Dean or School Head (1958) Dean Vice-Dean (1965) (1963) Faculty or Faculty Assistant School Faculty Secretary (1980) Secretary (1970) Secretary(1939 -1980) V.P. DEVELOP- Planning Department Planning Office (1964) MENT (1978) Students’ Affairs Office (1964) Students’ Dean and University Welfare Students Director (1969) V.P. STUDENT (1993) Vice-rector of Students’ Affairs and University SERVICES Welfare (1984) Medium Dean University Welfare Unit (1999) (1997) Academic DEAN Specialization and Director of Academic Director of Graduate GRADUATE Graduate Studies School Graduate and Programs (1980) SCHOOLS (1979) Undergraduate Studies (1977)

Director of Research Unities (1958-1979) Research Center (1975- RESEARCH 2004) Research and Scientific Development Director (1980) Interfaculty Institute (1999) STUDENTS’ Students’ Council (1989- Students’ Council (1935) PARTICIPATION 2004)

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

361 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:

362 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

363 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 X X X X X X X Public Instruction Rector X X X X X X Representative of the X Academic Senate Rector of each school or X X X X X X Dean Faculty X Head of Schools or Institutes Secretary X X Rector of the Minor X College of Rosario Rector of the College of X San Bartolomé Rector of the Great X College of Rosario Representatives of the 2 X National Government Professor elected by the X 2 X X X X body of professors Students elected from the 2 X X X X Students Council Minister of Economy X X X

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

364 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

365 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

366 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

UNIVERSITY OF CHARACTERISTIC NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO

1 year (1654) 4 years (1867-1962) TERM 3 years (1806) Elimination of this position (1903) 3 years (1930) 3 years (1963) Scholars and advisors Central Government (1867- (1654-1879) 1903) (1930-2004) Central Government The President of the country (1880-1929) (1903-1935) APPOINTMENT Confirmed by the Board of Trustees (1935-1957) Advisory Senate (Consiliatura) (1958-1963) Board of Trustees (1963). To be an active scholar 1867: To be the Minister of Public or alumni, nobleman, Instruction and wealthy (1654) 1935: Over 30 years, Colombian To be a scholar holding citizen, to have been Minister of a Doctoral Degree in Education, professor or dean Philosophy and Letters 1963: Over 30 years, Colombian (1893).To have high citizen, to have held a professional REQUIREMENTS moral qualifications degree, to have been professor for at and to have been least 5 years enrolled in the College 1980: Colombian citizen, to have for at least two held a professional degree, to have continuous years with been professor for at least 5 years outstanding grades 1992: To have performed (1974). academic activities for at least 8 years.

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

367 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

368 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

369 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.

370 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.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO YEAR YEAR COMPOSIT. COMPOSIT. 1974 1995 1867 1892 1935 1958 1963 1986 Rector or Rector or Dean his/her of each institute, X X X X X X delegate schools or X faculty Dean or The Secretary X X X X Study Director Representative Proprietary and of substitute X professors (one professors could be 2 2 Professors alumni) appointed by the 4 Central Government

371 GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO YEAR YEAR COMPOSIT. COMPOSIT. 1974 1995 1867 1892 1935 1958 1963 1986 Senior Professors collegial X X elected by the 2 X X professors body Auxiliary Professor secretary X X elected by the X X X student body A Professors representative elected by the X X X of the students’ Board of X council Trustees A Students elected representative by the students X X X X of the alumni body X organization Representative of Productive X X Sector Academic Director of 3 graduate studies Alumni from the respective X faculties

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

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

372 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 X Secretaries General Secretary X X X Representative of the students body X 2 Professors elected by other professors who attended the Faculty Directive Council 2 meetings

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

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,

373 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 COMPOSITION YEAR COMPOSITION YEAR 1989 1935 1963 A delegate from each course of A representative faculty (Law, Economy, Business from every year of X Administration, Philosophy, study program. X Medicine, Physiotherapy, A representative Audiology, Occupational from every course X Therapy). of the program.

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

374 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.

375 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.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO YEAR YEAR COMPOSITION COMPOSITION 1978 1980 Academic Vice-Rector X Research Center Chair Executive Director of the CINDEC (Research X X and Scientific Development Committee) Faculty Deans A representative from The Department and X X Institute Directors Committee 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

376 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.

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO YEAR YEAR COMPOSITION COMPOSITION 1979 1977 1980 Rector or his/her The duties and responsibilities of delegate X this board were in charge of The X Faculty Senate

377 GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ROSARIO YEAR YEAR COMPOSITION COMPOSITION 1979 1977 1980 School’s Chair X Academic Vice-Rector X Research Center Chair X Committee Director X Deans of The Faculties Representative of each Faculty X X Graduate Committee Research and Scientific Development Committee -CINDEC X Director Planning Director X

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

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

378 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

379 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 COMPOSITION 1978 1963 Rector X Academic Vice-rector X Academic Vice-rector X Consiliario Representative of the Board of X X Trustees 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 Organization and Method Office X X secretary Chief

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study

380

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.

381 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

The aim of this study was to establish the evolution of two important dimensions: organization and governance of Colombian Higher Education. For the purpose of this research, two higher institutions; one public and one private,

382 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:

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?

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

383 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

384 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

385 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

386 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). 387 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.

SPONSOR (1654-1995)

ELECTORAL BOARD (1654)

ADVISORY SCHOLARS SENATE RECTOR (1654) (1654) (1654)

SECRETARY (1893)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1969)

STUDENT´S AFFAIRS VICE-RECTOR AND UNIVERSITY SYNDIC (1653) WELFARE (1893) (1993)

ACADEMIC FACULTY COUNCIL (1974)

RESEARCH DEAN CENTER (1923) (1975)

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study.

388 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

389 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

390 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. 391 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.

392 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

393 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). 394 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

395 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

396 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

397 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.

GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE UNIVERSITY (1867-1892)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES (1867)

RECTOR (1867)

ACADEMIC GENERAL SENATE SECRETARY (1958) (1935)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1964)

BUSINESS STUDENT´S ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AFFAIRS AFFAIRS AND VICE-RECTOR DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY (1964) (1867) WELFARE (1935)

FACULTY ACADEMIC COUNCIL VICE-DEANS (1867) DEAN (1867) ASSISTANT SECRETARY RESEARCH CENTER CINDEC (1958)

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study.

398 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. 399 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,

400 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.

401 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.

402 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.

403 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

404 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,

405 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

406 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

GREAT COLLEGE OF POSITION/ UNIVERSITY OF NUESTRA SEÑORA GOVERNMENTAL BODY SALAMANCA DEL ROSARIO CHANCELLOR Maestroescuela - ELECTOR BODY: Scholars Scholars (1653) SCHOLARS Advisors Advisors (1653) ADVISORS Claustro de ADVISORY SENATE Consiliatura (1653) Consiliarios RECTOR Rector Rector (1653) VICE-RECTOR Vice-Rector Vice-Rector (1653) PROCURATOR Procurator (1654-1892) Procurator SYNDIC Syndic (1893) Master of Master of Ceremonies MASTER OF CEREMONIES Ceremonies (1653-1892) Secretary (1653-1967) SECRETARY Secretary General Secretary (1967)

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

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

407 (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

408 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. 409 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. 410 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

NATIONAL POSITION/ IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY OF GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNIVERSITY COLOMBIA GRAND MAÎTRE (GRAND Grand Maître (Grand Minister of Public MASTER) Master) 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 Rector of School or DEAN OF FACULTY Dean of Faculty Faculty Faculty Directive FACULTY DIRECTIVE COUNCIL - Council

Note: This table was developed for the purpose of this study.

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

411 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.

412 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.

413 Figure 23. Comparative Historical Evolution of the Organizational Structure of The Great College of Rosario and The National University of Colombia.

GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE UNIVERSITY (1867-1892) SPONSOR (1654 - 1995)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOLARS (1867) (1654) ADVISORY SENATE (1654)

RECTOR (1654)(1867)

ACADEMIC GENERAL SENATE SECRETARY (1958) (1893)(1935)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1964)(1969)

BUSINESS STUDENT´S ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AFFAIRS AFFAIRS AND VICE-RECTOR DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY (1653)(1964) (1867)(1893) WELFARE (1935)(1993)

FACULTY ACADEMIC COUNCIL VICE-DEANS (1867)(1974) DEAN (1867)(1923) ASSISTANT SECRETARY RESEARCH CENTER NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF (1958)(1975) COLOMBIA

GREAT COLLEGE OF ROSARIO

Note: This figure was developed for the purpose of this study.

414 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

415 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

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

416 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

417 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

418 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

419 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.

420 APPENDIX A

Published Primary and Secondary Sources

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para Public Seed of July 13, 1650. (Escritura la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. Pública de Julio 13 de 1650) [Documents for the History of the Education in Colombia]. (Vol 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 201-216

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para Consultation to The Supreme Council of la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. Indies. Madrid - November 17, 1651. [Documents for the History of the Education in (Consulta al Consejo Supremo de Indias. Colombia]. (Vol 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. Madrid- Noviembre 17 de 1651) 217-18

Rodríguez, A. (1977). Salamantina Docet. La Proyección de la Universidad de Salamanca en Real Cell of December 31, 1651 (Cédula Hispanoamérica. [Salamantina Docet. The Real de Diciembre 13 de 1651) Projection of the University of Salamanca in Hispano-America]. Salamanca, España: Universidad de Salamanca.

Inaguration Minute of The Great College Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para of Nuestra Señora del Rosario. December la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. 18, 1653 (Acta de Inaguración del [Documents for the History of the Education in Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Colombia]. (Vols 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. Rosario. Diciembre 18 de 1653) 225

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para Fray Torres’ Will, July 7 Of 1654. la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. (Tesatamento de Fray Torres, Julio 7 de [Documents for the History of the Education in 1654) Colombia]. (Vols 1). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 76-80.

Real Cell July 12 of 1664 (Cédula Real Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para de Julio 12 de 1664) la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. [Documents for the History of the Education in

421 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colombia]. (Vol 2). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 119-120

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para Letter Sent to The King by the la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. Dominicans on January 9, 1665 (Carta [Documents for the History of the Education in enviada al Rey por los Dominicos en Colombia]. (Vol 2). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. Enero 9 de 1665) 139-140

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para Letter Sent by the Colegiales to the King la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. of Spain. January 13, 1665 (Carta [Documents for the History of the Education in enviada por los Colegiales al Rey de Colombia]. (Vol 2). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. España. Enero 13 de 1665) 141-142

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. Real Cell of January 18, 1734 (Cédula [Documents for the History of the Education in Real de Enero 18 de 1734) Colombia]. (Vol 3). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 178-179

Hernández, G. (1969-1985). Documentos para la Historia de la Educación en Colombia. Real Cell of May 3, 1768 (Cédula Real [Documents for the History of the Education in deMayo 3 de 1768) Colombia]. (Vol 4). Bogotá: Editorial Kelly. p. 25-26

Constitutions of 1654 for The Great Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. College of Nuestra Señora del Rosario (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé (Constitutciones de 1654 para el Colegio de Bogotá. p. 3-27 Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario)

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1950b). Relación de Leyes y Decretos Dictados Real Cell of Carlos IV. March 20, 1806. desde 1810 a 1950 relativos al Colegio Mayor. (Cédula Real de Carlos IV, Marzo 20 de [Laws and Decrees related to the Great College 1806) from 1810 to 1950]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 45, p. 391

New Constitutions for The Great College Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. of Nuestra Señora del Rosario 1893. (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé (Nuevas Constitutciones para el Colegio de Bogotá. p. 29-40 Mayor Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1893)

422 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Agreement 9 of 1924 (Acuerdo 9 de (1950a). Acuerdo No 9 de 1924 [Agreement No 1924) 9, 1924]. In Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 29, p. 261.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Decree No. 517 of 1930. (Decreto No. (1930a). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In 517 de 1930) Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, p. 402-403.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Agreement No 5 of 1930 (Acuerdo No. 5 (1930a). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In de 1930) Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, p. 403-404.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Agreement No 6 of 1930 (Acuerdo No 6 (1930a). Actos Oficiales. [Oficial Acts]. In de 1930) Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 25, p. 409-410.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. (1969). Crónica Rosarista. Decreto Rectoral No Rectoral Decree No. 32 of 1969 32 de 1969. [Rectoral Decree No 32, 1969] In (Decreto Rectoral No. 32 de 1969) 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 Rectoral Decree No. 12, 1970 (Decreto 12 de 1970. [Rectoral Decree No 12, 1970] In Rectoral No. 12, 1970) Revista del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Vol. 70, 487, p. 160.

Decree No. 1065 of 1974 (Decreto No. Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. 1065 de 1974) (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 43-47.

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Agreement No. 77 of 1995 (Acuerdo No. (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé 77 de 1995) de Bogotá. p. 5-9.

Resolution No 0436 of February 13, Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. 1996 (Resolución No 0436 de Febrero 13 (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé de 1996) de Bogotá. p. 25-26.

423 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Letter No. 01282 of 1996 (Carta No (1995). Constituciones [Constitutions]. Santafé 01282 de 1996) de Bogotá. p. 21-22.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Decree of October 3 of 1826 (Decreto Reconstitución. [National University of Octubre 3 de 1826) Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 39-86.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Decree of October 20 of 1826 (Decreto Reconstitución. [National University of Octubre 20 de 1826) Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 33-35

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2001). Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Génesis y Law of May 15, 1850 (Ley Mayo 15 de Reconstitución. [National University of 1850) Colombia: Genesis and Reconstitution]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 245-248

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Law 66 of September 22, 1867 (Ley 66 Superior. El Federalismo [Compilation of de Septiembre 22 de 1867) Higher Education Legislations. The Federalism], Vol 3 (1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 646- 685

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Organic Decree of 1868 (Decreto Superior. El Federalismo [Compilation of Orgánico de 1868) Higher Education Legislations. The Federalism], Vol 3 (1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 685- 688.

Decree No 1238, 1892 (Decreto 1238 de Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la 1892) Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a)

424 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

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974a) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Law 39, 1903 (Ley 39 de 1903) Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of Higher Education Legislations. Reformo f 1886], Vol 4 (2,1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. p. 1236- 1241.

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior –ICFES. (1974b) Compilación de Normas sobre la Educación Decree No 491 of 1904 (Decreto No 491 Superior. Reforma de 1886 [Compilation of de 1904) Higher Education Legislations. Reformo f 1886], Vol 4 (2,1). ICFES: Bogotá. p. 1265- 1281.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (2000). Alfonso López Pumarejo y la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. [Alfonso López Law 68 of 1935 (Ley 68 de 1904) Pumarejo and the National University of Colombia]. Bogotá: Editorial UNIBIBLOS. p. 93-102.

Decreto Legislativo No 0136 de 1958 Decree No 136, 1958 (Decreto No 136 [Lesgislative Decree No 0136 of 1958], Junta de 1958) Militar de Gobierno de la República de Colombia, (Bogotá, 1958).

Ley 65 de 1963 [Law 65 of 1963], Congreso de Law 65 of 1963 (Ley 65 de 1963) la República de Colombia, (Bogotá, 1963).

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Decree No 82, 1980 (Decreto 82 de Educación Superior –ICFES (1987). Reforma de 1980) la Educación Secundaria. Compilación Legislativa. Bogotá. p. 51-67.

Decree No 1210, 1993 (Decreto No Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1993). 1210 de 1993) Documentos de Reforma Universitaria. No 4.

425 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

[Reform Documents No 4]. 1993. Santafé de Bogotá. p. 3-20.

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 13 de 1999 (Acta 10) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 13 of 1999 (Minute 10)] Agreement 13, 1999 (Acuerdo 13 de Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1999). 1999) Retrieved July 27,2003, from http://www.dnic.unal.edu.co/estatutos/egeneral/ egeca01.html

426 APPENDIX B

Unpublished Primary Sources

DOCUMENT REFERENCE

GREAT COLLEGE OF NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL ROSARIO

Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 002, [Agreement of (Consiliatura) No 002 of 1972 the Advisory Senate No 002] Colegio Mayor de (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1975). 002 de 1972) Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 003, [Agreement of the (Consiliatura) No. 3 of 1976 Advisory Senate No 003] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 3 Señora del Rosario, (1976). de 1976)

Decreto Rectoral No 003, [Rectoral Decree No 003] Rectoral Decree No. 003 of 1978 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No.003 de 1978) (1978).

Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 005, [Agreement of the (Consiliatura) No. 05 of 1978 Advisory Senate No 005] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 05 Señora del Rosario, (1978). de 1978)

Rectoral Decree No. 0043 of 1979 Decreto Rectoral No 043, [Rectoral Decree No 043] (Decreto Rectoral No. 0043 de Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 1979) (1979).

Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 006, [Agreement of the (Consiliatura) No. 006 of 1980 Advisory Senate No 006] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. Señora del Rosario, (1980). 006 de 1980)

Decreto Rectoral No 113, [Rectoral Decree No 113] Rectoral Decree No. 113 of 1981 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 113 de 1981) (1981).

Decreto Rectoral No 306, [Rectoral Decree No 306] Rectoral Decree No. 306 of 1989 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 306 de 1989) (1989).

Rectoral Decree No. 369 of 1993 Decreto Rectoral No 369, [Rectoral Decree No 369] (Decreto Rectoral No. 369 de 1993)

427 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1993).

Decreto Rectoral No 370, [Rectoral Decree No 370] Rectoral Decree No. 370 of 1993 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 370 de 1993) (1993).

Decreto Rectoral No 393, [Rectoral Decree No 393] Rectoral Decree No. 393 of 1993 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 393 de 1993) (1994).

Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 64, [Agreement of the (Consiliatura) No. 64 of 1994 Advisory Senate No 064] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 64 Señora del Rosario, (1994). de 1994)

Decreto Rectoral No 452, [Rectoral Decree No 452] Rectoral Decree No. 452 of 1996 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 452 de 1996) (1996).

Agreement of the Advisory Senate Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 83, [Agreement of the (Consiliatura) No. 83 of 1996 Advisory Senate No 083] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra (Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No. 83 Señora del Rosario, (1996). de 1996)

Decreto Rectoral No 497, [Rectoral Decree No 497] Rectoral Decree No. 497 of 1997. Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 497 de 1997) (1997).

Decreto Rectoral No 534, [Rectoral Decree No 534] Rectoral Decree No. 534 of 1998 Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (Decreto Rectoral No. 534 de 1998) (1998).

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBIA

Agreement of the Board of Acuerdo del Consejo Directivo No 66 de 1939 (Acta Trustees No. 66 of 1939 (Acuerdo No 32), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 66 of del Consejo Directivo No. 66 de 1939 (Minute 32)], Universidad Nacional de 1939) Colombia, (1939).

Agreement of the Board of Trustees Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 108 No. 108 of 1964 (Acuerdo del de 1964 [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 108 Consejo Directivo No. 108 de 1964) of 1964], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1964).

Agreement of the Board of Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 59 de Trustees No. 59 of 1965 (Acuerdo 1964 (Acta 12) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees

428 DOCUMENT REFERENCE

del Consejo Directivo No. 59 de No 59 of 1964 (Minute 12)], Universidad Nacional de 1965) Colombia, (1965).

Agreement of the Board of Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 77 de Trustees No. 77 of 1969 (Acuerdo 1969 (Acta 46) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees del Consejo Directivo No. 77 de No 77 of 1969 (Minute 46)], Universidad Nacional de 1969) Colombia, (1969).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 82 de Agreement of the Board of Trustees 1977 (Acta 28) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees 82 of 1977 (Acuerdo del Consejo No 82 of 1977 (Minute 28)], Universidad Nacional de Directivo No. 82 de 1977) Colombia, (1977).

Agreement of the Board of Trastees Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 83 de No. 083 of 1977 (Acuerdo del 1977 (Acta 28), [Agreement of the Board of Trustees Consejo Directivo No, 83 de 1977) No 83 of 1977 (Minute 28)] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1977).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 124 Agreement of the Board of Trustees de 1980 (Acta 32) [Agreement of the Board of No. 124 of 1980 (Acuerdo del Trustees No 124 of 1980 (Minute 32)], Universidad Consejo Directivo No. 124 de 1980) Nacional de Colombia, (1980).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 100 Agreement of the Board of Trustees de 1984 (Acta 51) [Agreement of the Borrad of No. 100 of 1984 (Acuerdo del Trustees No 100 of 1984 (Minute 51)], Universidad Consejo Directivo No. 100 de 1984) Nacional de Colombia, (1984).

Agreement of the Board of Trustees Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 44 de No. 44 of 1986 (Acuerdo del 1986 [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 44 of Consejo Directivo No. 44 de 1986) 1986], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1986).

429 APPENDIX C

SECTION 1. COLONIAL PERIOD (1653-1819)

No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT 1 Fray Tomás Navarro, O.P. 12-18-1653 01-09-1662. Fray Juan del Rosario, O.P. 2 He was Vice-rector appointed by Fray 01-09-1662 03-19-1664 Cristóbal and temporary Rector. Cristóbal de Araque y Ponce de León y Ávila Lifetime Rector appointed by Fray 3 Cristóbal and ratified by the Real Cell of July 12 of 1664. He never assumed the position. Juan Peláez Sotelo He replaced the lifetime rector. He also 4 03-19-1665 12-18-1666 was the first elected Rector by the Colegiales on December 18 of 1665 Juan de Mosquera Nuguerol 5 12-18-1666 1667 (Temporary). Cristóbal de Torres Bravo 6 05-07-1667 (Temporary). 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 Cristóbal de Torres Bravo 12 05-1677 (Temporary). 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 Gregorio de Borja y Espeleta de 17 1685 10-1687 Montenegro 18 Juan Agustín del Río 10-15-1687

430 No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT (Temporary). 19 Nicolás Flórez de Acuña 10-24-1687 11-08-1687 20 Antonio de Mur Sol de Villa y Grijota 1688 1690 Gregorio de Borja y Espeleta de 21 1691 Montenegro 22 Francisco de Agudelo Arias de Bolívar 1692 1693 23 Andrés del Río 1694 1696 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña 24 01-1697 04-1697 Vice-rector and interim Rector 25 Sebastián Carlos Pretel y Cid Cuadrado 05-1697 12-1697 Jacinto Roque Flórez de Acuña 26 03-1698 12-1698 Vice-rector and temporary Rector 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 Luis Antonio de Berrío y Mendoza de 32 12-18-1714 02-1717 Castrillón Fray Francisco Ramírez Floreano de 33 03-19-1717 12-15-1718 Hoyos Fray José de Mena Peláez 34 12-18-1718 12-24-1719 Vice-rector and temporary Rector 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 José Ignacio de Flórez y Vanegas 37 1725 (Temporary) 38 Luis Antonio de Berrío y Mendoza 12-22-1725 07-1728 Cristóbal de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de 39 Guevara 07-1728 12-22-1728 Vice-rector and temporary Rector Fernando Antonio Camacho de Guzmán 40 y Rojas 12-22-1728 12-20-1733 Reelected on December 19 of 1731 Francisco Lucas Pérez Manrique de Lara 41 12-20-1733 12-16-1736 y Ospina 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

431 No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT Vice-rector and temporary Rector Francisco Javier Tello de Mayorga y 44 05-31-1738 1741 Camacho Luis Francisco de Guzmán y Monasterio 45 08-11-1742 12-1744 Elected on December 18 of 1741 José Gabriel Manrique de Lara y Ospina 46 12-1744 He died before he assumed this position . Miguel José Masústegui y Archer 47 05-14-1745 12-18-1745 Vice-rector and temporary Rector 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 Cristóbal de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de 50 Guevara 12-23-1750 1752 He died being appointed as Rector Francisco Santiago de Gaona y Bastida 51 Navarro 07-1752 01-06-1753 Vice-rector and Rector 52 Nicolás Antonio de Vargas y Matajudíos 01-06-1753 02-1756 Francisco Javier Tello de Mayorga y 53 Camacho 02-1756 20-12-1755 Elected on December 18 of 1755 Francisco Javier de Caycedo y Fajardo 54 20-12-1758 01-03-1759 He died being appointed as Rector Juan Ignacio Moscoso y Bayo 55 01-03-1759 21-05-1759 Vice-rector and Rector 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 Manuel de Caycedo y Vélez Ladrón de 60 06-1773 21-12-1775 Guevara 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 Agustín Manuel de Alarcón y Castro 65 He was reelected on December 18 of 21-10-1783 15-04-1790 1786 66 Santiago Gregorio de Burgos y 15-04-1790 06-01-1793

432 No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT Villamizar Fernando Caycedo y Flórez 67 He was reelected on December 18 of 06-01-1793 01-01-1796 1792 Antonio Nicolás Martínez Caso y Murillo 68 01-01-1796 01-07-1796 He retired because of an illness Santiago Gregorio de Burgos y 69 Villamizar 27-07-1796 21-02-1799 He was temporary appointed 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 Domingo Tomás de Burgos y Villamizar 77 28-02-1814 26-01-1823 Reelected on December 18 of 1817

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de Iriarte, M. 2003.

433 SECTION 2. REPUBLICAN PERIOD (1819-1842)

No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT Juan Fernández de Sotomayor y Picón 78 26-01-1823 04-05-1832 Reelected on December 18 of 1829 José Tomás Nuñez Conto 79 04-05-1832 19-12-1832 Vice-rector and temporary Rector José María del Castillo y Rada 80 19-12-1832 23-02-1835 He died as Rector José Tomás Nuñez Conto 81 20-02-1835 09-08-1835 Vice-rector and temporary Rector Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez 82 09-08-1835 19-11-1835 Temporary Rector José María Duque Gómez 83 Temporary Rector and elected on 19-11-1835 09-11-1837 December 18 of 1835 José Manuel Fernández Saavedra y 84 Torres 09-11-1837 27-11-1837 Vice-rector and Rector. He resigned Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez Temporary Rector and elected on 85 27-11-1837 31-12-1840 December 18 of 1837

Vicente Antonio Gómez y Polanco 86 01-01-1841 20-01-1842

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de Iriarte, M. 2003.

434 SECTION 3. BEGINNING OF THE MODERN UNIVERSITY (1842-1930)

No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT Andrés María Pardo Álvarez 87 First University Inspector of the First 1842 1843 District and Rector. Lorenzo María Lleras y González 88 First University Inspector of the First 1843 01-01-1846 District and Rector. Venancio Restrepo Villegas 89 First University Inspector of the First 01-01-1846 1849 District and Rector. 90 Antonio Vargas Reyes 09-1850 11-1850 91 Rafael Rivas Mejía 01-11-1850 22-06-1951 Manuel Cañarete y Gutiérrez 92 Temporary Rector. Elected as Rector on 22-06-1951 22-01-1852 December 18 of 1851 Juan Nepomuceno Nuñez Conto 93 22-01-1852 01-01-1859 Reelected on December 18 of 1855 94 Andrés María Pardo Álvarez 11-01-1859 08- 1864 95 Juan Agustín Uricoechea y Navarro 05-08-1864 19-02-1866 Francisco Eustaquio Álvarez Rivero 96 19-02-1866 12-1870 Reelected on December 18 of 1868 97 Nicolás Esguerra Ortíz 01-01-1871 31-12-1871 Francisco Eustaquio Álvarez Rivero 98 01-01-1872 12-1874

Gil Colunje 99 Last Rector according to the former 01-01-1875 30-01-1880 Constitutions Januario Salgar 100 30-01-1880 20-04-1880 Appointed by the President of the country Manuel Ezequiel Corrales 101 06-1880 02-1882 Appointed by the President of the country Juan Manuel Rudas 102 01-03-1882 08-04-1882 Appointed by the President of the country Manuel Ancízar 103 Appointed by the President of the 17-04-1882 21-05-1882 country. He died as Rector Juan Manuel Rudas 104 05-1882 1885 Appointed by the President of the country

435 No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT Carlos Martínez Silva 105 1886 1887 Appointed by the President of the country José Manuel Marroquín 106 1887 1890 Appointed by the President of the country Rafael María Carrasquilla Appointed by the President of the 107 15-12-1890 18-03-1930 country. He died during his tenure as Rector Jenaro Jiménez 108 28-03-1930 13-08-1930 Vice-rector and temporary Rector

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de Iriarte, M. 2003.

436 APPENDIX D

Reform of the Modern University (1930-2000)

No NAME DATE POSSESION RETIREMENT José Vicente Castro Silva First Rector elected according to the New 109 13-08-1930 28-03-1968 constitutions. He died died during his tenure as Rector Marco Tulio Cruz 110 28-03-1968 24-10-1968 Vice-rector and temporary Rector Antonio Rocha Alvira 111 24-10-1968 12-1973 Reelected on October of 1972 112 Carlos Holguín Holguín 12-12-1973 24-10-1978 Álvaro Tafur Galvis 113 24-10-1978 24-10-1986 Reelected on October of 1982 114 Roberto Arias Pérez 21-10-1986 24-10-1990 115 Gustavo de Greiff Restrepo 24-10-1990 01-04-1992 Guillermo Salah Zuleta 116 01-04-1992 24-09-1992 Vice-rector and temporary Rector Mario Suárez Melo 117 24-09-1992 01-1997 He resigned Guillermo Salah Zuleta 118 Antonio Rocha Alvira 01-1997 16-07-2001 Reelected on October 24 of 1998 Maria del Rosario Guerra de Mesa 119 16-07-2001 20-08-2001 Temporary Rector 120 Rafael Enrique Riveros Dueñas 21-08-2001 24-10-2002 121 Hans Peter Knudsen Quevedo 24-10-2002 Nowadays

From: "Rectores y Rectorías del Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario", by Guillen de Iriarte, M. 2003.

437 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

438 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

439 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.

440 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

441 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

442 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.

443 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.

444 REFERENCES

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 124 de 1980 (Acta 32) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 124 of 1980 (Minute 32)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1980).

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 de la Consiliatura No 005, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 005] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1978).

Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 006, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 006] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1980). Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 64, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 064] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1994). Acuerdo de la Consiliatura No 83, [Agreement of the Consiliatura No 083] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1996).

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).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 108 de 1964 [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 108 of 1964], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1964).

445 Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 44 de 1986 [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 44 of 1986], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (1986).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 59 de 1964 (Acta 12) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees 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).

Acuerdo del Consejo Superior Universitario No 82 de 1977 (Acta 28) [Agreement of the Board of Trustees No 82 of 1977 (Minute 28)], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (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).

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

446 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.

447 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.

448 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.h tm

449 Decreto Rectoral No 003, [Rectoral Decree No 003] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1978).

Decreto Rectoral No 043, [Rectoral Decree No 043] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1979).

Decreto Rectoral No 113, [Rectoral Decree No 113] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1981).

Decreto Rectoral No 306, [Rectoral Decree No 306] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1989). Decreto Rectoral No 369, [Rectoral Decree No 369] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1993). Decreto Rectoral No 370, [Rectoral Decree No 370] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1993). Decreto Rectoral No 393, [Rectoral Decree No 393] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1993). Decreto Rectoral No 452, [Rectoral Decree No 452] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1996). Decreto Rectoral No 497, [Rectoral Decree No 497] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1997). Decreto Rectoral No 534, [Rectoral Decree No 534] Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, (1998). 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.

450 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.

451 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

452 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).

453 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)

454 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.

455 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.cf m

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.

456 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.

457 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.

458 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.

459 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. (1969). Estructura Orgánica [Organizational Structure]. Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1980). Estructura Orgánica [Organizational Structure]. Bogotá.

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (1986). 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

460 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)

461 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.

462