rid&i&!

THE RISE OF THE PROFESSIONS

IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY MEXICO

DA/ID E.

THE RISE OF THE PROFESSIONS

IN TWENTIETH.CENTURY MEXICO

DAVID E. LOREY

A university system does not operate in a vacuum, but rather is funda-mentally shaped by the supply of jobs for professionals. The creation ofemployment positions at the professional level is in turn related to at leasttwo other extremely important phenomena: social mobility and politicalconflict.

The data developed in this study allow us for the first time to analyze therelationship between trends in university graduates (and their fields ofstudy) and trends,in employment opportunitíes for professionals in Mexico.How has the market for university graduates developed over time? What dopatterns in the-evolution of that market indicate about Mexican economicdevelopment?

The volume provides a new view of some of the most important themesin the historiography of twentieth-century Mexico. For the first time we canapproach questions such as the pace of historical social mobility from theinside, from the perspective of people trying to make their way into theMexican middle classes.

The scholarship embodiá in this work is first-rate. It makes a significantcontribution to knowledge about modern Mexican higher education andeconomic development.

]ohn H. Coatsworth, Han¡ard Uni¡:ersitu

Offers original and important conclusions on higher educational andeconomic developfnent in Mexico.

Roderic A. Camp, Tulane Unitersitv

David Lorey, currently Coordinator of the Program on Mexico at the UCLALatin American Center, has taught Mexican history at UCLA, USC, andPomona College in the United States and at the Universidad de las Américasin Mexico. He is the author of a companion volume, The Uniaersity Systenr

' and Economic Deaelopment ir_Mexico since 7929.

Cycles and Trends Research Series, Volume 2

The series is funded by a grant to the UCLA Latin American Center from the Wiliiamand Flora Hewlett Foundation.

UCLA LATIN AMERICAN CENTERUniversity of California

Los Angeles, CA 90024-1447

F'o'^¿EI

:dFrlÉiE]

Fct)rrJ

oFf!

r.l¡Jr¡11

7or=1

E1(r)

Iozcn

zt-l{E1zFllElrttt+nE]z,-{e

7rtr!xt.)o

@@

THE RISE OF THE PROFESSIONS

IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY MgXTCO

Statistical Abstract of Latin AmericaSupplement Series, Volume 12

Cycles and Trends Research Series, Volume 2

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF LATIN AMERICA

Supplement Series Editor

lames W. Wilkie

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD

Dauril Alden, Uniz:ersity of WashingtonOscar Altimir, Economic Commission t'or

Latin America, Santiago de ChileJorge Balán, Centro de Estudios de

Estado y Sociedad, Buenos AiresVictor Bulmer-Thomas, Uniaersity

of LondonMarcello Carmagnani, Unioersitd di

Torino

John H. Coatsworth, Haraard UnioersityManuel García y Griego Unioersity of

California, lruineStephen Haber, Stanford UniaersityBruce H. Herrick, Washington and Lee

UnioersityEdmundo Jacobo Molina, Uniaersidad

Autónoma Met ropolitana, MexicoCity

Herbert S. Klein, Columbia UnioersityJohn Lombardi, Uniaersity ot' FloridaRobert E. McCaa, Unioersity of

Minnesota

William Paul McGreevey, World BankMarkos Mamalakis, Unioersity of

Wisconsin, MilwaukeeCarmelo Mesa-Lago, Uniztersity of

PittsburghSilvia Ortega Salazar, Unioersidad

Autónoma Met ropolitana, Mexico CityJames F. Platler, PROFMEXHans Jürgen Puhle, Unioersitiit

FrankfurtPeter L. Reich, Whittier College School

of Lau:Clark W. Reynolds, Stanford UniaersitySamuel Schmidt, Uniaersity of Texas at

El PasoSusan Schroeder, Loyola Uniztersity of

ChicagoPeter H. Smith, Uniaersity of California,

San Diegojohn J. TePaske, Duke UniaersitySengen Zhang, Chinese Academy of

Social Sciences

CYCLES AND TRENDS RESEARCH SERIES

The Cycles and Trends in Twentieth-Century Mexico Project, directed by JamesW. Wilkie and Sergio de la Peña and coordinated by David E. Lorey, is a large-scaleeffort to examine the process of change in Mexico in the international context. Theresearch series, which involves the development of historical statistics, is spon-sored by UCLA and the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapot-zalco. Project participants include scholars and institutions in Mexico and theUnited States.

The project and the publication series are funded by the William and FloraHewlett Foundation.

Volume 1,, lndustria y trabajo en México, edited by James W. Wilkie and ]esús ReyesHeroles G.G.

Volume 2, The Rise of the Prot'essions in Twentieth-Century Mexico: lJnioersity Gradu-ates and Occupational Change since 7929, by David E. Lorey.

THE RISE OF THE PROFESSIONS

IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY MEXICO

Uniaersity Graduates and Occupational Change since 7929

DAVID E. LOREY

UCLA Latin American Center PublicationsUniversity of California, Los Angeles

UCLA Latin American Center PublicationsUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles, C A 90024-7447

Copyright @ 7992 by The Regents of the University of CaliforniaAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lorey, David E.The rise of the professions in twentieth-century Mexico:

university graduates and occupational change since 7929 / DavidE. Lorey.

p. (Cycles and trends research series i v. 2.)Statistical abstract of Latin America. Supplement series ; v. 1,2)

Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-87903-254-51. College graduates-Employment-Mexico-Statistics.

2. Professional employees-Mexico-Statistics. 3. Education,Higher-Economic aspects-Mexico-Statistics. I. Title.II. Series : Statistical abstract of Latin America. Supplementseries ; 12.HD6278.M6L67 1992337 .7' 7 2' 097 209 0 6- dc20 92-75245

CIP

To Laura Meyer

for the " 500 times"

CONTENTS

Preface xiAbbreviations xivFigures xvii

CHAPTER ONEHigher Education Policy and the Achievements ofthe University System since 1929

Past Approaches to the Mexican University, 3

Tlre Policy Context since 1929, 9

Trends in University Graduates, Egresados, andDegrees Registered since 7929, 18

Conclusions,23

CHAPTER TWOThe University System and Economic Development:Graduates and Employment

Mexico's Changing Occupational Structure, 26

The Demand of the Mexican Economy forUniversity Graduates, 29

The Demand for Technicians versus Professionals, 31

Impacts of Changing Demand for Professionalsand Technicians, 41

The University System and Social Mobihty, 44

University Politics, 45

Conclusions,48

Continued on oaerleaf

25

CHAPTER THREE

Sources and Methods

Definitions, 50

Mexican Archives and Enrollment Statistics, 54

Data on University Graduates and Egresados, 56

Relationships among Statistical Series, 61

Estimating a Time-Lag Factor, 65

Data on the Employment of Professionalsand Technicians,6T

CHAPTER FOUR

Statistical Series

Professional-Field Categories Used in the Tables, 73

Professional-Field Abbreviations, 82

List of Tables, 84

Symbols Used in Tables, 88

Abbreviations for Sources Used in the Tables, 88

Abbreviations for Mexican Universities Used in the Tables, 90

Tables, 91

Bibliography

CONTENTS

205

49

77

PREFACE

Despite considerable scholarly interest in the Mexican universitysystem, analysts have not attempted to develop long-term quantita-tive data on the demand for and supply of the university's most im-portant economic and social contribution: professionally skilled per-sons. Writers on the Mexican university have tended to base quanti-tative analyses (as far as they go) on enrollment statistics, cer-tainly misleading for a system in which half of all students leaveuniversities without acl'rieving a degree.

Not only do we not have reliable information on how many stu-dents graduate from Mexican universities, or in what professionalfields, but we have little idea of what sorts of jobs await themupon graduation. Almost no research has been devoted to developingstatistics on Mexico's changing occupational structure over the courseof the twentieth century. Some students of the Mexican economyhave developed data on sectorai shifts in the economically activepopulation. But a glaring Bap exists in knowledge about the histori-cal development of modern occupations defined functionally (as op-posed to sectorially): professionals, technicians, and managers;street vendors, unskilled industrial laborers, rural peones.

These two topics-university graduates and occupationalchange-are closely related. A university system does not operate ina vacuum, but rather is fundamentally shaped by the supply of jobsfor professionals; the form and function of a university system are inlarge measure determined by economic trends. And the creation ofemployment positions at the professional level is in turn related toat least two other extremely important phenomena: social mobilityand political conflict.

The data developed in this study allow us for the first time toanalyze the relationship between trends in university graduates(and their fields of study) and trends in employment opportunitiesfor professionals. How has the market for university graduates de-veloped in Mexico? What do patterns in the development of thatmarket indicate about Mexican economic development? What has

xI

PREFACE

been the impact of economic development since 1929 on the univer-sity system?

The volume focuses on the development of statistical data ongraduates and occupations, carefully reviewing appropriate method-ologies for linking data sets and for making statistical series on di-verse topics comparable with one another. The task of working outsuch problems is central to the effort to move analysis forward be-cause the data (and the sources from which they are drawn) havethemselves constituted the major stumbling block for past analystsattempting to make use of them. We can explain this obstacleeasily: none of the numbers used as the basis for data developmenthere were originally compiled for the present purposes; they werenot tallied for historical or comparative analysis. It is the aim ofthis book to turn a mass of unorganized data into a useful tool forhistorical inquiry.

Clearing through the methodological thickets allows for a newand exciting view of some of the main themes in the historiographyof twentieth-century Mexico. For the first time we can gauge thehistorical ability of the Mexican economy to produce employmentfor a crucial segment of society. For the first time we can approachsticky questions such as historical social mobility from the inside,from the perspective of people trying to make their way into theMexican middle classes.

This book has been designed as a companion volume to my The

Uniaersity System and Economic Deaelopment in Mexico since 1929(forthcoming from Stanford University Press). Its principal aim is toprovide a sourcebook for scholars interested in Mexican universitiesand their articulation with policy and economic development in thetwentieth century. While it presents in skeletal form the basic ar-guments of The Uniztersity System and Economic Deztelopment, it fo-cuses on the strict quantitative basis of those arguments. Non-quanti-tative evidence as well as the broad meaning and implications ofmy analysis are offered ín Paradox, and the reader is encouraged torefer to that book for treatment of issues that I have been unable toaddress here. The researcher will want to consult both works.

PREFACE x111

AcknowledgmentsMany Mexicanists contributed helpful comments at different

stages in the elaboration of the data and analysis presented in this

stuáy. Manuscript drafts or selected sections were read by Roderic

Camp, Enrique Cárdenas, ]ohn Coatsworth, Barbara Geddes,

Stepñen Haber, Raúl Hinojosa, ]osé Moya, Silvia Ortega Salazar,

Sergio de la Peña, José Angel Pescador, ]esús Reyes Heroles, james

W. Wilkie, and Sergio Zermeño. Kenneth Sokoloff, John

Coatsworth, and James Platler advised me on statistical methodol-

ogy.Several sources of financial support helped make the study pos-

sible. Grants from UCLA's Program on Mexico and the UCLA Latin

American Center provided support for early research trips toMexico. A UC MEXUS grant provided funds for research and write-

up during the final stages. Clint Smith of the Hewlett Foundation

has been generous in his support of UCLA's Cycles and Trends in

Twentieth-Century Mexico project, which provided a stimulating in-

tellectual environment for the completion of this book'

I am grateful for research support in Mexico. Licenciada Ader

and her staff at the ANUIES library in Guadalupe Inn were Sener-ous with their time, copying machine, and coffee. Dr. Juan Casillas,

Ing. Ermilo Marroquín, and licenciado ]esús Barrón of ANUIES

helped me out in many ways, large and small. I^g' J' AlbertoGonzález I. of the Dirección General de Profesiones gave me access

to DGP archives and invaluable informal information in a year-long

series of short conversations. The staff of the Banco de México li-brary efficiently found hard-to-find books and manuscripts.

For research support in Los Angeles, I am particularly indebted

to Christof Weber, my Program Assistant at the UCLA Program on

Mexico since 1989, who checked the data and calculations and made

innumerable trips back and forth to the university Research

Library. Finally, thanks are due Colleen Trujillo, the Latin

American Center's Publications Director, who has provided invalu-

able counsel on this volume and related projects from their incep-

tion.

D.E.L.Los Angeles

December, 1991

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Used in Text, Notes, and BibliographyANUIES Asociación Nacional de Universidades e

Institutos de Educación SuperiorCONACYT Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaD.F. Distrito Federal (Federal District)DCE Dirección General de EstadísticaDGP Dirección General de ProfesionesEAP Economically Active PopulationGDP Gross Domestic ProductPNR Partido Revolucionario NacionalSEP Secretaría de Educación PúblicaUCLA University of California, Los Angeles

Symbols Used in Tables

- Data not available# Zero or negligible

Abbreviations for Sources Used in Tables and NotesAE Dirección Ceneral de Estadística, Anuario

estadístico.

ANUIES-AE ANUIES. Anuario estadístico.

ANUIES-ESM ANUIES. La educsción superior en México (7967)

and La enseñanza superior en México (7968-76).

CE Dirección General de Estadística. Compendioestadístico.

Census Mexican Decennial Census.

DCP Dirección General de Profesiones, unpublisheddata.

)ov

ABBREVIATIONS

EHM

FU

HEU

xv

Instituto de Estadística, Geografía, e

Informática (INEGI). Estadísticas históricas de

México. México, D. F.: INEGI, 1985.

Attolini, losé. Las finanzas de la uniaersidad a

traaés del tiempo. México, D. F.: Escueia

Nacional de Economía, UNAM, 1951.

González Cosío, Arturo. Historia estadística de la

uniaersidad, 1910-1967. México, D.F.: UNAM,7968.

NAFINSA-EMC Nacional Financiera, S.A. La economíq

mexicanq en cifras.

OELM Obra educatiz,a de López Mateos. N.p.: n.p.

[ANUIES], n.d. [1e65].

PROIDES ANUIES. Programa integral para el desarrollo de

la educación snperior. México, D. F., 1986.

QMCS Mostkoff, Aída, and Stephanie Granato."Quantifying Mexico's Class Structure." InJames W. Wilkie, ed., Society and Economy

in Mexico. Los Angeles: UCLA LatinAmerican Center Publications, 1.989.

SALA Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles:UCLA Latin American Center Publications.

SEP-EBSEN SEP. Estadística btísica del sistema educatiaonacional, 1971-1972. México, D. F.:9EP,1972.

SEP-EPM SEP. La educación pública en México 796411970.

México, D. F.: SEP, 1970.

SEP-ESM SEP. Ln educaciótt sttperior en México.

SEP-OE 9EP. Obrs educatioo, 1970-1976. México, D. F.:

SEP, n.d. [1.976].

UNAM-AE UNAM. Anuario estadístico.

UNAM-CEAL DirecciónGeneral de Administración,Departamento de Estadística. Cuadernosestndísticos año lectioo 1979-L980. México,D. F.: UNAM, n.d. [1980].

UNAM-CU UNAM. Primer censo uttiuersitario. México,D. F.: UNAM, 1953.

UNAM-EAE

UNAM-PP

UNESCO-SY

Abbreviations forAnahuácIberoIPNITAMITESM

MICHSNUABCUACHUACOUAEMUAGUAMUANLUAPUASLPUASINUATUDLAUGUGUANUNAMUV

ABBREVIATIONS

UNAM. Dirección General de Administración.Estadísticos del aspecto escolar, 1970. México,D.F.: UNAM,7970.

UNAM. Presupuesto por programas. Variousyears.

UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook.

Mexican UniversitiesUniversidad AnahuácUniversidad IberoamericanaInstituto Politécnico NacionalInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de MéxicoInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores

de MonterreyUniversidad Michoacana de San NicolásUniversidad Autónoma de Baja CaliforniaUniversidad Autónoma de ChihuahuaUniversidad Autónoma de CoahuilaUniversidad Autónoma de Estado de MéxicoUniversidad Autónoma de GuadalajaraUniversidad Autónoma MetropolitanaUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo LeónUniversidad Autónoma de PueblaUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis PotosíUniversidad Autónoma de SinaloaUniversidad Autónoma de TamaulipasUniversidad de las Américas-Puebla.Universidad de GuadalajaraUniversidad de GuanajuatoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoUniversidad Veracruzana

xvl

FIGUR ES

Figure 1. Professionals, Technicians, and Managers inEconomically Active Population, 1950-80 27

Figure 2. Professionals and Technicians in Services andManufacturing,1950-80 28

Figure 3. Professionals in All Economic Sectors, inManufacturing, anct in Services, 1950-80 29

x!,tl

CHAPTER ONE

Higher Education Policyand the Achievements of theUniversity System since 1929

In 7929 Mexican leaders took the first major step toward"institutionalizing" the Revolution of 1910 by consolidating compet-i.g politicai factions into the first official party of theRevolution-the PNR (Partido Nacional Revolucionario). The PNRunited Mexico's diverse regional interests into a manageable politi-cal field and cleared the way for the energetic pursuit of economicand social goals. Institutionalization thus had two essential objec-tives: to forestall the rebellions of regional strongmen, which hadfueled a decade of fighting after 1910 and a period of political in-stability to 7929, and to channel the economic and social aspirationssparked by the Revolution.

As part of its initiative to institutionalize the Revolution, thegovernment formally incorporated the university systeml into itsdevelopment plans. Policymakers saw the university system as cen-tral to the process of institutionalization; as necessary for politicalstabilization, for economic development, and for social change. Theaims of the government for the university have been intertwinedsince 1929 in public policy and the popular imagination. Together,they constitute a demand that the university be responsive to gov-ernment policy priorities, to Mexican presidents' plans for economicand social development.

The Mexican university system was expected not only to respondto government development strategy but also to the needs of the

1I refer throughout to all public and private universities.

1

CHAPTER ONE

economy for professional expertise. The careers that university stu-dents chose and the sorts of jobs they found were intricately relatedto the economic development that unfolded after 1.929. Both thestructure and the function of the university system were shaped byeconomic realities; the most important of these influences was theevolving employment outlook for professionals.

Universities were expected to respond to social as well as eco-nomic demands. Mexicans from many different walks of life came tosee university education as a way to take part in, and benefit from,the economic development promised by leaders. Pablo ConzáIezCasanova, a sociologist and former rector of the UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), expressed this hope in7962'. "In today's Mexico which is being industrialized and urban-ized there is permanent social mobility. The peasants of yesterdayare today's workers, and the workers' children can be profession-als."2 University education became both a real conduit of upwardmobility and an important symbol of social mobility and status.

The evolution of the university system in Mexico has never beenstudied in the context of these three interrelated demands-policy,economic, and social. Most important, the number of graduates of theuniversity system and their fields of study have never been care-fully considered in the light of the developing market for profes-sional and technical skills.

To address this major gap in the literature on the Mexican uni-versity, the present volume develops original statistical data forthe study of the relationship between university graduates and pro-fessional employment in Mexico in the years since 7929.The volumemakes possible further research by providing comprehensive data onthe two topics and presents a brief analysis of twentieth-centuryMexican development based on this new information.

2Pablo González Casanova, "México: El ciclo de una revoluciónagraria," Cuadernos Americanos, L20, no. 1 (January-February, 1962).Compare González's later comments on social mobility in Democracia enMéxico (México, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 1965).

POLlCY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Past Approaches to the Mexican UniversityWriters on Mexico's university systern have traditionally

treated the university as a hermetic institution with a structure anddynamic independent of outside economic and social change. Theyrely on traditional institutional sources and perspectives to describeinstitutional evolution. (The study of the development of variousprofessional schools within universities forrns a variant of this in-stitutional current.) The institutional approach details the formaldevelopment of the Mexican higher education system, but does notexplore why different forms and functions of the university devel-oped over time.

Institutional approaches inhibit the study of the university sys-tem in its economic and social context in two important ways. First,the most important immediate product of university education-pro-fessional-level graduates-does not figure in institutional historiesof the Mexican university. It is ironic that the decisions of profes-sional students about career opportunities are lost in the institu-tional approach; after all, universities are the institutional expres-sion of individual choices. Second, larger economic and social trendsare perceived to unfold outside the university. This analytical iso-lation of the university system makes it impossible to assess the im-pact of economic and social factors on individual students as theymake decisions about their professional careers.3

3For instittrtional studies, see Rosalío Wences Reza, La Ltniaersidad en lnhistoria de Méxict't (México, D. F.: Editorial LÍnea, 1984); Valdemar Rodríguez,"National University oi Mexico: Rebirth and Role of the Universitarios(1,970-1,957)," Ph. D. Diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1958; JaimeCastrejórr Diez and Marisol Pérez Lizatsr, Historin de las unit¡ersidadesestatales,2 vols. (México, D. F.: SEP, 1976); and Fernando Soiana et a1.,Histttria de la educación pública en México (México, D. F.: SEP, 1984). MarthaRobles, Educación y sociedad en la historia de México (México, D. F.: Siglo XXIEditores,7977), attempts to mate the institutional history of the universitywith an analysis of revolutionary ideology. A ferv works relate institutionaldevelopments to the educational projects of presidential administrations:see George Sánchez, Mexico: A Ret,olution by Educatiott (Nerv York: VikingPress, 1936); and Victoria Lerner, La educación socinlista (México, D. F.: EIColegio de México, 7979). Historis de las proiesiones en México (México, D, F.:El Colegio de México, 1982) focuses on the development of professionalschools. For innovative departures within the institutional current, seeRichard C. Kir-rg, Aifonso Rangel Guerra, David Kline, and Noel F. McGinn,Nueoe uniuersidades mexicanas: Un ttndlisis de su crecimiento y desarrollo(México, D.F.: ANUIES, 1972); Thomas N. Osborn, Higher Educntiott inMexico: Histort¡, Growth, and Problems in a Dicltotomized lndustry (El Paso:

CHAPTER ONE

In a major noninstitutional current of scholarship on the Mexicanuniversity, observers have focused on sociological and politicalaspects of university education. These authors concern themselvesprimarily with the function of the university in maintaining and re-inforcing social and political structures. The work of Roderic A.Camp proceeds furthest in the direction of relating data on the pro-fessional backgrounds of a select, elite group of university graduates(those who later attain political power) to the shifting develop-ment strategies of Mexican presidential coalitions.

Because the sociological-political current is primarily concernedwith elite political actors, university education is addressed princi-pally as a common background of elites, as one of their definingcharacteristics.a Herein lies the limitation of this body of literaturefor the study of the university system as a whole in the broadcontext of Mexican society: university-trained elites are not repre-

Texas Western Press, 1976); Da¡iel C. Levy, Higher Education and the State inLatin America: Prioate Challenges to Public Dominance (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1986); Patricia de Leonardo R., La educación superior priaadaen México: Bosquejo histórico (México, D.F.: Editorial Línea, 1983); OscarHinojosa, "La universidad privada escala posiciones como proveedora defuncionarios," Proceso, March 31, 1986, 6-1.1.; and Patricia de LeonardoRamírez, "Los cuadros de la derecha," El Cotidiano, 24 (July-August, 1988),89-94. On the professions, see Peter S. Cleaves, Professions and the State: TheMexican Case (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987).

4See Peter H. Smith, Labyrinths of Power: Political Reuuitment inTu¡entieth-Century Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1,979);Roderic A. Camp, Mexico's Leaders: Their Education and Recruitment (Tucson:University of Arizona Press, 1980); idem, "The Middle-Level Technocrat inMexico," lournal of Dezreloping Areas,6, no. 4 (July, 1.972),571.-582; and idem,"The Political Technocrat in Mexico and the Survival of the PoliticalSystem," Latin American Research Reaiew, 20, no. 1 (1985), 97-1.18. See alsoRodolfo Figueroa's Prioridades nacionales y reclutamíento de funcionarios públi-cos (México, D. F.: EI Coiegio de México, 1981); Larissa Lomnitz, LeticiaMayer, and Martha W. Rees, "Recruiting Technical Elites: Mexico'sVeterinarians," Human Organization, 42, no. 1 (Spring, 1983), 23-29; DonaldMabry, The Mexican Uniaersity and the State: Student Conflicts, 1910-1971(College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1.982); Daníel C. Levy, Uniztersity andGoaernment in Mexico: Autonomy in an Authoritarian System (New York:Praeger, 1980); Gilberto Guevara Niebla, ed., Las luchas estudiantiles enMéxico,2 vols. (México, D. F.: Editorial Línea, 1983); Salvador MartínezDella Rocca, Estado y unioersidad en México 1920-1968: Historia de losmoaimientos estudiantiles en la UNAM (México, D. F.: Joan Boldó i ClimentEditores, 1986); Fernando Jiménez Mier y Terán, El autoritarismo en elglbierno de ls UNAM (México, D. F.: Foro Universitario, 7982); and JesúsSilva Herzog, Una historia de la Uniaersidad de México y sus problemas(México, D. F.: Siglo XXI Editores,'1986).

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

sentative of Mexican university students in general-for one thing,elites do not study the same professional fields as the majority ofMexican students.5

Economic and social forces underlying the historical roles of theMexican university have only rarely made their way into the twodominant currents of rvriting on Mexican universities describedabove. For this reason I base my work on the small body of researchthat touches upon economic and social aspects of the development ofthe Mexican university. Although the number of such studies issmall, they have been among the most influential in guiding thisstudy.

An important starting point for data collection and developmenthere was provided by the literature on human capital.6 Humancapital theory developed in the 1950s to explain the role of educa-tion in rnaking labor more productive in the developed world. Thetheory posited that expenditure for education could be seen as in-vestment in human capital rather than as consumption and heldthat education was a key ingredient in increasing productivity, inspurring economic growth, and in creating an egalitarian distributionof wealth.T

In Mexico, the idea that investment in human capital wouldlead to both increased national productivity and individual weil-being had a direct impact not only on political rhetoric and dis-course but also on public policy. The theory of human capital be-came the guiding light of educational policy in Mexico during the1960s and 1970s as quantitative expansion at all levels of education,

ssee David E. Lorey, "Professional Expertise and MexicanModernization: Sources, Methods, and Preliminary Findings," in StatisticalAbstract ot' Latin Ameríca, vol. 26, pp. 890-972.

6For a bibtiography of the debate from its inception, see Mark Btaug,The Ecottontics of Educatíon: An Annotated Bibliography (Oxford: PergamonPress, 1978). For an excellent review of the debate over human capital andmore recent approaches to the study of the link between education and eco-nomic change, see Martin Carnoy, Henry Levin, et al., Economía política delfinanciamíento educatiao en países en aías de desarrollo (México, D. F.:Ediciones Gérnika, 1986). In English, see Nigel Brooke, John Oxenham, andAngela Little, Qualificatíotts and Employment in Mexico (Sussex: University ofSussex, 1978).

TFor the classic statements of human capital theory, see TheodoreSchultz, The Economíc Value of Educatíon (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1963); and G. S. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretícal and EmpiricalAnalysís, witlt Special Reference to Education (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1964).

CHAPTER ONE

but particularly at the university level, was sought as a way topromote the rapid development of the Mexican economy.EApplication of human capital ideas to the Mexican case spawned alarge literature on higher education and "manpower" in Mexicothroughout the 1960s.e

The eariy literature on human capital was answered in the797As by a counter literature which questioned several major tenets

of human capital theory. The most penetrating critics suggestedthat productivity is not related to educational attainment as muchas to the productivity inherent in jobs created by an economy. Theeducation process, rather than training a worker with specific skillsnecessary for raising productivit/, makes job applicants "trainable"by shaping their attitudes and their aptitude, providing a "fit"among workers, jobs, and firms. Worker "trainability" is determinedby employers only partly on the basis of specific technical qualifi-cations gained through education, since bringing a worker up to thelevel of productivity of a job is in large part a function of the per-sonal characteristics of the worker. Desirable characteristics ofworkers, frequently attitudinal rather than manual or cognitive innature, reduce the cost of training and turnover to employers andprincipally in this manner lead to higher profits.l0

Much of the literature that followed from the work of the earlyhuman capital theorists showed that increased access to higher ed-ucation and stepped-up production of professionally skilled gradu-ates will not cause economic development. Rather, analysts havereached a broad consensus that the structure and function of highereducation systems are shaped by the process of economic develop-ment itself. Other academic disciplines, notably sociology, share

8See, for example, Leopoldo Solís M., Controoersias sobre el crecimiento yla distribución (México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1972), pp.203-204 and passim.

gCharles Nash Myers, EdtLcation and National Development (Princeton:Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, 1965). Myers's volume istypical of the genre in most respects, but stands out for its analysis of re-gional differences in human resource development. See also Myers's articleon estimating demand for health professionals: "Proyección de Ia demandade médicos en México: 1965-1980," Reoistn de Educación Superior,l, no. 3(1.972),77-703.

10For the classic formulation of this critique, see K. Arrow, Higher Edu-cation as a Filter (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1,972). The debate hassettled at a middle ground. See discussion in Carnoy et a1., Economfa política,pp.25-36.

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

this view, seeing education primarily as reactive or reflectiverather than causal. A new literature emerged in the 1970s to relatethis fundamental change in perspective on the economic impacts ofhigher education to the Mexican experience.ll

A second point of departure for this study was a small group ofstudies on the changing structures of class and occupation in Mexico.These studies form an essential backdrop for data development andanalysis of the evolution of the Mexican university system. Work onsocial stratification shows that the Mexican middle class, whichincludes both professionals and technicians trained at the universitylevel, has growrl relative to both upper and lower classes since thebeginning of the twentieth century. Both income and occupation,lvhich are generally the basis for definitions of "class" in the liter-ature, show strong statistical correlation with educational back-ground. This correlation makes the consideration of the social classof university students a key unstudied aspect of the relationship be-tween the university and historical economic development inMexico.12

Studies of Mexico's changing occupational strtrcture tend to focuson the economic sector of occupation, that is, activity in the primary

11In a series of articles published beginning in the 1970s, the Mexicaneducation expert Carlos Muñoz Izquierdo applied the newer economics-of-education theories to different quantitative data sets with very enlightening¡esuits. See the following articles for more detailed development ofMuñoz's arguments: Carlos Muñoz Izquierdo and José Lobo, "Expansiónescolar. mercado de trabajo, y distribución del ingreso en México: Unanálisis longitudinal, 7960-7970," Reoista del CenÍro de Estudios Educatioos, 4,no.1 (1978); and Carlos Muñoz Izquierdo, ]osé Lobo, Alberto Hernández,and Pedro G. Rodríguez, "Edscación y mercado de trabajo," Re¡¡ista delCentro de Estttdios Educatioos, 8, no. 2 (1,978). Also see Víctor Manuel GómezCampo, "Ilelaciones entre educación y estructura económica: Dos grandesmarcos de interpretación," Reaísta de EducLtción Superior, NS 41 (January-March, 1982),5-43.

12Aída Mostkoff and Stephanie Granato, "Quantifying Mexico's ClassStructure," in James W. Wilkie, ed., Society atrd Economy in Mexico (LosAngeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1990), synthesize thefindings of two generations of scholars concerned r,r'ith describing the evolu-tion of class structure in twentieth-century Mexico. For approaches that fo-cus o11 income distribution, see Gloria González Salazar, Subocupación yestructura de clases sociales en México (México, D. F.: UNAM,1972); PedroAspe and Paul E. Sigmund, eds., The Political Economy of Income Distributionin Me¡ico (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1984); Wouter vanGinneken, Socioecononic Groups and Income Distribution in Mexico (New York:St. Martin's Press, 1980); and Leopoldo Solís, La realidad económica mexicana:Retroaisión y perspectioas (México, D.F.: Siglo XXl, 1987).

CHAPTER ONE

(agricultural), secondary (industrial), or tertiary (service) sectors. Itis clear that there has been a long-term decline in agricultural occu-pations, while employment in both industry and services has ex-

panded rapidly since the beginning of the century and especiallysince 1940. But very few scholars have examined the evolution ofoccupational level in Mexico, that is, historical shifts in the num-bers and shares of professionals and technicians, for example,within and among economic sectors.l3

A third point of departure for data gathering and analysis inthe present study is a body of literature treating economic and so-

cial aspects of higher education in Mexico. Scholars working withinthis literature make use of limited sets of quantitative data on uni-versity output, which makes their work distinct from the researchdiscussed so far. Studies of university output have linked profes-sional education with the job market. A small amount of very sug-gestive research using quantitative data has been carried out on spe-

cific professional fields.la But while these contributions introduce a

13The most sophisticated analyses are Donald B. Keesing, "structuralChange Early in Development: Mexico's Changing Industrial andOccupational Structure from 1895 to 1.950," lournal of Economic History,29, r.o.4 (December,1969),716-738; idem, "Employment and Lack of Employmentin Mexico, 1.900-70," in james W. Wilkie and Kenneth Ruddle, eds.,Quantitatiae Latin American Studíes: Methods and Findings (Los Angeles:UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1.977), pp. 3-22; and PeterGregory, The Myth of Market Failure: Employment and the Labor Market inMexico (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986). See also ClarkReynolds, The Mexican Economy: Twentieth-Century Structure and Growth (NewHaven and London: Yaie University Press, 7970); and Claudio Stern andJoseph A. Kahl, "Stratification since the Revolution," in Joseph A. Kahl, ed.,Comparatioe Perspectiaes on Stratification: Mexico, Great Britain, and lapan(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968), pp. 5-30.

l4víctor Urquidi and Adrián Lajous Vargas, for example, attempted toanalyze the higher educational gains of Mexico during the López Mateosadministration (7958-1964) in their Educación superior, ciencia y tecnología en eldesarrollo económico de México (México, D. F.: EI Colegio de México, 1967).Other attempts to gauge needs and supply of professionals are SEP-DGP,Andlisis del mercado nacional de profesionistas y técnicos: Ot'erta 1967-1978, de-manda 1967-1978, y proyecciones a 1990 (México, D. F.: 58P,1982); and PaulW. Strassman, Technological Change and Economic Deoelopment: The Manut'ac-turing Experience in Mexico and Puerto Rlco (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1968). Clark W. Reynolds and Blanca M. de Petricioli examine thetraining received by economists in The Teaching of Economics in Mexico (NewYork: Education and World Affairs, 1967). Russell Davis's study Science,Engineering, and Technical Education in Mexico (New York: Education andWorld Affairs, 1967) uses data sets from several different sources to outlineproblems in engineering education at the university level.

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

new problematic, the short-term nature of their data limits thedepth and the historical reach of analysis.

The task at hand in the present volume is to develop data thatfacilitate the study of the economic and social roles of the univer-sity system over the long term. A great deal of work has been doneon the institutional evolution of the Mexican university system andthe major trends are now established. Analysts have clarified theMexican university's role in political socialization. Historicalanalysis of quantitative data will make it possible to look beyondinstitutional and political aspects to the linkages among the univer-sity, economic development, and social change in the 60-year periodfrom7929 to 1989.

The Policy Context since 1929

Mexican presidential coalitions since 1929 have shown manymore similarities than differences in their attitudes toward highereducation. Historically, the Mexican government has been primar-ily concerned with stimulating the development of professional ex-pertise to advance economic goals. At the same time, leaders havefound it necessary to respond through higher education policy to thesocial demand for mobility and status attained through professionalcareers. Underlying large swings in the ideological debate over thepurposes of higher education, these two aims for the university sys-tem have informed a stable project of the Mexican government.

The greatest element of continuity in government higher educa-tion policy has been the emphasis on the production of professionalexpertise to meet the demands of a changing economy. Professionalexpertise has been seen as central to development, both to the pro-cess of economic growth and to the important role of the universityin creating an economically active population with modern valuesand attitudes.

A second element of continuity in government attitudes towardthe university has been a rhetorical linking of professional exper-tise with the goal of social mobility-professional careers, and thusuniversity education, have been championed as a medium of socialascension. This linkage has provided a way to relate governmentaims with revolutionary rhetoric emphasizing the university's rolein social mobility for the children of workers and peasants. Thepresidents generally considered most socially "revolutionary"-Lázaro Cárdenas (7934-40) and Luis Echeverría (7970-76)-overtly

10 CHAPTER ONE

attempted to facilitate the upward rise of working-class Mexicansthrough the higher education system. Both presidents encouragedthe development of lower-level technical programs, shorter in dura-tion and thus lower in opportunity cost, for students from working-class backgrounds.l5

Mexican leaders have thus hoped that the university would ac-complish two goals at the same time: contribute to creating a devel-oped economy and contribute to raising the standard of living of theMexican people. It has been assumed that, as economic developmentprogresses, an important form of social mobility will be movementinto professional-level employment.

These two continuities have undergirded the higher educationpolicies of presidential administrations frorn 1929 to the present. Abrief, analytical chronology of higher education policy since 1929

serves to underline these continuities, as well as to point out certainironies in their historical manifestations.

The Cárdenas administration of the 1930s has often been notedfor its drive to "socialize" the impact of the education system at alllevels, in line with Vicente Lombardo Toledano's urging.16 Yet it isclear that Cárdenas saw the university as primarily "responsiblefor providing the technical skills and professional services thatwould support national production." In the six-year plan for his ad-ministration (1933), Cárdenas planned to give higher-technical edu-cation preference over the liberal professions. The final purpose ofthis shift in emphasis was to better "the material conditions of lifeof the Mexican people."17

Cárdenas's curious blend of humanistic and utilitarian aims forhigher education was clear in his sponsorship of the InstitutoPolitécnico Nacional (IPN). The IPN would accept more studentsfrom the working classes than the Universidad Nacional Autónomade México (UNAM) and would thus serve both to produce neededprofessionals and to open up professional careers to less-favoredMexicans. The IPN was brought under the umbrella of government

lsTechnical professions also provide a greater number of "lateral exits,"that is, an engineering student can leave the university at pre-degree levelswith skills that will enable him or her to find work.

16For discussion of the links between engineering and technical educa-tion and the social revolutionary aims of the Cárdenas administration, seeFrancisco Arce Gurza, "El inicio de una nueva era, 7910-1945" i¡ Historia delas prot'esiones, pp. 257 -260.

17Robies, Educación y sociedad, p. 159.

POLIC)'AND THE UNIVERSiTY SYSTEM 11

policy by Cárdenas in the late 1930s.18

Some of Cárdenas's economic policies presented major challengesfor university policy. The crisis surrounding the expropriation offoreign-owned oil industry in 1938, for example, provided a dra-matic stimulus to development of professional expertise in the late1930s and 1940s. The difficulties of technical adjustment followingthe expropriation startled Mexicans and underlined for policymak-ers the importance of the university's utilitarian function. Mexicansrealized the enormity of their dependence on foreign expertise andthe historical inability of Mexico's higher education system to pro-duce professionals capable of managing the exploitation of the coun-try's resources. At the time of the expropriation, the country's solepolitechnical institute had only been functioning for two years. Mex-ico was barely able to muster the domestic expertise necessary tokeep the oil industry running. Mexican technicians, hurriedlyrounded up after the expropriation, reconstructed daily activities inthe oil fields from worker recollections and proceeded from there toreconstruct one of Mexico's most important industries.

In the 1940s and early 1950s-during the administrations ofManuel Avila Camacho (1941-46), Miguel Alemán (1947-52), andAdolfo Ruiz Cortines (1953-58)-government economic developmentaims and higher education policy were successfully integrated forthe purpose of promoting "economic revolution." The programs ofthese administrations, especially those of Alemán and RuizCortines, created new needs for professionals, particularly technicaland administrative personnel for the public sector.

Both public- and private-sector demands for university gradu-ates were stimulated by the public projects of the stepped-up eco-nomic revolution under Alenlán and Ruiz Cortines: roads, dams, air-fields, bridges, highways, ports, public buildings, and electrical andirrigation works. Agricultural policies favoring medium and largeproducers stimulated the need for professionals to mechanize pro-duction; diversify cropsi introduce fertilizers, insecticides, betterseed, crop rotation techniques; as well as to manage rural credit andinvestment. The presidents responded to the greatly increased de-mand for professionals to plan and manage these projects by buildingthe giant new university campus (the Ciudad Universitaria) in the

18The IPN was seen also as a counterweight to the "reactionary" UNAMof liberal professions, which put up a great deal of opposition to Cárdenas'sprogram of socialist education.

1.2 CHAPTER ONE

south of the capital, by supporting the development of regional uni-versities, and by sending civil servants abroad to acquire advancedtraining.le

One scholar calls this era of integration the "Long Peace," forpolitical conflicts between the university and the state reached anall-time low in quantity and intensity. "Rather than a bastion ofconservatism and reaction out of which came guerrilla-like attackson cherished government programs, UNAM . . . became a partner inthe Revolution."20 It is interesting to note that the attitude ofUNAM had not changed; rather policy had become more conserva-tive, emphasizing rapid economic change and particularly industri-alization over social change.

Two aspects of the integration of government economic develop-ment policy and higher education policy are especially noteworthy.First, UNAM was reorganized under the "Caso" law of 7944 as a de-centralized state agency. That such a limitation of traditional uni-versity autonomy was possible indicates a basic harmony betweenuniversity and government goals. Second, university graduates werebrought into government in large numbers. President Alemán in par-ticular gave many university graduates high government positions.Alemán's support for the construction of the Ciudad Universitaria inthe south of Mexico City helped win over the students to the gov-ernment's aims.

As the period of relative harmony between the university andthe state ended in the late 1950s, Adolfo L6pez Mateos assumed thepresidency in 1958 with a call for university reform and stepped-upsocial programs. The end of the period of relative peace betweenthe university and the state was not characterized by a monolithicrelationship between two ideologically opposed sides. Student po-litical agitation became a problem for the government ". . . some-times because of its pro-Communist, pro-Castro, anti-American ap-peals, other times because of its anti-communist, pro-CatholicChurch, and anti-'atheistic' education appeals."zl The ambiguity of

19See Frank Brandenburg, The Making of Modern Mexico (EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 104, 108.

z0Mabry, Student Conflicts, pp. 189-273. Silva Herzog terms the 1948-66period the "Paz Cuasi Octaviana" in hís Llna historia de la llniz¡ersidad.Daniel Levy, in his Autonomy in an Authoritarian System, writes that the con-ventional image of chronically bad relations between university and state inthe 1940-66 period is grossly false.

2rBrandenburg, The Making of Modern Mexico, p. 114.

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

student pressure on the system was important because, as I suggest inthe following chapter, that pressure was due in good part to thechanging employment opportunities for professionals provided bythe Mexican economy.

From the beginning of the López Mateos administration into the1980s, the main theme of government higher education policy has

been "reform." Each six-year presidential administration has em-phasized reform of a university system seemingly beyond the controlof government policy and out of touch with economic and socialneeds. Tl're rhetoric of reform has not led to a fundamental restruc-turing of the higher education system, however.

The main problem affecting the university's role in economic de-velopment has been seen by Mexican leaders since the late 1950s as

the "massification," or the rapidly increasing student population ofuniversity campuses, caused by the dramatic growth of universityenrollment.2z By 1958, the demand for higher education createdduring the period of economic boom and integration during the 1940s

and 1950s had outstripped university capacityi strains on the systemhad become pronounced and were attributed by most observers toovercrowded campuses. The pressures of massification, frequentlyseen as a problem of the 1970s and 1980s, then, had come to a headas early as the late 1950s. These pressures grew during the 1960s

and forced their attention on the world with the violent clashes be-tween Mexican students and soldiers in 1968.

As demand for places in the university system grew, studentsclaimed that universities should open their doors wider and allowall applicants a place. They condemned the use of academic recordsor test scores to exclude them on the basis of their secondary schoolpreparation or tested aptitude for university-level study. Critics ofthe open-door policy contended that an open university would dam-age the quality of the university's product. Generally, students wonthe continuation of open enrollment procedures, low fees, and lowadmission standards.23

The increasing number of conflicts between students and the gov-ernment-between "university" and "state"-resulting from the pres-

22Eor a scholarly expression of this perception, see Robert E. Quirk,Mexico (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1,971,), p. 1,21.

23For an analysis of the role of the Left in forcing open-door admissionpolicies and lax achievement standards at Mexican universities, see OlacFuentes Molinar, "Universidad y democracia: La mirada hacia laizquierda," Cuadernos Políticos, 53 (January/April, 1981), 4-18.

13

14 CHAPTER ONE

sures of massification and the debates arising out of them, and par-ticularly the crises of 1958 and 7966-68, provided the main stimulusfor programs of reform under L6pez Mateos in the 1960s and underEcheverría in the 7970s.24 The emphasis on reform has taken vari-ous guises since 1958.

López Mateos, who entered office during a period of studentstrikes and violence, introduced an eleven-year plan for develop-ment of the education system soon after taking office. He increasedexpenditure on all levels of education over his three predecessors toits highest level since the 1930s (from 10.6 percent of governmentexpenditure under Cárdenas to an average of 11.5 percent during hisadministration). Planning and increased budgetary outlays weremanifestations of the belief that the problems of the education sys-tem stemmed in the first instance from growth in enrollment.

President Díaz Ordaz, who entered office in 7964, further em-phasized planning and expansion as the route to reform. More sothan López Mateos, Diaz Ordaz supported the economic importanceof university education, speaking of the ". necessity of Mexico toachieve high rates of intellectual investment in the formation oftechnicians, researchers, experts in administration . . . to foment . . .

education for economic development."25 With the government repres-sion of student-led protests in 7968, most of the positive attitudesproduced by the reform efforts of López Mateos and Díaz Ordaz dis-appeared.

President Echeverría, who had played a key role in the 7968 re-pression of the student movement, tried to resolve tensions betweenthe university and the government in two main ways. First,Echeverría promised a political opening for university-educated in-tellectuals and professionals-and he did give some posts to highlyeducated friends and important intellectuals.26 He also expanded

24For a narrative account of these student-state conflicts, see Mabry,Student Conflicts. For a more concise review, see Arthur Liebman, KennethN. Walker, and Myron Glazer, Latin American Llnittersity Students: A SixNatio_n Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1.972), pp. 179-200.

2sQuoted in Raúl Domínguez, El proyecto uniaersitario del-rictor BarrosSierra (estudio histórico) (México, D. F.: Centro de Estudios sobre laUniversidad, L986), p. 718.

26Echeverría also greatly expanded press freedom (until 1,976), givingintellectuals a greater voice, and released many politicai prisoners jailedduring the railway strike of 1958 and the student unrest of 1968. In a directmove to curry favor with students and their sympathizers, Echeverríaintervened on the side of students in a dispute at the Universidad

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

the grants program of CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia yTecnología), grants that allowed advanced Mexican students tostudy in the United States and Europe. Second, Echeverría sup-ported the creation of new public institutions of higher education inan attempt to reduce the political power and influence of UNAMand IPN. The Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) cam-puses, established in 1973, have concentrated on applied sciences,thus making up for a perceived deficiency in UNAM's productionand placing UAM in direct competition with IPN. The creation ofUAM considerably reduced the pressures of n'rassification on the twopublic university giants in the capital during the 1970s.

At the same time, Echeverría did not seek to change the basicstructure of the higher education system. Although his creation of a

political opening had the effect of alleviating the tension remain-ing from 1968, Echeverría supported an open-door enrollment policy,increasing pressure on an already strained physical plant. His basichigher education policy, in fact, was one of greatly increasing publicexpenditure in the hope of creating enough jobs to satisfy aspirantsto professional positions.2T

Echeverría continued to emphasize the twin goals of profes-sional training for economic advancement and university educationas a form of social mobility:

The contribution of education to development is obvious. It showsitself in the formation of qualified individuals, in the ability of apeople to absorb and produce technological innovation and raisethe level of productivity on the job. . . . Education also has direct ef-fects on socio-economic mobility.23

Under Echeverría, technical schooling was given a boost in orderto provide social mobility and to reduce pressure at the universitylevel. In 1970, when Echeverría took office, there were 70 technicaljunior secondary schools in Mexico; by 7975 there were 581.2e But theincrease in opportunities at the secondary level would later, in fact,lead to increased pressure on the universities: graduates of sec-ondary programs were not content to be technicians. Echeverría's at-

Autónoma de Nuevo León (June of 197Q).27In this connection, see "El progreso del país requiere que todos los

técnicos tengan trabajo: Echeverría," El Día,July 23, 1971.28luis Echeverría quoted in Brooke, Oxenham, and Little, Qualit'ications

and Em¡iloyment in Mexico, p.9.29Brooke, Oxenham, and Little, Quatifications and Employment in Mexico,

P. 10.

15

76 CHAPTER ONE

tempts in various fields to lay the basis for a "university of the

masses" served to expand the system to massive proportions.

losé López Portillo (7977-82), who presided over the oil boom of

the late 1970s and early 1980s, did not have to use educational pol-icy as a major policy tool to solve social and political problems.

Whereas Echeverría had used educational reforms to patch up

holes in the political fabric after the crisis of 7968, LÓpez Portillowas able to strengthen political alliances by forging agreements

with the private sector-with the Alliance for Production and witha short period of austerity after Echeverría's spendthrift last years.

After a year of austerity (1,977), major oil finds were announced and

revenue from petroleum exports flooded the treasury. The consequent

hiring boom in both public and private sectors made the mismatch

between the university system and society apPear a less than imme-

diate concern. The faith in a seemingly bottomless oil resource (and

a ceilingless world price level for oil) led Mexican leaders to base

the major economic development plan of the early 1980s-theGlobal Development Plan-squarely upon oil financing. Universitvreform did not seem as urgent in the early 1980s as it had at the be-

ginning of the 1970s.

The theme of university reform returned with the economic cri-

sis of the 1980s. The universities themselves began an unprecedented

process of self-criticism, with the maior public universities releasing

such documents as "The Strengths and Weaknesses of the UNAM,""Programs and Goals of the IPN, 1986-88," and the "Plan forInstitutional Development" of the UAM system. ln 7986, ANUIES,

the nationai university association, introduced its ideas of necessary

reforms in an "Integral Plan for the Development of HigherEducation" (known by its Spanish acronym PROiDES).

Shortly after taking office, President de la Madrid introduced a

policy to modernize higher education which had as its centerpiece

the geographical decentralization of university opportunities, withcosts shifted to the states. The university would be streamlined to

match the new, "modernized" Mexican economy that would emerge

with privatization and freer trade. The de la Madrid administra-tion claimed that decentralization of opportunities would benefitboth the professionals and the regional economies of the provinces,

which had historically suffered from a lack of local higher educa-

tional opportunities. But the aim to decentralize higher educational

costs ignored the fact that the states did not have the financial re-

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

sources to fund a geographical substitution of higher-educationalopportunities.30

As he attempted to reshape industrial production to make

Mexico competitive in the world economy, de la Madrid reinforced

the idea of the economic utility of university education. The univer-sities were to be reformed because a Mexican economy truly competi-

tive in the world market would need a great number of highly qual-

ified professionals. This reform was developed in part by de laMadrid's secretary of planning, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the ar-

chitect of the legal basis for dismantling the state's involvement inthe economy.

Salinas, who succeeded de la Madrid as president in 1988, car-

ried forward the privatization and internationalization of the

Mexican economy in an effort to restart sustained economic growth,seeking to open the traditionally closed economy. As he moved to

free the economy from the state, from corruption, and from ineffi-ciency, he took the same actions for the university system. Salinas

stimulated private universities by various measures, including bring-ing large numbers of privately educated professionals into his ad-

ministration. For the public universities, he established an informalsystem of incentives and penalties. Universities that supported gov-

ernment initiatives by tailoring their programs to government needs

and orientations were rewarded with budgetary allocations thatkept up with inflation; universities that encouraged advanced re-

search in the right fields were granted special salary supports foractive researchers.

Under Salinas, ideas for dramatic changes at the public univer-sities never before openly discussed emerged into the policy arena-limiting the size of the student body, raising fees, seeking nongov-

ernment sources of funding, and establishing closer ties with the

needs of the business community. Many of these ideas resulted fromclose consultations with foreign education experts. In the potentiallymost far reaching move, Salinas's team suggested changes to Article3 of the Constitution of 1917, which had guided education policy forover seventy years, to provide a legal framework for reform of the

entire education system.

30On de la Madrid's educational policies, see Daniel Morales-Gómezand Carlos Alberto Torres, The State, Corporatist Politics, and Educational PolicyMaking in Mexico (New York: Praeger, 1990), pp.70-74.

17

18 CHAPTER ONE

Trends in University Graduates, Egresados,and Degrees Registered since 1929

Quantitative data on the university system's primary function-producing graduates-provide a window both on the policymakingenvironment and on the economic development that informed thatenvironment. Trends in the data allow us to establish the universitysystem's response to the priorities of policymakers, the needs of the

economy, and demands for social mobility.This study introduces three basic data series on the output of

Mexican universities. The development of professional and technical

expertise by Mexican universities is measured by the number of per-

sons who have:1. received a licentiate degree,31

2. completed coursework for a licentiate degree but left the uni-versity without completing the required thesis or project forthe degree (a person at this stage is called an egresado), or

3. registered a licentiate degree with the Mexican govern-ment.32

These three categories of university-trained persons (partially uni-versity-trained persons in the case of egresados) are used here as

indicators of overall production of professional-level and technician-level skills by Mexican universities. The three series overlap insome years, making cross-checking possible and providing a way toassess the character and accuracy of each indicator.

The three series developed here reveal two important aspects of

educating professionally skilled persons for economic development inMexico. First, they reveal the number of professionals produced in a

given year in specific areas of professional expertise. Second andmore significant, the indicators represent evidence of career deci-sions made by students-decisions based on government rhetoricabout the shape of the Revolution and actual employment opportu-nities created by the unfolding economic development process. Thissecond aspect of the significance of the data used here makes neces-

sary the incorporation of a six-year time lag (the lag between thetime a student makes a career choice and his or her aPpearance as a

31The Mexican Iicentiate degree is roughiy comparableof Arts or Bachelor of Science degree in the United States,tionally oriented.

32For further definition and discussion of these threeChapter Three.

to the Bachelorbut more voca-

indicators, see

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

statistic) for analysis of long-term trends in the data.

Data on the degrees granted by Mexican universities allow us to

analyze the 70-year period from 1900 to 7977. For the period from

1900 to 7927 data are aggregate thus making it impossible to discern

year-to-year changes among career fields. ln 7928, the data begin on

a yearly basis and in 7940 the data become more detailed, allowingfor more accurate analysis of shifts between fields.

The evidence of the first indicator of long-term trends in profes-

sional education (Table 1)33 can be summarized as follows. The ab-

solute number of professionals educated in the Revolution's early pe-

riod was not striking. The number of professionals graduating fromMexican universities averaged approximately 300 Per year between1901 and 7927. But with the consolidation of political peace and the

rebuilding of the economy in the late 7920s, the professional fields

expanded quantitatively at a rapid rate' By 7940, the number ofgraduating university students had grown to more than three times

the average for the years between 1901 and 1927.

Between 1928 and 1940, the basic pattern of field concentrationsin degrees granted continued without radical change. Health, law,and engineering continued to account for almost nine-tenths of alluniversity graduates. The only notable change in the period was

seen in degrees for secondary-school and university teaching, whichgrew from a low average of 1.3 percent between 1930 and 1934 to an

average of 8.1 percent between 1935 and 1939. The similarity infield concentrations to earlier patterns implies that little structuralchange in the Mexican economy occurred during the late 1920s orearly 1930s.

Both the pace of quantitative growth in the number of profes-

sionals educated at Mexican universities and the relationshipamong professional fields changed dramatically around 1940. From

an average of 570 between 1.928 and L934 and 977 under Cárdenas,

the number of degrees granted yearly to graduating students climbedto 7,599 under Avila Camacho, to 2,776 under Alemán, to 3,405 underRuiz Cortines, to 4,743 under López Mateos, and to 8,326 under Diaz

Ordaz.The quantitative expansion of degrees granted by Mexican uni-

versities after 7940 suggests that the universities responded to asharply increased demand for professionals after the beginning of

33The statistical tables referred to in parentheses are found in ChapterFour below.

19

20 CHAPTER ONE

Mexico's industrial revolution. High growth rates through the end

of the Second World War suggest that the number of graduatingstudents increased rapidty as the Mexican economy expanded fromthe late 1930s through the mid-1940s.

After 1940 the dominance of the historically most importantprofessional groups was sharply curtailed with the rise of business

and the increasing importance of engineering. Health fell steadilyfrom a high of almost 60 percent of all degrees in 7929 to a low of21.4 percent in 1977. Law, which maintained a high average of al-most 30 percent until 1940, saw its share decrease to less than halfthat share thereafter. While it is commonly thought that the legal

profession remains the dominant profession in Mexico, it is clear

from these data that law was never as important as medicine, andthat as early as the 1950s law had fallen behind both medicine and

engineering in importance. By 7971,,business too overtook law in im-portance.

Of particular interest in the three decades after 1.940 is the sud-den quantitative takeoff of degrees granted in the business fieldafter L940. The yearly rate of growth of business was 13.0 percentfor the period between 1940 and 7971., significantly higher than the8.4 percent annual growth in all other fields. From under 6 percentof all degrees in 7947, business grew to 20.0 percent in 7977.34

The data imply that the process of economic development inMexico underwent a major shift in orientation in the years iust be-

fore 7940, and in response professional career fields shifted dramati-cally from the pattern established in the late nineteenth century.The mid-1960s saw the beginning of another very rapid overallquantitative expansion of the number of degrees granted and also ofsignificant shifts among professional career fields. A significantshift in economic and social development left its mark in the dataduring the mid-1960s and can be dated roughly (taking into account

a six-year time lag) to the late 1950s.

The series on university egresados (Tables 2 and 3) shows thatin the two decades between 7967 and 1989, there was a dramaticquantitative expansion in the number of egresados as large numbersof students left Mexican universities having completed all course-work. The total number of egresados of all professional fields in-

34Compound rates of change calculated with the following formula:annual rate equals antilog of (log(Pn/P6)/n), minus 1, where Ps equals theoriginal population and P¡ equals the population after n years.

POLICY AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

creased nine times during this short period. The data reveal twoimportant trends in the period between 1,967 and 1986. Egresados

were leaving Mexican universities in large numbers although therate at which they left decreased over the course of the period,from a high rate of 105.3 percent under Echeverría to a low of 22.4

percent under de la Madrid. At the same time, there was a remark-able stability in the relative importance of the numerically mostsignificant fields-business, engineering, and health,

Summarizing the evidence on egresados, we can say that after1.970, in contrast to the earlier period between 1940 and 7970, theMexican economy underwent no fundamental shifts in makeup or di-rection that in turn would stimulate shifts in the fields of profes-sional study at Mexican universities. Field concentrations main-tained the pattern set after the late 1950s. One key conclusion thatcan be derived from the egresados data is that the reaction on thepart of universities to the student movement and repression of 1968,

Mexico's most important post-l940 political crisis, was reflected inquantitative changes in enrollment and graduation rather than inrelative shifts among professional fields.

Data on degrees registered (Tables 4 and 5) show that between7970 and 1985, registrations of professional degrees grew particu-larly fast in three professional fields: health, engineering, andbusiness. Law underwent a notable decline, from a high of 74.2 per-cent of all degrees registered ín 1.970 to a low at the end of the pe-riod of 6.3 percent.3s

The data on degrees registered make clear the importance ofpublic-sector employment in stimulating professional study in spe-

cific areas, for registration of a degree is necessary for employmentin the public sector. The rapid quantitative expansion of degreesregistered in the 7970s in good part reflects the rapid increase inpublic-sector hiring in that period. Engineering and health domi-nate the professional fields represented, and they are the twofields most in demand by government agencies involved in the pro-vision of health care, public construction works, publicly owned orfinanced economic infrastructure, and parastatal industrial ventures.As shown above, the health and engineering professions are not as

prominent in the other two data series.Two trends span the entire period for which data have been de-

35See Chapter Three of this study for notes on the adoption of an ap-propriate time lag for Mexico.

21.

22 CHAPTER ONE

veloped here. First there is the rapid rise to Prominence of new

fields such as business and engineering. Second, and simultaneouswith this striking upward trend for new career areas, is the steady

long-term decline of the traditionally most important career area inMexico: law. Legal experts and health professionals together domi-nated Mexico's professional profile from the late nineteenth centuryto the late 1930s. By the mid-1980s, Iaw claimed less than half ofthe share it held before 1940 and had fallen to fourth place behind

business, engineering, and health in terms of relative importance.36

The key point of change within the course of these two trends

came in the late 1930s. The nature of shifts among career fields ap-

pears to reflect shifts in the orientation of the course of economicdevelopment at that time, as business professionals and engineers

rose to prominence afterward.3TData on the number of professionally skilled Mexicans in the

general population (Table 7) indicate that Mexican universities suc-

ceeded in producing professionals at a rate greater than the rate ofpopulation growth after 7929. Although dipping down to around the

level of population growth in the iate 1940s and 1950s, the overallgrowth rate far exceeded population growth over the period. This isa great accomplishment indeed given the extremely high rate ofgrowth of the Mexican population in the years between 1940 and

7970.Gaps between the different indicators of the development of

professional expertise suggest a very significant trend (Tables 8 and9): professional-level graduates have been outnumbered by techni-cian-level degree-holders since the mid-1950s. Additionally, a ratioof at least two egresados for every degree registered has existedsince the 7970s. These data imply that the Mexican economy has

been creating relatively more positions at the lower technicianlevel than at the upper professional level since at least the 1950s.

36Table 6 summarizes the long-term growth trends for all three indica-tors.

3TTables 10-18 in Chapter Four present data on professionals organizedinto social and economic areas of impact and detailed data on the engineer-ing fietd. On the correiation between government policy priorities andprofessional fields, see Lorey, The Uniztersity System and EconomicDeaelopment, Chapter Three. On engineering, see Lorey, "The Developmentof Engineering Expertise for Economic and Social Modernization in Mexicosince 1929," in James W. Wilkie, ed., Society and Economy in Mexico, pp.71-702.

POLICY AND THE UNlVERSITY SYSTEM

The identification of this trend provokes crucial questions about thestructure of Mexican economic growth and the function of higl-rer ed-ucation in Mexico after 1929, topics to be examined at length in thefollowing chapter.

ConclusionsOriginai time-series data on the number of graduates of Mexican

universities and their fields of study reveal the basic quantitativedimensions of professional training in Mexico after 7929. The univer-sity system expanded rapidly to produce large numbers of graduatesand egresados as Mexico entered a period of sustained economicgrowth by the 1940s that lasted well into the 1970s. The 1970s and1980s saw drarnatic leaps in the number of professionais leaving theuniversity system and entering the job rnarket.

At the same time that universities rapidly increased their out-put, there were important shifts in the field concentrations of grad-uates which reflected the changing policy emphases of Mexicanpresidential administrations. If the demand of Mexican leaders forprofessional expertise has been met to a significant degree, what ofthe demand expressed by the economy for professional skills? Whatsorts of professionals has the Mexican economy needed since 1,929?

And wirat has been the university's response to this demand?

23

CHAPTER TWO

The University System andEconomic Development:Graduates and EmploYment

The Mexican university system has been accused by many observers

of being unable to educate the professionals that the Mexican eco-

omy needs-both in specific fields and at different levels of exper-

tise. The common perception has been that Mexican universitiesproduce too many graduates of "traditional" fields (too many

lawyers and not enough engineers and scientists) and too few gradu-

ates of high quality.l By the 1960s, such criticisms had become cen-

1See, for example, Frank Brandenburg, The Making of Modern Mexico(Englewood Cliffs:-Prentice-Hall, "1964), PP. 240-241; Donald B. Keesing,"str"uctural Change Early in Development: Mexico's Ch-anging Industrialand Occupational-Structure from 1895 to '1950," lournal of Economic-Histoly,29, no.4'(December, 1969),716-738; Peter Gregoty, The Myth of MarketFa.ilure: Employment and the Labor Market in Mexico (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Univérsity Press, 1986); José Angel Pescador Osuna, "EI balance de

h éducación srrperio. en el sexenio 1976-1,982," in UAP- Perspectiztas de la

educación superioV en México (Puebla: UAP,1984), pP.!1-97; -ry9ward.F. Cline,

Mexico: ReaóIution to Eoolution, 1940-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press,

1963), p.204; Pablo Latapi, Análisis de un sexenio de educación en México, 1.970-

1976 (México, D.F.: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1980), PP' 207-208; MariaEsther Ibarra, "Decide Ia SEP que se encojan las universidades," Proceso,

September 29, 1986, p. 19; Noél F. McGinn and Susan L. Street, Hig.herEducation Policíes in Mexico (Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies,university of Texas at Austin, 1980), p. 1. The Mexican press.is full of articles

claiming álternately that the universily produces "t9o m-anyl and "too few"professi*onals in córtain fields: see, foi example- Deirdre Fretz,."Wanted:hngineers," Mexico Journal, November 1,3, 1'989, -pp,

25-26;.Isabel LlinasZáíate, ,,La universidad ha cumplido con creces después de la revolución:Luis E. Todd," Llnomásuno, Januáry 28, L990, p. 2; "Méxíco necesita 300 milprofesionistas por año, para asegurar su crecimiento," Ocho Columnas

25

CHAPTER TWO

tral to perceptions of a "university crisis"; by the 1970s, voices inboth public and private sectors were calling for closer cooperationbetween the universities and the economy.2

In this chapter I suggest that the logic of this standard view isfiawed. Contrary to the generally accepted wisdom, the equationworks the other way around: the Mexican economy has been unableto provide enough professional-level jobs for university graduatessince at least the late 1950s. Because it cannot shape the job marketfor professionals, the university system has had to adapt itself to a

historical reality of increasingly scarce opportunities for graduatesin relative terms.

Issues of supply and demand are approached here by examiningavailable data on the Mexican economy's expressed need for univer-sity graduates and trends in the university system's production ofgraduates in specifc fields and at specific levels of expertise. Theevolution of Mexico's occupational structure in the twentieth centuryprovides clues to the nature of the relationship between the univer-sity system and the economy and sheds light on how this relation-ship has changed over time.

Mexico's Changing Occupational StructureIt is surprising that few scholars have concerned themselves

with the occupations of Mexicans in the twentieth century. Few un-derlying structures of every day life are more important in socialand political terms than how people are employed, at which levelsand within which economic sectors. .What have been the most im-portant historical changes in what Mexicans do for their livings,and what do these changes imply about Mexican economic develop-ment in the twentieth century?

While shifts of the Mexican labor force among economic sectorshave been much studied, and we know that there has been a long-term trend from employment in agriculture to employment in indus-

(Guadalajara, Jalisco), October 75, 1989; "Mexican Higher EducationDegrees," translation of a¡ticle frorn La lornada, October 6, 7989, in U.S.-Mexico Report 8, no. 11 (November, 1989), p. 1,2; and Mario García Sordo,"Desempleados o subempleados, más de 90 mil agrónomos," El Financiero,October 5, 1988, p.39.

2See, for example, "EI sector educativo debe preparar cuadros técnicosacorde con las necesidades del país: CANACINTRA," Llnomósuno,June26,1987, p. 14.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

try and services,3 little is known about historical changes in the

hierarchy of occupations. Data developed for this study from the

Mexican census are presented here in condensed graphic form to give

an at-a-glance view of basic twentieth-century trends in Mexican oc-

cupational structure.4 While data in the statistical tables providecomprehensive coverage for the period from 1900 to 1980, the focus

here is on the period from 1950 through 1980, for which data are

both more reliable and easier to arrange into comparable sets.

Figure 1 shows that in the period between 1950 and 1980 the

percentage of professionals and technicians in Mexican economically

active population (EAP) grew from 2.5 percent to 7.4 percent.

Figure 1. Professionals, Technicians, and Ma-na-gers in- Economically Active Population, 1950-80

ffi Prof. and Tech. E Prof., Tech., andManagement

Sounc¡: Table 22.

Combining the percentage of persons in the management of pub-

lic- and private-sector enterprises with professionals and techni-

cians, we get a rough figure for all professionals in EAP of 3.3 in7950, 4.5 in 7960, 8.1 in 7970, and 8.6 in 1980. Whichever of these

3See Table 19. Considerable study has also been devoted to questions ofunemployment and underemployment in Mexico. See Donald B. Keesing,"Empioyinent and Lack of Employment in Mexico, 1'900-70," in James W'Wilkie ánd Kenneth Ruddle, eds., Quantitatiae Latin American Studies (Los

Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1977), pp. 3-21; andGregory, The Myth of Market Fnilure.

aFor 1980, I refer to the estimated totals in Table22. For notes on the in-terpretation of census data on occupational level, see Chapter Three below.

27

987654J

21

0

28 CHAPTER TWO

measures we take as most accurate, the share of all professionals inMexican society doubled in the course of the 30-year period in ques-tion.

There are two ways to disaggregate the data to examine moreclosely professionals and the sectors of their activity. Figure 2 pre-sents data on the percentage distribution of professionals among dif-ferent economic sectors. (The primary economic sector includes agri-culture, livestock, and forestry; the secondary sector includes mining,industry, construction, and electricity; the tertiary sector includestransportation/ commerce, services, and government.) It is no surprisethat professionals are located overwhelmingly in service occupa-tions. It is noteworthy, however, that, as more professionals enteredindustry, the share of professionals in services declined in thethirty years between 1950 and 1980, from 81.2 in 1950, to 68.6 in1960, to 72.2 in 7970, to 63.9 in 1980.

Figure 2. Professionals and Technicians in Services andManufacturing, 1950-80(Percent of All Professionals and Technicians)

90

80

70

ñ50

40

30

20

10

0

1.960 1,970

ffi Services E Manufacfuring

SoURC¡: Table 22.

Data on the percentage share of professionals of all EAP withintwo key economic sectors are presented in Figure 3. While the per-centage of professionals in all sectors grew steadily from 2.5 percentin 1950 to 7.4 percent in 1980 (as noted above), professionals in ser-

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

vices remained almost level as a share of all EAP in services be-tween 1950 and 1970, at an average below 20 percent, and thenjumped to 25.9 percent in 1980. The growth of the share of profes-sionals and technrcians in the manufacturing sector grew rapidlyover the same period, from less than 2 percent of all EAP in 1950 tomore than 9 percent in 1980.5

Figure 3. Professionals in All Economic Sectors, in Manufacturing,and in Services, 1950-80(Percent of Economically Active Population in Each Sector)

1950 1960 1970

ffi Total E Manufacturing W Services

SouRCs: Table 23.

The Demand of the Mexican Economy forUniversity Graduates

The simplest way to measure the relationship between changingdemand for professionals in the Mexican economy and universityproduction of professionals is to compare data on the sectoral distri-bution of professionals and technicians within the economically ac-tive population (EAP) with data on university graduates.6 IfMexican universities respond sluggishly and inefficiently to changesin employment opportunities for graduates, then there should be anobvious lack of adjustment between changes in professional employ-

5For data on professionals empioyed in the public sector (by field), seeTabie 29.

6The comparison can be made too simply. See Latapí, Antílisis de unsexenio, pp.207-208.

29

30

25

20

15

10

CHAPTER TWO

ment in EAP and shifts in career-field concentrations. On the otherhand, if the universities' education of professionals has historicallyfollowed the lead of the economy, then EAP and university outputshould match relatively closely over time.

Professionals can be organized into primary, secondary, and ter-tiary economic sectors by using sample professions as indicators ofthe different sectors (Table 24). The primary economic sector(agriculture) is represented in the tables by agricultural engineering;the secondary sector (mining, industry, construction, and electricity)is represented by engineering fields other than agricultural engi-neering; the tertiary sector (transportation, commerce, services, andgovernment) is represented by business, health, economics, and law. 7

Comparison of the data on EAP by economic sector (Table 24)and university education (Tables 25 and 26) reveals a strikinglyclose fit between the evolution of professional EAP and the generalcareer areas of professionals. Data on both professional employmentand university output, for example, show that there has been a

long-term decline in the share of professionals employed in the ter-tiary, or services, sector. While the share of professionals employedin this sector declined from 81.2 percent in 1950 to 63.9 percent in1980 (as noted above), university graduates in sample fields in theservices sector fell from 91.5 percent of degrees granted in 1950 to81.4 percent of egresados and 72.7 percent of degrees registered in1980. Data on university graduates confirm that this decline in rela-tive importance of the services sector was due principally to a risein the percentage of professionals educated and employed in thesecondary, or industrial, sector. Training of professionals for theprimary sector and professional employment in that sector show a

rise from 1950 to 1960 and a gradual decline thereafter.These data shed light on demand and supply for general areas

of professional expertise: What about demand for university gradu-ates in specific professional fields? A straightforward way to gaugedemand for specific professional skills is to examine the employ-ment of professionals with that skill. Detailed data on occupa-tional structure in the 1950 and 1980 censuses allow comparison be-tween employment of professionals in basic professional fields anduniversity graduates and egresados (graduates in 1950, egresados in1980) in those fields.

TFor a detailed breakdown of professionals included in the three sec-tors, see Chapter Four below.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

A comparison of data on employment and data on the fields of

study of university graduates (Table 27) shows that the fit between

fields such as engineering, health, law, and teaching was close in

1950 and remained close in 1980. The data actually indicate a clos-

ing of the gap by 1980: the university system has apparently become

increasingly in tune with employment opportunities in the Mexican

economy over time. This comparison bears out the conclusions drawn

from the above comparison of EAP and university graduates in three

broad economic sectors.

The close fit betr,r,'een these two data sets is extremely signifi-cant. It indicates a long-term confluence between the demand ex-

pressed by the Mexican economy for professionals to fill certain oc-

cupational niches in the economy and university production of pro-fessionals in the needed fields. The implicit cooperation between

the university system and the employers of professionals has notgrown worse in the period from 1950 to 1980. The data suggest that

signals about the field distribution of job opportunities are avail-able to students and are relatively accurate. (until recently fewMexican universities have had career counseling programs.) The

economy's demand appears to be clear, and students career choices

appear to be in line with that demand.s This conclusion contrasts

sharply with dominant conceptions of the university-economy nexus

and of a university crisis.

The Demand for Technicians versus ProfessionalsIn addition to its demand for general areas and specific fields of

professional expertise, the economy exPresses needs for differentleuels of expertise. The major division to be considered here is that

between professionals and technicians, both of which groups are in-creasingly trained at the university level in Mexico. In this study, Iemploy two definitions of professionals and technicians, one based

on function in the workplace, the other based on the structure of the

Mexican education system.In the context of the workplace, a professional is a person

equipped with both general knowledge and the ability to applythis knowledge to change the production or management environ-ment by increasing productivity, introducing innovations, or spread-

ing attitudes and techniques. A technician's main function in the

8Data on the state of Nuevo León allow us to consider the relationshipon a regional level (Table 28).

31

32 CHAPTER TWO

workplace, in contrast, is to apply specific techniques learnedthrough the educational process. With regard to the university,"professionals" are graduates with a licentiate or higher degree.(See below, however, where I suggest that over time a growing por-tion of degree-holders have found it necessary to work as techni-cians.) "Technicians" are graduates of upper secondary, non-collegepreparatory courses, those students who leave the university systemby way of a "lateral exit" or "short course" of study, and the por-tion of egresados of university careers that never achieves the licen-tiate degree.e

The difference between professionals and technicians is not to be

confused with differences in economic sector of employment: sector isnot the same as occupational level.1O Intersectoral shifts in EAP arehighly misleading if used to gauge historical shifts in the level ofoccupations of the work force. A close examination of census cate-gories shows that a very large proportion of workers in communica-tions, commerce, and industry, for example, have always been self-employed mule-drivers, shopkeepers, and artisans.ll These areclearly not "professionals" by the definitions employed here. (The

most difficult category to analyze is services. Clearly, many serviceoccupations are not "modern sector" jobs but rather domestic workersof various types, as well as sellers of Kleenex and Chiclets on streetcorners. Shifts from occupations in agriculture to jobs in services andindustry-the so-called modern sectors-do not necessarily indicaterapid growth of professional occupational niches.)

What has been the relationship between employed professionalsand technicians over time? This relationship is of the first impor-tance because the ratio between the two groups, and how that ratio

9For further discussion of these working definitions, see Chapter Threebelow.

1OMany analysts equate sectoral distribution and occupational struc-ture: see, for example, A. J. Jaffe, People, lobs, and Economic Deaelopment: ACase History of Puerto Rico Supplemented by Recent Mexican Experiences(Glencoe, Il: The Free Press of Glencoe lllinois, 1959), p. 109 and passim;and Jorge A. Padua, "Movilidad social y universidad," in Gilberto GuevaraNiebla, La crisis de la educación superior en México (México, D.F.: NuevaImagen, 1981), pp. L31.-L32.

11For an early analysis, see Frank Tannenbaum, Mexico: The Struggte forPeace and Bread (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall , 1.950), pp. 195-196 (analysisof.7940 census data). For an analysis of shifts in the services sector and whatthey mean, see Gregory, The Myth ot' Market Failure, Appendix to ChapterOne.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

has evolved over time, reveals a great deal about the nature of eco-

nomic development in Mexico since 1929. The history of the devel-oped economies is characterized in general by the creation over timeof large numbers of posiiions at the professional level in both abso-

lute and relative terms.12

While both professionals and technicians have made up an in-creasing part of Mexico's economically active population since 1950

(as indicated in the data discussed above), census data for 1950 and

1980 reveal that the two levels have not grown at the same rate.

The data imply that Mexican economic development has created a

differentially greater demand for technicians compared to profes-sionals over time (Table 30). While positions for professionals grew477.8 percent between 1950 and 1980, those for technicians grew1,055.3 percent, annual rates of 5.6 and 8.5 percent.l3

The Mexican economy has thus developed in a way that has ledto limited job creation at a very important level of the occupationalladder. And the absorption of professionals is, if anything, overes-timated in the census data because the data reflect to some extentthe supply of professionals as well as demand.la That is, because

the census is based on informants' responses/ some university gradu-ates will call themselves professional even though they are notworking as professionals.

We can compare the rates of growth for employment positionsfor professionals and technicians in the census data with the rates

12ldeally, of course, numerous technicians should be educated to sup-port each professional. But the ratio in Mexico by 1980 seems unusuallylarge. The ratio in the United States in 1985 was 1.5 technicians for each pro-fessional, whereas that for Mexico (as determined above) was almost twicethat at 2j to 1in 1980. See Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987, pp.385-386. For a brief sketch of the U.S. case, see the discussion of John K.Folger and Charles B. Nam, "Education of the American Population," inIvar Berg, EdtLcation and lobs: The Great Training Robbery (Boston: BeaconPress, 1971), pp. 66-68.

l3Compound rates of change calculated u,ith the following formula:annual rate equals antilog of (1og(Pn/Po),/n), minus 1, where Pe equals theoriginal population and Pr-t equals the population after n year. The censusdata do not allow for calculation of implicit annual growth rates of pro-fessional and technician EAP by decade.

lalt is probably impossible to ascertain the extent of overlap in the caseof Mexico given available data. It is not easy to ascertain even in the case ofthe United States, with the availability of rich statistical resources. SeeFolger and Nam, "Education of the American Population," in Berg,Education and lobs, pp. 66-67.

JJ

CHAPTER TWO

of production of professionals at Mexican universities (Table 31).Between 1950 and 1.960, the number of degrees granted in ail profes-sional fields grew 75.1 percent; between 1960 and 7970, the number ofdegrees granted grew 232.7 percent. Between 7970 and 1980 the num-ber of egresados grew 267.9 percent, while degrees registered grew149.1 percent.

The growth rate of degrees granted was matched fairly closelyby the growth rate of professionals until 1960. Between 1950 and1980 the annual growth rate of professional EAP was 5.6 percentcompared to 5.8 percent for degrees granted between 1950 and 1960.

Between 1960 and 1970, however, the number of degrees grantedgrew at an annual rate of 72.4 percent. The annual rate of growth ofdegrees granted for the entire period from 1950 to 7970 was 9.0 per-cent.

By the 7960s, the universities were clearly producing graduatesat a rate well above the rate of job creation for professionals in theMexican economy. The number of degrees registered grew at an an-nual rate of 11.0 percent between 7975 and 1980, very close to thegrowth experienced by degrees granted in the 1960s.15 The growthrate of egresados, in contrast, was significantly higher than that ofeither degrees granted or degrees registered and thus seems to re-flect the higher growth of positions for technicians. While thenumber of positions for technicians in EAP grew at an annual rate of8.5 percent between 1950 and 1980, egresados grew at an average an-nual rate of 13.9 percent between 1967 and 1,980.

The data thus indicate that employment for technicians grewmuch more rapidly than for professionals after 1950. The growthrates of technicians and professionals in EAP were mirrored in thegrowth rates of egresados and degrees granted and registered. Itseems clear that the major difference between university egresadosand university degree holders in ihe job market is that egresadosare more likely than graduates with degrees to be employed at thetechnician level.

Analysis of various data sets on professionals and technicianspoints to four general conclusions. First, the ability of the Mexicaneconomy to absorb university graduates at the professional level hasnot grown as fast as the number of university students entering pro-

15It is necessary to restrict consideration to the 1,975-80 period for reg-istrations because changes in regulations caused a major surge in degreesregistered between 1974 and 7975.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

fessional courses of study. Second, the demand for technicians has

grown at a much faster rate than that for professionals. Third, the

universities have produced both professionals and technicians at

rates significantly greater than the rate of job creation. Fourth, the

mismatch between demand and output and the differentiallygreater demand for technicians than for professionals appears tohave been particularly marked since the late 1950s.

The data allow us to sketch the long-term trends. Until the late

1950s, the expanding industrial and commercial sectors, and thegrowing state apparatus, absorbed the bulk of the universities' pro-duction of professionals relatively easily. The perception of ob-servers in the late 1950s that there was a shortage of engineers,

business managers, highly skilled workers, and scientists was gener-ally correct.l6 Demand for engineers and business managers was

especially high as government policy focused economic developmentefforts on industrialization and the modernization of commercialnetworks. The fact that many persons working at the technician and

lower occupational levels were promoted to professional positionsimplies a vacuum at the professional level during this period.17

Government employment of professionals accounted for a largepart of the professional employment boom from the time of the in-stitutionalization of the Revolution in 7929 forward. Professionalemployment in the public sector received its first real boost withthe rise of the active state in the late 1920s and in the 1930s underCárdenas. The expansion of state employment benefited a broadcross section of Mexican society, but particularly the professionallytrained offspring of the growing middle sectors. The infrastructureprojects of the early years of Mexico's economic revolution-landdistribution, banking, transportation, and irrigation and the estab-

lishment of myriad government agencies and enterprises-required agreat many skilled persons for management and direction. The pub-lic sector needed professionals with experience in "modern produc-tion engineering, in the careful computation of costs and returns, inmarket analysis, in the scientific appraisal of alternative opportu-

16See Brandenburg, The Making of Modern Mexico, pp. 232-233; andClark Reynolds, The Mexican Economy: Twentieth-Centtrry Structure andGrowtlt (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970), pp.236-238.

17See William P. Glade, "Revolution and Economic Development: AMexican Reprise," in William P. Glade and Charles W. Anderson, ThePolitical Economy ot' Mexico (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963),pp.87-88.

35

36 CHAPTER TWO

nities."18 The demand for professionals for public-sector bankingservices was an important stimulus to professional education, for ex-

ample, as the government established a string of credit institutionsto finance economic development between 7935 and 1957.

Since the late 1950s, there has been a decline in the ability ofthe economy to produce jobs for professionals at the rate that stu-dents have been leaving the universities. This decline in profes-

sional hiring relative to the supply of university graduates and

egresados is seen both in the census data and in data on the number

of university graduates. Increasing numbers of university graduates

and egresados had to find work not as professionals but as techni-cians. By the 1970s, the reduced ability of the economy to produceprofessional jobs led to overt government concern under PresidentEcheverría. Echeverría attempted to stimulate the direct creationof employment at the professional level in the private sector and at

the same time greatly expanded public-sector job opportunities foruniversity graduates.le

The post-1950 trend of increasingly depressed demand for profes-sionals as compared to technicians is related to three main charac-

teristics of the historical development of the Mexican economy thatshaped professional employment in the public and private sectors.

These three factors, and others of less importance, worked in concert

to influence major changes in the university system's functioningafter the late 1950s.

First, employment opportunities for professionals were restrictedby historically high levels of protection of Mexican industry.Protection of manufacturing concerns had its roots in the Porfiriato;protection under the Institutionalized Revolution began in earnest inthe late 1930s and increased rapidly and steadily until the mid-1980s. Mexican industries received a wide range of protective covers,

particularly overvalued exchange rates from the early 1940s

through 1954, quantitative control of imports thereafter, and gener-

ous tax breaks and implicit subsidies throughout. The employment-

l8ciade, "Revolution and Economic Development," pp. 45-47.19This basic trend in the employment opportunities for professionals is

partially related to the general inability by the 1960s of the Mexican econ-omy to create jobs at the rate of population growth. Unemployment at allIevels rose, although it is difficult to ascertain rates of unemployment by oc-cupation owing to the nature of census and other official data. See Robert E.Looney, Mexico's Economy: A Policy Analysis with Forecasts to 1990 (Boulder:Westview Press, 7978), p. 61.

J/GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

creating effects of the dynamic economic growth after 1.940, growth

which was engendered by such protective policies, were much di-

minished by the 1,970s, a fact reflected in Echeverría's stopgap at-

tempts to slow decreasing employment at the professional level.

Protection from domestic and international competition allowed

Mexican industry to produce goods with outmoded equipment, mini-

mal investment for research and development, and limited innova-

tion: protection limited the need for new technology and associated

professional knowledge,20 Limited spending for research and de-

velopment restricted job creation in a key area of professional em-

ployment. The use of outmoded technology, and the reliance for eco-

nomic growth during the 1940s and 1950s on increased utilization ofinstalled capacity idle up to the late 1930s, greatly reduced both

the number of professionals needed by the economy and the level of

professional training at the universities. Most of the technology

used in industrial plants in the 1980s continued to be obsolete or lag

behind state-of-the-art innovations.2lA second factor that restricted employment opportunities for

professionals was the importation of capital goods and thus technol-

ogy for industrial expansion. Importation of professional expertise

embodied in foreign-made machines constricted employment oppor-

tunities for Mexican professionals. For technology in industry is not

an independent, abstract body of knowledge held by professionals

but rather a function of machines and their develoPment. Capital-goods industries have a much greater relative need for professional-level employees than other manufacturing firms.

The reliance of Mexican industry on imported capital goods

meant historically that the primary stimulus to professional educa-

tion took place in the countries that produced advanced capitalgoods for domestic use and for export. Because a capital-goods indus-

try developed haltingly in Mexico, it should not be surprising thatMexican universities have not educated the large numbers of gradu-

ate-level experts in science and technology associated with ad-

vanced, competitive economies. They have not been needed by the

20Frank Tannenbaum early recognized this relationship in Mexico. see

his Mexico, p. 198.21"La investigación tecnológica, en crisis," Unomásuno, Januaty ,29,7990,

p. 3, claims that 92 percent of Mexican businesses, both public and private,possess obsolete machinerY.

38 CHAPTER TWO

Mexican productive apparatus.22Such impacts of the protection of industry and dependency on

imported capital goods on professional employment are apparent, togive just one example, in the case of the textile industry of Mexico,particularly the cotton textile industry concentrated in the states ofPuebla and Veracruz. Because of protection from competing importsand oligopolistic access to the domestic market, the Mexican textileindustry was able to operate profitably with pre-Revolutionaryequipment imported from Europe and little innovation in productionor management up through the 1960s.23 Protection, along with otherfactors, meant that a strong incentive to reinvestment in researchand development or in physical plant did not exist.2a Because ofthese factors, textile manufacturing in Mexico did not lead to thedevelopment of a textile machine industry which would in turnhave provided demand for machine-tool and specialty-steel indus-tries.25 (The concomitant sluggish growth of the textile engineeringfield, to be expected in such a situation, can be seen in Tables 14-18.)

A third factor which increasingly limited the employment ofprofessionals after the late 1950s was the pattern of government em-ployment of university graduates. Public-sector employment of pro-

22The author of "La investigación tecnológica, en crisis," l)nomtísuno,January 29, 1990, p. 3, claims that ten times as much is invested to importcapital goods than is invested in research in Mexico. Little scholarly workhas been done on the relationship between the production of capital goodsand demands for professional expertise in Mexico; the best study for LatinAmerica is that of Nathaniel H. Leff, The Brazilinn Capitnl Goods Industry,1929-7964 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), especially pp.41.-87. For an interesting analysis of the relationship between technologicaldevelopment and economic growth in Mexico, see Centro de Investigaciónpara el Desarrollo, A. C. (CIDAC), Tecnología e índustria en eI t'uturo deMéxico: Posibles uinculaciones estratégicas (México, D. F.: Editorial Diana,1989). See also Anne Lorentzen, Capital Goods nnd Technological Deoelopmentin Mexico (Copenhagen: Centre for Development Research, 1986), especiallypp.13,74.

23Protection of the textile industry has a long history in Mexico. For itsdevelopment during the early years after Independence, see Robert A.Potash, Mexican Gozterrunent and Industrial Deztelopment in the Early Republic:The Banco de Aaío (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1983).

24lack of investment and reinvestment was aiso due to lack of investorconfidence during the violent phase of the Revolution and during the de-pressed 7925-32 period. Lack of new investment or reinvestment was com-mon in many industries besides textile manufacturing. See Stephen H.Haber, Industry and Underdeoeloptnent: The Industrialization of Mexico, 1890-1940 (StanÍord: Stanford University Press, 1989).

25Haber, The Industrialization of Mexico, p. 793.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

fessionals has always shaped general demand for university gradu-

ates and university training in Mexico, as shown above. And much ofthe increase in Mexico's professional and technician EAP since the

late 1930s occurred in state or parastatal agencies and firms, thenumber of which mushroomed after the 1950s. In both centralizedand decentralized sectors, the government has acted since the late

1950s as a sponge for absorbing professionals produced by the univer-

sities but not needed in the private sector, and perhaps not really

needed in the public sector. Over time, the government has Srowninto the largest employer of university graduates and egresados.

The state's importance as a first employer of professionals wholater find employment in the private sector is also very great.

The rapid expansion of the public sector since the 1930s was

driven in part by the need to create jobs for professionals from mid-

dle-sector backgrounds. The growth of public-sector hiring of profes-

sionals reached a peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s; public-sec-

tor employment exploded by 82 percent between 7975 and 1983. By

1983, public-sector employees accounted fot 20.4 percent of allMexican employees.26 Many state industries and agencies had lim-ited real needs for the skills of highly trained professionals.Increasing state employment produced the illusion of rapidly Srow-ing professional cadres, when, in fact, the level of skills reallyneeded was significantly lower than appearances suggested.

Demand for professional degrees increased while the need for high-level professional skills probably stagnated' This mismatch is re-

flected in the differential demand for professionals and technicianssince the late 1950s already discussed.

The absorption of large numbers of professionals into the work-place from the late 1930s through the 1950s did not indicate the be-

ginning of indefinitely expanding employment opportunities for pro-fessionals. This earlier phase of employment expansion was itselfillusory in good part. Increases in production and employment were

due principally to increased utilization of idle capacrty.z7 Because

there was little change in the nature of the machinery used and lit-tle increase in expenditure for research and development, the em-

26See Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática(INEGI), Participación del sector público en el producto interno bruto de México,1975-1983 (México, D. F.: Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto (SPP),

1984), p.5.2TClark Reynolds, The Mexican Economy, passim; and Jaffe, People, lobs,

and Economic Deoelopment, p.269.

39

40 CHAPTER TWO

ployment of professionals underwent no dramatic qualitativechange.28

Limited real demand for professionals reflects the uncompeti-tive, inefficient nature of Mexican industry and its reliance on theMexican government for protection and on foreign capital-goods pro-ducers for technological innovation.2e It is thus the historical pat-tern of economic development that has limited demand for profes-sionals, not any absolute lack of professionals, or relative lack ofprofessionals in specific fields, that has limiied economic develop-ment.3o

Analysts of the Mexican economy have tended to confuse grow-ing employment in "modern" sectors of the economy since 1940 witha "modern" occupational profile. Although the modern sectors ofMexico's economy may have expanded, that expansion was charac-terized by the continuation of rather traditional needs for profes-sional skills. This continuity implies that the Mexican economy,although highly developed in some aspects, has not achieved a

self-sustained development characterized by innovation and compet-itiveness. It was possible to develop in key ways-the economy hasclearly grown, become more diversified, and changed structurally-without creating an independent capital-goods and research and de-velopment infrastructure. And without the development of a self-sustaining capital-goods industry and domestic research and devel-opment networks, opportunities for professionals were severely lim-ited.31

28For a recent review of these issues, see The Economist, January 4,1.992,pp. 15-18.

29The reasons why a self-sustaining and competitive Mexican industrydid not develop can be traced to the dynamic of the first wave of industrial-ization in Mexico, 7890-7940. Stephen Haber suggests that constraints suchas a low rates of capacity utilization, low productivity of labor, and difficultiesin mobilizing capital led to a manufacturing sector that could not exportcompetitively, needed a great deal of protection, and relied heavily uponimported capital goods. See Haber, The Industrialization of Mexico.

30It is all too common to assert the opposite without evidence from thehistorical record: see, for example, José de Jesús Guardarrama H., "Méxiconecesita multiplicar 20 veces su número de ingenieros antes de 25 aios," ElFinanciero, April 19, 1988, p. 53 (Guadarrama reports on comments of DanielReséndiz, director of UNAM's engineering faculty).

31It is this relationship between Mexico's economic development andopportunities for professionals that makes untenable most arguments that abrain drain of professionals has slowed Mexico's development. (For a typicalstatement of this argument, see Matt Moffett, "Brain Drain Slows Mexico's

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

while it is clear that the proportion of professional and techni-

cian labor increased in the Mexican economy between 1950 and 1980,

then, this general trend obscures the differential growth of techni-

cians within the group. While GDP grew rapidly during the 1960s

(7.0 percent per year) and 1970s (6.6 percent ayeat), employment for

professionals did not increase at a similar rate. Economic, social,

and political stresses have arisen from this aspect of Mexico's eco-

nomic development that were not foreseen by optimistic observers of

the "Mexican Miracle." And in looking back, analysts have inaccu-

rately attributed these stresses to the internal faults of the univer-

sity system rather than to the pattern of Mexico's economic devel-

opment.

Impacts of Changing Demand for Professionals andTechnicians

How did historically changing demand for professionals and

technicians affect Mexican universities? The university system's

most significant response (discussed above) was to produce a small

number of graduates to fill the need for the most highly qualifiedprofessionals and a much larger number of egresados to fill the need

for technicians. The government's emphasis on increasing enrollmentcapacities at public universities in the 1940s and 1950s thus paid offin an ironic way: it made possible the university system's twin roles

of training professionals and technicians.

Two other important impacts of the economy's evolving demand

are seen in changes in the quality of professional education and the

deconcentration of the university sysiem. By producing very differ-ent sorts of graduates, public and private universities acted together

in responding to the economy's demand for university graduates and

egresados. A "system" of public and private universities evolvedafter the 1940s as the two types of institutions came to feed differ-ent labor markets.

Data on the deconcentration of the university system are pre-

Development: Researchers, Professionals, Skilled Workers Are LuredAbroad," Wall Street lournal, May 5, 1989,p. 410.) Ironically, it is Mexico'shistorical economic development, with its restricted opportunities forbetterment at the professional level, that has caused the flight o_f profes-sionals toward ópportunities abroad' See David Lo1e1 , "MexicanProfessional Educatioh in the united states and the Myth of 'Brain Drain""Ensayos (Revista del Departamento de Relaciones Internacionales,Universidad de las Américas-Puebla), 4, no.9 (1988), 56-59.

41

CHAPTER T\,VO

sented in Tables 41.-48. (In the following discussion I use the term"deconcentration" rather than decentralization to emphasize thedeclining importance of the historically largest and oldest institu-tions as opposed to trends in geographical location or financial sta-tus of universities.) During the period until 1938, UNAM and IPNdominated all aspects of professional training-they were thelargest institutions of higher education and at the same time theywere closely associated with government plans for development.After the late 7950s, the preeminence of these two institutions wasgreatly eroded.

Data on the share held by the 14 most important public and pri-vate universities in the period give a sense of rapidly advancingdiversity and deconcentration of the whole system (Table 45; seealso Tables 41-48). The trend toward increasing diversity and decon-centration away from the largest and oldest institutions was thecase with both public and private universities. The data also re-veal that there was a noticeable shift at the end of the 1950s awayfrom public institutions and toward private universities and provin-cial public universities.32

A secular leveling-off of quality at Mexican universities was thesecond most important result of the changing demand of the economyand was closely related to deconcentration (Tables 32-40). Dataseries developed here from existing statistical sources rely on threeways to gauge quality at the university level: (1) per-student ex-penditure on higher education; (2) teacher-student ratios; and (3) ra-tios of full-time faculty to teaching staff hired on an hourly basis.These three indicators form a very useful, if imperfect, gauge ofquality.33

The data indicate that although a "crisis" in quality has notoccurred in Mexican higher education, there was a leveling-off of in-creases in quality in the 1940s and a gradual decline in quality afterthe late 1950s, with significant upturns in the late 7920s and early

32Because of these trends, it is no longer desirable to focus analysis onUNAM, viewing_ it as a microcosm of the Mexican university system or ofthe experience of Mexican university students.

33For a discussion of quality at Latin American universities and itsmeasurement, see Arthur Liebman, Kenneth N. Walker, and MyronGlazer, Latin American urioersity students: A six Nation study (Cambríd.ge,MA: Harvard University P¡ess, 1.972), pp. 68-78. The authors imphasize t"he

lmpo_rt1n9e of teachers and the quality of instruction received 6y students@p.7a-78).

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

1980s. Changes in quality thus mirror the timing of changes in the

Mexican economy and in its demand for professionals and techni-

cians. It cannot be concluded that growth in student enrollment

caused low quality in education received by Mexican public univer-

sity students, as is often asserted. The overcrowding which is often

blamed for declines in quality is a matter of financial support in

Mexico, not the sign of a student population which is "too large" inany objective sense.34

Within the general trends of changes in quality, important dif-ferences exist between public and private universities, with privateinstitutions attaining a higher level of quality before the 1980s

(Table 40). These differences are determined primarily by two main

factors: (1) the demand of private-sector and certain public-sector

employers for the highest quality professionals that could not be

met by the public university system alone, and (2) the tighter mar-

ket for professionals compared to that for technicians.

The d.emand in the private sector, and at the highest level of

the public sector, for high-quality professionals grew faster than

quality at the public universities after the late 1950s (expenditure

and teaching staff did not keep pace with growing enrollment)'Private universities expanded rapidly to fill the gap. At the same

time, public and private institutions came to satisfy the needs fordifferent levels of expertise. Graduates of private universities in-

creasingly filted the need for top-level professionals in Mexicowhile the public universities, particularly the public universities of

the provinces, produced large numbers of graduates and egresados

who found work primarily as technicians. Quality declined at many

public institutions, then, in response to the economy's demand for

different levels of skills. Public and private universities came to be

driven by qualitatively different labor markets but functioned rela-

tively efficiently together to meet the economy's needs.

The deconcentration of the Mexican university system and im-portant changes in quality after the 1950s coincided with the shiftin the economy's demand for professionals and technicians toward a

relatively greater demand for technicians. Public and private uni-versities played different but complementary roles in the process of

deconcentration. The development of the regional public universities

served to partially relieve the tremendous pressure on the public

3aSee Olac Fuentes Molinar, "Universidad y democracia: La mirada ha-

cia la izquierda," Cuadernos Políticos,53 (January-April, 1981), 4-18'

43

44 CHAPTER TWO

university giants in the Federal District by keeping a good part ofincreased demand for higher educational opportunities confined tothe provinces. Private universities concentrated their resources onproducing high-quality graduates for top-level professional jobs.

The University System and Social MobilityAfter the 1950s, social demand came into ever greater conflict

with the reality of Mexico's historical economic development(Tables 49-54; contrast Tables 27, 22, 30, 31, 57, 53, and 54).

Eventually, as the process of economic development created a pro-gressivelv smaller relative number of jobs at the professional level,the university's ability to provide social mobility was limited bythe relatively reduced opportunities for professionals.

While universities did have a positive effect on social mobilityuntil at least 1960 through their role in preparing students for pro-fessional occupations, after that time university production of egre-sados and graduates outpaced economic development. Large and in-creasing numbers of university graduates had to find work not as

professionals but as technicians after the 1950s. My data show thatthe number of university graduates has exceeded the number of eco-nomic and social places for professionals by a factor of more thantwo.

The university system evolved to meet the challenge of chang-ing demand for professionals, adapting to the social circumstancesbrought by economic development after the late 1950s. As the possi-bility of social mobility decreased, public universities opened theirdoors to entrants from working-class backgrounds (Tables 55-57).3s

After the late 1950s, the public university system adopted thefunction of providing social status rather than social mobility tomany university students. While public universities took over thetask of providing social status to students of humble backgrounds,private universities came to focus on the reinforcement of middle-and upper-class status through the provision of high-level profes-sionals to both the public and the private sector. It is the openingat the bottom and the function of providing social status that havedetermined the historical inability of the public university to keepup with the quality demands of the economy. The government sub-sidy to the public university system has been spent on supporting

35Data on women professionals in Mexico presented in Tables 58-64.

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYMENT

huge entering classes and providing the maximum number of univer-sity places for the first few years of university education.

The adaptation of providing social status in place of significantupward social mobility, as a hedge against decreasing chances ofmobility, assured the survival of the myth of social mobility byway of university education. Different roles for public and privateuniversities-with public and private universities linked to differ-ent labor markets-proved functionally useful in Mexico because of

the importance of the social role of the public universities to the

rhetoric of the Mexican Revolution. The response of the universitysystem was entirely in line with the universities' responsibilitiesunder the implicit political pact of 7929 and completely consistentwith the reality of changing opportunities for professional-leveluniversity graduates.

University PoliticsThe historical adaptation of the Mexican university system to a

changing economic reality is central to the political history of theuniversity. It has been commented that the large numbers of enteringstudents who do not find professional employment are not casualties

of the education system as much as successes for the political sys-

tem.36 At the same time, it is widely believed that the governmenthas historically supported open doors at the universities because

the university seemed to offer an escaPe valve for unemployableyouth. Such a scheme would aPPear to have backfired; students'dissatisfaction with the university's ability to provide employmenthas led to broad student involvement in extra-university politicalissues.

The political activity of Mexican university students must be in-terpreted in the light of the historical limitations facing them intheir professional careers, the same limitations that have forcedthe shift from emphasis on social mobility to emphasis on socialstatus at the universities. Students clearly benefit from the systemin some important ways: the universities provide status to an impor-tant number of university students (even if in lieu of a ticket to pro-fessional employment); the reformist and radical creeds propagatedat the public universities represent an important psychological ben-

efit because they teach students to externalize blame for limited

36See Peter S. Cleaves, Las profesiones y el estado: El caso de México(México. D. F.: EI Colegio de México, 1985), p. 109.

45

46 CHAPTER TWO

employment opportunities. But in the long view, university students,unable to find professional-level work, are the victims of the histor-ical pattern of Mexico's economic development. The university can-not change this situation even with thoroughgoing internal reforms:the determining factors are beyond the control of university admin-istrators or students.

The relationship between economic development and social mo-bility outlined above lies at the root of post-1958 political debatesinvolving the university in Mexico. Political conflicts in which uni-versity students have played major roles have had their most pro-found roots in dissatisfaction with scarce opportunities for profes-sional employment. Public employment could hold off the student-led middle-class explosion of 7968 for some time, but not indefi-nitely, given the nature of Mexico's economic development. Norcould greatly increased government hiring of professionals in the1970s solve the basic mismatch between jobs and graduates. The vir-tual orgy of public-sector hiring of professionals that followed thediscovery of oil in the late 1970s became a bust after 7982.

The historically declining relative number of opportunities forprofessionals is a key factor in understanding the students' activismand their broad support within the middle classes in the late 1960s.

Discontent with the implications of historical economic develop-ment among professionals, and within the middle class from whichmost came, was widespread and profound. The inherent tension be-tween the number of opportunities and the number of university en-trants and graduates was a nationwide phenomenon. The distur-bances of 1,968 were not isolated in Mexico City but spread across thenation.

Increasingly scarce jobs for professionals would tend to shift thefocus of university politics toward issues involving the provision ofsocial status. And since at least 1958, political struggles have re-volved around issues of entrance and advancement at the universi-ties. Higher qualitative norms and more restrictive admission poli-cies, while perhaps improving the quality of professional expertiseproduced by the universities, also make higher education less acces-sible to poorer aspirants. And indeed, almost all university conflictsin Mexico since the late 1950s have been rooted ultimately in dis-putes over admissions and degree criteria.3T The unrest of 7966 was

3Tscholars have not seen the connection I suggest here, but many havenoted the fact. See, for example, Donald J. Mabry, The Mexican Unioersity

GRADUATES AND EMPLOYTVf ENT

triggered by debate over changes in the structure of examinations,remedial courses, and discipline procedures.3s Student protests in thewinter of 7986-87 were likewise triggered by the resolve of UNAM'sadministration to raise academic standards. Even the 1968 socialreform movement, which spread far beyond the original protest ofuniversity students over the violation of university autonomy tobecome a watershed in Mexican political history, can be seen as

having a substantial part of its roots in student objections to at-

tempts to raise academic standards a few years earlier.3 e

Recognition of this pattern follows logically from a careful analysisof the various data sets presented here.

The idea that the politics of the Mexican university followsome internal dynamic conditioned principally by intrauniversitypolitical struggles over autonomy or democracy must be revised. Thetiming of university politics suggests that while the mismatch be-tween professional opportunities and university graduates devel-oped before the 1950s, it was at the end of that decade that it be-came difficult to manage social tensions arising from the mismatchwitlrin the political framework established in 7929.

The drastic reduction of government employment of professionalsin the late 1980s meant that pressures within the system would con-tinue to build: with the thrust to privatize parastatal economic en-

terprises, the state planned to transfer 35 percent of the work forceto the private sector which undoubtedly would cut waste by reduc-ing superfluous labor.a0 While the university can be said to haveresponcled with flexibility to the challenge of social demand, theoverall situation remained grave as UNAM, for example, could onlymake room for half of all applicants by the late 1980s. In August of1988, 500,000 students who had been denied entrance to IPNmarched through Mexico City.41 The mismatch between the numberof seekers, the number of university places, and the number ofand the State: Student Conflicts, L910-1971 (College Station: Texas A&M Press,1982); and Daniel C. Levy, Uniaersity and Goaernment in Mexico: Autonomy inan Authoritarian System (New York: Praeger, 1980).

3sliebman, Walker, and Glazer, Latin American llnioersitr¡ Students, p.180.

3eFor a discussion of the conflicting interpretations of this broadly basedsocial-protest movement, see Sergio Zermeño, México: Una democraciautópica. El motimiento estudiantil del 68 (Méxíco, D. F.: Sigio XXI, 1985).

aoSee MarÍa Amparo Casar, "La reestructuración de la participación delestado en la industria nacional," El Cotidiano,23 (198ü, pp. 28-38.

4l\-lnomdsuno. August 5, 1988.

47

48 CHAPTER TWO

professional-level posts has grown dramatically since it firstemerged/ largely unrealized, in the late 1950s.

ConclusionsThe data developed here reveal a complex relationship be-

tween the Mexican university system and the process of economicdevelopment after 1929. On the whole, the data indicate that theuniversity system produced graduates and egresados in general areasand specific fields of study that corresponded to the economy's needsfor expertise. The same basic correspondence is apparent betweenthe levels of expertise needed by the economy and different levelsof university training. Over time, the economy exerted a greaterrelative demand for technicians than for professionals. In response,universities began to produce ever larger numbers of egresados, alarge percentage of whom would not continue on to the degree stagebut would fill technician-level job slots.

But while we see a basic confluence of the demands of economicdevelopment and the role played by the university, we see also anincreasing social strain expressed at the professional level. Theeconomy did not provide upward mobility into professional strata asfast as university enrollment grew. As a result, the university sys-tem stepped up its output of egresados and developed increasinglydistinct public and private components in order to allocate everlarger numbers of aspirants between available professional andtechnician positions.

The social and political implications of these changes for thefuture are profound. If economic recovery after the crisis of the 1980scontinues to produce disappointing rates of social mobility, politicalpressure within Mexico will continue to mount. And while politicalpressure may lead to reforms of the university, institutional reformscannot resolve the fundamental stresses to which the university sys-tem has been subjected.

CHAPTER THREE

Sources and Methods

Developing and analyzing quantitative data for historical analysisprovide a way to critique assumptions about quantitative aspects ofthe past. Mexican and U.S. scholars and observers have posited a

rapid decline in the quality of Mexican higher education since thelate 1950s, for example. But what do these observers mean by qual-ity? That is, how do they measure quality? Is quality measurable?This study presents the quantitative data that are available forgauging the quality of university education in Mexico. The data sug-gest that the evolution of quality at Mexican universities has beenmuch more complex than previously imagined, that there are greatdifferences in quality between public and private institutions, andthat differences in quality are related to the changing economic andsocial functions of the university.

Quantitative data are intrinsically no more or less accuratethan notarial records, personai papers, newspaper accounts, or otherarchival sources. In basing a study on any of these types of primarysources, the historian must make judgments about accuracy based onwhat he or she knows of the period and the person or institutionthat produced the records. Quantitative data are much more impor-tant than other sources for policymaking, however, because policy-makers rely heavily on statistics, accurate or not, and statisticalreality often becomes as important as reality itself in the decision-making process.l

Statistics on higher education in Mexico must be treated with a

great deal of care. Data on various aspects of the structure and func-lSee my caveats concerning the use of historical statistics in David E.

Lorey, United States-Mexico Border Statistics since 1900 (Los Angeles: UCLALatin American Center Publications, 1990), Preface.

49

50 CHAPTER THREE

tion of the university have been produced by many different institu-tions and agencies in the period since 1929. The categories used insources are sometimes misleading or unclear; the rationale behindcategorization in one source is frequently very different from that inanother. Each institution or agency that produces data on the uni-versity does so for certain reasons particular to its own form andfunction. Statistics from different sources generally vary widely incoverage and quality.2

While every attempt has been made in this study to carefullyconstruct and fairly interpret the statistical series, the reader is re-minded that the series are approximations of reality and should betaken as such. The data developed here are accurate and consistentgiven the original source materials, but the numbers should not bethought of as inherently "exact" or "correct." Throughout the analy-sis of the statistics, I have made a point of focusing on long-termtrends rather than on a specific datum for a given year.

DefinitionsThe most important difference between Mexican and North

American universities is the inclusion of upper secondary students as

part of university programs in Mexico. Statistics on the Mexicanuniversity generally include the numbers of secondary-school stu-dents studying in dependent preparatory schools.3 The UNAM, forexample, is fed by fourteen "incorporated" preparatory schools.

The inclusion of these students in the "university" reflects thehistoric character of Mexican university education as essentiallyprofessional in nature. Students study in order to practice a certaincareer; they begin their professional training in secondary schooland continue it at the university. In this respect, Mexican studentsare similar to their counterparts in most European universities.Students of dependent secondary schools in Mexico have historicallybeen able to enter the large public universities' professional schoolsautomatically, regardless of grade averages or aptitude-test scores.

Data developed for this study do not incorporate trends in theeducation of upper secondary students in order to focus attention on

2For an example of the limited usefulness of statistics on education inMexico in general, see COPLAMAR, Necesidades esenciales en México(México, D.F.: Siglo XXl, L982), Vol. 2 (La Educación).

3See, for example, Frank Brandenburg's university enrollment statisticsfor 1925-61 in The Making of Modern Mexico (Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall,1964), p.81.

SOURCES AND METHODS

the professional level of university education in Mexico. Not onlydoes this focus enhance analysis, but it also reflects a long-termtrend in Mexico to make the two levels more distinct, particularlyin private-sector education. Further, the data on secondary educa-tion in Mexico, particulariy data that provide information on thefields of study of students, are inconsistent and unreliable.

"Professionals" aÍe usually defined in sociological or sociopoliti-cal terms that reflect their historical development as a prominentfeature of modern Mexican society. Thus Peter Cleaves, in his studyof the relationship between professional groups and the Mexicanstate, sees the professions as privileged occupations with a certainmystique. Cleaves views professionals as expressions of thebureaucratic state apparatus that has developed in Mexico andanalyzes them primarily as representatives of organizedprofessional pressure groups. Roderic Camp sees professionaltraining in Mexico primarily as a political process, as the mostimportant step in the political apprenticeship and recruitment ofpolitical elites in Mexico.a

Another set of definitions of professionals builds from the func-tion of professionals in the workplace in Mexico. Charles Myers, forexample, divided employment of professionals into three strata:professional, sub-professional, and technician.s Likewise, the Bancode México, in its 1955-57 study of employment in Mexico, dividedoccupations at the sub-management level into professionals, sub-pro-fessionals, and "prácticos," this last definition being approximatelyequivalent to Myers's technician.6

While accepting these various definitions, I add to them defini-tions that are based on the output of Mexico's higher education sys-tem and that aid in the development of time-series data. My defi-

4See Peter S. Cleaves, Professions and the SÍate: The Mexican Case(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987); Roderic A. Camp, Mexico'sLeaders: Their Edttcatiott and Recruitment (Tucson: University of Arizona Press,1980); and Peter H. Smith, Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment inTwentieth-Century Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).

SCharles Nash Myers, Education and National Dez,elopment (Princeton:Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, 1965).

bBanco de México, Departamento de Investigaciones Industriales, Elempleo de personal técnico en la industria de transt'ormación (México, D. F.:Banco de México, 1959). A few observers equate professionals and techni-cians: see Sanford Mosk, Industrial Reaolution in Mexico (Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press, 1950), p. 268; and Larissa Lomnitz,Leticia Mayer, and Martha W. Rees, "Recruiting Technical Elites: Mexico'sVeterinarians," Human Organization, 42,no. 1 (Spring, 1983),23.

51

52 CHAPTER THREE

nitions also reflect the single most basic occupational divisionamong employed university graduates and egresados, that betweenprofessionals and technicians. Thus, "professionals" are universitygraduates with a licentiate or higher degree.T (Over time, however,a growing portion of degree holders found work as technicians; seeChapter Two above.) "Technicians" are graduates of upper sec-ondary, non-college preparatory courses, those students who leavethe university system by way of a "lateral exit" or "short course,, ofstudy, and those egresados who never achieve the licentiate degree.

These definitions fit the reality of Mexico's university system,in which the production of professional skills through universityeducation is directly linked to employment. This linkage is borneout, among other factors, by the terminology employed in the uni-versity system: a student studies not a major, but a "career"; thefirst university degree is not a Bachelor of Arts, but rather a"license" (licenciatura) to practice in the career area studied; thestudent must register this degree with the Dirección General deProfesiones to receive the official permit (cédula) to practice his orher career.s The definitions used in this study also conform to thecategories of the Mexican census. According to the census definition,a professional is a person who receives professional training at theuniversity level and who executes responsibilities related to his orher professional training.

The basic assumption underlying the distinction between profes-sionals and technicians is that a completed university education ofhigh quality differs significantly in type and level of skilts from asecondary, "short course," or incomplete university education. A pro-fessional is a person equipped with both general knowledge and the

TThe licentiate degree should not be confused with the bachelor's de-gree (B.A.) in the United States: the licentiate degree represents a muchgrea_ter degree of specialization and is better compared with European first-professional degrees. See Marcel de Grandpré, Glossaire intérnational:Thémes d'usage courant en matiére de certificats d'études secondaires et de

4!p!9mes et I'enseignement supérieur dans quarante-cinq palls (New york:UNESCO, 1.969) for information on cross-national comparisons of degrees.

. sThe professional orientation of the Mexican univérsity has hadi greatiTpu.t on student views of_the purposes of higher education. In one survey,87 percent of Mexican students identified the main function of the univei-sity as that of preparing the student for professional life: see ArthurLiebman, Kenneth N. W_alker, and Myron Glizer, Latin American lJniaersityStudents: A Six Nation Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University presé,7972), p. 65.

SOURCES AND METHODS

ability to apply this knowledge to change the production or man-agement environment bv increasing productivity, introducing innova-tions, or spreading attitudes and techniques. A technician's mainfunction in the workplace, in contrast, is to apply specific techniqueslearned through the educational process. The work of a technicianis generally overseen by a professional or forms a part of the workof a professional higher-up.e Theories of segmented labor marketspropose two main segments of the labor market, primary and sec-

ondary. Within the primary labor market, theorists see two levels:independent and dependent. These two latter categories correspondciosely to my "professional" and "technician" categories.

This differentiation between professionals and technicians fitsthe evidence of studies on employers' expectations of employees inMexico, even if there have been important shifts over time. Brooke,Oxenham, and Little, for example, note that:

Professional jobs are accessible only to pasantes [egresadosl andfull university or polytechnic graduates. They are the most presti-gious and best paid. In the sample, few peopie who had not com-pleted their university course, and to a lesser extent, their thesis soas to obtain the full degree or title, could hope to reach the topmostranks. . . The subprofessional jobs are open to the range of edu-cational level between complete junior secondary, secondary or itsequivalent, and a university degree.

The data series discussed in detail in the following section havebeen developed around these definitions. The series on the number ofdegrees granted has been adjusted to represent the licentiate levelfrom 7928 to 7971. The data on degrees registered represents holdersof university degrees at the licentiate level. The egresados indica-tor includes a great number of persons who will not finish universitywork for the licentiate degree and who will enter the job market as

technicians. The percentage of egresados which goes on to achievethe degree is considered professional, that which does not, techni-cian; arriving at the ratio of professional to technician egresados isdiscussed below.

9This basis for distinguishing between professionals and technicians isused by other analysts of education in Latin America and the United States.See, for example, Ivar Berg, Education and lobs: The Great Trnining Robbery(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971), pp.57-58.

53

54 CHAPTER THREE

Mexican Archives and Enrollment StatisticsMexican archives hold little information of use for examining

long-term trends in the social economy of the Mexican universitysystem after 1929. Mexico's Archivo General de la Nación, for ex-ample, offers collections of petitions by professionals asking thattheir iitles be confirmed or reinstated, not a useful sample for thisstudy. Archival documents pertaining to professionals tend to dis-play a bias toward central Mexico and Mexico City in particular. Ingeneral, the Mexican archives do not contain information on profes-sionals or universities that can be quantified and constructed intolong-term series to examine historical change. While there is muchmicro-level detail, little information is available on the nationalpicture-and yet the nation as a whole is the necessary level foranalysis of the most important questions about university educationand the economy in Mexico.

The most important sources for the study of the university sys-tem are the offices of government agencies that deal in one way oranother with the higher education system. Frequently, these agen-cies publish samples of the information they collect. These data canbe reworked, disaggregated, and employed in historical analysis.l0Discussion of sources of this type as used in the present study fol-lows a few notes on enrollment data.

The majority of the scholarly work on higher education inMexico that attempts to quantify aspects of historical change in theuniversity system relies on enrollment statistics.ll Enrollment dataare easily found and are generally consistent over long periods oftime (although differences among series from different sources can be

10On the use of government agencies as archives for quantitative historyof twentieth-century Mexico, see Jeffrey Bortz, "The Development ofQuantitative History in Mexico since 1940: Socioeconomic Change, IncomeDistribution, and Wages," in Statistical Abstract ot' Latin America, vol.27, pp.1107-1127.

1lFor example, see Daniel C. Levy, l)nioersity and Goaernment in Mexico:Autonomy in an Authoritarian System (New York: Praeger, 1980), HigherEducation and the State in Latin America: Prionte Challenges to Public Dominance(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), passim, and Levy's defense ofhis preference for enrollment data in Higher Education, pp. 335-337; ThomasN. Osborn, Higher Education in Mexico: History, Growth, and Problems in aDichotomized Industry (El Paso: Texas Western Press, 1976); José AngelPescador Osuna, "El balance de la educación superior en el sexenio 1976-7982," inUAP, Perspectioas de la educqción superior en México (Puebla: UAP,1984); and Gilberto Guevara Niebla, La rosa de los cambios: Breae historia de laUNAM (México, D.F.: Cal y Arena, 1990).

SOURCES AND METHODS

great).The three major indicators I develop for this study are superior

to data on enrollment in several important ways. First, differentialdropout rates among professional fielcls mean that the fietd distri-bution of students studying is in many cases very different frorn thatof students who actually leave the system, either as egresados orgraduates with degrees. This difference is particularly great be-tween first-year students and graduating students and thus can be

used to show how expectations for employment opportunities changeduring the course of professional study.tz The differerlce can some-times be as great as 10 percent between fields of study.

Second, dropout rates at public universities are rnuch higherthan those at private universities, and thus the importance of thepubiic university system is overrepresented in enrollment data.While the efficiency rate (graduates divided by entrants) atUNAM or IPN is 35-40 percent, for example, that at theUniversidad de las Américas, a small private school in the state ofPuebla, is 70-80 percent. As noted above, graduates of private uni-versities may also be relatively more important for other reasons.Thus there is a double devaluation of the real role of the privateuniversity in the Mexican system inherent in the use of enrollmentfigures for public and private universities.

Third, enrollment statistics are frequently inflated at publicuniversities, which gives a false impression of the relative impor-tance of public and private institutions as producers of employablegraduates. Public universities in Mexico, like most public universi-ties in the world, are allotted varying amounts of state subsidy de-pending on the number of students enrolled. The usual procedure isto add a certain percentage of students who are in the "activearchive" of students to those who are actually taking courses. Inother words, students who have the right to take classes, althoughthey may not actually enroll, are included in enrollment totals.l3

Fourth, enrollment data do not present an accurate portrayal ofthe availability of professionals and perceived employment oppor-tunities at a given time. If only 26 percent of engineering students

r23ee Statistical Abstract oi Latfu America, vol.25, Tables 910 and 911;UNESCO, Statistical Yearbook; and Víctor Urquidi and Adrián Lajous Vargas,Educaciótt su¡terior, ciencia y tecnología en el desarrollo econónúco de México(México, D. F.: El Colegio de México, 1967), pp.39,46.

13See Frank Brandenburg's discussion of university enrollment statisticsínThe Making of Modern Mexico, pp. 180-181.

55

56 CHAPTER THREE

who entered UNAM in 7973 actually earned degrees,l4 for example,studies that attempt to measure supply and demand for human re-sources using undeflated enrollment figures may be off by almost 75

percent. Enrollment statistics, then, are not a good gauge of avail-able professional expertise.

Enrollment figures are most useful for simply quantifying thegrowth in the general student population. They do not allow us tointerpret the relationship between growing student populations andchanges in the economy, in society, and in the higher education sys-tem. Enrollment data show most clearly the increasing demand overtime for higher educational opportunities and the dominant histori-cal response of the university: to continue to open its doors to all, ormost, aspirants. To explain this response in broad historical contextmore complex data must be consulted.

Data on University Graduates and EgresadosIn providing detailed coverage of shifts in the development of

various professional areas, this study develops data on the univer-sity system that can be disaggregated to reflect the career choices ofMexican students and the historical production by the university ofparticular areas of professional expertise. I have constructed threemain statistical time series to track the numbers of persons whowere granted a university degree; persons who completed courseworkbut left the university without completing the required thesis orproject for the degree (egresados); and persons who registered a pro-fessional-level degree with the Mexican government.ls

l4Graciela Garza, La titulación en la LINAM (México, D.F.: UNAM,Centro de Estudios sobre Ia Universidad, 1986).

1SThe value of these and other data (including enrollment) as indicatorsof trends in Mexican professional education is discussed briefly in Levy,Higher Education, and Charles Nash Myers, Education ani NrtionalDeaelopment. While there is reason to believe that some data published bythe Mexican government are willfully manipulated to show a désired reality(e.9., election statistics), it is not very likely that such manipulation has sub-stantially affected my data series. The data used in this study come frommany decentralized sources all over Mexico and concern aspects of eco-nomic and social development not generally deemed threatening to thegovernment. It is unlikely that any one person could have modified the ba-sic trends in the series, as many persons have been involved in collectingand reproducing the statistics over the years since 7929.The problem of witl-ful manipulation of data is relevant in the case of enrollmenf data, which, asnoted above, are routinely inflated at public universities for the purpose oflaying claim to larger government subsidies.

SOURCES AND METHODS

The longest consistent series of data-that for "professional de-

grees granfsd"l6-u/¿s derived from the Anuario estadístico and

Compendio estadístico of Mexico's Dirección General de Estadística(DGE) and runs from 1900 to 7971.)2 The number of degrees granted inthe various professional fields by all Mexican universities includedin these compilations gives a good indication of the career choices

of university entrants and the availability of professional expertisefor the period.18 The series on degrees granted has certainlimitations. Categories used by the DGE did not change greatly overthe period from 1900 to 1977, and thus the categories do notadequately reflect historical shifts among student concentrations inthe professional fields. Further, until 1,964, data from these publica-tions combined degrees from university and higher-secondary levels

of education. Since 1971, statistics on professional degrees have notbeen published in the Anuario. Many of the manuscripts for theolder series were destroyed and data cannot be comprehensivelychecked for accuracy.

I have reorganized and recategorized these data to make theseries consistent over time and to represent degrees granted at theuniversity level only.ts The "commerce" category in the originaldata sources, for example, included degrees granted at both univer-sity and upper-secondary levels in the original data. Secondary-level degrees in commerce are not at all like degrees in business ad-

ministration, generally recognizing the acquisition of secretarialskills such as typing and the taking of dictation. I have estimated

16"Títulos expedidos" or "títulos otorgados." The former term refers tothe number of degrees actually handed out to university graduates, the lat-ter to the number of persons who passed the final exam or requirement forthe degree and may or may not have picked up the physical degree. Thenumerical difference between the two indicators is not large and data foundunder the two rubrics have been averaged in the construction of the statisti-cal series for this study.

17The data are for the period 1900-27 and yearly from1.928 to 1.97L;trends in the pre-1928 period are not discernible.

lSFrancisco GarcÍa Sancho and Leoncio Hernández, Educación superior,ciencia y tecnología en México, 1945-1975: Un diagnóstico de la educación superiory de la inaestigación científica y tecnológica en México (México, D.F.: SEP, 1'977),

compiled data on professional theses filed at UNAM and IPN for the 1945-75 period. Their data are not comprehensive, are generally very highly ag-gregated, and are not presented on a yearly basis.

leThe inclusion of the data on secondary-level degrees can greatly af-fect analysis. See, {or example, Howard F. Cline, Mexico: Reztolution toEoolution,1940-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1'963), p.204.

57

58 CHAPTER THREE

data for 1940-63 using the ratio of upper- to lower-level degrees inthe 7964-71period. No obvious trend is apparent in this period andthus I deflate the given data series by a constant factor of 95.8 per-cent.20

The second longest series I develop here to gauge hisioricaltrends in professional skills is derived from data on egresados ofprofessional fields provided in the statistical yearbooks, other pe-riodic publications/ and unpublished data of ANUIES (AsociaciónNacional de Universidades e Institutos de Educación Superior).21 Ihave restructured this series to produce consistent data for the 7967-89 period.zz

An egresado has finished all the necessary coursework and hasonly to complete the final requirement-a project involving practi-cal application of professional skills, a thesis, or an exam-to earnthe degree. The series on egresados provides information on a largegroup of persons leaving universities, ranging from a number of rela-tively highly skilled persons qualified for high-level employmentin the professional fields to relatively untrained persons who willaccept work as technicians. The egresados series includes very de-tailed categories of professional fields, thereby avoiding the under-representation of new fields apparent in the data on degrees.23

The data on egresados are plagued by lack of consistent report-ing, particularly in the early years of ANUIES activity. The 7972-75 period is especially difficult-the number of universities in-cluded for this period by ANUIES is lower than in other years, andthere is little indication of how more comprehensive coveragewould have affected the data. I have made numerous estimates and

20I have adjusted a few other career fields in the series in a similarfashion, using the ratios among fields of the late 1960s to make estimates forearlier periods.

2luntil 1991 Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Institutos deEnseñanza Superior.

22The data compiled by ANUIES became increasingly comprehensiveover time as more universities became members of the association and theassociation began gathering more complete statistics. Member universities,when they alone appear in earlier data sets, are considered representativeof all Mexican universities. ANUIES is an independent body established in1945 which serves as a consulting organization to both the government andthe university sector.

23The number of egresados has grown roughly at the same rate as thenumber of entering university students-thus this indicator also gives anidea of the explosion in university enrollment without the disadvantages as-sociated with the use of enrollment statistics.

SOURCES AND METHODS

adjustments to correct for these shortcomings in the originalsources.24 The series on egresados is also complicated by the fact

that those egresados who will complete a thesis project and receive

a licentiate degree are hidden among egresados who will not' We

have no reliable data on how the ratio between these two groups of

egresados has changed over time, leaving any adjustment of the

data to make them comparable with data on degree-holders risky.Some rough estimates are made below.

I have supplemented these two series, drawn for the most partfrom published materials, with a third series constructed with un-

published data on degrees registered in the Dirección General de

Profesiones (DGP) for the period from 1970 to 1985. Once a degree

has been granted, it is required by the 7945 Law of Professions thatit be registered with the DGP before employment may begin. When

the degree is registered the degree-holder receives a cédula, a li-cense giving him or her the legal right to practice the profession.

The number of degrees registered represents a percentage of profes-

sionals practicing their profession or expecting employment. In prac-tice, registration may or may not be necessary for employment. Since

professionals in certain fields for which there is high demand can

and do practice their professions without registration, data on regis-

trations also give an indication of differential demands for the var-

ious professions.2sThe data on degrees registered with the DGP also have their

problematic aspects. By nature, the data from this source are notcomprehensive since they do not include degrees held by Personswho did not register them. Changes in official policy on the regis-

2alt shouid be noted that most ANUIES data on egresados are based onthe number of students in their final year of study, and thus are estimates ofthe number of students who actually complete coursework and becomeegresados. The dropout rate during the final year is very low, however, so

the series is only slightly inflated.25Certain professionals, notably those in health and teaching fields, will

almost always register their degrees: these groups frequently work directlyfor government ágencies in which proof of registration is required andchecked. The registration process was changed tn L973 and after that yearpersons with degrees in almost all professional fieids were required to-regis-ier their degreés with the DGP. Most categories other than health andteaching see-large jumps in 1974 that are due to this change. The Law ofProfessions does not require certain professionals to register their degrees.The most important such group of professionals is accountants and certainother business professionals who do not need the cédula to practice the pro-fession.

59

60 CHAPTER THREE

tration of degrees in 7974 also shaped the series. I have made smalladjusiments in order to make data from this source consistent overtime. The series is presented in round numbers so as to give no illu-sion of exactness in yearly data.

These three series represent three different methods for trackinguniversity production of professionals and technicians over time.The numbers of degrees granted and degrees registered yield conser-vative estimates of professional availability, while the number ofegresados yields a more liberal gauge. The DGE has generally optedfor the most restrictive measures and began using degrees registeredinstead of degrees granted in the Anuario estadístico after 7977.20

ANUIES, on the other hand, has increasingly employed the moreopen-ended definition of professional training represented by egre-sados. Although ANUIES included data on degrees granted togetherwith those for egresados in 7967-77, more recent publications providedata only for egresados.2T

In addition to their role in indicating available professionaland technician skills, these three indicators reflect the careerchoices and thus the employment expectations of college students.Because there is almost no formal career counseling in Mexican uni-versities, these indicators represent a direct link between careerchoices made by students and government strategy for economic de-velopment (as expressed in both government rhetoric and expendi-ture), job opportunities in the Mexican economy, and the perceivedsocial needs of students and their families. Choices reflected inthese data also reveal trends within Mexico's occupational structureafter 7929.2s

26Data on degrees registered for the periods 1945-75 and 1.945-76 wereprovided by the DGP for the DGE's Anuario estadístico of 1.975 and 1.976. Butthese data are not consistent, the totals given for the second period beingless than those for the first period. The DGP has updated its fiies since thepublication of these volumes; data used here are derived directly from un-published DGP manuscript data.

zzANUIES administrators entering in the mid-1970s decided to makethe statistical yearbook a compilation of only the most "basic" data onhigher education: number of institutions, number of teachers, first-year en-rollment, total enrollment, and egresados. Egresados can easily be pre-sented as the result of a year's academic cycle. Data on degrees granted, onthe other hand, represent students from many different student generationsand thus are not as useful for accurate calculation of such things as the effi-ciency rate of the system, for which the data are used by analysts and poli-cymakers.

28See Alfonso Rangel Guerra, Systems ot' Higher Education: Me¡ico (New

SOURCES AND METHODS

That career choices and occupational changes are reflected inthe data is complicated by the fact that students decide what theywill study long before they appear as egresados, degrees granted, ordegrees registered in statistical sources. The time-lag adjustmentused to take this factor into account is discussed below.

Relationships among the Statistical Series

Numerical relationships among the three indicators can be cal-

culated where data exist for overlapping years. The data show, forexample, that for every two engineering egresados in 7970, one Per-son received a professional degree in an engineering field. For 1980,

the absolute data on egresados and on degrees registered with the

DGP show a ratio of 2.4 engineering egresados to 1 engineering de-

gree registered. Analysis of one of the two years in which all three

series overlap shows a ratio of 2.7 egresados to 1.3 degrees grantedto 1 degree registered in 7970. There are large differences in these

ratios from field to field and from year to year: business fields show

a ratio of 6.4 to 7.7 to 1. in 7970 while engineering specialties show a

ratio of 2.3 to 1" to 1 in the same year.ze

While use of these ratios in historical analysis is complicatedby several factors, it is possible to perceive some significant change

in the ratios of egresados to degrees granted and degrees registeredover time. If we consider that a Person registering a degree ín 7977

probably received the degree in 1970 and finished coursework(reached egresado status) in 1,967 or 1968, the data indicate a ratioof 1.5 egresados to 1 degree granted to 1 degree registered in the late

1960s and early 7970s.30 At this time, then, roughly two-thirds ofall egresados went on to finish the degree.31 For the 1980s we lack

York: International Council for Educational Development, 1978), p.20.2eRichard G. King, Alfonso Rangel Guerra, David Kline, and Noel F.

McGinn, Nueoe unioersidades mexicanas: Un andlisis de su crecimiento y desar-

rollo (México, D.F.: ANUIES, 1.972), suggest a ratio of two egresados to onedegree granted (p. 110).

30Data for a single year do not represent a single generation of univer-sity students. Rather, each indicator represents a cluster of students fromdiiferent entering classes at different stages of the career. Because a degreecan be registered at any time, the data from the DGP also include manyregistrations of degrees earned long before the date of registration. The reg-istiation process became more strictly controlled aftet 1970, and particularlyafter 1973, and so there are quantitative bulges in 1,971, and 7974'

3lDonald ¡. Mabry, The Mexican Uniaersity and the State: StudentConflicts, 1910-L971 (College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1982), claims that30.7 percent of egresados achieved the degree. Graciela Carza's data sug-

61

62 CHAPTER THREE

consistent data and must rely on informed estimates. The director ofstatistics at ANUIES estimated in 1988 that in the late 1980s 10

percent of entering students reached the egresado stage, while 3 per-cent earned the licentiate degree.32 This estimate provides a ratioof 3.3 egresados for every person receiving a degree. By this roughmeasure, only slightly more than one quarter of egresados eventu-ally received the licentiate degree by the late 1980s.

Although such ratios give an idea of the relationships amongthe three categories at different points in time and over time for a

very restricted period, use of the ratios to extrapolate either for-ward or backward in time is most likely to be misleading. It is verydifficult to determine with accuracy how many persons from a givenentering class reach the egresado stage, earn the licentiate degree,and then register the degree with the DGP. That these ratios seemto have changed over time further complicates the picture. It is alsoclear that the ratios differ from institution to institution, betweenpublic and private schools, and among the various professionalfields.ae For all these reasons, attention must be focused on the im-plications of the relationships among the different data sets andhistorical changes in these relationships rather than on absolutedata.

The ratio between egresados who become professionals and thosewho find employment as technicians is particularly important tothe themes developed in this study; the most important occupa-tional distinction I make is between professionals and technicians.Egresados who do not finish their studies represent an intermediatelevel of professional training, somewhere between a graduate of a

secondary school program and the university graduate with the li-centiate degree. In most professional fields, egresados fill the de-

gest that only about 40 percent of students entering UNAM in the 1970s fin-ished the degree. In 1988, UNAM officials estimated that only 30 percent ofentering students achieved the degree. UNAM is probably not representa-tive of all Mexican universities in this regard and data for UNAM thus rep-resent a somewhat lower than average figure. See also Milena Covo,"Apuntes para el análisis de la trayectoría de una generación universitaria,"in CEE, Educación y realidad socioeconómica (México, D. F.: Centro deEstudios Educativos, 1.979), who estimates that in 1954/55 there were moredegrees granted than egresados,1.3 to 1, but that by 1973/74 this ratio hadslipped to.6 degrees granted to 1 egresado.

32lnterview with Lic. Jesús Barrón of ANUIES, June, 1988.33See Salvador Malo, |onathan Garst, and Graciela Garza, El egresado

del posgrado de la UNAM (México, D.F.: UNAM, 1981).

SOURCES AND METHODS

mand for technicians while degree-holders or persons with graduate

education hold the more demanding and more rewarding positions.

Blanca Petricioli and Clark Reynolds point out in regard to the

training of Mexican economists, for example, that egresados fre-quently make up the pool of secretaries, clerks, compilers of data,

and other auxiliary workers for both private firms and government

agencies. Degree recipients, in contrast, are the source of the Mexi-

can system's professional economists'34

The ratio derived above from the relationship among the three

indicators in 1970 provides a rough estimate of the percentage of

egresados who go on to achieve the licentiate degree-the number of

degrees granted in 7970 was about two-thirds that of egresados in1968. This share probably does not include all egresados who even-

tually achieve the professional degree, but represents the elite of

that group-those students who achieve the degree within two

years or less from time of completion of coursework and have the

best chances of finding high-level employment in their field. Most

of the remaining third probably did not finish work for the degree.

Some egresados, of course, quickly find their way to professional-

level employment because of personal or family contacts, aptitude,

or other reasons, but there is most likely an equal share of profes-

sional-level egresados who slide down the employment ladder.

Because it is apparent that the ratio between egresados and degree-

holders has changed over time, the two-thirds estimate here willbe an underestimate for years prior lo L970 and an overestimate inlater years.35

Because the nature of the relationships among the three indi-cators is useful in revealing shifts in supply and demand for profes-

sionals, it is important to explain why differences exist among the

three indicators-why all egresados do not continue on to complete

the degree. The following explanations are those that conform most

closely with data on the relationships between the series over time

3aClark W. Reynolds and Blanca M. de Petricioli, The Teaching ofEconomics in Mexico, occasional Report 1 (New York: Education and worldAffatrs,1,967).

35As noted earlier, there is also a great difference among institutions. AtUNAM, for example, about 56 percent of egresados received- thg 9eg-r99See Llnomásuno, iune 77, \988, p. 3, which quotes a study by UNAM'sDirección General de Planeación and a paper given by Rafael vidal uribe yPío Alcántara, "Trayectoría escolar en el nivel licenciatura'"

63

64 CHAPTER THREE

and those most commonly expressed by professionals themselves:36

1. Students find employment while still in schoo1.37 Thisemployment is generally at the technician level (as definedabove). Students frequently intend to finish their universitywork. As to registration, if a working student does eventu-ally achieve the degree, he or she may have no reason toregister it with the DGP, as he or she is already employed.

2. Students find work upon completion of coursework(egresado stage) and do not fulfill all the requirements forthe degree. For some students the cost (in time and money) ofproducing the frequently 100-page plus thesis is pro-hibitive.:a

3. It can be difficult and time-consuming to register thedegree. The registration process can take longer thán a year,and while the university usually handles some part of theprocess, students are frequently responsible for initiating itor seeing it through to completion.3e

All of these factors suggest that students are able to develop amarketable skill without achieving the formal degree, generally ifthey are willing to accept work at the technician level. Students donot necessarily need the formal degree, nor do they always need toregister the degree, if they achieve it, in order to find employment.The growing practice of hiring in Mexico based on job-entry exami-

36lnformation from interviews and from questionnaires on professionalcareer patterns.

3TCompare ECLA, Education, Human Resources, and Deoelopment in LatinAmerica (New York: United Nations, 1968), and Pablo Latapí, Análisis de unsexenio de educación en Mexico, 1970-1976 (México, D.F.: Editorial NuevaImagen, 1980).

- 38There is a great diversity among universities in requirements for thedegree. Many of the newer public schools founded in thé 1970s, as well asmany private schools, make finishing coursework and receiving the degreepracticaliy simultaneous. Frequently, the thesis, the required period of.- so-cial service, and/or the final examination are incorporatéd into the period ofcoursework. This integration of requirements was often adopted with theexplicit aim of narrowing the difference between egresados and degree-holders; it was felt that degree requirements were tóo difficurt and lverekeep-ing many students from their career objectives.

.39For the-graduate level, Malo, Garst, and Garza, in El egresado de pos-grado, found that the three most important motives given by §raduate egre-sados of UNAM for not finishing degree work were:-not enóu[h time toiin-ish (42.1 percent of responses), process for presenting profess-ional exam orproject too_complicated (8.1 percent), degree not nécéssary for work (7.4percent), other reasons (30.3 percent).

SOURCES AND METHODS

nations/ in both public and private sectors, makes a degree increas-

ingly less important in obtaining certain kinds of work.4O And be-

cause public university education is essentially free, secondary-school graduates are implicitly encouraged to continue their job

search as college students if they do not find employment upon leav-ing secondary school. All students who leave the university at theegresado stage have not necessarily found work, however. Rather,

the extra time spent completing the thesis or preparing for the pro-fessional exam for the degree is not perceived as making a great

difference in one's ability to find employment at the desired level.

The ability to discontinue studies at the egresado level has often

been seen as an advantage to students, particularly to students fromlower socioeconomic strata receiving technical training at the uni-versity level: ". students acquire remunerative abilities whichserve them in the case that they are obliged to interrupt the course

of study before its conclusion."4l

Estimating a Time-Lag FactorIt takes several years to educate a professional specialist in a

given field: the university system cannot respond overnight tochanges in government strategy or in the economy. Decisions made

by students based on government spending and employment opportu-nities in the economy will only become aPparent in data series years

after those decisions were made. The time lag developed and em-

ployed here is an estimate that takes into account the difference be-

tween data on degrees granted, egresados, and degrees registered,differences in time lags in various professional fields, and differ-ences among universities.az

The appropriate time lag is best chosen by consulting data onaverage enrollment-to-graduation time in professional fields. It has

40For a discussion of the growing importance of such exams, see PeterS. Cleaves, Las profesiones y el estado: El caso de México (México: El Colegio deMéxico, 1985), pp. 122-730.

4lFrancisco Arce Gurza, "El inicio de una nueva era, 1910-7945," inHistoria de las prot'esiones en México (México, D.F.: EI Colegio de México,1982), p. 257. See also pp. 259-260 for discussion of how this advantage (tothe student) of engineering education was incorporated into a stepped de-

Bree structure in certain specialties.42In Paradox I adjust the data for a six-year time iag in order to compare

statistics on government expenditure and professional occupation with dataon university graduates and egresados. See the discussion in Chapter Threeof that study and Table 12 here.

65

CHAPTER THREE

been shown that the average professional career at UNAM-fromtime of matriculation to time of award of degree-lasted an averageof 7.8 years (with an average standard deviation of 3.2 years) inthe period 7955-77. There is a great degree of difference among pro-fessional fields in this respect, varying from a high of 9.2 years ineconomics to 5.7 years in dentistrl.a3 Data for 1980 for theUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL) suggest a seven-yeardifference from time of enrollment to achievement of degree. As inenrollment-to-graduation data for UNAM, differences among pro-fessional fields are notable at UANL. Sciences have a high lagtime of 4.5 years between egresado and degree levels, compared toan average period of 3.2 years for all fields.++

The six-year time lag adopted in this study takes into accountseveral other factors. Some factors would tend to suggest a slightlylonger time lag. Students must make some choice of general fieldorientation, for example, before entering one of three differentpreparatory tracks (sciences, social and administrative sciences,humanities) and this would tend to lengthen time from choice of ca-reer to employment. It is fairly difficult in the Mexican system tochange careers outside a fairly narrow range upon entering the uni-versity, although it has become easier over time. The developmentof a common body of coursework (a tronco común) in the first year ofuniversity study at many universities has apparently made changesbetween fields more common in the first two years of study.4s Onekey factor suggests a shorter time lag in setiling upon a national av-erage. It is clear that matriculation to degree time is shorter at pri-vate universities and for many public universities other thanUNAM. Licentiate engineering studies at the Universidad de lasAméricas-Puebla last 4 to 4.5 years, about half that of the largepublic institutions. And some public universities, such as the

43Garza, La titulación en la lfNAM.44Programa de Seguimiento de Egresados UANL, Estudio sobre el egre-

sado al titularse en la Unioersidad Autónoma de Nueoo León 1980181 (Monterrey:UANL, n.d.[1981]), p. 46.

asAt the most traditionally structured universities in Mexico (UNAM,UANL, UAEM, UACH, etc.), it remains difficult to switch between facultiesand thus career fields. At some of the newer institutions, on the other hand,it is much easier. Many institutions of higher education have adopted three-stage degree programs. All students take a group of core courses upon en-tering the institution, usualiy for a year. They then take a group of corecourses in their major area. Finally, students take a series of specialtycourses,

66

SOURCES AND METHODS

Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM), aPPear to have

shorter matriculation-to-degree times than does UNAM. Because

newer public universities in the provinces and in the Federal

District have been producing an increasing share of egresados since

the late 1950s, I have settled on a shorter rather than a longer time

lug.A six-year time lag facilitates comparison among the three ba-

sic data series developed here. Because matriculation-to-degree time

has lengthened over time, particularly at public universities, the

six-year time lag averages out the effect of the change from degrees-

granted data to egresados data. In the 1950s and 1960s students

frequently achieved the degree in the time it took to reach the

egresado stage in the 1980s. Because I shift from degrees granted to

egresados between 1,967 and 7970, I have applied the six-year lag

uniformly across the time series where I have applied it.

It takes approximately six years for the effects of individualstudent decisions based on government spending or economic changes

to appear in data on the professional fields. A six-year lag makes itpossible to gauge the power of government policy to stimulatespecific professional fields and specialties. With the time lag

taken into consideration, the data reveal the number and relativeimportance of individual decisions about future employment and

other career factors. Among its advantages, the time-lag approach

allows discussion of professional field development in the 1920s and

1930s, for which data are available only in highly aggregate

form.46 On the other end of the time period, the time lag limitsanalysis to six years before the year of the most recent data.

Data on the Employment of Professionals and Technicians

Data on the occupational structure of Mexico have been devel-

oped here to shed light on two key segments of the work force: pro-

fessionals and technicians. The meaning of these two terms in this

study has been discussed above. Analysis of census data on profes-

sionals and technicians is based on a broad definition for the twocategories: professionals include Persons tallied as "professionals,""upper-level public officials," "private sector managers," and sec-

ondary and college-level teachers in the census; technicians include

a6other factors-including the lingering prestige of some professions-are discussed in UNESCO, Higher Education: International Trends, 1960-70(New York: UNESCO, 1975).

67

68 CHAPTER THREE

the "technicians" category of the census, as well as upper-level of-fice employees and primary school teachers.4T To achieve a broadrepresentation of persons with professional and technician-leveltraining here, many of the statistical tables on professionals andtechnicians in the Mexican work force present data on professionalsand technicians (disaggregated where possible), upper-level man-agers and public officials, and office workers.

The early censuses of the twentieth century offer a set of inter-related challenges to the researcher interested in occupationalchange. While there was no functional occupational breakdown un-til the census of 1950, the censuses of 1895, 7900,7970,1921,1930,and 1940 each contain some information on professionals. Each censususes the occupational breakdown determined primarily by sector ofeconomic activity. But along with the usual divisions of agricultureand commerce, there are categories for "public administration" and"liberal professions." These two categories can be taken as indica-tors of growth in professional and technician occupations.

Only one calculation was made here in order to make the earlycensus data comparable with census data after 1950. For the fivecensuses prior to the census of 1950 and the introduction of the cur-rent definitions of occupational categories, only 3 percent of"domestic workers" (an estimate of those who were paid based onthe percentage of domestic workers paid in 1940) were included intotal EAP.

The most difficult challenge in developing data on occupationsin Mexico is the incorporation of data on occupations and economicsector from the 1980 census. For the development of overall data onoccupational structure in 1980 the most serious problem is that 16.9percent of census respondents could not be classified by principal oc-cupation. Because the census questionnaire asked the principal occu-

47See the definitions in the census of 1980 in Secretaría deProgramación y Presupuesto (SPP), X Censo: Resumen general (México, D. F.:SPP, 1980), vol. 1, p. 918. The census categories for "professionals" and"technicians" are not comprehensive: secondary and university-level teach-ers are placed in a separate category, artists and writers in another.Although secondary teachers were trained outside the university system un-til the 1980s, they are clearly an important group of professionally skilledpersons. The census categories of "higher public-sector functionaries" and"higher private-sector functionaries" are mostly made up of persons withuniversity education, The relevant census question (number 16 in the 1980census) asks simply "What was your occupation in your principal job lastweek or the last time you were employed?"

SOURCES AND METHODS

pation performed in the week previous to the administration of the

census, many persons who either were not working during that week

or who could claim more than one occuPation were not classified by

occupation.Further, large numbers of census respondents could not be classi-

fied by economic sector of activity. Overall,29.7 percent of EAP

were not classified by economic sector. The number of professionalsand technicians that census workers could not classify by sector was

394,752 or 25.0 percent of the total. Managers and public officialswho could not be specified amounted to 34.4 percent of all managers

and government officials; office workers who could not be fit into a

sector of occupation were fully 52.9 Percent of all office workers.It is important to note that census data from 1980 do not indicate

that large percentages of professionals and technicians were left outof the 1980 census, but rather that census workers tabulating fromcensus manuscripts could not assign persons to economic Sectors of ac-

tivity. The most likely explanation for this problem is that manypersons who had worked in more than one sector over the course ofthe year previous to the taking of the census were tabulated as "notspecified."

Another problem with making the 1980 data comparable withdata from earlier years is that more sectorial categories were addedto census computations in 1980. Petroleum and government, whichhad been added as separate sectors in 1970, were retained in 1980; a

communications sector was added. Expanding the services sector, the

1980 census presented data for workers in financial institutions andhotels.

Several steps were taken here to develop data for 1980 thatwould be comparable with 7950, 7960, and 1970 census data. First,sectoral categories were collapsed to make eight basic categories forthe period from 1950 to 1980. For 1970, for example, "government"and "petroleum" sectors were included in "services" and "extractive"sectors respectively. Second, a new percentage of "not specified" was

estimated for 1980 based on trends in the "not specified" categorybetween 1950 and 1970. Third, the remaining percentage of "notspecified" was distributed back into the sectoral categories follow-ing the relative percentage shares of those categories. No assump-iions were made about the likelihood of over- or underrepresenta-tion of some sectors in the original data, for there is little indica-tion that professionals in one sector would be more or less likely to

69

CHAPTER THREF

have been classified as "not specified." Finally, new estimated cat-egory totals and percentage shares were calculated (see Table 22).Itshould be noted that these manipulations do not affect the basiclong-term trend in the data. Rather, they make comparison moreaccurate by replacing the raw 1980 data with data that more accu-rately reflect reality.

70

CHAPTER FOUR

Statistical

Previous data sets on university education in Mexico have been

plagued by extremely general categories for fields of professional

study. Most commonly used data have been organized into large, ag-

gregate groupings such as "social sciences" and "engineering and

technical" professions. Some of these groupings, such as "philosophy

and letters," have been retained from the names of university facul-

ties established in colonial times' The "philosophy and letters"

category includes careers that are now generally considered both so-

cial sciences, such as history and geography, and humanities, such

as philosophy and literature.The most problematic aggregate category is "social sciences" or,

more commonly, "social and administrative sciences." The "social

and administrative science" category in the ANUIES statistical

yearbook, for example, groups the following fields under that single

heading: business administration, anthropology and archaeology,

public administration, communications, accounting, law, economics,

geography, sports organization, psychology, international relations,

tourism, social work, and several others. It does not include history.

ANUIES presents the data in a way that allows for easy disaggre-

gation by career and specialty, but the data are generally not dis-

aggregated when used bY analYsts.

The use of such aggregate fields can greatly affect research and

analysis. For example, the historical growth in the catch-all cate-

gory of "social and administrative sciences," which has been due todramatic growth in a few fields like accounting and business admin-

istration, is commonly assumed to be a sign of the continuing impor-

tance in Mexico of "traditional" careers, as oPposed to "moder\" ca-

Series

71

72 CHAPTER FOUR

reers like engineering and the sciences.l But clearly there is nothing

particularly,,traditional" about tourism or international relations,

not to mention sports organization. Division into "traditional" and

"modern" career fields has been avoided in this study and data on

historical changes in fields of study are presented at a low level ofaggregation. Organization in this fashion allows us to see, amongmany other things, that there has actually been a long-term declinein the importance of the so-called traditional fields and not an in-crease as many observers believe.

The basic organizing principle for the categories developed here

is the employment of professionals: fields of study and specialtiesare placed in categories according to the area in which graduates ofthose areas will most probably work. Thus, veterinary doctors,sometimes included in the data with other medical professionals,are here grouped with agricultural engineers; actuaries, who are

trained in mathematics, law, or engineering departments, have been

placed in the business category, as they generally work for insurancefirms.

Several professions present special problems. Economists, for ex-

ample, while frequently working in business, also are important inindustry and government.2 For crossover fields such as economics,

the data have not been combined with other groups by employmentsector; economists have been placed in their own category.3Psychologists and social workers, who usually work in health care

institutions, are here grouped separately from other health profes-sionals such as doctors, dentists, optometrists, and licentiate-levelnurses. Architects have been tabulated separately from engineers,with whom they are frequently grouped.

1See, for example, José Angel Pescador Osuna, "El balance de laeducación superior en el sexenio 1976-1982," in UAP, Perspectioas de la edu'cación superior en México (Puebla: UAP, i984), pp. 41-87; Howard F. Cline,Mexico: Reztolution to Er¡olution, 1940-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press,7963), p.204; Arthur Liebman, Kenneth N. Walker, and Myron Glazer, LatinAmerican Uniz,tersity Students: A Six Nation Study (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press,7972), pp. 49-50; and Pablo Latapí, Análisis de un sexenio de

educación en México, 1970-1976 (México, D.F.: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1980),pp.207-208.

ZSEP, In¡ormación profesional y subprofesional de México (México, D. F.:9EP,1.958), p.26.

3Some scholars combine economics with other fieids. See, for example,Roderic A. Camp, "The Political Technocrat in Mexico and the Survival ofthe Political System," Latin American Research Reztiezu, 20, no. 1 (1985), 101,who combines economics with accounting.

STAT]STICAL SERIES

All major data series are presented by calendar year' This form

of presentation is most accurate for data on degrees granted, egresa-

dos, and degrees registered, the three basic series developed and

analyzed in this study. In contrasting data on university expenditure

and enrollment, which are generally tabulated on the basis of the

academic year after L970, with other data series, I use the latercalendar year. For example, expenditure data for the academic year

7975-76 are compared with data on egresados for 1.976. The decision

to compare L975-76 wtth 1,976 instead of 1'975 does not lead to any

major changes in the interpretation of the series.

I have attempted to make the three historical times series con-

sistent over time and consistent with one another as to fieldmakeup. Notes as to specific inclusions and problems with consis-

tency are included in the following field breakdown where explana-

tion might be useful to the reader. Uppercase letters (e.g., "BUS")

indicate an aggregate field, lower case letters (e'g', "Econ.") a fieldmade up of a single degree.

Professional-Field Categories Used in the Tables

L. Field Breakdown by lndicator

Degrees Granteda

Business (BUS)

AccountingActuaryBusiness AdministrationCommerce

73

aBasic field definitions for degrees granted are adopted from AE andCE; no indication is generally given in these sources as to changing specificmakeup of these fielás. For example, the DGE organized-engineering field"q

into the "classic" engineering groupings: agricultural, chemical, civil,electrical, mechanical, éxtractivé. Growth in newer engineering specialitiesis thus represented in the growth of the "other engineering specialty" cate-

80ry.

74 CHAPTER FOUR

Engineering (ENG)

Aericultural EnsineerineAgricultural EngineeringVeterinary Medicine

Chemical EneineerineChemical

Civil EnsineeringCivil Engineering

Electrical, Mechanical, and Mechanical-Electrical Engineering5ElectricalMechanicalMechanical-Electrical

Extractive EngineeringExtractivePetroleumMiningMetallurgy

Other EngineeringOther Engineering Specialities (Not Specified in Source)

Health Professions (HEALTH)6

DentistsMedical Doctors

sElectrical, mechanical, and mechanical-eiectrical engineering are com-bined here for several reasons. Much older data on engineering degreesgranted combine the three groups under one heading and separate fieldscannot be disaggregated. This aggregation does not cause a large problem,however, because these three involve similar training and the fields areclosely tied in modern practice in Mexico.

6Military and rural doctors are included. Specialists in homeopathicmedicine, who work primarily with herbal cures, have also been included.Pharmaceutical chemists have been included.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Sciences (SCIENCE)

Chemistry"Scientific Professions"

Teaching Professions (TEACH)

Secondary School Teachers

University Professors

OtherDiplomacyPharmaceutical ChemistsPsychologyTVarious Other Professions8

EgresadoseArchitecture and Design (Arch.)

ArchitectureArchitectu ral EngineeringDesign

Business (BUS)

AccountingBanking and FinancesBusiness AdministrationCommercial RelationsCommunications

TPsychology is tabulated separately only for thesources-and so is placed in the other category for alland degrees-registered series, psychology and social

75

years 1,964-71 in datayears. In the egresadoswork have their own

category.sThe "other" category in sources apparently includes only secondary-

Ievel degrees and diplómas and so has not been included in _my tabulations.After 1,9*63, the "other" category becomes more specific, and I have includedother university-level degrees when it was possible to discern differences inlevels of degre-es. Such degrees include licentiate degrees in social sciences,

political sciénce, public administration, tourism, optometry, and librarysciences.

9An egresado has finished coursework for a degree but has yet to com-plete the written thesis or other requirements for the degree. Degree-pro--gram

names vary from university to university; I have used the mostcommon designations.

76

CustomsIndustrial RelationsInternational RelationsPublic AdministrationloPublic RelationsSales and MarketingTourism

Engineerinq and Applied Sci

CHAPTER FOUR

Agricultural EngineeringAgricultural Chemistry with specialty in Bacteriology and

ParasitologyAgricultural Engineering (27 specialties)AgrochemistryAgroindustrial EngineeringForestry and Forest DevelopmentFruticultureRural DevelopmentVeterinary MedicineZoological Engineering (3 specialties)

Chemical EneineerineAdministrationChemicalIndustrial ChemicalIndustrial Chemistry

Civil EngineeringCivil (8 specialties)ConstructionMunicipal

gornputcr_EngltcerbgCibernetics and Computer Science

Computers

10The public administration degree granted in business programs hasbeen included here; degrees granted as "Social Science and PublicAdministration" or "Political Science and Public Administration" have beenplaced in the social sciences category.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Computer Systems

Systems Administration

Earth Sciences

Earth-Science EngineeringGeophysical, Geographic, Geologic, and Geochemical

Engineering

Electrical and Electronic EngineeringCommunications and ElectronicsElectrical (6 specialties)Electronic

Extractive EnsineerinsChemical-specialty in Metallurgy and PetroleumMining and MetallurgyPetroleum

Industrial EngineeringIndustrial (13 specialties)

Mechanical and Mechanical-Electrical EngineeringElectromechanical (4 specialties)Mechanical (2 specialties)

Other EngineeringAeronauticApplied ChemistryBiomedicalEcologicalFishingFood Sciences

NavalOceanicPhysicalPlanningTextileTransportWood

77

78 CHAPTER FOUR

Health Professions (HEALTH)Bacteriologists, ParasitologistsDentistryMedical DoctorsNursingOptometristsPharmaceutical Chemists

Humanities and Arts (HUM)Dramatic ArtDanceHistoryLanguageLettersMusicPhilosophyReligionScenery

Psycholog)¡ and Social Work (Ps)¡ch./SW)

PsychologySocial Work

Sciences (SCIENCE)r'Atmospheric SciencesBiochemistryBiologyChemistryGeologyMarine SciencesMathematicsPhysics

11The sciences category includes only professionals who have simpletitles. Complex degree fields have been included in fields of similar occupa-tional orientation. Industrial chemistry, for example, has been tabulatedwith chemical engineering.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Social Sciences (SS)

Anthropology and ArchaeologyArchival and Bibliographical StudiesGeographyLatin American StudiesPolitical Science

Political Science and Public AdministrationSociologySports Organization

Teachine (TEACH)

Egresados of Normal Superior (Higher Teacher

secondary levelEducationPedagogy

Degrees RegisteredBusiness (BUS)

AccountingBusiness AdministrationCommerce

Engineering (ENG)12

Agricultura I EngineeringAgronomistVeterinary Medicine

Chemical EneineerineChemical

Civil EneineerinsCivil

Training) courses at

12The degrees registered category represents only the most numerousspecialties in each discipline, and thus is not comprehensive. For this rea-són, an index has been constructed in order to show the changing relativeimportance and growth rates of the different engineering fields and for con-trast with the two other series.

79

80 CHAPTER FOUR

Electrical and Electronic EngineeringCommunications and ElectronicsElectrical

Extractive EngineeringMining and MetallurgyPetroleum

Industrial EngineeringIndustrial

MechanicalMechanical

Mechanical-Electrical EngineeringMechanical-Electrical

Health ProfessionsDentistryMedical DoctorsNursingOptometrists

Humanities and ArtsLanguage and LettersMusicPhilosophyVisual Arts

Psychology and Social Work (Ps)¡ch./SW)

PsychologySocial Work

Sciences (SCIENCE)

BiologyMathematicsPhysics

STATISTICAL SERIES

Social Sciences (SS)

AnthropologyHistorySociology

Teachinq Professions (TEACH)Egresados of Normal Superior (Higher Teacher Training) courses at

secondary levelEducationPedagogy

OtherAll other degrees

2. Field Breakdown by Functiort

SocialHEALTHTEACH

EconomicBUSENG

3. Field Breakdown by Economic Sector

Primary Sector-AgricultureAg./Yet.

Secondary Sector-IndustryENG (Other than Ag./Vet.)

Tertiary Sector-ServicesArch.BUSSCI, SS, HUMI3

l3Persons who work primarily in institutions of higher education arehere considered service professionals. These three fields are the most

81

82

Prof essional-Field AbbreviationsArch. Architecture

BUS BusinessBus. Ad.Acct.

Econ.

Ed.

ENG EngineeringAo'-ó'Ag./Yet.BiochemChem.CiviIComp.EarthE1.

Indust.Mech./El.Mech./Mech.-El.

MiningPetrol.Text.Top./Hyd.Vet.

Med.Dent.Nurse

Business AdministrationAccounting

Economics

Education

MedicineDentistryNursing

CHAPTER FOUR

It generally

AgriculturalAgricultural Engineering and Veterinary MedicineBiochemicalChemicalCivilComputer EngineeringEarth-science fieldsElectric

El./Electronic Electrical and ElectronicExtr. Extractive Engineeringla

IndustrialMechanical and Electrical

Mechanical and Mechanical-ElectricalMining and MetallurgyPetroleumTextileTopographic and HydraulicVeterinary Medicine

HEALTH HealthProfessions

Pharm.Chem. Pharmaceutical Chemistry

purely academic fields that can be drawn from the data.l4Extractive is a field name used in many older data series.

means mining, metallurgical, and petroleum engineering.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Psych./SW Psychology and Social Work

HUM Humanities and Arts

SCI Sciences

SS Social Sciences

NS Normal Superior (Teacher Training for SecondarySchool)

83

84

TABLES

CHAl'TER FOUR

University Graduates, Egresados, and Degrees RegisteredTable 1 Degrees Granted, Nine Fields, 7928-71.

Table 2 lJniversity Egresados, Nine Fields,1.963-67

Table 3 University Egresados, Eleven Fields, 7967-89

Table 4 Degrees Registered, Six Fields, 7945-70

Table 5 Degrees Registered, Eleven Fields, 1,970-85

Table 6 Percentage Change in Degrees Granted, Egresados, and

Degrees Registered

Table 7 Degrees Granted, Egresados, and Degrees Registered perOne Million Inhabitants, 7928-89

Table 8 Professional Degrees as Percentage of All Degrees, 7928-71

Table 9 Ratios of Degrees Granted, Egresados, Degrees Registered,

and Enrollment

Table 10 Professionals in Sample Economic and Social Fields,1,928-89

Table 11 Indexes of Professionals in Sample Economic and SocialFields, 7928-89

Table 12 Average Index and Percentage Distribution ofProfessionals in Sample Economic and Social Fields,7928-89

Table 13 Engineering Degrees Granted, Egresados, and Degrees

Registered, 7929-89

Table 14 Engineering Degrees Granted, Nine Specialties,7928-71.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Table 15 Engineering Egresados, Fourteen Specialties, 7967-89

Table 16 Egineering Degrees Registered, Nine Specialities, T9(¡6-70

to 1981-85

Table 1,7 Engineering Degrees Registered, Ten Specialities, 1'970-86

Table 18 Index of Engineering Degrees Registered, Ten Specialties,

1,970-86

Occupational Structure and the Employment of ProfessionalsTabte 19 Economically Active Population by Economic Sector,

1900-90

Table 20 Professionals and Technicians, 1,900-40

Table 21 Professionals, Technicians, and Management inEconomically Active Population, 1950-90

Table 22 Professsionals, Technicians, and Management, by Sector,

1950-90

Table 23 Occupational Structure of Economic Sectors, 1950-90

Table 24 Professional and Technician Economically ActivePopulation, by Economic Sector, 1950-90

Table 25 Professional Degrees Granted, by Economic Sector, 1928-77

Table 26 University Egresados, by Economic Sector, 7967-89

Table 27 Professional Employment and Degrees Granted, 1950, andProfessional Employment and Egresados, 1980

Table 28 Various Measures of Demand for Professionals in NuevoLeón State

85

CHAPTER FOUR

Table 29 Professions of Public-Sector Employees, Centralized andDecentralized Sectors, Five Fields, 1975

Table 30 Professionals and Technicians in Economically ActivePopulation and Percentage Change, 1.950,1980, and7990

Table 31 Increase in Degrees Granted, Egresados, and DegreesRegistered, 1950-89

Quality in the University SystemTable 32 Expenditure per University Student in Mexico, 1930-80

Table 33 UNESCO Data on Expenditure per University Student inMexico,7961,-85

Table 34 Students per Faculty at Mexican Universities, 1928-90

Table 35 Full-Time, Part-Time, and Hourly Faculty at MexicanUniversities, 7965-90

Table 36 Estimated Expenditure per Student at UNAM, 1924-85

Table 37 Students per Faculty Member at UNAM, 7937-90

Table 38 Full-Time, Part-Time, and Hourly Faculty at UNAM,7969_90

Table 39 Percentage Share of UNAM Budget Devoted to FacultySupport, 1967-88

Table 40 Quality Measures, Sample Public and PrivateUniversities

Deconcentration of the University SystemTable 41 Enrollment in Sample Fields of Study at Public and

Private Universities, Five Fields, 7959 and 7964

Table 42 UNAM and IPN Share of Total Enrollment, 1928-60

86

87STATISTICAL SERIES

Table 43 Enrollment in Private Universities, UNAM, and IPN,7959-64

Table 44 UNAM and IPN Share of Total University Enrollment,7967-66

Table 45 Egresados of Public and Private Universities, 7967-89

Table 46 Egresados of Eleven Sample Public Universities, 1967-89

Table 47 Egresados of Three Sample Private Universities, 1967-89

Table 48 Summary Percentage Data on Egresados of Public and

Private Universities and in Sample, 7967-89

Social Mobility and the UniversityTable 49 Mexico's Class Structure, 1895-1980

Table 50 Mexico's Class Structure, by Income and Occupation,1950-80

Table 51 Percentage Change in Absolute Data for Four Selected

Classes, 1950-60, 7960-70, and 1970-80

Table 52 Change in Percentage Data for Four Selected Classes,

1950-60, 1960-70, and 1970-80

Table 53 Percentage Change in Class Structure, 1950-80

Table 54 Comparison of Growth Rates of University Degrees

Granted, Egresados, and Degrees Registered withGrowth of Social Classes, 1950-90

Table 55 Highest Level of Schooling Attained by Fathers ofUNAM Students, 1,949,7963, 7970, and 7980

Table 56 Monthly Income of Families of UNAM Students, 1963,

1,970, and 1.980

88 CHAPTER FOUR

Table 57 Class Background of UNAM Students, 7963, 7970, and 1980

Tabte 58 Women Professionals and Technicians in EconomicallyActive Population, 1900-90

Table 59 UNAM Degrees Granted to Women, 791.0-66, and WomenEnrolled, 7930-66

Table 60 Women Enrolled, Women Egresados, and Degrees Grantedto Women, Selected Fields, 1968

Table 61 Women Enrolled, Women Egresados, and Degrees Grantedto Women, Selected Fields, 1969

Table 62 Women Enrolled in Selected Fields as Share of TotalEnrollment in Those Fields, 1.969,7980, and 1990

Table 63 Women Enrolled in Selected Fields as Share of TotalWomen Enrolled, 1969,L980, and 1990

Table 64 Degrees Registered by Women Professionals, 15 SampleFields, 1,970-85

Symbols Used in Tables

- Data not available# Zero or negligible

Abbreviations for Sources Used in Tables

AE Dirección General de Estadística, Anuarioestadístico.

ANUIES-AE Asociación Nacional de Universidades e

Institutos de Enseñanza Superior. Anuarioestqdístico.

ANUIES-ESM Asociación Nacional de Universidades e

Institutos de Enseñanza Superior. Ln

educación superior en México (1967) and La

enseñanza superior en México (1968-7O.

STATISTICAL SERIES

CE Dirección General de Estadístíca- Compendio

estadístico.

Census Mexican Decennial Census.

DGP Dirección General de Profesiones, unpublisheddata.

EHM Instituto de Estadística, Geografía, e

Informática (INEGI). Estodísticas históricas de

México. México, D. F': INEGI, 1985'

FU Attolini, José. Las finanzas de la uniaersidad a

traués del tiempo. México, D. F.: Escuela

Nacional de Economía, UNAM, 1951.

HEU González Cosío, Arturo. Historia estadística de la

uniaersidad, 191.0-L967. México, D.F.: UNAM,7968.

NAFINSA-EMC Nacional Financiera, S-A. Lo economía

mexicqna en cifras.

OELM Obra educatiaa de López Mateos. N.p.: n.p.

IANUIESI, n.d. [1965].

PROIDES ANUIES. Programa integral para el desarrollo de

la educación superior. México, D. F., L986.

QMCS Mostkoff, Aída, and Stephanie Granato."Quantifying Mexico's Class Structure." In

]ames W. Wilkie, ed., Society and Economy

in Mexico. Los Angeles: UCLA LatinAmerican Center Publications, 1989.

SALA Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles:

UCLA Latin American Center Publications.

SEP-EBSEN SEP. Estadística básica del sistema educatiao

nacional, 197L-1972. México, D. F.:58P,7972.

SEP-EPM SEP. La educación pública en México 196411970.

México, D. F.: SEP, 1970.

SEP-ESM SEP. La educación superior en México.

SEP-OE SEP. Obra educatiaa, 1970-7976. México, D. F.:

SEP, n.d. 17976).

UNAM-AE UNAM. Anuario estadístico.

UNAM-CEAL DirecciónGeneral de Administración,Departamento de Estadistica. Cuadernos

89

90 CHAPTER FOUR

estadísticos año lectit¡o 1979-1980. México,

D. F.: UNAM, n.d. t19B0l.

UNAM. Primer censo uniaersitario. México,D. F.: UNAM, 1953.

UNAM. Dirección General de Administración.Estadísticas del aspecto escolsr, 1970. México,D.F.: UNAM,7970.

UNAM. Presupuesto por programas. Variousyears.

UNESCO. Stntistical Yearbook.

for Mexican Universities Used in Tables

Universidad Anahuác

Universidad Iberoamericana

Instituto Politécnico Nacional

Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superioresde Monterrey

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California

Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Universidad Autónoma de Estado de México

Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara

Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Universidad de las Américas-Puebla

Universidad de Cuadalajara

Universidad de Guanajuato

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Universidad Veracruzana

UNAM-CU

UNAM-EAE

UNAM-PP

UNESCO-SY

Abbreviations

Anahuác

Ibero

IPNITAMITESM

MICHSNUABCUACHUACOUAEMUACUAMUANLUAPUASLP

UASINUATUDLAUG

UGUANUNAMUV

(n *] -l o *t a) - o rrl

rn o

4023

8674

4013

4905

3510

0265

0830

7960

443

6024

9013

8071

7150

525

7025

8172

7062

2904

8440

2821

5756

0982

7058

260

2898

7520

6523

0543

8042

2212

8509

2520

880

0 78

40

947

0 97

80

1,02

50

7,07

8

087

0 72

40

128

0 20

0Q

14

8

TA

BLE

1.

Deg

rees

Gra

nted

, N

ine

Fie

lds,

1192

8-7'

L

PA

RT

I. A

bsol

ute

Dat

a

Yea

rA

rch.

E

con.

HE

ALT

H T

EA

CH

Law

B

US

E

NG

SC

IEN

CE

Oth

er T

otal

7928

7929

7930

7937

7932

7933

7934

1935

7936

7937

1938

7939

7940

7947

7942

7943

7944

7945

7946

7947

7948

1949

23 11 51

584 88 69 97 12

397

3 38

1 27

26

47

409

86

298

7 42

4 88

27

73

430

82

296

6 40

5 72

8 28

9

3 42

8 74

28

66

477

275

229

6 53

8 26

9 25

78

587

203

374

77

657

304

270

677

280

248

748

250

293

807

767

466

774

294

255

847

272

291

5 18 9 9 18 22 72 72 8 72

0 7,

049

0 7,

275

0 7,

399

0 7,

632

0 7,

734

0 7,

675

0 7,

941

0 2,

-127

0 1,

950

0 2,

753

10 13 15 10 5

070 80 90 100 90 100

120

1,20

100

110

777

769

151

797

148

737

140

299

277

253

350

360

JZJ

495

776 23 23 72

TA

BLE

1,

PA

RT

I (

Con

tinue

d)

Yea

r A

rch.

E

con.

HE

ALT

H T

EA

CH

Law

B

US

E

NG

SC

IEN

CE

Oth

er

Tot

al

NJ

1950

7957

7952

7953

7954

7955

1956

7957

1958

7959

7960

7961

'196

2"1

963

7964

7965

7966

7967

7968

7969

1970

7977

773

778

277

795

248

865

7,06

47,

077

7,74

67,

752

1,35

599

67,

070

7,07

270

0

795

7,19

57,

365

1,37

67,

397

7,78

61,

851

7,84

02,

480

2,65

3

2,30

52,

943

130

150

160

250

290

290

280

350

360

370

380

460

480

880

532

488

734

803

925

928

651

480

7,76

489

470

5

1,01

37,

048

7,34

97,

306

7,50

7

1,90

37,

894

2,74

72,

633

2,57

4

7,90

72,

409

2,57

53,

759

2,92

8

3,58

82,

883

4,47

83,

452

2,67

0

3,32

93,

940

4,23

55,

100

5,58

3

6,44

06,

987

7 )q

)9,

094

9,47

8

9 10 76 9 5 911 JJ 19 20 32 51 23 83 774

15 15 27 39 55

9 872

713

870

2

0 0 0 073

7

766

230

183

342

369

97 292

277

294

242

240

98 389

229

267

239

296

764

346

111

256

407

461

434

544

238

245

316

406

347

381

366

488

523

355

588

553

502

678

755

297

232

253

581

299

653

644

797

277

151

769

159

747

296

728

537

705

556

578

594

776

777

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frt o e

287

302

327

441

488

320

463

522

448

743

734

777

314

232

904

789

928

1,72

71,

283

7,44

07,

752

792

203

176

381

442

360

7,34

7

a) P "l r

7,38

6 2,

965

2,74

4 2,

779

636

70,6

7764

0 73

,732

TA

BLE

1,

PA

RT

II.

Per

cent

age

Dat

a

Arc

h.

Eco

n. H

EA

LTH

TE

AC

H L

aw

BU

SE

NG

SC

IEN

CE

Oth

er

(D -l ,"1 (¡ *l a) - @ ln N tr1 m

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

0.0

77.8

Yea

r19

2879

29

7930

7931

1932

1.93

379

34

1935

7e36

7937

1938

7939

1940

1947

7942

7943

7944

7945

7946

7947

7948

7949

44.5

59.8

47.4

53.3

48.5

53.2

48.0

48.6

43.2

43.4

42.0

37.6

40.8

39.3

38.5

36.0

37.9

40.4

38.5

37.9

39.7

39.3

26.3

26.2

26.8

28.0

32.4

33.7

31.5

28.3

28.9

26.8

27.3

18.8

78.4

79.2

75.6

74.8

15.1

27.9

13.1

13.5

22.3

12.8

16.8

72.0

10.5

11.1

13.1

13.1

79.5

73.7

74.7

11.3

10.0

18.3

16.0

15.1

18.0

76.9

16.6

23.0

0.7

2.3

1.1

7.4

0.7

1.1

0.9

0.6

1.9

0.9

0.9

1.7

2.7

1.0

0.9

0.5

0.7

0.4

0.8

1.1

1.2

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.5

1.0

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.2

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

2.6

1.5

2.4

2.7

9.7

9.0

8.0

71.9

7.7

77.7

79.2

72.4

t7.5

76.7

72.9 7.9

15.1 9.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.8

5.7

5.5

5.8

5.4

5.2

5.6

6.2

4.6

7.7

7.4

2.9

6.0

4.6

4.2

5.9

2.9

7.2

q) 0.5

7.8

8.4

É,

.7

6.9

7.5

5.6

6.6

8.8

7.9

7.7

8.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

26.9

78.7

ol

TA

IILE

1,

PA

RT

ll (C

ontin

ued)

Yea

r A

rch.

E

con.

HE

ALT

HT

EA

CH

Law

1950

0.

8 0.

5 45

.579

51

0.6

0.4

44.2

7952

0.

8 0.

6 40

.279

53

7.2

0.3

36.3

7954

t.9

0.

2 39

.3

1955

0.

3 0.

3 37

.879

56

0.3

0.4

34.5

7957

2.

9 0.

7 24

.219

58

4.0

0.6

31.1

1959

3.

8 0.

7 26

.2

7960

3.

4 1.

0 23

.979

67

4.5

1.3

30.3

7962

5.

0 0.

5 32

.279

63

3.8

1.6

25.8

7964

4.

4 3.

1 24

.979

65

5.0

2.2

27.7

7966

6.

3 1.

9 26

.519

67

6.7

2.4

25.2

7968

3.

5 3.

5 27

.379

69

4.9

2.4

28.0

7970

4.

9 2.

6 27

.679

77

3.3

2.2

21.4

BU

S

EN

G S

CIE

NC

E O

theT

§

15.3

9.6

10.1

78.4

70.2

78.2

22.3

18.0

6.3

5.7

5.1

4.0

J.J

5.8

13.0

8.3

10.1 7.6

6.4

6.3

/.3 5.7

12.5

70.2

72.6

72.9

77.6

10.6

72.7

11.0

75.2

13.3

77.7

74.0

11.9

13.3

13.5

14.0

11.3

72.7

12.3

13.5

13.5

72.8

6.8

6.2

6.4

7.9

9.9

8.1

9.7

7.9

70.4

73.9

77.4

77.7

77.3

77.3 9.5

7.6

10.5

11.0

70.2 9.8

13.0

20.0

13.5

16.6

18.3

73.7

18.6

18.1

76.6

26.3

25.9

26.4

30.4

26.6

37.9

25.6

27.0

29.5

27.7

29.4

29.0

26.5

27.8

20.2

5.1

72.7

11.0

9.3

8.3

6.7

3.4

8.8

6.6

10.0

7_2

7.5

3.9

6.8

2.0

3.0

2.9

2.4

4.2

4.7

3.4

9.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.6

J.J

2.5

3.8

3.9

6.0

4.7

a) 'Ú -l trl

11 o C1.

Bus

ines

s ca

tego

ry e

stim

ated

"19

40-6

3. T

he n

umbe

rs o

f bu

sine

ss d

egre

es in

thes

e ye

ars

have

bee

n ro

unde

d to

the

near

est

ten

degr

ees.

Sou

RcE

: D

ata

wer

e de

rived

fro

m A

E a

nd C

E in

var

ious

yea

rs a

nd f

rom

SE

P-E

pM.

TA

BLE

2.

Uni

vers

ity E

gres

ados

, T

en F

ield

s, 1

963'

67o ,l *t @ ,l n - O rn rn O

Arc

h.B

US

Eco

n

PA

RT

I.

Abs

olut

e D

ata

EN

G

HE

ALT

H H

UM

LA

W

SC

IS

S O

ther

T

otal

lY

ear

7963

'196

479

6579

6619

67

1,,0

077,

087

999

1,06

097

5

1,,5

521,

947

2,63

73,

748

3,42

3

272

390

452

543

597

3,38

2 7,

987

7,42

0 1,

,624

429

3,40

0 2,

278

7,78

0 7,

728

453

3,68

6 2,

406

2,50

4 1,

,932

492

4,36

5 2,

909

2,84

7 2,

358

575

4,68

5 3,

047

2,82

1. 2

,086

70

0

PA

RT

II.

Per

cent

age

Dat

a

51 62 88 720

736

25

11,7

4350

13

,109

45

75,2

4768

17

,987

95

18,5

53

Yea

rA

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G

HE

ALT

H H

UM

Law

S

Ci

SS

O

ther

1963

7964

7965

7966

7967

8.6

8.3

6.6

5.9

5.3

73.2

74.8

77.3

77.5

78.4

2.3

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.2

28.8

76

.9

72.7

13

.825

.9

76.9

73

.6

73.2

24.2

15

.8

76.4

72

.724

.3

76.2

15

.8

13.1

25.3

76

.4

75.2

77

.2

3.7

0.4

0.2

3.5

0.5

0.4

3.2

0.6

0.3

3.2

0.7

0.4

3.8

0.7

0.5

1. C

f. to

tal i

n T

able

3,

from

pub

lishe

cl d

ata

of A

NU

IES

. I

use

the

publ

ishe

d to

tals

in a

ll ca

lcul

atio

ns.

Sou

RC

s: A

driá

n La

jous

Var

gas,

"A

spec

tos

regi

onal

es de

Ia

expa

nsió

n de

la e

duca

ción

sup

erio

r en

Méx

ico,

795

9-19

67,"

Dem

ogra

fío q

Eco

nom

ía2:

3 (1

968)

,422

.1ee

als

o La

jous

Var

gas'

s lic

entia

te t

hesi

s, "

Asp

ecto

s de

Ia

educ

ació

nsu

perio

r y

el e

mpl

eo d

e pr

ofes

ioni

stas

en

Méx

ico,

195

9-19

67,"

U

NA

M,

1967

.

\o ul

TA

BLE

3.

Uni

vers

ity E

gres

ados

, E

leve

n F

ield

s, 1

967-

89

PA

RT

I. A

bsol

ute

Dat

a

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G H

EA

LTH

HU

M L

aw P

sych

./SW

SC

I S

S T

EA

CH

1 T

otal

7967

1,0

80

3,77

7 53

0 3,

583

2,79

8 76

9 7,

986

748

372

285

1,26

5 75

,267

7968

86

2 3,

476

677

4,49

5 3,

074

385

7,93

6 24

8 69

7 36

4 88

8 76

,982

7969

84

3 4,

577

702

5,58

0 3,

667

566

2,89

7 22

2 77

3 57

4 7,

720

27,3

95

\o o'

7970

1,0

10

5,38

479

77 1

,005

6,

562

7972

u 1,

060

5,64

079

73"

900

7,77

079

74u

1,59

0 7,

680

7975

u 7,

790

7,58

079

76 2

,043

12,

742

7977

2,7

83 7

2,09

479

78 2

,905

70,

709

7979

3,8

11 1

3,29

0

1980

2,5

56 7

3,87

979

87 2

,777

74,

964

7982

3,7

89 7

7,87

219

83 4

,771

23,

909

7984

4,5

83 2

5,06

7

736

6,64

7 3,

608

259

2,82

085

5 7,

348

4,26

7 25

6 2,

879

840

9,66

0 5,

220

310

3,38

07,

040

70,4

40 5

,480

360

3,7

401,

030

72,2

30 7

,240

380

3,8

30

7,37

0 73

,480

8,4

70 5

00 5

,330

7,66

3 73

,828

70,

547

350

5,79

22,

065

77,7

36 7

3,55

7 47

4 5,

237

2,29

0 76

,605

75,

269

492

6,03

87,

786

78,7

57 7

8,53

4 50

8 5,

497

7,72

2 20

,798

18,

051

622

6,75

42,

786

23,2

96 2

0,74

4 87

7 6,

933

2,75

8 25

,538

20,

872

829

6,57

67,

775

26,7

56 2

0,77

7 7,

079

9,49

87,

877

28,1

50 7

8,74

0 7,

235

9,57

2

900

900

650

684

853

874

1,08

7 78

7 83

i7,

977

7,32

4 89

77,

829

1,53

0 66

4

2,54

5 '1

,586

783

2,84

5 1,

985

1,30

53,

705

2,77

5 7,

574

4,46

3 2,

335

1,38

34,

599

2,70

5 7,

547

326

454

283

355

607

259

360

620

320

550

620

470

510

1,03

0 55

0

1,06

8 22

,595

7,26

5 25

,598

1,88

0 29

,290

2,32

0 33

,030

3,04

0 39

,710

3,56

0 44

,530

4,37

3 52

,549

6,47

7 67

,862

8,39

3 66

,833

70,6

54 7

6,96

0

74,7

67 8

2,90

373

,901

91,

901

76,4

96 1

00,9

0479

,225

113

,610

"18,

207

775,

276

o -l rn F¡ o C

TA

BLE

3,

PA

RT

I (

Con

tinue

d)

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G H

EA

LTH

HU

M L

aw P

sych

./SW

SC

I S

S T

EA

CH

T__

:st

al19

85 4

,182

28,

707

1,85

9 27

,735

17,

205

7,76

8 9,

576

4,33

9 2,

873

2,02

5 27

,697

120

,100

79g6

5,2

67 2

8,27

0 7,

936

37,2

78 7

6,47

4 7,

794

10,5

68 4

,969

2,6

29 2

,253

20,

928

725,

640

1gg7

5,7

92 3

2,84

4 2,

335

33,8

77 7

7,27

2 1,

526

17,4

78 5

,784

2,9

49 2

,244

77,

457

132,

992

lggg

5,7

76 3

7,92

8 2,

267

34,8

85 7

5,96

5 7,

564

70,6

27 5

,083

3,0

85 2

,341

25,

597

739,

046

Tgg

g 5,

857

34,9

90 2

,777

32,

694

14,7

89 1

,426

71,

465

4,37

2 3,

197

2,28

0 27

,265

740

,440

PA

RT

II.

Per

cent

age

Dat

a

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G H

EA

LTH

HU

M L

aw P

sych

./SW

SC

I S

S T

EA

CH

"l ,l O ,4 a) - a El

7967

7.

719

68

5.1

7969

3.

9

7970

7977

7972

7973

7974

7975

7976

7977

7978

7979

4.5

3.9

3.6

2.7

4.1,

4.0

3.9

3.5

4.3

5.0

20.4

20.1

27.7

23.8

25.6

79.3

23.5

79.6

77.0

23.7

79.5

16.0

17.3

16.0

76.7

17.8

16.6

18.5

19.0

20.7

21.9

22.8

24.7

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.1

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

2.0

2.4

2.7

7.9

2.6

2.0

7.6

1.3

2.0

2.0

1.3

1.0

1.1

7.2

7.4

1.5

7.7

1.3

1.3

0.9

8.3

5.2

5.2

4.7

4.9

6.4

7.0

7.8

8.0

8.3

10.5

12.6

13.9

3.5

23.5

18

.3

1.1

13.0

1.

0 2.

0 1.

94.

0 26

.5

77.7

2.

3 77

.4

1.5

4.1

2.7

3.3

26.1

77

.7

2.6

13.5

1.

0 3.

3 2.

7

3.3

29.4

3.3

28.7

2.9

33.0

3.1

37.6

2.6

31.3

3.1

30.3

3.2

26.3

3.3

27.7

3.4

24.8

2.3

24.4

72.5

7.

411

.0

7.4

11.5

7.

29.

5 7.

79.

8 1.

3

72.0

2.

09.

9 1.

38.

5 1.

89.

0 2.

97.

2 2.

4\o \

TA

BLE

3,

PA

RT

II

(Con

tinue

d)

Eco

n. E

NG

HE

ALT

H H

UM

Law

Psv

ch./S

WS

CI

oo

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

SS

TE

AC

H19

80

3.1

1981

3.

019

82

3.2

7983

3.

679

84

4.0

1985

3.

579

86

4.2

7987

4.

419

88

4.7

7989

4.

2

25.1

27

.8

0.8

25.4

22

.6

0.9

25.3

20

.7

0.8

23.6

77

.8

0.9

24.4

76

.3

1.1

3.1

7.9

3.1

2.2

3.7

2.2

3.9

2.7

4.0

2.3

3.6

2.4

4.0

2.7

3.9

2.2

3.7

2.2

3.1

2.3

76.7

76.3

77.7

27.0

27.8

23.4

22.5

24.7

23.0

24.9

2.7

2.4

2.1

7.6

7.6

1.5

1.5

1.8

7.6

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.0

7.4

7.6

6.5

7.5

7.4

7.9

8.4

8.6

7.6

8.2

0.9

7.4

1.5

7.2

1.3

7.7

1.8

7.7

7.7

7.6

77.1

15.1

16.4

76.9

15.8

18.1

76.7

73.7

78.4

79.4

22.6

74

.324

.9

13.1

25.4

13

.025

.7

11.5

23.3

10

.5

1. S

ecor

.rcl

ary

teac

hing

onl

y,19

67-8

4; f

or 1

985-

89 t

he d

ata

incl

ude

all l

icen

tiate

-leve

l eg

resa

clos

of

teac

hing

fie

lds

a. D

ata

for

'197

2-75

wer

e pa

rtia

lly e

stim

ated

to

adju

st f

or in

com

plet

e co

vera

ge i

n so

urce

.

Sou

Rcs

: D

ata

deriv

ed f

rom

AN

UIE

S-A

E

and

AN

UIE

S-E

SM

, va

rious

yea

rs,

and

unpu

blis

hed

AN

UIE

S d

ata.

TA

BLE

4.

Deg

rees

Reg

iste

red,

Six

Fie

lds,

194

5-70

(Vo)

Yea

r B

US

EN

G

HE

ALT

H L

Aw

SC

I T

EA

CH

7945

-70

5.3

SO

UR

CE

: D

GP

.

37.2

30.9

13.0

7.7

a) F¡ -l tñ F E o c

7.7

TA

BLE

5.

Deg

rees

Reg

iste

red,

Ele

ven

Fie

lds,

l 19

70-8

5

PA

RT

I. A

bsol

ute

Dat

a

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G H

EA

LTH

HU

M L

aw P

sych

. /S

WS

CI

SS

TE

AC

H T

otal

7970

51

0 84

0 19

0 2,

920

2,33

0 0

1,18

0 0

90

770

100

8,33

0

o *l *l o -] o - O ú rI1 o

7971

90

0 1,

850

440

4,86

0 3,

500

7972

51

0 7,

690

280

3,28

0 2,

900

1,97

3 46

0 1,

800

280

3,00

0 3,

030

0 17

0 47

0 29

0 74

,370

0 11

0 26

0 26

0 70

,750

0 13

0 23

0 18

0 10

,560

250

350

720

610

27,2

0028

0 39

0 73

0 3,

620

25,8

6029

0 44

0 7,

120

4,62

0 31

,110

350

490

1,08

0 1,

770

32,4

7045

0 50

0 7,

230

2,24

0 33

,560

750

520

2,09

0 2,

260

35,6

4077

0 45

0 7,

630

4,03

0 38

,740

7,77

0 54

0 3,

270

3,72

0 43

,500

1,20

0 54

0 2,

750

2,79

0 44

,460

1,35

0 67

0 3,

730

7,70

0 51

,040

1,30

0 39

0 4,

470

3,77

0 55

,650

0 1,

890

0 1,

460

0 1,

450

7974

71

0 3,

970

380

4,64

0 4,

750

790

7,70

0 15

0 30

0 54

0 25

0 17

,580

1975

1976

1977

7978

7979

1980

1981

7982

1983

7984

1985

1,01

01,

740

7,27

01,

500

'1,4

30

7,76

01,

380

1,49

07,

680

2,79

0

2,02

0

4,45

04,

230

4,58

04,

990

4,94

0

4,46

04,

730

4,40

05,

040

7,67

0

9,50

0

440

5,65

0 5,

390

220

2,72

040

0 7,

120

5,68

0 26

0 2,

010

590

8,68

0 6,

920

240

2,36

063

0 9,

080

9,35

0 32

0 2,

920

570

8,78

0 70

,740

480

2,8

00

670

8,58

0 72

,060

290

2,8

0070

0 9,

350

72,t7

0 74

0 2,

850

1,03

0 70

,470

73,

650

890

2,87

01,

000

72,6

30 1

2,88

0 1,

100

2,85

07,

040

13,6

30 1

3,77

0 1,

800

3,55

0

1,00

0 15

,040

14,

000

16,8

0 3,

490

\o \o

PA

RT

II.

Per

cent

age

Dat

a

Yea

r A

rch.

B

US

E

con.

EN

G H

EA

LTH

HU

M L

aw P

sych

./SW

SC

I S

S T

EA

CH

O

7970

7977

7972

7973

7974

1975

7976

7977

7978

7979

1980

1981

1982

1983

7984

1985

6.7

6.3

4.7

4.4

4.0

4.8

4.4

4.1

4.6

4.3

J-,)

3.6

3.4

3.8

4.3

3.6

10.1

72.9

75.7

17.0

22.6

27.0

16.4

74.7

75.4

74.7

72.5

72.2

10.1

17.3

15.0

15.3

2.7

1.5

7.9

1.9

7.7

1.9

1.8

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

26.7

27.5

27.9

28.0

26.2

24.7

24.7

24.7

28.4

26.7

27.0

3.4

2.8

3.6

J.J

J./

5.9

4.2

7.5

6.2

7.3

8.0

7.2

2.0

2.4

7.7

7.4

2.9

14.0

74.9 5.3

6.7

2.3

35.1

28

.0

0.0

74.2

0.

0 1.

1 2.

03.

1 34

.0

24.5

0.

0 73

.2

0.0

7.2

2.9

2.6

30.5

2.7

28.4

2.2

26.4

27.0

0.

0 73

.6

0.0

1.0

2.4

28.7

0.

0 73

.7

0.0

7.2

2.2

27.0

1.

1 9.

7 0.

9 7.

7 3.

1

25.4

1.

0 10

.0

7.2

1.7

22.0

1.

0 7.

8 1.

1 1.

522

.2

0.8

7.6

0.9

7.4

28.8

1.

0 9.

0 7.

7 1.

530

.2

7.4

8.3

1.3

1.5

33.8

0.

8 7.

9 2.

7 1.

531

.4

7.9

7.4

1.8

7.2

37.4

2.

0 6.

6 2.

7 1.

229

.0

2.5

6.4

2.7

7.2

26.9

3.

5 7.

0 2.

6 1.

3

25.2

3.

0 6.

3 2.

3 0.

7

6.3

10.4 8.6

6.3

J.J

6.8

1. I

t w

as n

ot r

equi

red

that

hum

aniti

es d

egre

es b

e re

gist

ered

unt

il 79

74.

Sou

«Cp:

Dat

a de

rived

from

unp

ublis

hed

man

uscr

ipts

and

tab

ulat

ions

at

DG

P

o 'Ú a trl

Fn o c

STATISTICAL SERIES

98.733.859.878.29.3

109.165.7

7971,-767977-821983-89a

101

TABLE 6. Percentage Change in Degrees Granted, Egresados,and Degrees Registered

PART I. By Presidential Sexenio, 1929-89(Percentage Change by 6-year Period)

Degrees -

Degrees

Sexenio Gránted Egresados Registered7929-341,935-401941,-467947-521953-587959-647965-70

PART Ii. Implicit Annual Percentage Changel by Decade, 1930-89

Degrees DegreesDecade Gránted Egresados Registered

roi.g62.922.4

é,73.95.4

*.,39.848.5

70.7

7930-401940-501950-607960-70b

7.26.75.8

72.47970-80'1980-89

1. Compound rates of change calcuiated with the following formuJa: annualrate equals antilog of Gog(P¡,/Po)/n), minus 1, where P6 equals the originalpopulation and Pr., equals the population after n years. A 100 percentchange over ten years equals 7.18 percent change Per year.

Partially estimated for degrees registered.Egresados data are for 1963-70.Degrees registered data are for 1'971'-80.

Souncr: Calculated from Tables '1, 3, and 5.

a.b.c.

102 qHApTER F9UR

TABLE 7. Degrees Granted, Egresados, and Degrees Registeredper One Million Inhabitants, 1928-89

Degrees DegreesYear Cranted Eqresados Registered1.9287929

19307937793279337934

19357936793719387939

79407947794279437944

79451946794779487949

19507957795219531954

19557956795719587959

JJ

26

3229343150

4351525456

5360687780

7585978187

749490

11099

17797

73670277

STATiSTICAL SERIES

TABLE 7 (Continued)

Degrees DegreesYear Granted Egresados Registered

103

796079671962

92706110

7963 7287964

7965796679671,9687969

739

756767768 334197 359207 437

7970 278 4461,977 256 4887972 5401,973 5881974 673

1.975 740 353

1976 843 415

1977 958 4827978 1,027 4957979 7,740 498

1980 7,794 5741981 1,290 5447982 1,381 5967983 1,573 5921984 1,500 665

1985 1,530 7097986 7,5791.987 7,6371988 7,681,

1,989 7,667

Sounc¡: Calculated lrom Tables 1,3, and 5 and population data

164273198188303

from SALA.

1M CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 8. Professional Degrees as Percentage of All Degrees,1928-7't

Year Percent Year Percent79287929

19307937793279337934

19357936793779387939

79407947794279437944

794519461,947

79487949

19507957795219531,954

19557956795719587959

26.927.7

29,725.627.728.631.3

37,940.339.742.035.7

43.337.430.733.532.5

30.1JJ.+JJ. /32.735.0

32.823.423.227.627.5

25.423.026.719.776.4

79607967

19621963796479651966

79677968796979707971

79.679.9

't7.913.176.819.379.5

16.522.020.717.323.2

Souncs: Calculated from Table 1 and AE, CE, and SEP-ESM.

STATISTICAL SERIES 105

TABLE 9. Ratios of Degrees Granted, Egresados,Degrees Registered, and Enrollment

PART I. Comparison of Egresadosand Degrees Registered, 1970'85

Egresados PerYear Degree Registed1.9701,977797279731974

79757976797719787979

19801,987

798219831984

1985

2.71.82.53.02.0

1,.9

2.02.02.72.2

2.32.42,32.62.3

2.L

Sounc¡: Calculated from Tables 3 and 5.

106 CHAPTER FOUR

PART II. Indexes of Degrees Granted, Egresados, DegreesRegistered, and Enrollm ent, 1928-89

Year (7970=700) (7970=100) (1977=700) (7970=700)

Indexof

DegreesCranted

4.84.0

4.74.45.34.98.0

7.7

B.B9.39.8

9.511.072.774.8't5.7

1,5.277.679.277.679.5

77.221.822.828.626.5

32.526.740.037.224.2

Indexof

Indexof

Indexof

Eg."- Registered Enroll-sados Degrees ment

8.4

11.06.5

11.810.6

8.4

77.28.7

77.510.19.2

79281929

19307937793279337934

79357936193719387939

7940'1941.

194219431,944

79451,946'1947

79487949

19507957795279537954

195579561,957

1958't959

6.25.5

8.77.8

5.6

STATISTICAL SERIES

Indexof

TABLE 9, PART II (Continued)

1.07

Degrees Egre- Registered Enroll-Granted sados Degrees ment

Year (1970=100) (1970=100) (1971=100) (1970=100)

30.135.638.346.751.8

60.366.769.681.589.0

1.00.0121,.3

Indexof

66.674.284.2

100.0774.3118.3140.6755.7

775.7235.0276.0299.5328.7

367.9407.5447.7504.7577.9

527.3542.5586.5590.7579.3

Indexof

58.2100.0

75.773.8

722.9

148.1780.7277.4226.5234.5

249.1270.7304.03L0.7356.7

388.9

Indexof

70.430.635.135.840.3

57.964.372.781.990.7

100.0776.5730.9148.51,73.9

200.2209.8224.5272.8372.9

345.7377.3

79601,961,

796219637964

796519667967t968t969

19701971,

t97219731974

19757976197779781,979

19801981198279837984

198579861,987

19887989

Souncs: Calculated from Tables 1,3, and 5.

CHAPTER FOUR

PART III. Degrees Granted, Egresados, and Degrees Registeredper Enrolled Student, L928-8L

A. B. C.Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Index Index IndexStudent Student Student of of of

per per per A. B. C.Degree Egt"- Degree (7970= (7970= (1.970=

Year Cranted sado Reeistered 100) 100) 100)7928 31

1929 341.930 457937 44

1935 79

7949

19507957795279531,954

19551956795719581,959

7960796779621,9631964

7965796679671,9681,969

19707977197279737974

724.0136.0180.01,76.0

76.0

44.0

64.028.052.036.032.0

52.032.044.032.036.0

32.084.088.076.076.0

84.096.0

104.0100.0100.0

100.096.0

1,7

767

1398

138

11

89

82722791,9

2124262525

2524

131313

108.3108.3108.3

100.0 100.0100.0 66.7108.3 i00.0108.3 775.2108.3 81.8

1272731313

JJ

22JJ

3827

108

STATISTICAI, SERIES

A.B

7979

19801981

TABLE 9, PART III (Continued)

C.

109

Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Index Index IndexStudent Student Student of of of

per per Per A. B. C.Dégree Egre- Degree (7970= (7970= (7970=

Year Graited sádo Regiétered 100) 100) 100)

7975 74 267976 11 221977 10 201978 11 23

11 25

11 2611 26

716.7 78.891..7 66.783.3 60.697.7 69.797.7 75.8

91.7 78.897.7 78.8

Sounc¡: Calculated from Tables 1,3, 5, and population data from SALA.

110 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 10. Professionals in Sample Economicl and Social2 Fields,1928-89

PART I. Absolute Data

Time-Lag3_ Degrees Granted Egresados Degrees RegisteredY"u. Y"u. E.o.or.,i. So.iul E.ono*i. So.iul Eór,o^i.-: So"iul1928 1922 1g4 2441929 7923

7930 79247937 '1925

1,932 79267933 79277934 7928

7935 '1929

7936 19301,937 79371938 19321939 7933

1940 1934'1947 79357942 79361,943 79377944 1938

"t945 79397946 7940'1947 7947'1948 19427949 1943

1950 79447957 79451952 79461953 19477954 7948

1955 1949't956 19507957 79571958 19527959 1953

249259297297443

402495572512533

77762986592

87724128200748

7482072203893,/ /

343450480443595

386551627684834

79 265

502692807790967

957998974

7,0687,059

1,'1561,2967,2647,7277,457

947 2,008760 1.,640

1,,574 7,8671,254 7,2997,075 951

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 10, PART I (Continued)

Time-Lag3 Degrees Granted Egresados D-egrees RegisJeredYear Year

" Económic Social Economic Social Economic Social

1960 1.954 1.,393 9647961 1955 1,508 7,3547962 7956 7,829 7,5061.963 1957 2,186 1,6127964 1958 2,780 2,719

11.1

7965 1,959

7966 79607967 19671968 79627969 7963

7970 L9647977 79657972 79661973 19677974 7968

7975 79697976 79707977 79777978 79727979 7973

1980 1,974

1981 19751982 79761983 79771.984 7978

1985 79797986 19801987 19811988 7982L989 1983

2,675 2,3233,023 2,5563,342 2,3963,468 3,0583799 3,247

4,734 3,0815,207 3,720

6,694 4,0637,977 3,902

70,097 4,787

72,031. 4,676 3,760 2,43073,970 5,532 6,770 3,79015,300 7,100 4,970 3,1,6079,270 7,800 4,800 3,27019,970 70,280 8,610 5,000

21,060 72,030 10,100 5,99028,747 74,920 11,350 9,30030,851 20,034 73,260 77,54037,507 23,662 74,070 77,06036,586 29,788 73,720 1,2,380

40,575 32,21.8 73,040 74,32043,774 34,645 14,080 76,20044,947 37,368 74,870 17,37055,087 39,402 77,670 15,67058,878 36,947 27,300 1,5,470

62,986 38,902 23,540 77,77060,904 37,34232,844 34,72335,511 47,55639,485 42,054

712 CHAPTER FOUR

PART II. Percentage Data

Time-Lag3- pSg¡S=_G¡+tCd- Egresados Degrees RegisteredY"u. Yuu. E.o.o*i. So.iul E.o^o*i. So.iul Eóro*k-: So.iul1,928 1922 25.0 45.61,929 1923 1,7.8 59.8

7930 19241937 79251932 19261933 19277934 7928

7935 79297936 19307937 79371938 7932'1939 7933

7940 79341947 19351942 79367943 79377944 7938

7945 79397946 79407947 1,947

1948 19427949 7943

1950 79447957 79451,952 79461953 '1947

7954 7948

1955 79497956 19507957 79571958 79527959 1953

223 47.472.8 53.516.8 51.012.0 54.710.5 50.3

11.1 51.313.1 52.373.7 52.479.5 50.073.7 49.4

74.7 47.9L7.0 57.075.7 57.723.8 48.427.7 55.4

20.5 57.723.2 57.422.6 45.822.7 54.827.6 49.2

20.3 60.822.9 53.824.7 50.32'1.7 54.728.5 49.6

26.2 56.026.4 56.934.3 42.336.3 37.340.3 31.9

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 10, PART II (Continued)

Time-Lag3 Degrees Granted Egresados Degrees RegisteredYear Year Economic Social Economic Social Ecolomic Social7960 7954 41..8 29.01,961 1955 38.3 34.47962 1956 43.2 35.67963 1,957 42.9 31..67964 1958 38.1 37.0

1965 7959 39.2 34.97966 7960 47.0 34.77967 7967 43.5 37.2 43.87968 7962 38.5 34.0 46.61969 7963 38.6 33.0 47.2

7970 7964 42.8 27.9 53.27977't965 38.8 27.7 54.3't972 7966 52.27973 7967 55.17974 7968 50.9

1,975 7969 47.37976 7970 49.47977 1977 47.31,978 7972 40.97979 7973 47.7

1980 7974 47.87987 1975 47.71,982 7976 43.01983 1,977 44.57984 1978 46.21985 7979 46.07986 1980 47.37987 7987 50.21988 7982 48.77989 1983 48.2

1. BUS and ENG categories.2. HEALTH and TEACH categories.3. Estimated year of career-field decision of university degree-holders or

egresados.

Sounc¡: Calculated from Tabies 1,,3, and 5.

113

26.623.022.4

20.7 45.7 29.227.6 46.9 26.524.2 46.2 29.423.6 45.5 30.426.3 49.0 28.4

27.0 47.6 28.328.4 43.9 36.032.4 42.6 37.735.4 43.4 34.1.

38.0 40.9 36.9

38.9 36.6 40.237.7 36.3 47.837.1 34.2 39.934.7 39.7 35.232.t 47.7 30.232.4 42.3 37.929.726.729.929.9

"11.4 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 11. Indexes of Professionals in Sample Economicl andSocial2 Fields, 1928-89

(1970=100)

Time-Lag3 Degrees Granted Egresados Degrees RegisteredYear Year Economic Social Econoryric Social Economic Social'1928 '1922

7929 7923

1930 7924793L 79257932 19261933 7927'1934 7928

7935 79297936 79307937 79377938 79327939 1933

1940 79347947 't9357942 79361943 79377944 1,938

7945 19391946 79401947 79477948 79427949 7943

1950 79441,957 19457952 19461953 79471,954 1948

1955 79497956 19507957 79511958 '19527959 1953

3829

21

21

2

23J

4J

34588

71010

973

872137418

88

101074

131,6't77777

1622262631

31óz323534

38424'l5647

6553674228

2076322623

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 11 (Continued)

Time-Lag3 Degrees Granted Egresados Degrees RegisteredYear Year Economic Social Economic Social Economic Social7960 7954 29 317967 1955 32 447962 7956 39 497963 7957 46 527964 1958 46 69

115

7965 79597966 79607967 79677968 79627969 7963

'1970 79647977 79657972 79667973 79677974 1968

7975 1,9697976 79707977 79777978 79727979 7973

1980 't974

1981 79751,982 79767983 79777984 1978

1985 1,9797986 19807987 79871988 79827989 7983

100 100 100727 776 118

727 752151 767165 220

75B37899

105

556477

/ó80

100110

56 8766 8384 702

100 100778 756732 130728 732229 206

1,75 257 269 247239 379 302 383256 428 353 475262 506 374 455304 624 365 509

337 689 347 589358 741 374 667374 799 395 775458 843 470 645489 790 566 634

524 832 626 737506 799273 743295 889328 899

1. BUS and ENG categories.2. HEALTH and TEACH categories.3. Estimated year of career-field decision of university graduates.

Sounc¡: Calculated from Tables 7,3, and 5 above.

116 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 12. Average Index and Percentage Distribution ofProfessionals in Sample Economicl and Social2 Fields,1928-89

PART I. Yearly Data

AverageIndex of

AbsoluteData PercentageDistributionTime-Lag (1970=100)

Year Year Economic Social Economic Social7928 19227929 7923

79301937793279337934

79357936793719381939

7940794779427943194479457946194779487949

19507951,795279537954

7924'1925

792679277928

79291930793779327933

7934793579367937193879391,940194779427943

79447945794679477948

25.017.8

22.372.876.872.010.5

11 .1

13.113.179.573.7

74.777.075.723.827.720.523.222.622.727.6

20.322.924.72t.728.5

45.659.8

47.453.551.054.750.3

51.352.352.450.049.4

47.957.057.748.455.457.1,

57.445.854.849.2

60.853.8s0.354.749.6

3829

2818270110274

2733763774773 1,7

83872 42'13 41,

74 5618 47

376422526826831731

10 3210 32935

13 34

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 12, PART i (Continued)

Average Index ofAbsoluteData PercentageDistribution

Time-Lag (1970=100)Year Year Economic Social Economic Social

117

1955 79497956 19507957 19511958 1.9527959 7953

1960 79541,967 19551962 79567963 79577964 1958

7965 79597966 79607967 79671968 79627969 1963

7970 79647971, 19657972 19667973 79677974 '1968

7975 19691976 79707977 79777978 79727979 1973

1980 19747987 79757982 19761983 79777984 7978

1985 79797986 19807987 19811988 19821989 1983

20 6576 5332 67

26 4223 28

100 100734 732130 1,41,

740 "149

797 21,3

222 252270 351305 452318 487335 567

29 31

32 4439 4946 5246 69

55 7564 8363 827C 97

82 '104

342 639366 704384 757464 744528 772

575 787253 399273 743295 889328 899

26.226.434.336.340.3

41.838.343.242.938.1

39.247,043.742.642.9

47.746.749.250.349.9

47.546.744.942.747.3

39.239.038.642.744.0

44.747.350.248.748.2

56.056.942.337.337.9

29.034.435.637.637.0

34.934.728,928.527.7

25.925.326.827.027.4

27.632.234.734.837.4

39.539.838.535.031.1

32.229.726.129.929.9

118

PART II. Sexenial Data, Time-Lagged

CHAPTEIT FOUR

Six Years, 1923-82

Fields ofUniversity Graduates

CD

Time-Lag Econ.Sexenio Fields

SociaIFields

1923-281929-347935-407947-467947-521953-587959-641,965-707971-767977-82

15.474.120.323.528.940.842.748.440.946.0

52.850.654.552.549.5JJ.J

30.127.7J/ .330.7

1. BUS and ENG categories.2. HEALTH and TEACH categories.3. Estimated year of career-field decision of university degree recipients or

egresados.

SouRcr: Calculated from Part I above.

PART III. Comparison of Federal Expenditure in Socialand Economic Areas (Actual and Projected) with

Univerity Graduates in Social and Economic Fields,1929-34 to 197"1.-76

(7o of Total Expenditure/ % of University Graduates)

Areas of ActualFederal Expenditure

ABSexenio Economic Social Economic Social7929447 25.2 75.2 74.7 50.6

20.3 54.51935-40 37.6 18.37947-46 39.2 16.57947-52 57.9 13.31953-58 52.7 74.47959-64 39.0 79.21965-70 40.6 27.01971-76 44.7 23.5

23.528.940.842.748.440.9

52.549.5JJ.J

30.127.737.5

STATISTICAL SERIES

Projected Federal ExpenditureEF

TABLE 12, PART III (Continued)

119

Sexenio Economic Social Economic Social

University GraduatesCD

14.7 50.679294417935-401941-461947-521953-581959-64\965-707977-76

25.530.5

15.123.0

30.7 23.520.3 54.523.5 52.5

39.243.838.838.1

18.620.430.837.4

28.9 49.5

F.103.833*.789"

-.773.398

40.8 33.342.7 30.148.4 27.740.9 37.539.7 30.6

1. For university graduates, data reflect six-year time lag.

Correlation Matrix for Part III

E.877*.725.847*

-.778

ABCDE

B.139

C.540.510

D-.30s-.457-.937x"

One-tailed significance: *-.01; **-.001.

Souncs: Calculated from Part I above and James W. Wilkie, La reoolución

mexicana: Gasto federal y cambio soclal (México, D.F.: Fondo deCultura Económica, 1978).

PA

RT

IV

. C

ompa

rison

of

Fed

eral

Exp

endi

ture

in

Soc

ial a

nd E

cono

mic

Are

as(in

Pes

os o

f 19

50 p

er C

apita

) w

ith U

nive

rity

Gra

duat

es in

Soc

ial

and

Eco

nom

ic F

ield

s(D

egre

es p

er M

illio

n In

habi

tant

sl,

1923

-28

to '1

.959

-64

Ilerc

e4ta

ge C

hang

eN

P (r)

(J)

Pro

ject

edE

xpen

ditu

re(P

esos

of

1950

per

Cap

ita)

Are

as

NJ

LMN

(G)1

(H

)R (L

)a (K

)

Deg

rees

per

Act

ual

Exp

endi

ture

Mill

ion

(Pes

os o

f 19

50M

exic

ans

per

Cap

ita)

Fie

lds

Are

asS

exen

ios

Eco

nom

ic S

ocia

l E

cono

mic

§pei

al-

lca¡

oAtA

_§A

cial

7923

-28

5.0

77.5

14.

6 6.

4 74

.2

7.6

7929

-34

7.3

26.0

74.

6 8.

8 75

.7

8.9

7935

-40

15.3

40.

3 30

.9 1

5.0

79.3

74.

679

47-4

6 20

.3 4

4.9

40.4

77.

0 27

.7 1

6.6

7947

-52

31.8

53.

7 76

.7 1

9.5

47.3

79.

619

53-5

8 44

.2 3

6.4

95.3

26.

0 51

.9 2

4.2

1959

-64

74.6

59.

4 95

.2 4

7.0

56.5

45.

2

*.,

708.

732

.456

.739

.768

.8

*.u

54.8

17.4

79.7

-32.

363

.3

ñr u

.,17

7.2

69.8

30.7

13.

388

.4 1

4.7

25.2

33.

3-0

.1 8

0.8

10.3

76

.922

.9

64.5

72.4

13

.790

.3

18.1

25.7

23

.58.

9 86

.8

1. P

erce

ntag

e ch

ange

fro

m p

erio

d to

per

iod

in c

olum

ms

G th

roug

h L

is r

epre

sent

ed by

col

umns

M t

hrou

gh R

.o 'Ú -l ar

l

TI C C

GH

@ ,l '.i a -l o - O l¡ o

G H I J K L M N o P a

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix f

or P

art IY

, 79

29-3

4 to

195

9-64

HII

.718

.88

7" .9

gg**

.637

.73

2.8

11

KLM

.927

" .9

85**

-.0

13.6

72 .

752

.774

.986

"" .8

04 -.

160

.858

.99

9**

.063

.852

-.1

36.0

70

NO

.003

-.35

2.2

02 .

147

-.38

9 -.

752

.727

-.35

8-.

287

-.24

8.7

45 -.

349

.627

.63

7.0

41

PA

R.4

43 -

.040

.600

.202

.34

8 .4

98.1

13 .

279

.286

.535

-.7

43 .6

90.2

74 .

207

.359

.532

-.7

24 .6

93.7

25 .

023

.777

.653

-.2

33 .6

30-.

050

.595

.03

9-.

467

.947

"-.

377

One

-tai

led

sign

ifica

nce:

*-.

01;

**-.

001.

Sou

rce:

Cal

cula

ted

from

Par

t I

abov

e an

d Ja

mes

W.

Wilk

ie,

La r

eaol

ució

n m

exic

ana:

Gas

to f

eder

aly

cam

bio

soci

al (

Méx

ico,

D.F

.: F

ondo

de

Cul

tura

Eco

nóm

ica,

197

8).

NJ

TA

BLE

13.

Eng

inee

ring

Deg

rees

Num

ber

of

Per

cent

age

Deg

rees

S

hare

of

Yea

L _G

ra¡t

edT

otal

Egr

esad

os T

otal

Gra

nted

, E

gres

ados

, an

d D

egre

es f

tegi

ster

ed,

1929

-89

Num

ber

Per

cent

age

Num

ber

of P

erce

ntag

eof

S

hare

of

Deg

rees

Sha

re o

f

NJ

NJ

-

Bcg

tétq

edT

otal

7929

1930

1937

7932

1933

7934

1935

7936

L937

1938

7939

7940

7947

7942

7943

7944

7945

7946

7947

7948

7949

87 724

728

770

748

77.8

22.3

72.8

16.8

72.0

10.5

11.1

13.1

13.1

76.6

73.7

74.7

11.3

70.2

18.3

76.6

15.1

17.9

15.8

76.4

23.0

79 777

62 98 65 92

o '-l r¡ ?l o C

748

737

742

299

287

253

348

Ja/

320

495

Num

ber

ofD

egre

esY

ear

Gra

nted

TA

BLE

13

(Con

tinue

d)

Per

cent

age

Num

ber

Per

cent

age

Num

ber of

Per

cent

age

Deg

rees

Sha

re o

fS

hare

of

of

Sha

re o

fT

otal

E

eres

ados

Tot

al

Ree

iste

red

Tot

al

@ "..1 F.J 0 ,l ñ r- ú t¡ 4 FI

@

1950

"t95

7

1,95

219

5319

54

1955

1956

7957

1958

1959

1960

1,96

779

6219

6319

64

1965

7966

1967

1968

1969

256

401

467

434

554

657

480

7,1,

64 894

705

1,01

37,

048

7,34

91,

305

7,64

8

) 11

7

2,28

92,

539

2,54

32,

871

13.5

76.6

18.3

73.7

18.9

18.1

16.6

26.3

25.9

26.4

30.4

26.6

37.9

25.6

28.8

37.9

31.0

33.0

28.2

29.2

3,58

34,

495

5,58

0

23.5

26.5

26.7

l§ (¡)

TA

BLE

13

(Con

tinue

d)

Num

ber

Per

cent

age

Num

ber

of P

erce

ntag

eof

S

hare

of

Deg

rees

Sha

re o

f

NJ §

Num

ber of

P

erce

ntag

eD

egre

es S

hare

of

lear

G

rant

ed

Tot

al

Egr

esad

os T

otal

R

egis

tere

d T

otal

7970

3,

348

30.3

6,

647

29.4

2,

920

35.1

7977

2,

475

19.5

7972

1973

7974

7975

7976

7977

7978

7979

1980

7987

7982

1983

"t98

4

1985

1986

1987

1988

7989

7,34

8 28

.79,

660

33.0

70,4

40

37.6

72,2

30

31.3

13,4

80

30.3

73,8

28

26.3

77,1

,36

27.7

16,6

05

24.9

78,7

37

24.4

20,7

98

25.7

23,2

96

25.4

25,5

38

25.3

26,7

56

23.6

28,7

50

24.4

27,7

35

22.6

37,2

78

24.9

33,8

17

25.4

34,8

85

25.7

32,6

94

23.3

4,96

03,

290

3,00

04,

640

5,65

07,

720

8,68

09,

090

8,79

0

8,58

09,

350

70,4

7072

,630

13,6

30

15,0

40

34.0

30.5

28.4

26.4

26.7

27.5

27.9

28.0

26.2

24.'l

24.1

,

24.'l

28.4

26.7

27.0

o '! + trl ?l o C

sour

<c¡

: A

E;

CE

; S

EP

-ES

M;

AN

UIE

S-A

E;

AN

UIE

S-E

SM

; D

GP

; V

ícto

r U

rqui

di a

nd A

driá

n La

jous

var

gas,

Edu

caci

ófi

supe

rior,

cie

ncia

y te

cnol

ogía

an

el

desa

rrol

lo e

conó

mic

o de

Méx

ico

(Méx

ico,

D. F

.: E

l C

oleg

io d

e M

éxic

o, 1

962)

.

m ,l Fl

O ,-l

a) - o ñ ft rn @

TA

BLE

14.

Eng

inee

ring

Deg

rees

Gra

nted

, N

ine

Spe

cial

ties,

192

8.Z

1

PA

RT

I. A

bsou

te D

ata

Mec

h./

Top

./Y

ear

Ag.

Civ

il E

lec.

Che

m.

Ext

r. V

et.

Hyd

. P

etro

l-Oth

er T

otal

7928

3238

3i10

4020

7713

479

29

1930

7937

7932

7933

7934

7935

7936

7937

1938

7939

7940

7941

1942

1943

7944

157 9

22 76 77 21 79 51 56

6 J 0 4 710 10 9 638

7 9 18 22 27 27

87 724

128

760

748

79 777 62 98 65 92

4 74

84

737

8 74

227

29

976

28

7

4077

31

72

72

74 14 270 0 0 0 5 2 J

4'15

3047

060

7690

2370

4156

0

3125

347

3182

4911

2

1393

1265

3

6813

275

8527

681

11

9 35

3

9723

6

42 20 25 46 54

46

7791

818

24

723

437

13

2484

927

45

053

452

11

5332

38

19

4759

88

62

89

N) (,l

TA

BLE

14,

PA

RT

I (

Con

tinue

d)

Mec

h./

Yea

rA

g. C

ivil

Ele

c. C

hem

. E

xtr.

Vet

.

N)

7945

7946

1947

7948

7949

1950

7951

7952

1953

7954

1955

1956

7957

1958

7959

7960

7967

1962

1963

7964

46 109 93 76

108

27 JJ JJ JJ 24 8 74 20 19 13 27 10 79 18 1.7

67 77 77 82 101

110

47 57 52 46

15 72 12 77 74 610

19

2774

22

625

10

27

76

2617

677

31

15

4053

0

23

2723

30

54

5046

63

40

92

45 J/ 36 34 42 34 64 104 99 97 737

48 228

723

777

7 7 4 7 5

6 7 8 9 32

'fop.

/H

yd.

Pet

rol.

Oth

er T

otal

5 25

327

34

822

33

722

32

059

49

5

o 'Ú H r¡ ,n o e 4

24 52 82 79 44 98 45 82 86 70

't9 35 54 37 50

774

31,9

374

ó/J

347

207 89

J/J

254

183

294

JZ/

365

378

468

51 22 45 15 86 83 767

209

759

724

245

13 66 779 97

702

725

111

734

181

74 78 54 52 90 46 88 155

769

779

7 6 9 5 72 77 76 50 30 40 69 51 77 31 BO

256

407

467

434

554

657

480

7,76

489

470

5

65

1,01

372

4 1,

048

94

7,34

925

7,

306

770

7,50

7

103

726

227

240

168

TA

BLE

14,

PA

RT

I (

Con

tinue

d)

Mec

h./

Top

./Y

ear

Ag.

C

ivil

Ele

c. C

hern

. E

xtr.

V

et.

Hlz

d. P

etro

l. O

ther

Tot

al

a ,l -l o '-l r) ar O tn tn o

7965

1966

1967

7968

7969

7970

1977

97 776

179

209

774

618

468

777

50

179

60

110

270

1,90

354

2 49

7 75

9 60

72

6 60

11

0 23

0 7,

894

577

442

275

60

278

70

130

250

2,74

767

9 62

9 39

373

3 57

8 28

960

27

3 70

13

0 25

0 2,

633

70

220

70

740

290

2,57

4

340

2,96

525

0 2,

779

206

755

694

318

80

372

90

170

279

803

674

262

60

267

70

720

PA

RT

ll.

Per

cent

age

Dat

a, S

ix S

peci

altie

s

Pet

rol.

+

Top

./Y

ear

Ag.

+V

et.

Civ

il M

ech.

/Ele

c. C

hem

. E

xtr.

H

yd.

Oth

er79

2879

29

1930

7937

7932

7933

7934

23.9

39.2

52.7

30.6

24.5 6.2

20.7

28.4

15.2

74.5

29.0

24.5

35.4

40.2

23.7

75.2

12.8 7.6

9.2

33.8

77.4

7.5

7.6

2.6

0.0

4.7

10.8

10.9

3.0

3.8

3.4

6.5

7.7

3.1

4.3

1.5

5.1

2.6

9.7

9.2

10.8 6.5

72.7

73.9

72.0

22.6

27.4

0.0

0.0

NJ \

TA

BLE

14,

PA

RT

II

(Con

tinue

d)

Pet

rol.

+T

op./

Yea

r A

g.+

Vet

. C

ivil

Mec

h./E

lec.

Che

m.

Ext

r.

Hyd

- O

ther

l-J @

1935

7936

7937

1938

7939

7940

7947

7942

7943

7944

7945

7946

7947

7948

7949

1950

1951

7952

1953

7954

28.7

1,6.

9

28.7 7.9

6.8

12.8

27.0

24.6

22.7

24.0

20.6

JJ.J

30.0

26.6

28.3

23.8

70.7

74.5 9.2

20.4

27.6

39.5

35.2

33.1

35.1

35.8

27.7

28.9

29.4

31.0

26.5

20.4

22.8

25.6

20.4

39.8

37.2

24.7

30.9

32.7

79.5

76.9

74.8

37.9

37.8

28.4

74.6

77.6

75.4

18.8

76.2

76.4

75.4

74.4

22.2 5.5

79.5

77.7

72.0

76.2

11 .

5

4.7

23.8

4.7

6.7

13.1

15.5

7.0

/.J 77.8

10.6

70.7

10.6 8.5

13.3

16.0

22.6

22.8

76.4

4.8

4.7

2.5

10.1 5.4

8.8

2.7

4.7

5.2

8.7

J./

4.7

5.6

3.8

5.1

6.2

5.0

2.5

4.0

74.5 8.6

5.6

3.4

8.8

5.8

5.6

77.7

8.0

8.3

9.5

9.8

10.3 4.8

3.7

3.5

4.3

4.4

2.3

0.0

0.0

3.9

1.3

2.0

an 2.9

5.6

9.0

5.6

2.0

6.0

6.5

6.9

77.9 9.4

13.0

77.8

78.2 7.9

6.9

5.7

a) FÚ a a.l rl o C

TA

BLE

14,

PA

RT

II

(Con

tinue

d)

Pet

rol.

+

Top

./Y

ear

Ag.

+V

et.

Civ

il M

ech.

/Ele

c. C

hem

. E

xtr.

H

yd.

Oth

er

m .-l 'J *] o r' o l4 N ¡n o

1955

7956

1957

1958

1959

7960

7967

1962

1,96

379

64

7965

1966

1967

7968

7969

1970

1,97

7

76.7

38.1

20.6

22.3

27.8

26.3

4.7

8.6

13.9

72.5

11.0

72.8

18.5

16.0

13.3

77.5

19.4

31.8

18.5

32.0

28.4

26.0

29.0

37.2

27.7

28.9

31.1

32.5

28.6

27.0

25.8

29.2

7.7

18.3

73.3

78.9

76.9

77.2

30.4

27.7

28.6

23.0

24.6

25.9

20.6

23.9

23.0

21.0

10.0

19.6

13.8

16.6

70.2

72.0

76.4

18.4

77.7 9.3

8.4

10.0

74.9

11.5

70.7 9.4

5.1

3.5

5.8

5.0

6.4

9.1

7.7

9.3

5.9

8.0

8.4

9.0

8.9

7.2

8.4

3.2

2.7

7.6

2.4

2.4

7.9

J.J

4.0

2.4

J.J

J.Z

3.2

J.J

2.7

2.8

15.1 9.4

7.0

9.6

9.9

6.4

11.8 7.0

1.9

11 .3

11.0

72.1

71.7

9.5

11.5

11.5 9.0

25.5

28.9

3.0

2.5

8.4

6.5

23.4

24.3

Sou

nc¡:

AE

; C

E;

AN

UIE

S-E

SM

; A

NU

IES

-AE

; S

EP

-ES

M.

N)

TA

BLE

15.

Eng

inee

ring

Egr

esad

os,

Fou

rtee

n S

peci

altie

s,l

1967

-g9

!P

Mec

h.+

PA

RT

I. A

bsol

ute

Dat

a

Top

./Y

ear

4g.

E¡t

¡.

Indu

st.

Mec

h.-E

l. ch

e¡t-

t1yd

, ve

t. C

ivil

E!.

&¡n

p-.E

¡rtl

chem

. Je

¡t.

otlre

¡ ...

rqt

al79

67 1

66 7

3 26

7 93

0 56

2 72

31

8 87

3 11

2 o

42

26

65

77

3,58

319

68 M

7 't2

0 29

7 86

4 69

5 97

27

6 1,

153

150

o 26

62

743

77

7 4,

495

1969

497

133

35

7 7,

255

932

98

378

1,33

2 i6

8 o

37

62 1

10

227

5,58

0

7970

555

107

40

479

77 5

50 1

32

528

7972

960

220

67

019

73 9

90 3

00

920

1974

1,1

00 3

60 i

,130

1975

1,6

60 3

70 1

,420

7976

'-1,

657

245

7,77

419

77 2

,779

2U

2,

305

'197

8 2,

192

234

2,19

379

79 3

,084

287

2,9

20

1980

3,9

44 2

95 3

,045

1981

5,6

90 3

27 2

,972

7982

6,7

77 3

12 3

,403

1983

7,3

27 3

74 3

,280

7984

7,3

59 3

53 3

,558

1,79

7 75

7 97

7,45

2 7,

176

130

1,44

0 1,

380

200

1,53

0 1,

680

140

1,82

0 2,

060

80

429

7,22

947

0 1,

432

680

1,46

077

0 7,

720

700

1,76

0

893

975

7,27

01,

240

1,28

0

"1,2

00

7,20

71,

324

7,48

07,

199

6,64

77,

348

8,75

09,

950

10,9

00

11,8

3013

,828

17,1

3676

,605

18,7

57

20,7

9823

,296

25,5

3826

,756

28,1

50

0 0 0 0 0

40

66 1

3015

6 92

152

100

40 1

9090

160

21A

160

30 2

20

155

103

200

200

200

200

472

598

297

358

582

ilg 832

7,21

r"1

,247

1,85

0 1,

790

210

880

1,81

02,

226

2,04

8 20

0 87

2 2,

437

2,58

2 2,

729

333

1,26

6 3,

441

2,30

0 7,

977

304

1,45

4 3,

543

2,29

1, 2

,'t67

343

7,5

32 3

,707

2,75

9 "t

,648

285

2,57

7 7,

565

623

2,37

9 7,

798

500

2,45

7 1,

726

595

2,43

6 2,

770

452

1,76

5 4,

069

7,97

8 38

42,

083

4,00

3 1,

669

553

2,35

0 4,

336

1,64

3 &

52,

786

3,93

7 1,

426

978

2,75

7 4,

368

1,45

9 7,

3670

160

60 2

2047

27

0 20

7 23

272

1 77

6 26

6 24

220

1 24

7 10

1 94

267

325

277

78

381

246

7737

9 31

8 54

297

264

6832

0 26

9 82

292

238

94

o 'Ú *l E F ts¡ o c N

Mec

h.+

T

op./

\eO

r .

. A

g. E

xtr.

In

dust

. M

ech.

-El.

C-!

em,.

H¡1

d

1985

5,6

36 3

11 4

,074

2,4

70 2

,081

571

"t98

6 9,

543

420

3,59

9 2,

569

2,37

2 53

4"1

987

9,00

4 50

5 4,

354

2,62

0 2,

302

569

1988

8,7

39 4

22 4

,222

3,2

72 2

,207

Mt

7989

7,0

60 4

46 4

,312

3,6

88 1

,908

U7

TA

BLE

15,

PA

RT

I (

Con

tinue

d)

Vet

- C

iv-il

E

l. C

!mp.

¡ur

U. .fS

f"t

. C

)the

-r T

otal

2,85

7 4,

726

7,49

5 1,

683

288

248

94

1,26

7 27

,135

2,63

5 4,

289

1,30

2 7,

874

289

267

136

1,57

5 31

,,278

2,60

4 4,

937

7,83

4 2,

490

3U 2

82 1

84 1

,754

33,

817

2,74

7 4,

589

3,06

6 3,

375

794

331

748

1,73

8 34

,885

2,71

4 4,

353

1,80

9 3,

698

316

225

153

7,70

5 32

,694

o -l ,l O *l a) f o r¡ rjl @

TA

BLE

15,

PA

RT

IL

Per

cent

age

Dat

a

Mec

h.+

T

op./

Bio

-Y

ear,

A

g. E

xt!.

|¡du

st

sh. E

l. ![e

¡¡-

Fly

d-

]e

Cir.

il E

l. C

omp.

E

arth

che

m.

fq¡t

. O

tlle¡

7967

4.6

2.0

7.

5 26

.0 7

5.7

2.0

8.9

24.4

3.

1 0.

0 7.

2 0.

7 1.

8 2.

719

68 9

.8 2

.7

6.5

79.2

15.

5 2.

2 6.

7 25

.7

3.3

0.0

0.6

7.4

3.2

3.9

7969

8.9

2.4

6.

4 22

.5 7

6.7

1.8

6.8

23.9

3.

0 0.

0 0.

7 1.

1 2.

A

4.0

7970

8.3

7.6

7977

7.5

1.8

7972

11.

0 2.

579

73 9

.9 3

.0

7974

10.

1 3.

379

75 7

4.0

3.1

7976

72.

0 1.

879

77 7

2.4

1.4

7978

73.

2 7.

479

79 7

6.4

1.5

26.9

17.

4 7.

419

.8 1

6.0

1.8

76.5

15.

8 2.

315

.4 1

6.9

7.4

76.7

18.

9 0.

715

.6 1

5.1

1.8

16.7

74.

8 7.

415

.1 7

2.4

7.9

73.9

77.

9 1.

872

.2 1

1.5

1.8

73.4

0.0

13.3

0.0

13.8

0.0

72.5

0.0

77.7

0.0

10.1

0.0

8.7

0.3

7.7

0.7

8.9

7.2

6.4

7.4

6.7

7.2

7.7

9.2

70.4

72.0

12.4

13.5

1,3.

215

.6

6.5

6.4

7.8

7.7

6.4

7.4

6.3

7.4

8.8

8.2

18.5

79.5

76.7

77.3

76.1

15.3

77.6

20.7

27.3

79.7

0.6

1.0

2.0

2.3

2.1

1.3

2.1

1.4

1.1

0.5

2.2

2.3

0.9

7.6

2.7

2.0

1.5

0.3

2.0

1.8

1 .4

0.5

1 .9

t.7

2.0

r.5

1.7

3.4

1.0

7.6

1.4

3.5

1.5

0.6

0.6

1.8

1.7

1.1

0.4

7.9

OJ

TA

BLE

15,

PA

RT

II (

Con

tinue

d)

Mec

h.+

T

op./

Yea

r A

g._.

E¡l¡

.. In

dust

. M

esh.

-El

!¡c¡

q-

Il _!

-ct-

_

_,ei

¡ril*

, *_

E

l. ,,.

,-C

_sm

p.

O)

NJ

1980

19.

0 1.

4 74

.6 7

0.4

7.9

7.4

8.5

79.6

9.

2 1.

819

81 2

4.4

7.4

72.8

11.

1 6.

7 2.

7 8.

9 77

.2

7.2

2.4

1982

26.

3 7.

2 13

.3

9.3

7.0

2.0

9.2

77.0

6.

4 2.

519

83 2

7.4

1.4

72.3

9.

2 6.

5 2.

2 70

.4 7

4.7

5.3

3.7

7984

26.

7 1.

3 72

.6

8.7

7.7

7.6

9.8

15.5

5.

2 4.

9

1.8

7.4

7.2

7.2

1.0

7.2

0.4

2.8

1.4

0.2

2.4

1.0

0.3

3.3

1.0

0.3

4.5

0.8

0.3

4.4

0.9

0.3

4.6

0.8

0.4

s.0

0.8

0.5

5.2

0.9

0.4

5.0

0.7

0.5

5.2

1985

20.

8 1.

1 14

.8

9.7

7.7

2.7

10.5

75.

279

86 3

0.5

1.3

11.5

8.

2 7.

4 7.

7 8.

4 73

.779

87 2

6.6

1.5

72.9

7.

7 6.

8 7.

7 7.

7 74

.619

88 2

3.3

7.2

72.7

9.

4 6.

3 1.

3 7.

9 73

.279

89 2

7.6

7.2

73.2

11.

3 5.

8 1.

1 8.

3 13

.3

5.5

6.2

1.1

4.2

5.8

0.9

5.4

7.4

1.1

8.8

9.7

0.6

5.5

11.3

1.0

1. In

clud

es n

onen

gine

erin

g de

gree

fie

lds

in t

he a

pptie

d sc

ienc

es.

Dat

a fo

r 19

72-7

5 pa

rtia

lty e

stim

ated

ow

ing

to la

ck o

fco

mpr

ehen

sive

dat

a in

sou

rces

.

SoU

RC

E:

AN

UIE

S-E

SM

; A

NU

IES

-AE

; un

publ

ishe

d da

ta.

a) -l r !1 o e N

Tex

t. O

ther

Bio

-ch

em -

TA

BLE

16.

Eng

inee

ring

Deg

rees

Reg

iste

red,

Nin

e S

peci

aliti

es,

1966

-70

to 1

981-

85

PA

RT

I.

Abs

olut

e D

ata

Mec

h./

Per

iod

Tot

al A

g. /V

et.

Che

m. C

ivil

Com

p. E

l. P

etro

l. In

dust

. E

l.79

66-7

0 15

,000

7,2

00

3,00

0 2,

500

50

400

250

10 3

,500

7971

,-75

22,

460

2,43

0 3,

270

4,34

0 12

0 81

0 47

0 40

4,7

001,

976-

80 4

4,27

0 4,

850

2,86

0 8,

300

250

7,67

0 75

0 4,

790

6,69

019

81-8

5 55

,060

10,

820

2,91

0 9,

790

2,90

0 1,

850

830

4,77

0 6,

020

PA

ITT

II.

Per

cent

age

Dat

aM

ech.

/P

erio

d A

g./V

et. C

hem

. C

ivil

Com

p. E

l. P

etro

l. In

dust

. E

l.79

66-7

0 8.

0 20

.0

76.7

0.

3 2.

7 1.

7 0.

1 23

.379

71.-

75

10.8

74

.3

79.3

0.

5 3.

6 1.

8 0.

2 20

.979

76-8

0 11

.0

6.5

78.7

0.

6 3.

6 7.

7 10

.8 1

5.1

1981

-85

79.7

5.

3 76

.7

5.3

3.4

1.5

7.5

10.9

Sou

ncn:

DG

P.

,J 'l o ,l (l - o N r¡ o (}) (,

(, §T

AB

LE 1

7. E

ngin

eerin

g D

egre

es R

egis

tere

d, T

en S

peci

altie

s, 1

970-

86

Yea

r C

ivil

Che

m.

Arc

h.

PA

RT

I.

Abs

olut

e D

ata

Mec

h./

As.

P

etro

l. V

et.

El.

Mec

h. E

l.In

dust

.46

7 70

7 75

676

4 24

3 30

453

9 72

9 18

543

8 70

2 75

656

9 23

6 30

8

797

242

297

794

298

352

842

443

558

806

403

491

760

427

535

al Fl

F1 ?l o C

785

377

602

739

756

311

552

768

735

457

782

250

894

397

697

240

977

648

892

383

856

545

842

327

764

495

778

376

772

277

726 74 275

47 75 J/ 45 97 69 706

749

725

749

7970

77

079

77

968

7972

65

279

73

677

7974

92

5

7975

97

479

76

1433

7977

77

3779

78

1804

7979

77

70

1980

15

1719

81

1468

7982

18

3519

83

1665

7984

2A

52

1985

79

0219

86

1803

67

6 23

797

33

37

778

26

23

872

17

29

272

7 51

23

2

276

ó3/

297

530

469

546

636

695

861

1258

7203

7227

390

770

3548

5 79

7 40

541

202

5642

4 76

9 42

347

749

42

266

798

2923

9 74

6 47

367

737

3331

5 89

70

487

158

72

385

759

5534

2 77

7 88

277

427

285

277

386

594

655

727

749

685

682

544

593

574

778

694

692

PA

RT

IL P

erce

ntag

e D

ata,

Nin

e S

peci

altie

s

Mec

h./

Yea

r C

ivil

Che

m.

As.

P

etro

l. V

et.

Mec

h. E

lec.

El.

Indu

stD

7A19

71,

7972

1,97

3

"197

4

7975

1976

1,97

7

1,97

819

79

1980

1,98

71,

982

'198

3

7984

24.3

9.

5 2.

7 0.

2 7.

9 3.

779

.9

8.7

1.9

0.7

7.8

5.0

19.9

8.

7 2.

4 0.

8 7.

3 3.

920

.5

9.2

2.4

0.6

9.7

3.4

5.0

5.1

4.9

4.3

5.0

4.2

3.4

5.1

5.8

4.4

5.3

4.9

6.4

4.3

6.8

3.3

6.6

4.3

6.8

3.1

9.2

4.8

16.0

5.

3 7.

475

.7

6.3

1.5

76.4

5.

6 1.

174

.6

5.2

1.5

72.3

6.

6 2.

0

14.0

5.

2 1.

277

.2

4.9

1.5

9.7

6.4

7.7

8.9

5.4

7.4

8.7

6.7

7.7

9.7

7.0

1.6

8.1

5.9

1.8

7.0

7.5

2.4

7.7

5.5

7.9

7.7

6.5

2.8

El.

Indu

st.

19.9

8.

3 2.

6 1.

1

77.2

10.

520

.7

9.2

20.0

8.

379

.9

8.2

79.5

7.

8

77.7

7.

975

.7

5.8

77.5

5.

773

.2

4.5

15.1

5.

3

3.0

2.8

2.3

7.9

7.7

2.3

7.6

1.3

0.7

1.2

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.5

TA

BLE

17

/PA

RT

II (

Con

tinue

d)

Mec

./Y

ear

Civ

il C

hem

. A

s.

Pet

. V

et.

Mec

. E

lec.

1985

1986

72.6

10.9

4.6

1.7

0.4

8.0

3.6

5.7

4.2

1.0

0.5

7.4

3.0

4.6

5.6

2.7

4.7

7.9

Sou

ncs:

DG

P,

unpu

blis

hed

data

o -t *l @ H a) - @ trl ¡¡ @ (}J (,

TA

BLE

18.

Ind

ex o

f Eng

inee

ring

(198

0=10

0)D

egre

es R

egis

tere

d, T

en S

peci

altie

s, 1

970-

86(J

J o\

Yea

r C

ivil

Che

m.

Arc

h.

Ag.

E

xtr.

7970

46

.8

40.6

42

.7

30.8

20

.7

Mec

h./

El./

Ele

ctr-

Vet

. E

l. M

ech.

oni

c In

dust

.42

.3 5

9.5

28.8

25.

9 29

.569

.0 9

7.3

65.5

50.

5 54

.043

.6 6

8.7

34.8

30.

7 26

.653

.5 5

5.8

27.5

25.

9 32

.442

.5 7

2.5

63.6

57.

2 65

.5

50.5

100

.8 6

5.2

48.3

49

.665

.4 1

01.1

80.

3 58

.5

76.3

53.3

707

.3 7

19.4

92.

7 1,

07.2

97.7

702

.7 1

08.6

87.

6 89

.985

.9 9

6.8

115.

1 88

.9 7

07.2

1971

,

7972

7973

1,97

4

7975

7976

't977

7978

7979

1980

1981

7982

1983

'198

4

1985

1986

64.2

94.5

174.

511

8.9

772.

7

i00.

096

.872

1.0

109.

813

5.3

725.

411

8.9

63.8

67

.7 8

7.6

46.0

113

.843

.0

47.8

47.

4 39

.4 8

9.7

40.7

40

.6 2

7.8

36.4

58.

661

.0

56.6

80.

8 67

.7 7

75.9

87.1

, 74

6.6

96.0

782

.370

5.7

203.

410

9.8

759.

410

0.4

130.

5

100.

0 10

0.0

79.8

89.

887

.0 7

35.7

84.2

118

.410

5.3

183.

1

101.

8 74

4.7

101.

5 72

8.6

85.9

120

.799

.5 7

37.9

702.

0 79

3.1

85.4

744

.875

.3 7

44.8

100.

0 10

0.0

73.7

747

.469

.2 1

13.8

44.9

241

.479

.8 2

48.3

80.3

789

.786

.4 3

03.4

100.

0 10

0.0

100.

077

6.5

96.3

83.

812

7.3

93.6

72"

1.6

757.

7 77

3.9

107.

023

0.4

123.

7 '1

74.7

100.

0 10

0.0

91.7

720

.972

9.9

779.

911

4.8

772.

774

8.2

275.

5

220.

3 10

9.0

746.

9 73

9.9

230.

922

4.7

97.3

733

.4 1

29.2

227

.3

o t '-l L Él o C

Sou

nc¡:

Cal

cula

ted

from

Tab

le 1

7 ab

ove.

STATISTICAL SERIES ,137

TABLE 19. Economically Active Population by Economic Sector,1900-90

PART I. Ten Sectors

Sector 1900 1910 1921 1930 1940TotalAgriculture,

5,131,051 5,337,889 4,883,567 5,165,803 5,858,1.'.16

Ranching, Fishing,Hunting 3,177,840 3,584,191, 3,488,1,02 3,626,278 3,830,871,Extractive Industries

and PetroleumManufacturingConstructionElectric EnergyCommerceTransportationServicesGovernmentInsufficiently

Specified 379,848 209,'188 '163,658

107,348624,03962,997

8,910261.,455

59,66649"t,781.25,189

31"1,826

1.04,093613,91374,70310,553

293,75355,091

508,08427,667

65,847

26,890 51,246 106,706534,4)8 692,761. 639,6ü

950 1.960 1.970 1.980 1.990

Total 8,272,093 11,332,01.6 72,955,057 22,066,084 23,403,4't3AgricultureRanching, Fish-ing, Hunting 4823,901

Extractive Indus-tries andPetroleum 97,143

Manufacturing 972,542Construction 224,572Eiectric Energy 24,966Commerce 684,092Transportation 21.0,592Services 879,379GorrernmentInsufficiently

Specified 354,966

6,143,540

141,,530'1,,556,091

408,27941.,443

1,075,174356,939

1 q)7 ))q

8'1,797

5,703,519

180,'1752,1.69,074

57'.t,00653,285

1,196,878368,8't3

2,1.58,'175406,607

747,525

273,902 273,84158,974 707,05258,343 52,69463,074 753,343

552,467-149,470

223,749191,588

5,700,860 5,300,114

51.3,339 260,5752,580,799 4,493,2791.,307,767 1,594,96.1.

116,197 1.54,4691,471,578 3,108,128

683,640 7,045,3923,742,354 5,7L4,325

- g?R lER

6,125,759 803,872

138 CHAPTER FOUR

PART II. Three Sectors

Primarv_ Sector Secondary SectorPercent- Percent-

YSqr - rotur -4u¡orrt. #i" eUrorrt" sflgui"1900 5,131,051 3,177,840 67.99 803294 15Á67970 5,337,999 3,584,797 67.1.5 g09,262 15.051921 4,883,567 3,499,702 77.43 67,318 1.261930 5,165,903 3,626,279 70.20 743,407 74.997940 5,959,116 3,930,871 65.39 746,373 72.741950 9,272,093 4,923,907 59.32 7,379,163 15.957960 71,332,01.6 6,743,540 54.27 2,747,343 1g.957970 72,955,057 5,703,579 39.39 2,973,540 22.957980u 22,066,094 5,700,960 25.93 4,51,6,934 20.471990 23,403,473 5,300,774 22.65 6,503,224 27.79

Tertiarv SectorPercent-

Not Specified

ageYear Absolute Share Absolute

76.33 377,82676.57 65,847

37g,g4B209,788763,658354,966

81,797747,525

7921. 454,293 9.30

24.07 6,425,75946.13 803,872

Percent-age

Share1900 838,0911910 894,589

1930 586,9307940 1,177,2741950 7,774,0637960 2,959,3421970 4,730,4731980u 5,297,5727990 70,796,203

77.3679.0727.4526.7731.88

6.087.237.784.052.794.290.725.77

29.723.43

a. Cf. totals in Table 23.. The 1980 census gives different totals for EAp byoccupation and EAP by sector of activity.

SouRCn: EHM; Census.

STATISTICAL SERIES 739

TABLE 20. Professionals and Technicians, 1900-40

PART I. Public Administration and Liberal Professions inEconomically Active Population,l 1900-30

Division 1900 7970 1.920 7930Public Administration 64,004 64,384 63,074 753,343Liberal ProfessionsTotal

EAPl 4,697,729 5,395,263 5,025,770 5,327,530

Public Administration/EAP 7.36 1.79Liberal Professions/EAP 0.83 1.25Total/EAP 2.79 2.45

1. EAP = Total - (Div 8 + Div 10) + .03(Div 8)Division 8: Domestic Workers.Division 10: Persons with non-productive occupations, without an

occupation, and whose occupation is unknown..03(Division 8) = The number of paid domestic workers was estimated at

3 percent of all domestic workers.

SouRc¡: Census,1930.

PART II. Public Administration and Liberal Professions inEconomically Active Population,1930 and 1940

Division 1930 7940Agriculture, Ranching,

HuntingMining, Petroleum, GasIndustryCommunications and

TransportationCommercePublic AdministrationLiberal OccupationsPaid Domestic WorkerslNot SpecifiedUnknown OccupationsTotal Domestic Workers

38,764 67,653 58,343 52,694102,768 732,037 1.27,477 206,037

7.26 2.887.1,6 0.992.42 3.87

3,634,71347,997

523,927

103,333273,872147,301

52,678161,000367,475

6,07\,0485,390,444

3,830,877'106,706

639,607

149,470552,467191,58842,779

181,030163,658

7,492,4086,484,058

1.44 CHAPTER FOUR

Division

TABLE 20, PART II (Continued)

1930 7940EAP2

Public Administration +Liberal Professions

Public Administration/EAPLiberal Professions/ EAP

Public Administration +Liberal Professions/ EAP

5,859,1 16

234,307

a^-c.z/0.73

4.00

as 3 percent of Total

unpaid domestic workers.

5,372,230

7gg,g7g

2.770.99

3.76

1. Paid Domestic Workers calculated for 1930Domestic Workers.

2. Does not include Unknown Occupations or

Souncr: Census, 1940.

PART III. Public Administ¡ation and LiberalProfessions in Economically Active Population (Alternate Data),

1910,1921, and 1930

Sector 79"t0 1921 1930Public Administration

TeachersMedical ServicesLegal ServicesReligious ProfessionalsLiterary, Scientific, and

Artistic ProfessionalsPhotography and CinemaDiversionsTotal

SouRc¡: Census.

27,664

27,0077,837

4,690

22,7967,2062,762

87,352

8,769)

26,70877,8464,9693,427

28,2261,4972,774

87,544

65,096

14,6965,7253,206

29,6672,2407,706

127,726

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 21. Professionals, Technicians, and Management inEconomically Active Population, 1950-90

Area ofPrincipalOccuoation 1950 L960 7970 1980 7990EAP 8,272,093 11.,332,016 L2,955,057 2'.1.,393,250 23,403,413Professionals

and Technicians 206,939 408,639 733,209 1.,582,237 2,473,498Management 65,108 95,132 319,828 260,681. 569,561.Total 272,047 503,771. 7,053,037 7,842,978 3,043,059

As Percentage of EAP

Professionalsand Technicians 2.50 3.67 5.66 7.40 70.57

Management 0.79 0.84 2.47 7.22 2.43Total 3.29 4.45 8.13 8.61 13.00

Souncp: Census.

"141,

TA

BLE

22.

Pro

fess

iona

ls,

Tec

hnic

ians

, an

d M

anag

emen

t, by

Sec

tor,

195

0-90

PA

RT

I.

Pro

fess

iona

ls a

nd T

echn

icia

ns b

y S

ecto

r, 1

950-

90

1980

Sec

tor

7950

79

60

7970

79

80

7980

Est

. R

ound

ed 1

990

Agr

icul

ture

7,

197

16,1

00 1

8,96

6 23

,161

29

,377

29

,OO

O 3

J,Z

B7

Ext

ract

ivel

ndus

trie

s 2,

990

'§N-)

Man

ufac

turin

gC

onst

ruct

ion

Util

ities

Com

rner

ceT

rans

port

atio

nS

ervi

ces

Not

Spe

cifie

dT

otal

EA

P T

otal

77,5

9417

,785

46,9

685,

700

78,2

377,

794

3,55

73,

257

22,3

59

74,8

7497

,957

23,7

454,

987

21,8

81

18,8

5623

7,87

267

,094

26,4

7620

,563

23,8

6824

,000

24,0

3820

9,11

529

3,42

9 29

3,00

0/

/ ,J

-aJ

77,0

00

60,8

2833

,513

36

,000

26,0

29

26,0

0016

,135

89,1

.92

168,

050

280,

304

529,

297

2,73

96,

523

8,18

56,

554

8,29

6 8,

000

32,1

3079

8,96

9 1,

011,

339

1,01

1,00

0 1,

946,

970

4,27

82,

806

13,9

2339

4,75

279

,772

79,0

0061

,303

206,

939

408,

639

733,

209

7,58

2,23

7 1,

582,

237

1,58

2,00

0 2,

473,

498

8,27

2,09

3 71

,332

,076

72,

955,

057

21,3

93,2

50 2

7,39

3,25

0 21

,393

,250

23,

403,

473

Agr

icul

ture

Ext

ract

ive

Indu

strie

sM

anuf

actu

ring

Con

stru

ctio

nU

tiliti

esC

omrn

erce

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ser

vice

sN

ot S

peci

fied

0.6

1..4

8.5

2.8

0.9

7.6

1.0

87.2 2.0

3.9

2.9

11 .

5

4.5

0.9

5.5

1.6

68.6 0.7

2.6

2.0

\3.4 3.2

0.7

3.0

1.1

72.2 1.9

1.5

1..2

14.7 3.9

1.7

1.3

0.4

50.s

24.9

7.9

1.5

18.5 4.9

2.7

1.6

0.5

63.9 5.0

1.8

1.5

18.5 4.9

L.-1

1..6

0.5

63.9 5.0

1.4

1.0

8.5

2.5

o.7

3.6

1.3

78.7

2.5

a ,ü -l t¡ 7 rt o C

PA

RT

II.

Man

agem

ent

by S

ecto

r, L

950-

90

1980

§eet

or

_ 19

50

7960

79

70

1980

19

80 E

st.

Rou

nded

199

0

(, -l 'l o ,l a) - u rn F r¡ o

Agr

icul

ture

0

Ext

ract

ivel

ndus

trie

s 2,

448

Man

ufac

turin

gC

onst

ruct

ion

Util

ities

Con

tmer

ceT

rans

port

atio

nS

ervi

ces

23,8

505,

752

86,3

3612

,357

2,06

959

,767

10,5

3827

,943

't0

7,45

618

,303

95;1

32

319,

828

71,3

32,0

16 7

2,95

5,05

7

14,9

42)

q)\

355

15,8

561,

909

22,5

33

07,

746

26,4

997,

743

800

25,5

053,

463

27,7

2613

,761

41,4

438,

839

3,20

433

,977

6,94

735

,721

89,6

6926

0,68

7

2t,3

93,2

50

70.6 5.0

15.9 3.4

1.2

13.0 2.7

73.7

34.4

38,0

3818

,056

56,8

5612

,726

4,39

646

,605

9,53

"1

49,0

0626

,068

260,

687

21,3

93,2

50

74.6 6.9

21.8 4.7

7.7

17.9

-1. /

18.8

10.0

18,0

0057

,000

12,0

004,

000

47,0

0010

,000

49,0

0026

,000

267,

000

14.6 6.9

21.8

4.6

1.5

18.0 3.8

18.8

10.0

4,57

112

3,41

020

,765

3,49

6t1

3,79

121

,622

237,

694

22,2

7656

9,56

7

38,0

00

21,9

96

Not

Spe

cifie

d 4,

540

7,43

3T

otal

EA

P T

otal

65,1

08

8,27

2,09

327

,393

,250

23,

403,

473

Agr

icul

ture

Ext

ract

ive

Indu

strie

sM

anuf

actu

ring

Con

stru

ctio

nU

tiliti

esC

omm

erce

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ser

vice

sN

ot S

peci

fied

Sou

Rcg

: C

ensu

s.

0.0

3.8

22.9 3.9

0.5

24.4 2.9

34.6 7.0

0.0

1.8

27.9

8.1

0.8

26.8 3.6

29.4 1.5

7.5

1.6

27.0 3.9

0.6

"18.

7

.1,¡

37.7 5.7

3.9

0.8

2r.7 3.6

0.6

20.0 3.8

41.7 3.9

'§(¡)

7M CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 23. Occupational Structure of Economic Sectors, L950-90

PART I. Total Economically Active Population

7950 7960

Workers in Goods and Services 7,487,477

Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in Mining

Domestic Workers

Total

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

593,883

8,272,093

393,076 630,627508,456 767,997557,537 874,417729,228 200,469

379,828 260,691 569,567

20,77021,9,32420,597

977,179 1,,993,830 2,796,592

967,267 7,584,373 2,706,935

7,489,957 2,200,97594,4L6 505,960

4,952,200 5,342,495 5,773,725

L3,5135,249,777

79,277

206,93965,108

384,81,4647,765

4,877,71080,997

408,63995,132

693,6651,023,7236,067,679

709,2942,742,010

7g1,gg4

11-,332,076

STATISTICAL SERiES 145

TABLE 23, PART I (Continued)

7970 1980 7990Non-Agricultural Workers 2,768,780

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of fixed machinery

Workers in Services 7,560,674

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

4,764,935

727,1554,776,929

460,857

1,644,646

640,361755,026249,259

888,857

3,337,796

27,393,250

6,354,90L

388,5483,729,6681,055,628L,1.82,A57

2,787,51.2

7,737,7357,777,679

478,758

646,199

504,500

23,403,473

675,990

72,955,057

PART II. Agriculture

1 950 7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

16,100

25,96629,794

6,065,008

8,072

6,144,930

23,767 33,787

8,732 73,90770,744 19,1,093,167 3097,778 462

7970 7980 7990

7,797

3,6266,222

4,870,053

1.4

2,789

4,823,907

78,966

146 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 23, PART II (Continued)

7970 7980 7990Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of fixed machinery

Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

23,850

76,879

8,754

4,878,524

57,936

30,957

67,779

5,703,579

27,726 27,996

90910,40776,41,6

44,875 78,589

45,332 27,077

43,372 79,7487,960 1,,323

5,063,787 5,046,485

7,5324,996,442

59,207

746,567 28,633

3,287 7,775725,748 77,07577,532 7,677

2,166

714,378 111,185

22,220 13,77994,985 84,2027,773 73,204

25,498 915

29,327 17,453

5,51,9,979 5,300,174

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 23, PART III

147

Extractive lndustries

1 950 1960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Coods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

2,9902,4487,6927,077

80,462i3

2,527

97,743

1970

71,7957,746

75,2282,709

109,026

7,907

741,901

1 980 1990Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixéd Machinery

18,856 24,038

8,155 11,5188,307 77,927

484 3651,910 234

1,3,1,67 4,577

47772,716

28

75,927 34,307

159,869 2,649

150,186 2,5669,683 g3

2,455 L,324

552,773

227

196,178 154,505

6,664 76,776174,630 76,57074,884 32,856

28,363

74,874

5,1,52

1,9,359

2,653

7,703

775,645

148 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 23, PART III (Continued)

1.970 1,980 1,990Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not SpecifiedToial

74,245

6,544190,175

PART IV. Manufacturing

1 950

77,861, 34,870

5,519 6,7779,649 79,7742,693 g,g7g

905 222

19,976 4,099505,188 260,575

7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchants

46,96926,499

709,93752,399

7,296,62224,990

1,,556,375

1980 7990

77,5941.4,94243,87727,277

Workers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and Services 838,132Domestic Workers 30,726

Total 972,542

7970Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

237,872 209,775

68,51,2 63,44670,734 708,78775,688 4,69376,878 32,205

41,443 723,470

7,22739,956

266

796,578 309,315

97,957

86,336

227,660

STATISTiCAL SERIES 149

TABLE 23, PART IV (Continued)

1970 1980 7990Merchants 98,647

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers 75,971

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers 7,473,623

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

Workers in Services 777,709

EmployeesTransporta tion DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

51,831

2,769,074

TABLE 23, PART V. Construction

1 950

108,807 263,202

704,759 247,2094,648 75,994

23,440 92,593

25520,9772,208

7,760,084 3,1,71,,707

45,585 242,7001,,630,559 1,,397,944

83,940 433,8101,096,747

709,732 2g0,g1g

57,587 64,94336,054 759,4071.6,097 56,575

6,762 2,397

55,527 57,327

2,533,5'1,9 4,493,279

7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

5,7002,5253,297

756

209,8272,473

224,572

78,2377,7439,9571,840

366,7693,863

408,402

150

TABLE 23, PART V (Continued)

7970

CHAPTER FOUR

1 980 7990Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

23,145

72,357

20,482

4,380

3,834

7,793

480,273

19,964

6,571

57't,006

6L,094

77,20640,902

7672,325

8,839

8007,ggg

51

37,573

7,520

7,253267

70,957

789,086

1,1,03,485

77,705856,040757,380

39,180

27,7127,9733,555

74,669

6,999

1,271,995

60,828

39,62219,945

JJZ

929

20,765

36,065

2,785

2,034151

4,399

1,476,450

54,885997,792353,972

9,877

49,000

5,81032,08777,709

454

4,926

7,594,961

STATISTlCAL SERIES

PART VI. Utilities

1 950

151

1960

7970 7980 7990

Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Coods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

3,557800

'12,877

7,772

22,3'13726

47,445

26,476 '16,135

3,381 7,11,1,

6,984 8,567983

75,728

3,204

3812,821

2

23,307 39,396

4,438 7,647

3,546 1,597892 44

286 542

7227

52

1,794355

5,763906

15,1.01.

7,647

24,966

4,987

2,069

315748

3,496

L3,539

874

292

't52

TABLE 23, PART VI (Continued)

7970

CHAPTER FOUR

1980 7990Non-Agricultural Workers 24,240

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

Workers in Services 4,707

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

44,374 75,879

2,996 8,29235,636 47,4795,682 72,745

7,963

5,992 14,405

2,590 3,1992,287 7,4427,727 3,775

81 35

6,126 3,000

714,224 754,469

2,637

53,285

PART VII. Commerce

1 950 7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

22,35925,505

103,515875,807

37,8299,578

'1,074,593

20,563 89,792

4,956 26,46312,792 57,460

774 7,4302,047 3,939

7970 7980 7990

3,25715,856q9 L9)

580,040

10,01575,432

684,092

21,881

STATISTICAL SERIES 153

TABLE 23, PART VIIU (Continued)

7970 1 980 1990Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

59,767

757,606

757,330

79,756

88,278

71,247

21.,0L9

1.,1.96,878

33,977

64632,845

480

151,883

7,056,384

99L,17965,205

26,378

16825,802

408

85,793

2,23576,503

7,055

40,356

16,69020,7203,546

7,935

27,93L

1.,445,794

773,797

314,1.1.8

2,730,840

7,738,14L392,699

72,077

797,266

8,8771.46,72227,242

8,485

241,655

97,874713,19830,583

3,458

77,797

3,1.08,728

154

PART VIII. Transportation

1 950

CHAPTER FOUR

7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWo¡kers irr AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

2,739'i.,909

41,,2821,551

757,8925,81.9

270,592

7970

6,5233,463

63,194? q6,

275,0435,292

357,057

1980 1990Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

6,554 32,730

1,853 9,2933,978 21.,794232 882491 771

6,947 2'1,622

8356,026

86

67,535 79L,070

1.5,197 1.2,085

14,677 17,073586 7,072

8,580 2,748

947,2791,267

730,268 87,640

2,296 7,67080,014 59,77347,968 77,554

2,703

9,185

10,538

47,782

4,073

7,310

77,097

STATISTICAL SERIES 155

TABLE 23, PART VIII (Continued)

1970 1980 7990Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

a. Includes communications.

227,797

70,043

368,813

PART IX. Services

1 950

424,272 691.,592

5,779 57,909475,215 61.0,672

3,879 23,072

7,996 794

9,421 6,377

670,770 1,045,392

7960Professionals and TechniciansManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in MiningWorkers in Goods and ServicesDomestic Workers

Total

168,05022,533

139,38825,697

44,393479,329

879,379

280,30427,943

337,29256,188

705,962724,093

7,525,692

7970 1 980 1990Professionals and Technicians

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

798,969 7,946,970

772,248 435,905234,244 4g6,5g9386,575 964,33465,902 760,242

q)g )q1

TABLE 23, PART IX (Continued)

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel

Merchants

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixed Machinery

Workers in Services

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

345,470

756

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

398,272

77,754

26,859

1,027,252

58,548

2,564,792

CHAPTER FOUR

5,24230,228

257

347,219 7,097,075

59,625 267,749

54,235 767,2475,390 93,907

9,347 75,794

2,0286,475

844

496,563 7,163,799

13,092 39,951423,979 950,96459,552 154,554

19,330

554,279 1,275,730

384,577 856,52218,859 703,147

750,902 375,467

753,604 670,676

32,483 45,727

3,081,809 6,642,693

STATISTICAL SERIES 157

PART X. Insufficiently Specified

1 950 7960Professionals and Technicians 4,21.8ManagementOffice PersonnelMerchantsWorkers in AgricultureWorkers in Mining

Domestic Workers

Total

2,8067,433

22,805872

2,677258

37,573LJ,J / ,J

87,797

394,752 67,303

768,573 23,456720,471, 34,44792,873 7,76122,835 7,639

89,669 22,276

70,37976,3433,007

1,055,054 1.56,707

727,201 72,774

721,476 77,3675,785 747

797,877 8,444

3,296187,370

13,205

880,049 65,688

39,377 8,802773,880 34,57966,859 75,878

6,429

Workers in Coods and Services 206,090

4,54081,0093,7757,657

535

53,202

354,966

7970 7980 7990Professionals and Technicians 13,923

ProfessionalsTechniciansTeachersArtists

Management 18,303

Public FunctionariesPrivate Sector ManagementAgricultural Administration

Office Personnel 87,720

Merchants 72,862

Dependent VendorsVendors Ambulantes

Agricultural Workers 4,077

ForemenFarmersEquipment Operators

Non-Agricultural Workers 172,284

ForemenArtisans and LaborersAssistants and ApprenticesOperators of Fixéci Machinery

158

TABLE 23, PART X (Continued)

,,. , 7970 7gg0 7gg0Workers in Services 53,354 338,277 88,g56

EmployeesTransportation DriversSecurity

Domestic Workers

Not Specified

Total

SouRC¡: Census.

CHAPTER FOUR

779,349 31,634159,950 47,82860,479 75,394

24,009 27,909

457,068 3,743,472 360,576

747,525 6,250,733 903,872

STATISTICAL SER]ES

TABLE 24. Professional and Technician Economically ActivePopulation, by Economic Sector, 11950_90

(%)

Year Primarv Secondarv_Te¡li4¡y1950 ñ B3.B

159

7960

7970

1980

7990

2.6

1.8

2.4

18.5

27.2

79.4

75.7

76.3

66.7

74.7

3.9 79.7

1. These are are unmodified census categories; cf. Table 30.

SoURC¡: Calculated from census.

TABLE 25. Professional Degrees Granted, by Economic sector,1928-77

(Vo)

Year PriUrar)¡ Secondar]¡ Tertiary7928 7.2 11.0 87.7'7929

't9307937793279337934

79351936793779387939

79407947L94279431944

8.7

13.36.47.22.5

4.74.85.77.63.0

4.25.03.57.86.5

6.6 84.7

6.3 80.43.3 90.36.7 86.75.6 97.93.7 93.4

3.5 97.73.2 92.03.2 97.09.3 89.16.6 90.3

5.7 90.13.7 91.44.2 92.36.2 86.05.5 88.0

160 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 25 (Continued)

Y-e.ar Primar)¡ Secondary Tertiary1945 6.7 5.8 88.17946794779487949

19507957795219537954

19557956795719581959

79607961796279637964

19651966796779681969

79707977

9.27.87.69.3

4.53.94.92.45.5

4.97.58.18.19.0

72.24.27.26.1,

6.7

5.85.98.56.76.5

6.55.75.7

10.8

4,09.2

70.78.08.3

8.46.5

11.51,7.7

72.7

71.775.676.973.411.8

13.172.277.974.712.3

13.013.5

84.386.686.779.9

97.587.084.489.586.2

86.786.080.480.178.3

76.780.275.880.582.7

87.281.979.778.687.2

80.580.4

6.56.7

Sounc¡: Calculated from Table 1

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE26. University Egresados, by Economic Sector, 1967-89

(%)

Year Primarv Secondarv Tertiarv

L6l

796779687969

7970797'l797279737974

19757976797779787979

19801981798219837984

79851986798719887989

4.75.55.2

5.25.07.36.85.9

7.35.76.46.36.8

7.69.59.89.79.5

7.810.59.58.47.5

12.913.013.5

77.977.177.477.677.3

15.374.514.372.211.5

11.010.09.58.18.6

8.78.18.79.58.6

83.081.587.4

76.977.975.475.676.8

77.579.879.381.687.6

87.480.580.782.787.9

83.581.487.782.083.9

SouRc¡: Calculated from Table 3

1O

TABLE 27. Professional Employment andand Professional Employment

CHAPTER FOUR

Degrees Granted, 1950,and Egresados,1980

1950

1980

70.2 39.7

22.7 23,7

77.0w TEA

(Vo)

5.5

15.i

Degrees/Egresados

13.5 45.5 72.5 15.3

25.1. 27.8 - 1.7.7

SouRc¡: Census and Tables 1 and 3.

TABLE 28. Various Measures of Demand for Professionals inNuevo León State

PART I. Professionals Employed in Nuevo León (A) and Egresadosof UANL and ITESM (B),1979 and 1980

Year BUS

(%)

(A)

ENG HEALTH Law Other1979 19.9 28.7 27.5 10.7 79.2

(B)11980 18.4 36.8 13.3 9.7 27.8

1. UANL and ITESM accounted for77.0 percent of all egresados in the state.

STATlSTICAL SER]ES

TABLE 28 (continued)

PART II. Employer Demand for BUS and ENG Professionals,1980-83

(7o oi Total Demand)

Year BUS ENG1980 34.9 51.37987 38.4 56.77982 37.7 57.37983 43.9 50.0

Averages 38.7 53.8

PART III. Percent of UANL Graduates Employed Within One Yearof Graduation, Five Fields, 1980

(% Employed)

BUS ENC HEALTH Law Econ.93.9 79.5 65.0 79.7 100.0

Souncr: Programa de Seguimiento de Egresados UANL, Estudio sobre elegresado al titularse en la Uniztersidad Autóuoma de Nueoo León 1980/81(Monterrey: [UANL], [1981]); UANL and Cámera de la Industria deTransformación de Nuevo León, La demand-a de técnicos yprofesionistas en el estado de Nueao León (Monterrey, Nuevo León:UANL, 1981); ANUIES-AE.

763

1& cHAprER FouR

TABLE 29. Professions of Public-sector Employees, Centralizedand Decentralized Sectors, Five Fields, 1975

(%)

Centralized DecentralizedField Sector Sector AverageLaw 12.4 7.7 9.8Med. 11.0ENG 28.0

76.1,

30.420.1,

4.6

13.629.218.34.7

BUS 76.5Econ. 4.7

SoUnC¡: Comisión de Recursos Humanos del Sector Público del GobiernoFederal, Censo de recursos humanos del sector público federal:Administración central 1975 and Administración decentralizada u departicipación estatal mayoritaria 1975 (México, D. F.: Comisióí deRecursos Humanos del Sector Público del Gobierno Federal, 1976).

TABLE 30. Professionals and Technicians in Economically ActivePopulation and Percentage Change, 1950, 1980, and1990

PART I. Professionals and Technicians in Census Data

1 950A. Engineers (and related technicians)B. Chemists (and related technicians)C. Primary School TeacherslD. Secondary School and University TeachersE. Researchers (and related technicians)F. LawyersG. DoctorsH. NursesL Writers/ArtistsI. Other ProfessionalsK. Public Officials at Director's LevelL. Directors of Commercial EstablishmentsM. Owners/Operators of IndustriesN. Other Directors and AdministratorsO, TypistsP. Office Accountants

'17,793

9,96679,2343,2477,775

77,60477,2609,206

34,73724,32977,69719,83317,7929,792

58,51051,818

STATISTICAL SERIES 165

IABLE 30, PART I (Continued)

1980 and 1990 1980 1990Q. Professionals 395,987 630,621,R. Artists 732,108 200,469S. Public Officials 20,927 29,384aT. Directors General, Area Directors 770,557 793,993"U. Secondary School and University Teachers 70,230 170,776aV. Primary School Teachersl 485,636 764235aW. Technicians 515,045 767,997X. Skilled Offfice Workers2 972,440 7,053,933u

1. Includes preschool, special, and sports instructors, school inspectors, andother education workers.

2. Includes office chiefs, accountants, machinery operators, Iibrary andarchival workers, and public relations personnel.

a. Estimated from census data.

PART II. Aggregate Professionals and Technicians Calculated fromCensus Data in Part I

Professionals TechniciaWide Narrow Wide Narrow

1 95 0 Definitionl* !cfi¡¡tisn,____ pcflstiq3__*_Defi¡ltlsn4150,690 106,040 207,996 129,752

Professionals TechniciansWide Narrow Wide Narrow

1 98 0 Def initions_ !Cfini!¡an6____ pcfUrt¡pl7_Defin{lons72g,g0g 549,022 7,973,727 7,497,495

Professionals TechniciansWide Narrow Wide Narrow

1 990 Definition5_,Definltiqa6_ __DcfrrytiqT_____Defimtisas7,764,643 960,474 2,gg0,gg2 2,226,657

1. 1950 wide definition of professionals = 2/3A+2/38+D+2/3E+F+G+I+J+K+1 / 2L+1 / 2l./..

2. 7950 narrow definition of professionals = 2/3A+2/3B,+ 2/3 E+F+G+I+].3. 1950 wide definition of technicians = 1/3A+1/3B+C+7/3E+H+O+p.4. 1950 narrow definition of technicians = 7/3A+1/3B+1/3E+H+O+p.5. 1980 and 1,990 wide definition of professionals = Q+R+S+T+U.6.7980 and 1990 narrow definition of profession¿1s = Q+R+S.7. 1980 and 1990 wide definition of technicians = V+W+X.8. 1980 and 1990 narrow definition of technicians = W+X.

1.66 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 30 (Continued)

PART III: Summary Statistics on P¡ofessionals and Technicians inCensus Data

A. Professionals and Technicians as Percent of Economically ActivePopulation, 7950,1980, and 1990

Professionals TechniciansWide Narrow Wide Narrow

Year Definition Definition Definition Definition1950 i.8 1.3 2.5 7.61980 3.3 2.5 8.9 6.71990 5.0 3.7 72.8 9.5

B. Percentage Change, 1950-80

Professionals TechniciansWide Narrow Wide Narrow

Period Definition Definition Definition Definition1950-80 384.3 477.8 848.7 1055.3

C. Implicit Annual Rates of Change

Professionals TechniciansWide Narrow Wide Narrow

Period Definition Definition Definition Definition1950-80 5.4 5.6 7.8 8.51980-90 4.8 4.6

Source: Censuses of 1950 and 1980.

4.3 4.7

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 31. Increase in Degrees Granted, Egresados, andDegrees Registered, 1950-89

(Percentage Change by Ten- and Five-year periods)

Period Degrees DegreesGranted Egresados RegiÁtered

Ten-Year1950-60 75.17960-70 232.71970-80 267.9 749.1

Fiae-Year7940-45 59.71945-50 87.21950-55 88.71955-60 -7.27960-65 700.27965-70a 65.9 48.07970-75b 97.3 48.27975-80 85.9 68.11980-85 45.0 s6.21985-89 16.9

a. Egresados data are for 1,967-70.b. Degrees Registered data are for 1971,-75.

SouRcr: Calculated from Tables 1, 3, and 5.

1.67

168

TABLE 32. Estimated ExpenditureMexico, 1930-80

CHAPTER FOUR

per University Student in

19307935194079451950195519581965197079751980

1,8307,7541,8157,6744,6472,7617,6287,9932,094

Pesos of 1970 IndexYear per Student (1970=100)

1,013 622,535 156

71210811199

285133100122728

Pesos of 1970 IndexYear per Student (1970=100)

SouRcr: CE; AE; ANUIES-ESM; SEp-OE; EHM; OELM; pROIDES; SEp,Información estadística, 1958-70; Pedro Aspe and paul Sigmund, eds.,The Political Economy of Income Distribition in Mexico"(New york:Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1984). Data for 1930-55 wereestimated from data on SEP expenditures. Expenditure data weredeflated with the Macro Price Index from |am-es W. Wilkie, "FromEconomic Growth to Economic Stagnation in Mexico,', in SALA, vol.26, p.924.

TABLE 33. UNESCO Data on Expenditure per UniversityStudent in Mexico, 1961-85

't967

79657970197519801985

5,3445,3063,0023,3326,6834,949

778777100111223765

souncr: Derived from UNESCo-sY, various years. UNESCO data in currentpesos deflated with the Macro price Index $ames W. Wilkie, "FromEconomic Growth to Economic Stagnation in Mexico,,, SALA, vol.26,P.924).

STATISTICAL SERIES

Table 34. Students per Faculty at

769

Mexican Universities, 1928-90

Average Students IndexYear per Faculty (1970=100)19287929

1930793779321,9337934

19351936793719387939

7949

19507957795219537954

19557956195719587959

19601967796219637964

19657966796779687969

21.876.4

15.318.114.8-10.7

7.9

9.38.39.76.8/.ó

7.7

4.94.45.65.35.5

7.84.88.87.25.9

/.57.77.97.47.6

10.310.810.310.69.7

))?167

156185151109

81

9585997075

/c

5045575456

8049897460

7579807578

105110105108

99

770 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 34 (Continued)

Average Students Index@ (1970=to0)7970 9.8 1001971. 70.9 7771,972 70.9 1117973 10.8 7777974 71.7 774

1,975 77.4 7167976 72.3 7267977 77.7 7797978 77.9 7277979 72.7 723

1980 77.6 7191981 72.1 7247982 10.9 1111983 11.0 7727984 10.1 103

1985 10.1 1037986 10.8 7771987 70.2 7041988 70.2 704't989 10.3 105

7990 10.3 105

SOUXCS: CE; AE; EHM; ANUIES-AE; ANUIES-ESM; SEP-EBSEN.

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 35. Full-Time, Part-Time, and Hourly Faculty at MexicanUniversities, 1965-90

(Vo)

Year Full-Time Part-Time Hourly7965 6.9 4.3 88.9-

177

79671968T969

1970797"t

7976

1979

1980'1987

198219837984

19851986798719887989

7990

8.6

18.4

77.218.118.820.879.6

20.922.723.222.724.6

25.1,

5.34.14.7

5.15.2

7.6

9.4

7.98.18.08.48.2

8.38.07.88.28.2

8.3

85.788.787.3

86.786.0

83.8

72.2

75.073.973.270.872.2

70.969.969.069.767.7

66.6

9.07.28.0

8.28.8

SouRcr: Calculated from ANUIES-AE, ANUIES-ESM, andSEP, Guia de la enseñanza superior 1965 (México,D. F.: SEP, 1966).

172 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 36. Estimated Expenditure per Student at UNAM,l 1924-85

Pesos of 1970 IndexYear per Student (1970=100)192419257926792779287929

't930

7937793219337934

19357936793779387939

19407947794279437944

7944-451945-461946-477947-487948-49'1949-50

i950-517957-527952-537953-541954-55

1955-56'1956-57

7957-581958-597959-60

rc,s{+3,9794,6763,066

3,7483,4285,6353,5773,369

3,7983,0102,8602,2547,935

7,6701,,9882,2372,5692,4762,579

7,9901,,9722,0932,1032,648

2,7652,6662,9793,5533,617

3,036 352,877 322,736 322,461 2g2,744 323,468 40

757465335

3640654739

3735JJ2622

792326302930

ZJ22242431

32313447

42

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 36 (Continued)

Year Pesos of 1970 Index

'173

7960-67796279637964

1.9651966796779687969

79707971197279737974

79757976797779787979

198019817982198379841985

9,6647,4949,668

11,551

73,77277,42475,87374,07511,98872,508

4,030 474,650 546,092 706,952 g0

6,469 757,500 879,5L7 110

70,967 1.27

10,086 776

10086

712,,:

11,898 73712,759 7ü

13,456 155

752201,

183162138744

1. Sources generaliy give data for total expenditure at UNAM and thusinclude the roughly 15 percent of UNAM's expenditure which is devotedto the preparatory level. Budget data have been modified to take thisfactor into account. For series on expenditure for all levels, see FU, p. 83,and HEU, p. 61.

SouRcE: Data derived from HEU; 50 años de reoolución; OELM; ANUIES-ESM; FU; UNAM-PP; Carlos Muñoz Izquierdo, "Evaluación deldesarrollo educativo en México (7958-1970) y factores que lo handeterminado," Reoista del Centro de Estudios Educatiuos 3:3 (1,973);SEP-EBSEN. Expenditure data were deflated with the Macro PriceIndex from James W. Wilkie, "From Economic Growth toEconomic Stagnation in Mexico," SALA, vol.26, p.924,

174 CHAPTER FOUR

Table 37. Students per Faculty Member at UNAM,I 1gg'1.-g}

Average Students per IndexYear Facult)¡ Member (1970=100)1937 8.2 67793279337934

79351,936

793779387939

79407947794279437944

79457946794719487949

19507957795219537954

19557956795719581,959

196079611,96279637964

9.7 688.2 676.7 50

7.0 526.5 496.7 468.4 637.2 54

7.7 577.8 587.5 568.5 638.3 62

7.9 597.2 546.8 517.1 537.5 56

7.7 577.7 577.6 577.1 536.9 51

7.6 577.6 577.6 577.9 59

72.7 90

9.8 7310.1 7570.7 8010.5 7870.7 80

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 37 (Continued)

Average Students per IndexYear Facult)¡ Membei (1970=100)

175

79651966796719681969

19707971197219737974

7975'1976

797779787979

19807987798279837984

19851,986798719887989

't990

1. Includes ENEP's after 1980.

i0.5 789.6 728.8 668.8 669.7 73

8.78.38.98.69.8

9.7,:o

10.0

6.66.65.87.85.7

5.17.06.06.76.5

6.7

6562676473

73,:

;/3

4949445842

3852454649

46

SouRcr: Calculated from NAFINSA-EMC; AE; CE; UNAM-AE; HEU;ANUIES-AE; Alberto Menéndez Guzmán, Tendencias del presupuestouníoersitario fi967-76) (México, D. F.: UNAM, Dirección beneral dePresupuesto por Programación, n.d.). Data from these sources,which vary within generally similar parameters, were averaged inoverlapping years.

176 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 38. Full-Time, part-Time, and Hourly Faculty at UNAM,11969-90

Y*ear Full-Time Part-Time Hourly7969 3.0 3.2 93.8"

1970 3.81.971 4.0

4.2

8.1

7.07.68.4

4.43.9

2.3

3./

3.02.83.13.7J.J

3.12.72.77.92.62.9

90.189.688.582.582.5

86.887.285.590.687.385.0

97.892.'l

93.5

88.2

1976

7979

1980198179821983 13.87984 9.8

1985 70.27986 10.11,987 17.7

7990 72.0

1. Main campus only

Souncp: Calculated from ANUIES-AE and ANUIES-ESM.

TABLE 39. Percentage Share of UNAM Budget Devoted toFaculty Support, 1967-88

Year Percenta&e of Budget7967 30.6

1988"t989

19681969

19707977797279731.974a

7.510.1

49.751.3

50.252,753.344.048.0

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 39 (Continued)

Year Percenta8e of Budget1.975

L976197779787979

19801981198219831984

1985798679871988

a. Estimated.

SOURC¡: HEU; ANUIES-AE; UNAM-PP.

777

52.r57.358.964.867.9

67.262.762.561,.1,

62.2

64.765.865.764.6

178 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 40. Quality Measures, Sample public and privateUniversitiesl

PART I. 1970

7o Full- Students per Students perTime Facultv Facultv Full-Time Fácult),

PublicIPNMICHSNUABCUACHUACOUAEMUANLUAPUASINUASLPUATUGUGUANUNAM2UV

UnweightedAverages

PrivateAnahuácIbero2ITAMITESM2

UAG

UnweightedAverages

11.37.57.7

10.07.73.8

23.24.7

77.55.11,.6

13.16.43.8

15.5

8.5

3.73.95.7

58.6't8.7

18.0

7220

69

106

11

1096

10't4

69

11

10

70226633287

5601,57

49272

51115648105101227

71,

205

364

72't7

9574477

2789

STATISTICAL SERIES 179

PART II. 1980

% Full- Students per Students perTime Facutty Faculty Full-Time Fáculty

PublicIPNMICHSNUABCUACHUACOUAEMUAMUANLUAPUASINUASLPUATUGUGUANUNAM2UV

UnweightedAverages

PrivateAnahuácIbero2ITAMITESM2UAGUDLA

UnweightedAverages

27.515.877.778.27.69.7

66.320.723.843.773.776.674.627.66.7

23.3

27.7

9271217

1,4

1i15172724137325

77

22

76

JJ

1356660

1861182284

772559881

77731

9995

ZJ

41422525

31

25.40.0

25.225.572.352.4

JJ.J

68

10111813

11

180 CHAPTER FOUR

PART III. 1990

% Full- Students per Students perTime Faculty Facr¡.lty Full-Time Ficultv

PublicIPNMICHSNUABCUACHUACOUAEMUAMUANLUAPUASINUASLPUATUGUGUANUNAM2UV

UnweightedAverages

PrivateAnahuácIbero2ITAMITESM2UAGUDLA

UnweightedAverages

41.9 9 2277.1 77 7724.6 10 3927.4 1,L 4070.7 10 9479.6 1.2 5967.2 13 2743.9 L9 4246.9 37 8051,.4 74 2879.3 77 5625.7 8 3172,8 18 13829.5 6 2272.0 5 4578.2 7 47

28.9

4.770.725.721,.7

64.027.7

25.6

'190

653429CJ

67

13

879

L218

9

10

1. Abbreviations for universities in the sample are as follows:

AnahuácIberoIPNITAMITESM

Universidad AnahuácUniversidad IberoamericanaInstituto Politécnico NacionalInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de MéxicoInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de

Monterrey

52

STATISTICAL SERIES

MICHSN Universidad Michoacana de San NicolásUniversidad Autónoma de Baja CaliforniaUniversidad Autónoma de ChihuahuaUniversidad Autónoma de CoahuiiaUniversidad Autónoma de Estado de MéxicoUniversidad Autónoma de GuadalajaraUniversidad Autónoma MetropolitanaUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo LeónUniversidad Autónoma de PueblaUniversidad Autónoma de SinaloaUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis PotosíUniversidad Autónoma de TamaulipasUniversidad de las Américas-PueblaUniversidad de GuadalajaraUniversidad de GuanajuatoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoUniversidad Veracruzana

181

UABCUACHUACOUAEMUACUAMUANLUAPUASINUASLPUATUDLAUGUGUANUNAMUV

2. Central campus only.

Souncn: ANUIES-ESM; ANUIES-AE.

TABLE 41. Enrollment in Sample Fields of Study at Public andPrivate Universities, Five Fields, 1959 and 1964

PART I. Absolute Data

"1959 7964Field Public Private Total Public Private TotalBUS 8,556 2,932 77,488 74,762 8,974 23,706ENG 76,782 2,074 78,256 23,360 3,01.7 26,377HEALTH 13,787 548 74,335 17,679 1,010 18,689Law 9,723 395 9,518 14,255 974 15,229TEACH 3,105 377 3,492 6,007 469 6,475

1.82 CHAPTER FOUR

PART II. Public and Private Shares of Enrollmentin Sample Fields, \959 and 1964

7959 7964Pubtic / totat Prirrate / totatField Public/TotalPrivate/Total

HEALTH 96.2

BUSENG

LawTEACH

74.588.6

95.889.2

25.577.43.84.2

10.8

62.388.694.693.692.8

37.911.45.46.47.2

PART III. Enrollment in Sample Fields as Share of TotalEnrollment, 1959 and 1964

Field Public 1959 Public 1964 Private 1959 private 1964BUS 73.4 74.8 37.8 52,7ENG 25.4 23.5HEALTH 27.6 77.7Law 74.3 74.3TEACH 4.9 6.0

Sounc¡: Calculated from OELM, Appendix D.

26.7 77.77.75.1

5.95.7

TABLE 42. UNAM and IPN Share of Total Enrollment,1192g-60

Year

4.9 2.7

UNAM+IPN/UNAM/Total

IPN/Total Total

1928't929

79307937793279331934

1,9351,936793779381939

32.232.8

40.9c/.+57.776.472.0

63.5s3.043.760.955.2

13.09.6

11,.971.9

32.232.8

40.937.457.776.472.0

63.566.053.372.767.7

STAT]STICAL SERIES 183

TABLE 42 (Continued)

Year UNAM/Total

IPN/ UNAM+IPN/Total Total

79407947794279437944

79457946794779487949

19507957795279531954

19557956195719587959

7960

54.951.346.450.347.2

45.841.0J/.234.036.7

36.748.636.539.045.9

44.250.754.856.055.3

55.2

77.472.717.611.19.3

10.410.310.59.68.8

7.270.78.59.5

72.1

9.713.372.814.574.2

12.6

66.363.458.067.456.5

56.251.347.743.644.9

43.359.244.948.558.0

53.964.767.770.569.5

67.8

SOURCE: NAFINSA-EMC.

lU CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 43. Enrollment in Private Universities, UNAM, and IPN,1959-64

Total University Percentage UNAM-IPN asYear Enrollment Private Private UNAM IPN % of Total

7,357 10.3 33,264 g,ggg 5g.g9,205 11.7 37,241. 7,769 57.'.1

9,780 11.1 40,922 9,372 57.01.2,599 12.5 43,387 10,783 53.975,374 L3.9 45,747 10,806 50.717,472 74.9 42,256 72,077 46.5

SouRcr: OELM, Appendix C.

Table 44. UNAM and IPN Share of Total University Enrollment(Alternate Data), 1961-66

Year UNAM IPN UNAM+IPN

1.959 71,5257960 78,7877967 88,2027962 100,5197963 770,3787964 176,628

79671,962196379641.9657966

30.729.228.427.523.723.0

7.06.76.97.46.97.8

37.735.935.335.030.630.8

SouRce: OELM.

STATISTICAL SERIES 185

TABLE 45. Egresados of Public and Private Universities,1967'89

Total TotalYear E8resados Public Private UNAM ENEPsI-JNAM -lPN5,752 0 5,752 1,751

5,190 0 5,190 1,9936,464 0 6,464 2,456

6,79't 0 6,797 4,3046,579 0 6,574 4,5996,895 0 6,895 4,5987,756 0 7,756 5,4118,607 0 8,607 6,670

'1,7,072 0 77,072 5,60577,960 0 1,7,960 7,20670,653 7,437 72,090 9,3671,7,989 2,396 "14,385 7,7929,678 2,794 72,472 10,355

9,060 3,287 72,347 9,0051.1.,340 3,818 15,159 7,73970,297 5,894 76,197 7,76570,794 4,834 75,628 5,9788,951 5,592 74,543 6,212

9,939 5,050 74,999 6,9759,939 6,378 "16,317 5,905

70,137 7,01,1 77,148 7,1.139,236 6,729 75,365 7,0947,982 6,990 74,972 7,701

1. The ENEPs (Escuela Nacional de Estudios Profesionales) function asdecentralized campuses of UNAM.

Souncn: ANUIES-ESM and ANUIES-AE.

7967 't5,4431968 16,4831.969 20,797

7970 22,9041971, 25,7931,972 29,3967973 33,7067974 39,t86

7975 44,1867976 48,674 41,683 6,9977977 55,446 47,059 8,387't978 59,294 50,349 8,9457979 66,656 56,550 10,106

1980 69,572 59,040 70,5321981 78,644 66,368 72,2761982 85,505 71,496 74,0097983 96,572 78,502 78,0701984 98,788 79,839 78,949

1985 103,280 82,869 20,4717986 706,693 87,283 79,410t987 717,378 95,7',1.4 27,66419BB 775,670 94,597 21.,0737989 775,407 93,1.07 22,300

TA

BLE

46.

Egr

esad

os o

f E

leve

n S

ampl

e P

ublic

Uni

vers

ities

,l 19

67-8

9

YC

aT U

AC

O U

AC

H U

AE

M U

AN

L U

AP

UA

SLP

UA

S

UA

T

UG

MIC

HS

N1,

967

240

108

744

939

1968

264

16

3 78

2 1,

038

1969

38

5 18

5 22

3 1,

101

@ o\

UV

293

375

393

423

1.,r

571,

1 88

7,47

97,

737

266

577

301

737

397

979

724

763

306

306

440

276

229

378

466

541

774

673

586

86

77 1

,053

51

739

854

732

792

7,26

7

1,97

0 38

679

77 3

2679

72 4

0179

73

437

7974

87

2

7975

7976

7977

7978

7979

244

736

7,29

531

5 79

9 7,

477

248

227

7,44

832

2 24

7 7,

409

422

299

7,74

6

1980

1,2

60 1

,159

7,5

65 3

,942

1981

7,3

73 7

,233

7,4

27 3

,797

7982

7,4

75 7

,502

1,5

04 4

,394

1983

7,5

96 7

,490

7,6

35 4

,938

7984

7,6

39 7

,470

7,9

76 4

,956

1985

2,0

75 7

,142

1,9

00 4

,675

7986

2,3

72 7

,702

3,3

49 4

,394

7987

2,8

44 7

,1.3

3 2,

904

4,50

319

88 3

,310

1,0

50 2

,749

5,0

90i9

89 2

,776

7,2

30 2

,576

4,6

37

257

7,74

623

9 1,

488

364

2,75

744

0 2,

627

515

2,80

5

1,73

8 81

3 58

1 62

2 2,

764

2,27

3 96

3 1,

150

935

3,56

82,

390

7,27

2 7,

096

872

3,99

32,

906

7,75

9 1,

155

g7g

3,69

72,

350

7,79

0 7,

397

1,90

9 3,

737

2,76

2 1,

297

7,96

6 7,

475

3,92

02,

629

7,34

3 2,

786

7,26

9 4,

477

2,67

9 7,

289

2,94

2 1,

310

5,39

92,

905

1,51

5 3,

176

2,27

0 5,

469

3,53

1 7,

831

3,77

6 2,

480

5,22

7

2,05

1 7,

497

4,26

9 3,

420

5,97

72,

438

7,44

1 4,

083

2,94

3 5,

971

3,36

2 7,

454

4,44

3 3,

574

6,38

63,

312

1,55

8 4,

276

2,47

8 6,

977

3,47

3 7,

534

2,27

6 3,

466

6,42

0

649

658

829

572

902

852

1,06

8 7,

087

7,07

4 7,

702

342

7,45

247

7 2,

798

723

2,36

277

7 2,

709

997

4,43

9

472

1053

527

987

625

947

754

1,05

390

6 1,

626

1,03

3 7,

628

7,27

7 7,

744

7,73

9 2,

397

2,02

6 2,

233

2,47

0 2,

897

2,46

2 3,

607

2,93

2 4,

400

2,83

6 4,

04r

3,09

0 6,

599

3,07

6 6,

048

3,20

0 5,

856

3,20

8 5,

856

3,47

0 6,

730

3,42

0 6,

170

3,49

4 5,

028

o '-:l ú ,T1 o c

1. U

nive

rsiti

es i

n sa

mpl

e ar

e:M

ICH

SN

U

nive

rsid

adU

AC

H

Uni

vers

idad

UA

CO

U

nive

rsid

adU

AE

M

Uni

vers

idad

UA

NL

Uni

vers

idad

UA

P

Uni

vers

idad

UA

SIN

U

nive

rsid

adU

AS

LP

Uni

vers

idad

UA

T

Uni

vers

idad

UG

U

nive

rsid

adU

V

Uni

vers

idad

TA

BLE

46

(Con

tinue

d)

Mic

hoac

ana

de S

an N

icol

ásA

utón

oma

de C

hihu

ahua

Aut

ónom

a de

Coa

huila

Aut

ónom

a de

Est

ado

de M

éxic

oA

utón

oma

de N

uevo

Leó

nA

utón

oma

de P

uebl

aA

utón

oma

de S

inal

oaA

utón

oma

de S

an L

uis

Pot

osí

Aut

ónom

a de

Tam

aulip

asde

Gua

dala

jara

Ver

acru

zana

o -l i ú -l o - @ lfj rn @

Sou

«cn:

AN

UIE

S-E

SM

; A

NU

IES

-AE

.

@ \

188 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE47. Egresados of Three Sample private Universities,1967-89

DecentralizediYear IBERO UAG ITESM ITESM Total ITESM't9671968't969

371290541

1970 5031.971 5107972 6411,973 7627974 7,743

7975 7,3457976 1,2797977 7247978 7201979 857

1980 4351981 6227982 6231983 7,4047984 7,576

1985 1.,6837986 7,3781987 1,7731988 7,7097989 7,428

476 0608 0325 0

-74001,257 747 842,\06 1,118 1152,354 1,059 372,793 1,054 159

2,053 7,1,65 2102,292 7,292 3202,0',17 1,355 4672,541 1,496 6452,254 7,540 579

2,357 7,769 3097,282 7,867 9072,346 7,766 7,0432,083 7,764 8337,884 7,323 645

00000

325455654778470

350440606

669u-

416608325

325455654778470

740831

7,2337,0957,272

7,3757,6727,8762,7472,719

2,0792,7692,8092,5971,969

1. The ITESM has decentralized campuses in several states and theFederal District.

Souncr: ANUIES-ESM; ANUIES-AE.

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 48. Summary Percentage Data on Egresados ofPublic and Private-Universities -and in Sample,l 1967-89

PART I. Public and Private Shares

UNAM+IPN Private2 Public2Year as % of Total as 7o of Total as % of Total

189

796779687969

79701977797279737974

19757976797719787979

19801981798279837984

19857986798719887989

44.742.942.9

45.843.339.739.838.8

37.639.436.936.434.2

29.328.427.322.421.0

21,.720.720.779.479.6

77.613.211.8

77.210.312.573.412.6

74.274.415.115.175.2

15.175.676.478.779.2

1,9.8

78.218.578.219.3

88.486.888.2

88.889.787.586.687.4

85.885.684.984.984.8

84.984.483.681.380.8

80.281.881.581.880.7

190 CHAPTER FOUR

PART II. Data on Sample

Sample Private Sample Publicas % of Total as % of TotalEgresados Egresadosof Private of Public

Sampleas % of Total

Year Egresados Universities Universities7967 78.07968 77.37969 76.8

7970 78.57977 77.87972 72.87973 73.57974 73.3

7975 70.17976 79.01977 77.77978 76.47979 75.6

1980 77.01981 69.21,982 66.87983 64.61984 62.7

1985 67.97986 60.67987 60.11988 59.27989 57.0

67.760.758.5

56.955.353.752.750.5

48.947.348.446.642.2

36.736.931.8ó3./31,.7

30.028.029.230.323.7

95.793.992.7

91.590.389.187.986.7

85.584.382.98r.781.6

77.275.273.677.770.1,

69.867.867.765.765.0

See absolute data on uni'n'ersities in sample in Tables 46 and 47Private ancl public shares are estimated 1967-75.

Sounc¡: ANUIES-ESM; ANUIES-AE.

1.

2.

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 49. Mexico's Class Structure,l 1895-19g0

(% and Percentage Change [pC1)

Year Upper PC Middle pC Lower pC1895 1.5 - 7.8 - 90.7

791

194019501,9607970

2.97.73.85.7

93.3-47.4723,550.0-8.8

84.580.375.266.463.5

-6.8-5.0-6.4

-77.7-4.41980u 5.2

72.6 67.518.0 42.921,.0 16.727.9 32.931.5 72.9

1. The categories "upper," "middle," and "lower" are adopted from thesources.

a. The assumption in QMCS that all persons who did not or could notspecify their occupation on the census form for 1980 were from thepopu,lqr sector cannot be correct. Some large fraction of this numbershould be.evenly spread back across all-occupational groups. Iestimated for this table that the number of peisons in unspicifiedggggqa.tional_ groups belonging to the popular séctor was 10 peicent in1980 (rising from 5.2 percent in1970). I divided the rest of the number ofpersons of unspecified occupation equally among all other class strata.This manipulation leads to a few signlficant changes in the data for 19g0but does not affect the most important secular tiends in Mexico's classstructure.

SouncE: For 1895 and L940, adapted from Howard F. Cline, Mexico:Reaolution to Eaolution, 1940-1960 (New york: Oxford UniversitvPress, 1963), p. 124; for 1,950-1970, QMCS; for 1980, modified froÁdata in QMCS as in Table 23, Part l.

192

TABLE 50. Mexico's19s0-80

CHAPTER FOUR

by Income and Occupation,Class Structure,

1 950 '1960Income O<cu- Combined Income

lr.r*; ffi,

(7o)

UPPER 1.8Leisure 0.2Semi-Leisure 1..6

MIDDLE 79.4Stable 3.2Marginal 1.6.2

LOWER 78.8Transitional 25.4Popular 53.4

Total 100

7.60.80.8

16.66.6

10.0

81.820.067.8

100

7.70.57.2

18.04.9

13.1

3.80.92.9

27.06.7

74.4

75.2't8.456.9

100

80.3 72.6 77.822.7 15.8 20.957.6 56.8 56.9

100 100 100

5.6 2.01.0 0.84.6 1.2

21.8 20.24.8 8.5

77.0 71.7

ffiar#apation pation

UPPER 7.0 4.4 5.7 6.7 3.7 5.2Leisure 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.8Semi-Leisure 5.9 1,.9 3.9 4.3 2.5 3.4

MIDDLE 32.5 23.4 28.0 36.3 26jStable 7.9 10.0 9.0 11.1 72.1Marginal 24.6 73.4 19.0 ZS.2 74.6

LOWER 60.5 72.2 66.4 57.0 7o.OTransitional 1.2.4 24.8 1,8.6 1.2.0 22.6Popular 48.1. 47.4 47.8 45.0 47.s

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Souncs: Calculated from QMCS with data for 19g0 as in Table 22, part I.

31.577.619.9

63.517.346.3

100

STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 51. Percentage Change in Absolute Data for FourSelected Classes, L950-60, 1960-70, and 1970-80

UPPER

Income Occupation Csrrüined

193

7950-601,960-707970-80

777.4773.9

39.8

72.91,43.4

39.6

727.8724.5

39.7

Semi-Leisure

Income Occupation Combined

MIDDLE

Income Occupation Combined1950-60 -0.3 67 30.7

1950-607960-701970-80

7960-707970-80

1950-607960-707970-80

Souncr: Caiculated

73.6 115.6

't64.37.2

98.278.8

76.135.298.6

147.295.740.4

32.5 73.688.0 74.9

Stable

Income Occupation Combined

153.365.2

3t./778.4109.0

from QMCS with data for

61.573.6

103.1

1980 as in Table 22, Part l.

194 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 52. Change in Percentage Data for Four selected Classes,1950-60, 1960-70, and 1970-80

(% and percentage Change [pCJ)

PART I. Combined Occupation and Income

Year Middle PC Stable Middle PC Upper pC Leisure pC1950 18.0 - 4.9 - '1.7

- 12 _1960 21.0 76.7 6.7 36.7 3.8 723,5 2.9 747.77970 28.0 33.3 9.0 34.3 5.7 50.0 3.7 27.61980 31.5 72.5 71.6 28.9 5.2 -8.8 3.4 _8.1

PART II. IncomeSemi-

Year Middle PC Stable Middle PC Upper PC Leisure pC1950 79.4 - 3.2 - 1.8 - 1.67960 27.8 72.4 4.8 50.0 5.6 277.7 4.6 787.57970 32.5 49 .7 7 .9 64.6 7 .0 25 .O 5 .9 28 .31980 36.3 77.7 11.1 40.5 6.7 -4.3 4.3 -27.7

PART III. OccupationSemi-

Year Middle PC Stable Middle PC Upper PC Leisure pC1950 76.6 - 6.6 - 7.6 - 0.87960 20.2 27.7 8.57970 23.4 15.8 101980 26.7 74.7 72.7

28.8 2.0 25.0 7.2 50.017.6 4.4 720.0 7.9 58.327.0 3.7 -75.9 2.5 31.6

Souncp: Calculated from QMCS with data for 1980 as in Table 22, part l.

STATISTICAL SERIES 195

TABLE 53. Percentage Change in Class Structure, L950-80

PART I. Absolute Data

Income OccuPation Combineduppnn 729.5 487.4 614.6

Semi-Leisure 507.7 663.8 562'3

MIDDLE 377.1 375.7 316.5

Stable 666.3 372.7 469.3

LOWER 60.7 720.3 97.7

PART II. Percentage Data

Income OccuPation CombinedUPPER 272.2 131.3 205.9

Semi-Leisure 168.8 21.2.5 183.3

MIDDLE 87.1. 60.8 75.0

Stable 246.9 83.3 736.7

Sou«cr: Calculated from QMCS with data for 1980 as in Table 22, Patt l.

Table 54. Comparison of Growth Rates of University DegreesGranted, Egresados, and Degrees Registered withGrowth of Social Classes, 1950-90

(PC per Decade)

Prsfessionals Classesl.Degrees Degrees

period Gránted Egresados Registered Stable Middle Semi-Leisure1950-60 75.7 76.7 98.2

7960-70 232.7 35.2 78.8

1970-80 - 266.5 749.1 98.6 115.6

1980-90' - 69.6 - 47.2 8.1

1. Gauged by occupation.

a. Egresados data for 1980-89.

Souncp: Calculated from Tables 1,3,5, and 51.

196 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 55. Highest Level of Schooling Attained by Fathers ofUNAM Students, 1949,1963, L970, and 1980

(%)

PreparatoryProfessional Vocational Technical Secondary Primar)¡ Total

1949 23.67963 20.87970a 1.9 4 31980 1,7.4 4.4 2.1,

;1,0.4

9.574.379z/ .ó

iro61.6

a. Rounded figures are given in source.

Sounc¡: Adapted from UNAM-CU; UNAM-CEAL; UNAM-EAE; UNAM-AE.

TA

BLE

56.

Mon

thly

Inc

ome

of F

amili

es o

f U

NA

M S

tude

nts,

l 19

63,1

970,

and

198

0

Par

t I.

L963

0-

749-

100

0- 1

499-

719

9- 2

498-

312

2- 4

1,21

.- 5

120-

611

8-

7"n7

- 81

16 1

0113

Pes

os o

f 19

70

Z4B

s99

7+

98 1

,998

249

7 37

27 _

__41

29__

*_81

19 6

777

71,7

6 81

15

1011

2 12

110

1211

0+

Per

cent

of F

amili

es 2

.0 2

.6 9

.6 1

3.2

6.7

72.6

18.

3 11

.0 3

.6

7.3

3.6

4.6

1.5

3.9

Par

t II.

197

0

0-

600-

100

G 1

s00-

200

0- 2

500-

300

0- 4

000-

500

0- 6

000-

700

0- 8

000-

100

00-

No

Pes

os o

f 19

70

600

1000

150

0 20

00 2

500

3000

40

00

5000

60

00

2000

80

00__

1000

0 12

000

1200

0+

Per

cent

of F

amili

es 1

.1, 3.

2 9

10.4

10.

1 72

.5 1

3.5

11.0

7.7

4.

7 3.

6 4.

2 2.

9 3.

7 3.

7

Par

t III

. 19

80

0-

821.

- 1.

23L-

1&

0-

2050

- 24

60-

3280

-

Pes

os o

f 19

70

820 __

12

30

1,62

9 20

49

z4sg

32

79

40gB

40

99+

_

No

Res

pons

c

Per

cent

of F

amili

es 7

.1,

13.4

16

.8

13.8

1,

3.2

12.9

9.

4 11

.3

2.1.

1. D

ata

for

7963

and

198

0 de

flate

d to

der

ive

peso

s of

197

0 us

ing

Mic

ro P

rice

Inde

x fr

om |

ames

W.

Wilk

ie,

"Fro

mE

cono

mic

Gro

wth

to

Eco

nom

ic S

tagn

atio

n in

Mex

ico,

" in

SA

LA,

vol.

26, p.

924.

Bec

ause

the

orig

inal

dat

a ha

d th

ree

diffe

rent

bas

e ye

ars,

the

pes

o ca

tego

ries

used

in t

his

tabl

e di

ffer

slig

l'rtly

.

Sou

RC

s: U

NA

M-A

E;

UN

AM

-CU

.

O H a (n Fl o I. O rl ñ \

198 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 57. Class Background of UNAM Students, 1963, \970,and 1980

(Vo)

Class 7963 7970 1980LOWERMIDDLEUPPERNo Response

LOWER+

4.3 7.729.5 57.262.5 33.63.7 2.7

4.629.566.4

Transitional Middle 74.2 13.3 37.3

SouRc¡: Calculated from Table 56 using QMCS class breakdown byincome.

TABLE 58. Women P¡ofessionals and Technicians inEconomically Active Population, 1900-90

(%)

Year Percent190079707927193079401950196079701980L990

Soutc¡: Calculated from AE; CE; census

30.827.4ó/./36.532.832.8c/./33.840.736.2

199STATISTICAL SERIES

TABLE 59. UNAM Degrees Granted to Women, 19L0-66, andWomen Enrolled, 1930-66

(%)Year Degrees Granted Enrollment1910791,1,

797279737914

791,5

19767917791,8

7919

79207927792279237924

79251,926192719281,929

19301.937793219337934

19351936793719387939

1,9407947794279431.944

12.33.5

15.032.518.3

1,6.7

38.018.514.075.2

74.930.427.320.026.7

1,6.7

19.828.525.23J.ó

33.128.926.926.824.3

23.21,7.276.818.018.0

74.418.879.179.519.8

28.828.729.027.720.7

20.779.727.622.427.6

20.7aa^LL.+

27.627.022.8

CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 59 (Continued)

Year Degrees Granted Enrollment19451.94679471,9487949

19507951795219531,954

19551956795719587959

79607961,

1.9621,9637964

79657966

Average

21,.220.621,.223.920.7

19.526.723.779.327.9

18.91,7.7

20.022.278.4

78.479.718.620.520.0

18.027.6

27.7

21,.920.320.279.218.0

18.316.877.21,6.71,6.7

76.617.076.917.077.2

77.077.777.81,9.279.6

20.727.5

20.3

3.5Standard Deviation 5.8

SoURCE: HEU.

STATISTiCAL SERIES

TABLE 60. Women Enrolled, Women Egresados, and DegreesGranted to Women, Selected Fields, 1968

(E")

Field Enrollment Egresados Degrees GrantedBus. Ad. 8.5 9.3 8.9Accot.

Arch.Law

Indust. ChemistryPharm. Chem.

PhysicsPhysics/MathMathBiology

HistoryArt HistoryLanguagesPhilosophyLetters

Ag. Eng.Civil Eng.Com./El. Eng.Indust. Eng.Chem. Eng.

Med.Dent.Psych.

Averages

17.0

7.713.1

46.272.9

17.67.7

32.252.0

60.6100.085.339.767.4

1.10.70.14.87.1,

76.8

7.213.5

43.281,.9

76.74.3

33.145.9

58.1100.066.742.470.0

0.90.60.04.29.3

47.876.9

1,5.44.3

15.048.9

60.0100.0100.0

39.1,

64.5

1.10.80.02.68.4

15.835.164.1

32.0

9.9

6.911.3

17.746.262.9

32.6

19.643.863.6

33.1

SouRc¡: Calculated from ANUIES-ESM

201

202 CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 61. Women Enrolled, Women Egresados, and DegreesGranted to Women, Selected Fields, 1969

(%)

DegreesField Enrollment Egresados GrantedAcct,Arch.Bus. Ad.Communications 33.3Dent.Econ.ENCHUMLawNursingMed.Pharm. Chem.Psych./SWSCIEd.

Percent Accountedfor by Sample Fields

Average of Womenin Each Category

18.3

Sounc¡: Calculated from ANUIES-ESM.

77.89.5

70.7

77.913.09.6

36.047.510.02.4

64.813.8

18.179.769.830.956.8

9.35.6

15.850.045.813.42.0

73.072.8

75.683.162.840.178.7

44.972.72.8

61,.574.388.320.676.670.560.158.6

76.9 78.7

14.6

56.8

18.6

STATISTICAL SERIES 203

TABLE 62. Women Enrolled in Selected Fields as Share of TotalEnrollment in Those Fields, \969, 1980, and 1990

(7o)

Field 1969 1980 1990Account.Arch.Bus. Ad.Communications 33.3

44.972.72.8

61.574.320.688.376.670.560.176.9

Dent.Econ.ENGHUMLawMed.NursingPharm. Chem.Psych./SWSCITEACH

77.89.5

10.7

37.220.7J3,,/50.254.726.3

9.057.227.833.088.064.673.537.064.7

50.235.048.865.564.837.'t27.655.039.143.992.468.376.039.863.4

SouncE: Calculated from ANUIES-ESM; ANUIES-AE.

CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 63. Women Enrolled in Selected Fields as Share of TotalWomen Enrolled, 1969,1980, and 1990

Field 7969 1 980 19906.1,

2.54.82.77.22.07.12.46.4

"11,.4

0.72.84.73.2

20.0

Fields 86.0 84.0 97.6

Sounc¡: Calculated from ANUIES-ESM; ANUIES-AE.

Table 64. Degrees Registered by Women Professionals, 1"5

Sample Fields, 1970-85

(Vo)

Acct. 1.7.4Arch. 1.3Bus. Ad. 2.3Communications 0.6Dent. 4.4Econ. 1..9

ENG 3.0HUM 7.7Law 6.4Med. 11.0Nursing 0.3Pharm. Chem. 3.9Psych./SW 5.2SCI 5.3TEACH 21..3

Percentage ofFemale EnrollmentRepresented in These

1,2.73.68.43.23.2't.4

16.87.98.14.9

.82.75.12.2

77,2

1970 8.6 - 10.3 3.87975 8.0 14.7 76.6 3.81980 18.4 23.2 28.7 10.97985 79.3 36.4 28.3 74.9

0.07.2

72.524.3

1.0 2.4 7.27.4 4.3 8.93.4 7.2 72.54.4 7.2 27.2

Year La¡r Med. Dent. Psych. SW SCI Normal NS7970 9.7 15.8 46.31,975 70.3 27.1. 47.5 74.91980 18.2 25.9 55.7 72.81.985 23.4 37.9 60.1 76.7

Sounc¡: DGE, unpublished data.

0.0 72.7 46.429.4 60.7 60.738.1 77.7 51.350.2 66.8 51.8

u.,93.8

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Statistical Sources

Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Enseñanza

Superior (ANUIES). Anuario estadístico.

-. La enseñanza superior en México and La educación superior en

México.

-. Programa integral para el desarrollo de la educación superior.

México, D. F.: 1986.

Attolini, José. Las finanzas de la uniaersidad a traaés del tiempo'

México, D. F.: Escuela Nacional de Economía (UNAM), L957.

Dirección General de Estadística. Anuario estadístico.

-. Compendio estadístico,

-. Estadísticas para el sistemn de educacion nacional.

Dirección General de Profesiones. Unpublished data'

Estrada Campo, Humberto. Historia de los cursos de postgrado de la

UNAM. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1983.

González Cosío, Arturo. Historia estadística de la uniuersidad, L910-

1.967. México, D.F.: UNAM, 1968.

Instituto de Estadística, Geografía, e Informática (INEGI).Estadísticas Históricas de México. México, D. F.: INEGI, 1985.

Mostkoff, Aída, and Stephanie Granato. "Quantifying Mexico'sClass Structure." In Society and Economy in Mexico' ]ames W.

Wilkie, ed. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American CenterPublications, 1,989.

Nacional Financiera, S. A. (NAFINSA). La economía mexicana en

cifras.

Obra educatiaa de López Mateos. N.p.: N.p. [ANUIES], n.d. [1965].

Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP). La educación pública en

México L964/1-970. México, D' F.: SEP, 1970'

-. Estadística básica del sistema educatitto nacional, 197L-L972.

205

BIBLIOGRAPHY

México, D. F.: 9FP, 7972.

-. Obra Educatiaa, 1970-L976. México, D. F.: SEP, n.d. [7976).

Secretaría de la Presidencia. 50 qños de reaolución mexicana en

cifras. México, D. F.: NAFINSA,7963.UAM. Quince años de estadística. México, D. F.: UAM,[1989).UNAM. Anuario estadístico.

-. Dirección General de Administración, Departamento de

Estadística. Cuadernos estadísticos año lectiao 1979-1.980. México,D. F.: UNAM, n.d. 119801.

-. Primer censo unioersitario. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1953.

-. Dirección General de Administración. Estqdísticas del aspecto

escolar,1970. México D.F.: UNAM, 1970.

-. Exrímenes profesionales practicados de 1841-1975. México, D. F.:

n.d. [1975].

-. Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico.

Diagnóstico del personal académico de la UNAM (1,984) and Censodel personal académico (1986). México, D. F.: UNAM, 1984 andL986.

-. Presupuesto por programas. Various years.

ReferenceAsociación Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Enseñanza

Superior (ANUIES). Carreras del drea de Ia química en México:Planes de estudio. México, D. F.: ANUIES, 1980.

-. Catálogo de carreras 1986. México, D. F.: ANUIES, 1986.

Oliver H., Rogelio. Elección de carrera. México, D. F.: EditorialLIMUSA, 1981.

Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP). lnt'ormación prot'esional ysubprot'esional de México. México, D. F.: SEP, Dirección Generalde Enseñanza Superior e Investigación Científica, 1958.

UNAM. Educación medio superior. México, D. F.: UNAM-SEP, 1984.

-. Educación superior. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1983.

Villa, Kitty. Mexico: A Study of the Educational System of Mexico anda Guide to the Academic Placement of Students in EducationalInstitutions in the United States. New York: World EducationSeries, American Association of College Registrars andAdmissions Officers, 1982.

206

BIBLiOGRAPHY 207

Books, Dissertations, Theses, and Manuscripts

American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, A. C. Mexico:Oportunidades de empleo 1987. México, D. F.: American Chamber

of Commerce of Mexico,1.987.

Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Enseñanza

Superior (ANUIES). La enseñanzs de la ingeniería en México:

Estudio preliminar. México, D. F.: ANUIES, 7962.

-. Aspectos normatiaos de la educación superior. México. D.F.:

ANUIES, 1982.

-. Planeación de la educsción en México. México, D. F.: ANUIES,

'1979.

-. Programa integral para el desarrollo de lq educoción superior

(PROIDES). México, D. F.: ANUIES, n.d. t1986l.

Arizmendi Rodríguez, Roberto. La decentralizsción de la educación

superior. México, D. F.: SEP/ANUIES, 1982.

Arrow, K. Higher Education as a Filter. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, 1.972.

Aspe, Pedro, and Paul E. Sigmund, eds. The Political Economy ofIncome Distribution in Mexico. New York: Holmes and MeierPublishers, 1984.

Banco de México. Departamento de Investigaciones Industriales. E/

empleo de personal técnico en la industria de transformación.

México, D. F.: Banco de México, 1959.

-. Programas de becas y datos profesionales de los becarlos. México,

D. F.: Banco de México, 1964.

Becker, G. S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,zoith Special Reference to Education Princeton: Princeton univer-sity Press, 1964.

Bennett, Douglas C., and Kenneth E. Sharpe. TransnationalCorporations l)ersus the State: The Political Economy of the Mexican

Auto Industry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Benveniste, Guy. Bureaucracy and National Planning: A Sociological

Case Study of Mexico. New York: Praeger,7970.

Berg, Ivar. Education and lobs: The Great Training Robbery. Boston:Beacon Press,7971,.

Bialostozky, Clara J. de. Recursos humanos: Tabulaciones con base en

BIBLiOGRAPHY

una muestra del censo de población de 1960. México, D. F.: ElColegio de México, 1970.

Blaug, Mark. The Economics of Education: An Annotated Bibliography.Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1978.

-. Education and the Employment Problem in Deaeloping Countries.

Geneva: International Labor Office, 7974.

-. An Introduction to the Economics of Education. London: Penguin,

7970.

Brandenburg, Frank. The Making of Modern Mexico. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, 7964.

Bravo Ahuja, Víctor. Obra educatiaa, 1970-1976. México, D. F.: SEP,

7976.

Bravo Ugarte, José. La educación en México. México, D. F.: EditorialJus,7966.

Brooke, Nigel, John Oxenham, and Angela Little. Qualifications and

Employment in Mexico. International Development StudiesResearch Report. Sussex; University of Sussex, 1978.

Camp, Roderic A. lntellectuals and the State in Twentieth-CenturyMexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985.

-. Mexico's Leaders: Their Education and Recruitment. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press, 1980.

-. Mexican Political Biographies, 1935-75. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press,7976.

-. The Role of Economists in Policy-Making: A Comparatiae Case

Study ot' Mexico and the United States. Tucson: University ofArizona Press, 1977.

Carmino Ruiz, Gilardo, et al. Estudio comparatioo de la ot'erta ydemanda actual para profesores con niael de postgrado para las

instituciones de educación agropecuaria superior en México (1983-1985). Chapingo: Colegio de Postgrado,1.986.

Carnoy, Martin. "The Costs and Returns to Schooling in Mexico."Ph.D. Diss. University of Chicago,1.964.

-. Education and Employment: A Critical Appraisal. Paris:

UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 7977.

-. Education and Employment: A Method for Local Policy Research.

Studies Series 71. Paris: UNESCO, Division of EducationalPolicy and Planning, L979.

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

-, Henry Levin, et al. Economía política del financiamiento

educatit¡o en países en aías de desarrollo. México, D. F': Ediciones

Gérnika, 1986.

Castillo, Isidro. México: Sus reaoluciones sociales y la educación.

Volumes 2 and 4. N.p.: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán,7976.

Castillo Miranda, Wilfrido. Asi nació la carrera de administración de

empr esas. México, D. F.: Colegio de Licenciados en

Administración de Empresas, 1.970.

Castrejón Diez, ]aime . La educación superior en ocho países de América

Latinq y el Caribe. México, D. F.: Asociación Nacional de

Universidades e Institutos de Enseñanza Superior (ANUIES),

7978.

-. La educación superior en México. México, D. F.: Editorial Edicol,

s.A., 7979.

Marisol Pérez Lizaur. Historia de las uniaersidades estatales.2

vols. México, D. F.:58P,7976.

Center for Latin American Studies. Viewpoints on Education snd

Social Change in Latin America. Occasional Publications No. 5.

Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1965.

Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo, A. C. (CIDAC).

Tecnología e industria en el futuro de México: Posibles oinculaciones

estratégicas. México, D. F.: Editorial Diana, 1989.

Clark, Burton R., ed. The Academic Profession: Nations, Disciplines,

and lnstitutional Settings. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universityof California Press, 1.987.

Cleaves, Peter S. Las profesiones y el estado: El caso de México. México,D. F.: El Colegio de México, 1985.

-. Professions and the State: The Mexican Case. Tucson: University

of Arizona Press, 1987.

Cline, Howard F. Mexico: Reuolution to Eztolution, 1940-1960. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Cockcroft, ]ames. Intellectual Precursors of the Mexican Retsolution,

1900-1913. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968.

Comisión de Recursos Humanos del Sector Público del GobiernoFederal. Censo de recursos humanos del sector público federal:Administración central L975. México, D. F.: Comisión de Recursos

Humanos del Sector Público del Gobierno Federal, 1976.

210 BIBLIOGRAPHY

-. Administración decentralizada y de participación estatal ma-

yoritaria 1975. México, D. F.: Comisión de Recursos Humanos delSector Público del Gobierno Federal, 1976.

CONACYT. La ciencia y la tecnologíq en el sector medicina y salud:Diagnóstico y política. México, D. F.: CONACYT,1.976.

-. Programa nacional de ciencia y tecnología, L978-1982. México,

D. F.: CONACYT,7978.

COPLAMAR. Necesidodes esenciales en México. México, D.F.: SigloXXf, 7982, Vol. 2 (La Educación).

Correa, Hector, and Ana María Chávez. Planificación de recursos

humanos para la industria siderúrgica. México, D. F.: n.p., 7976.

Cypher, james M. State and Capital in Mexico: Deoelopment Policysince L940. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.

Davis, Russell G. Science, Engineering, and Technical Education inMexico. New York: Education and World Affairs,7967.

-, ed. Planning Education for Deaelopment: Volume I, Issues and

Problems in the Planning of Education in Deaeloping Countries.Cambridge, MA: Center for Education and Development,Harvard University, 1980.

Derossi, Flavia. The Mexican Entrepreneur. Paris: DevelopmentCentre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, 7977.

Dirección de Enfermería de la Secretaría de Salud y Asistencia.Estudio de recursos de enfermería y obstétricia en México. México,D. F.: Dirección de Enfermería de la Secretaría de Salud yAsistencia, 1979.

Domínguez, lorge I. The Political Economy of Mexico: Challenges atHome and Abroad. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1.982.

Domínguez, RaúI. El proyecto uniaersitario del rector Barros Sierra(estudio histórico). México, D. F.: UNAM, CESU (Centro deEstudios sobre la Universidad), 1,986.

Dore, Ronald. The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualit'ication, andDeaelopment. London: George Allen and Unwin,7976.

Eaton, David J., and John Michael Andersen. The State of the RioGrandelRío Braoo. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987.

ECLA. Education, Human Resources, and Deaelopment in LatinAmerica. New York: United Nations, 1968.

21'.1BIBLIOGRAPHY

Figueroa, Rodolf o. Prioridades nacionales y reclutamiento de

funcionarios públicos. México, D. F.: El Colegio de México, 1981'

Fuentes Molinar, Olac. Educación y política en México. México, D.F.:

Nueva Imagen, 1983.

Gallo, María. Las políticas educatioas en México como indicadores de

una situación nacional (L958-1976). México, D.F.: CiESAS (Centro

de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social),

7987,

García Esquivel, Alfonso, et al. Los recursos humanos en la

fabricación de productos metdlicos. México, D. F.: ServicioNacional de Adiestramiento Rápido de la Mano de Obra en laIndustria,7976.

García Sancho, Francisco, and Leoncio Hernández. Educaciónsuperior, ciencia y tecnología en México, 1945-1975: Un diagnóstico

de la educación superior y de la inaestigación científica y tecnológica

en México. México, D.F.: SEP, 7977.

Garza, Graciela. La titulación en la UNAM. México, D.F.: UNAM,CESU (Centro de Estudios sobre la Universidad),1'986.

Gil, Clark C. Education in a Changing Mexico. Washington, D.C.:

Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, 1.969.

Ginneken, Wouter van. Socioeconomic Groups nnd lncome Distributionin Mexico. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.

Glade, William P., Ir., and Charles W. Anderson. The PoliticalEconomy of Mexico. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,

7963.

Gleason Galicia, Rubén. Las estadísticas y cefisos de México: Su

organización y estado actual. México, D.F.: UNAM, IIS (institutode Investigaciones Sociales), 1968.

González Casanova, Pablo. Democracia en México. México, D.F.:

Ediciones Era,7965.

GonzáLez Salazar, Gloria. Subocupación y estructura de clases sociales

en México. México, D. F.: UNAM, 7972.

Grayson, George. The Politics of Mexican Oll. Pittsburgh: Universityof Pittsburgh Press, 1980.

Greenberg, Martin H. Bureaucracy and Deoelopment: A Mexican Case

Study. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1.970.

212 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gregory, Peter. The Myth of Market Failure: Employment and the

Labor Market in Mexico. Baltimore: )ohns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1986.

Guevara Niebla, Gilberto. La demouacia en la calle: Crónica del

moaimiento estudiantil mexicano. México, D. F.: Siglo XXI, 1988.

-, ed.Las luchas estudiantiles en México. 2 vols. México, D.F.:

Editorial Línea, 1983.

-. La rosa de los cambios: Breae historia de la UNAM. México, D.F.:

Cal y Arena,7990.Haber, Stephen H. Industry and l.Inderdeaelopment: The Industrial-

ization of Mexico, 1-890-L940. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress, 1989.

Harbison, Frederick, and Charles A. Myers. Education, Manpouser,

and Economic Growth: Strategies of Human Resource Deaelopment.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1'964.

-. Manpower and Education: Country Studies in Economic Deoelop-

ment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Harris Rivera, Yolanda Aguirre. Características socioacadémicas de las

escuelas de trabajo social en la república mexicana. México, D.F.:

UNAM, 1984.

Heyduk, Daniel, ed. Education and Work: A Symposluru. New York:Institute of International Education (IIE), Council on HigherEducation in the American Republics (CHEAR), 1979.

Historia de las profesiones en México. México, D. F.: El Colegio de

México, 1982.

Institute of International Education (IIE). Profile of Foreign Students

in the United States. New York: IIE, 1981.

__. Profiles: Detailed Analyses of the Foreign Student Population1983184. New York: IIE, 1985.

-. Council on Higher Education in the American Republics

(CHEAR). La agricultura y la uniaersidad. Buenos Aires: N.p.,7966.

Institutos Mexicanos de Educación Superior Privada (IMESP). taeducación priaada en México, 1-980-81: Su aportación al desarrollo

de la nación (Anteproyecto). [México, D. F.: N.p., n.d. [79791.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía, e Informática (INEGI).

Participación del sector público en el producto interno bruto de

BIBLIOGRAPHY

México, 1975-L9B3. México, D. F.: Secretaría de Programación yPresupuesto (SPP), 1984.

Instituto Tecnológico Regional de Ciudad Juárez. Estudio de la

demanda social de carreras prot'esionales de niael técnico y de

licenciatura. Juárez: Instituto Tecnológico Regional de Ciudad

luárez, 1.977.

Jaffe, A.J. People, lobs, and Economic Deuelopment: A Case History of

Puerto Rico Supplemented by Recent Mexican Experiences. Glencoe,

I1: The Free Press of Glencoe Illinois, 1959.

jérez Jiménez, Cuauhtémoc. Vasconcelos y la educación nacionalista.

México, D.F.: SEP, 1986.

|iménez Mier y Terán, Fernando. El autoritaristno en el gobierno de la

UNAM. México, D. F.: Foro Universitario,7982.

Kelly, Guillermo. Politics qnd Administration in Mexico: Reuuitmentand Promotion of the Politico-Administratiae Class. TechnicalPaper Series (33). Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies,University of Texas, 1981.

Kicza, John E. "Business and Society in Late Colonial Mexico City."Ph.D. Diss. University of California, Los Angeles, 1979.

-. Colonial Entrepreneurs: Families and Business in Bourbon Mexico

City. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983.

King, Richard G., Alfonso Rangel Guerra, David Kline, and Noel F.

McGinn. Nueae universidades mexicanas: Un anrílisis de su

crecimiento y desarrollo. México, D.F.: ANUIES, 7972.

King, Richard G., et al. The Prooinciql Uniaersities ot' Mexico: AnAnalysis of Grozuth and Deaelopment. New York: Praeger, 1.977.

Knight, Alan. The Mexican Reaolution. Vol. I: Porfirians, Liberals, andPeasants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Krauze, Enrique. Caudillos culturales en la reoolución mexicana.

México, D.F.: SEP; Siglo XXI Editores, 1985.

Labastida, Horacio. Banco de datos censales pfira el desarrollo social.

México, D.F.: UNAM, 7972.

LaBelle, Thomas l. Nonformal Education ond Social Change in LatinAmerica. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, Universityof California, Los Angeles, 1976.

Lajous, Alejandro. Los orígenes del partido único en México. México,D.F.: El Colegio de México, 1981.

213

274 BiBLIOGRAPHY

Lajous Yargas, Adrián. "Aspectos de la educación superior y el

empleo de profesionistas en México 7959-7967." Licenciate

Thesis, UNAM, Escuela Nacional de Economía, L967.

Latapí, Pablo. Análisis de un sexenio de educación en México, 1970-

1976. México, D.F.: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1980.

-. Diagnóstico educstit¡o nacional: Balanza y progreso escolar de

México durante los últimos seis años. México, D.F.: Centro de

Estudios Educativos, 1964.

-. Mitos y oerdades de la educación mexicanal1971.-1972 (Una

opinión independiente), México, D.F.: Centro de EstudiosEducativos, 1973.

-. Temns de la política educatiaa (1976-1978). México, D.F.: SEP,

Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1982.

Leff, Nathaniel H. The Brazilian Capitnl Goods lndustry, 1929-1964.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.

León López, Enrique G. La ingeniería en México. México, D.F.:

SEP/Setentas,7974.

Leonardo R., Patricia de. La educación superior prioada en México:

Bosquejo histórico. México, D.F.: Editorial Línea, 1983.

Lerner, Victoria. La educación socialista. México, D. F.: El Colegio de

México,1979.

Levy, Daniel C. Higher Educotion and the State in Latin Ametica:

Priaate Challenges to Public Dominqnce. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1986.

-. tfniaersity and Gooernment in Mexico: Autonomy in an

Authoritarian System. New York: Praeger, 1980.

-. //lJniversity Autonomy versus Government Control: The Mexican

Case." Ph.D. Diss. University of North Carolina, 1977.

Liebman, Arthur, Kenneth N. Walker, and Myron Glazer. LatinAmerican llniaersity Students: A Six Natian Study. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 7972.

Looney, Robert E. Economic Policymaking in Mexico: Factors

Underlying the 1.982 Crisis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,

1985.

-. Mexico's Economy: A Policy Analysis u¡ith Forecasts to 1990.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1978.

Lorentzen, Anne. Capital Goods and Technological Deaelopment in

BTBLTOCRAPHY 215

Mexico. Copenhagen: Centre for Development Research, 1'986.

Lorey, David E. The Uniaersity System qnd Economic Deoelopment in

Mexico since 7929. Stanford: Stanf ord University Press,

forthcoming.

-. llnited States-Mexico Border Statistics sfuce L900. Los Angeles:

UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 7990.

Mabry, Donald l. The Mexican Uniuersity and the State: Student

Conflicts, 191,0-L971. College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1982.

Malo, Salvador, Jonathan Garst, and Graciela Garza. El egresado del

posgrado de la UNAM. México, D.F.: UNAM,7987.Malo, Salvador, R. G. Davis, and Richard King. The Technology of

Instruction in Mexican Unioersities. New York: Education andWorld Affairs, 1968.

Martínez Della Rocca, Salvador. Estado y uniaersidad en México1920-1968: Historin de los mouimientos estudiantiles en la UNAM.México, D. F.: Joan Boldó i Climent Editores, 1986.

-, and Imano Ordorika Sacristán. "UNAM: Espejo del mejor

México posible: La universidad en el contexto educativonacional." Manuscript of November 1.997.

McGinn, Noel F., and Susan L. Street. Higher Educntion Policies inMexico. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, Universityof Texas at Austin, 1980.

Medina Lara, Beatriz, et al. Ofertn y demanda de profesionales, 1980-82. Mérida: Centro de Desarrollo Universitario, UniversidadAutónoma de Yucatán, 1983.

Mendieta y Nuñez, Lucio, and ]osé Gómez Robledo. Problemas de la

unir¡ersidad. México, D.F.: UNAM, 1948.

Mendoza Avila, Eusebio. La educación tecnológica en México. México,D.F.: IPN, 1980.

Menéndez Guzmán, Alberto. Tendencins del presupuesto uniaersitario(1967-1976). México, D.F.: UNAM, Dirección General dePresupuesto por Programación, n.d.

Meneses, Ernesto. La lberoamericanq en el contexto de la educaciónsuperior conternporánea. México, D.F.: UniversidadIberoameric ana, 7979.

Meyer, Lorenzo, Rafael Segovia, and Alejandra Lajous. Los inicios de

ln institucionnlizaciótt: La política del maximsl0. México D.F.: ElColegio de México, 1978.

2't6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mohar B., Oscar. Crisis y contradicciones en la educación técnica de

México. México, D.F.: Editorial Gaceta, 1984.

Morales-Cómez, Daniel, and Carlos Alberto Torres. The Stqte,Corporatist Politics, and Educational Policy Making in Mexico. NewYork: Praeger,1,990.

Mosk, Sanford. lndustrial Reoolution in Mexico. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press, 1950.

Muñoz Izquierdo, Carlos, and Pedro Cerardo Rodríguez. Costos,

t'inanciamiento y et'iciencia de la educación formal en México.México, D.F.: Centro de Estudios Educativos, 7977.

Myers, Charles Nash. Education and National Deaelopment.Princeton: Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University,1965.

-. U.S. Uniztersity Actiaity Abroqd: The Mexican Case. New York:

Education and World Affairs, 7968.

Myers, R. G. Education and Emigration: Study Abroad qnd theMigration of Human Resources. New York: David McKay, 7972.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).Industry and Unioersity. Paris: OECD, 1984.

Osborn, Thomas Noel. Higher Education in Mexico: History, Growth,and Problems in a Dichotomized Industry. El Paso: Texas WesternPress,1976.

Padua, |orge. Educación, industrialización y progreso técnico en México.México, D.F.: El Colegio de México, 1984.

Pan American Health Organization. Migration of Health Personnel,Scientists, and Engineers from Latin America. Washington, D. C.:World Health Organization, 1.966.

Pantoja Morán, David. Notas y reflexiones acercfi de la historia delbachillerato. México, D.F.: Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades,UNAM, 1983.

Pellicer de Brody, Olga, and Esteban L. Mancilla. El entendimientocon los Estados Unidos y la gestacíon del desarrollo estabilizador.México, D. F.: El Colegio de México, 1978.

Pérez, RaúI, et al. Características de la ocupación de los profesionales enlas empresas de la península de Yucatdn. N.p. [Mérida]: Centro deDesarrollo Universitario, IJniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán,1,983.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pérez Lizaur, Marisal. Historia de las uniaersidades estatales, 2 vols.México, D. F.: 58P, 1976.

Pescador Osuna, José Angel and Carlos Alberto Torres. Poder políticoy educación en México. México, D. F.: Unión Tipográfica EditorialHispano Americana, 1985.

Philip, George. The Mexican Economy. New York: Routledge, 1988.

-. Oil qnd Politics in Latin Americs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1982.

Potash, Robert A. Mexican Gor¡ernment and lndustrial Deaelopment inthe Early Republic: The Banco de Aaí0. Amherst: University ofMassachusetts Press, 1983.

Programa de Seguimiento de Egresados UANL. Estudio sobre el

egresado al titularse en la Uniaersidad Autónoma de Nueao León

1980181. Monterrey: N.p. [UANL], n.d.[1981].

Proyecto para la Planeación de Recursos Humanos. La estructuraoutpacional de México 1930-80. México, D.F.: Comisión Consultivadel Empleo y la Productividad, Subcomisión de RecursosHumanos, 1982.

-. La estructura ocupacional de México L930-80: Anexo metodológico,

anexo estadístico. México, D.F.: Comisión Consultiva del Empleo yla Productividad, Subcomisión de Recursos Humanos, 1982.

--. Necesidades de recursos humanos de México, 7980-2000. México,D,F.: Comisión Consultiva del Empleo y la Productividad,Subcomisión de Recursos Humanas, n.d.

Psacharopoulos, George, and Bikas C. Sanyal. Higher Education andEmployment: The IIEP Experience in Fiae Less Deaeloped Countries.Paris: UNESCO, 1981.

Quirk, Robert E. Mexico. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,7977.Ramírez, Celia. La formación profesional en la UNAM. Pensamiento

Universitario 67 (Nueva Epoca). México, D. F.: Centro deEstudios sobre la Universidad, 7986.

Ramírez, Miguel D. Mexico's Economic Crisis. New York: Praeger,1989.

Ramírez, Ramón. El moaimiento estudiantíl de México: lulio-diciembre1968. México, D. F.: Ediciones Bra,7969.

Randall, Laura. The Politicol Economy of Mexican Oil. New York:Praeger Press, 1989.

217

278 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rangel Guerra, Alfonso. La educctción superior en México. México,D. F.: El Colegio deMéxico,7979.

-. Systems ot' Higher Education: Mexico. New York: International

Council for Educational Developrr.ent, 1978.

-, and Alma Chapoy Bonifaz. Estructurs de la Uniaersidad

Nacional Autónoma de México: Ensayo socioeconómico. México,D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Popular, 1970.

Reynolds, Clark. The Mexican Economy: Twentieth-Century Structureand Grozuth. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,'1970.

Reynolds, Clark W., and Blanca M. de Petricioli. The Teaching ofEconomics in Mexico. New York: Education and World Affairs,7967.

Reyes Heroles González Garza, Jesús. Políticn macroeconómica ybienestqr en México. México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica,1983.

Rice, ]aqueline Ann. "The Porfirian Political Elite: Life Patterns ofthe Delegates to the 1892 Unión Liberal Convention." Ph.D.Diss. University of California, Los Angeles, 1.979.

Robles, Martha. Educsción y sociedad en lq historia de México. México,D. F.: Siglo XXI Editores,1977.

Rodríguez, Valdemar. "National University of Mexico: Rebirth andRole of the Universitarios (1970-"1957)." Ph.D. Diss. Universityof Texas at Austin, 1958.

Ruiz Massieu, Mario. El csmbio en la uniaersidad. México, D. F.:

UNAM, 1987.

Sánchez, George. Mexico: A Reaolution by Educafior. New York:Viking Press, 1936.

Schultz, Theodore. The Economic Value of Educatior. New York:Columbia University Press, 1963.

Schumacher, August. Agricultural Deaelopment and RuralEmployment: A Mexican Dilemma. La jolla: Program in UnitedStates-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego,7987.

Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP). Aportaciones al estudio de los

problemas de la educación. México, D.F.: N.p., n.d.

-. Manual de estadísticqs bdsicas: IV, sector educqtir)o. México, D. F.:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SEP, n.d.[1979].

-. lnformación profesional y subprofesional de México. México, D. F.:

sEP, 1958.

-. Dirección General de Profesiones (DGP). Análisis del mercado

nacional de profesionistas y técnicos: Oferta 1967-1978, demanda

L967-L978, y proyecciones a 1990. México, D. F.: SEP, 1982.

Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto (SPP). Antología de la

planención en México (1917-1985). México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura

Económica, 1985.

Shearer, l. C. High-Leael Manpower in Oaerseas Subsidiaries:

Experience in Brazil and Mexico. Princeton: Industrial Relations

Section, Princeton University, 1960.

Silva Herzog, Jesús. l.fna historin de la Uniaersidad de México y sus

problemas. México, D. F.: Siglo XXI Editores,7986.

Smith, Peter H. Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in

Twentieth-Century Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1,979.

Solana, Fernando, et al. Historia de la educación pública en México,

México, D. F.: SEP and Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1981.

Solís M., Leopoldo. Controaersias sobre el crecimiento y la distribución.

México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica,7972.

-. La realidad económica mexicana: Retroaisión y perspectioas,

México, D.F.: Siglo XXI,7987.

Strassmann, Paul W. Technological Change and EconomicDeaelopment: The Manufacturing Experience in Mexico snd Puerto

Rlco. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968.

Tamayo, ]orge, ed. Ley orgdnica de la instrucción públicn en el DistritoFederal de 1867. México, D. F.: UNAM, 7967.

Tannenbaum, Frank. Mexico: The Struggle for Peace and Bread.

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1950.

Thomas, Brinley. Migration and Llrban Dezselopment: A Reappraisal of

British and American Long Cycles. London: Methuen andCornpany,7972.

LJAP. Perspectiaas de la educación superior en México. Puebla: UAP,7984.

UANL . La demanda de profesionistas en el estado de Nueao León.

Monterrey: UANL, n.d. 119771.

219

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UANL and Cámera de la Industria de Transformación de NuevoLeón. La demanda de técnicos y profesionistas en el estado de NueaoLeón. Monterrey: UANL, 7981.

UNAM. Bibliografía sobre educación superior en América Lstinn.México, D. F.: UNAM, 1983.

-. Eaaluación y marco de referencia para los cambios scadémicos

administratizos. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1984.

-. Fortaleza y debilidad de la UNAM: Respuesta de la comunidad

uniaersitaria: Propuestas y alternatioa. Suplemento ExtraordinarioNo. 16. Ciudad Universitaria: UNAM, 1986.

-. Modificqciones académicas en la Uniaersidad Nacional Autónoma

de México. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1986.

Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales (IIS). Historia estadísticade la uniaersidad (1910-1967). México, D. F.: UNAM, 1968.

-. FCPS. La questión de registro de los títulos y de las cédulas

profesionales. México, D. F.: UNAM,7968.

-. Facultad de Ingeniería. Visión histórica del posgrado en la

facultad de ingeniería. México, D. F.: UNAM,7984.UNESCO. Higher Education: International Trends, 1960-70. New

York: UNESCO,7975.

-. New Trends and New Responsibilities t'or Unir:ersities in Latin

America. Paris: UNESCO, 1980.

Urquidi, Víctor, and Adrián Lajous Vargas. Educación superior,ciencia y tecnología en el desarrollo económico de México. México,D. F.: El Colegio deMéxico,7967.

van Genneken, Wouter. Socioeconomic Groups and lncome Distributionin Mexico: A Study Prepared for the ILO World EmploymentProgramme. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.

Vaughan, Mary Kay. The State, Education, and Social Class in Mexico,1880-1-928. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982.

Vernon, Raymond. The Dilemma of Mexico's Deaelopment: The Roles ofthe Priaate and Public Sectors. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1963.

-, ed. Public Policy and Priaate Enterprise in Mexico. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1.964.

Villaseñor García, Guillermo. Estado y uniaersidad, 1976-7982.México, D. F.: UAM, 1988.

»0

221BIBLIOGRAPHY

Villegas, Abelardo. Positiaismo y porfirismo. México, D. F.: SEP,

7972.

Wences Reza, Rosalio. La unittersidad en la historia de México.

México, D. F.: Editorial Línea, 1984'

Wilkie, ]ames W. The Mexican Reaolution: Federal Expendtiure and

Social Change. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univerity ofCalifornia Press, 7967.

-. La reaolución mexicana: Gasto federal y cambio social, 19L0-1-970'

México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1978'

Witker, ]orge V. llniaersidad y dependencia científica y tecnológica en

América Latina. México, D. F.: UN4ld,1,979.

Zermeño, Sergio. México: Llna democracia utópica. El mottimiento

estudiantil del 68. México, D. F.: Siglo XXI Editores, 1985.

Articles and Book ChaptersAlmond, Gabriel A. "The Development of Political Development."

lnllnderstanding Political Deaelopment. Ed. Samuel P. Huntingtonand Myron Weiner. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1987.

Amparo Casar, María. "La reestructuración de la participación delestado en la industria nacional." El Cotidiano,23 (1988), 28-38.

Arce Gurza, Francisco. "El inicio de una nueva era, 1910-7945." ÍnHistoria de las profesiones en México. México, D. F.: El Colegio de

México, 1982.

Ayala, Gustavo. "Ingeniería civil: Importancia y consecuencias." InCiencia y desarrollo, número especial: Los estudios de posgrado en

México. Naturaleza, funciones, diagnóstico. México, D. F.:

CONACYT,7987.Baloyra, Enrique A. "Oil Policies and Budgets in Venezuela, 1938-

1.968." Latin American Reseqrch Reaiew, 9, no. 2 (Summer, 7974),

28-72.

Barkin, David. "La educación; ¿Una barrera al desarrolloeconómico?" El Trimestre Económico, 33, no. 4 (October-December,

1.977),957-993.

Barrios, Maritza, and Russel G. Davis. "The Rate-of-ReturnApproach to Educational Planning." In Planning Education forDeaelopment: Volume I, Issues and Problems in the Planning ofEducation in Deueloping Countries, USALDlHaroard. Ed. Russell

G. Davis. Cambridge, MA: Center for Education and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Development, Harvard University, 1980.

Bartolucci, Jorge. "Demanda de los sectores medios." ReaistaMexicana de Cienciss Políticas y Sociales, NS 29 (Nueva Epoca),729-742.

Beck, Robert E. "The Liberal Arts Major in the Bell SystemManagement: Project Quill Report." Washington, D.C.:Association of American Colleges, 1981.

Behrman, jere R. "Schooling in Latin America: What Are thePatterns and What Is the Impact?" lournal of lnteramericanStudies and World Aft'airs,27, no.4 (Winter, 1985-1,986).

Bortz, ]effrey. "The Development of Quantitative History in Mexicosince 1940: Socioeconomic Change, Income Distribution, andWages." In Stotistical Abstract of Latin America, vol.27, pp.7707-7727.

Brooke, Nigel. "Actitudes de los empleadores mexicanos respeto a laeducación: Un test de la teoría de capital humano?" Reaista delCentro de Estudios Educatirsos, S, no. 4 (7978), 709-32.

Burke, Michael E. "The University of Mexico and the Revolution,1910-7940." Americas, 34, no. 2 (7977), 252-273.

del Camino, Isidoro. "Gasto educativo nacional, desperdicio escolary económico, pirámide escolar en México." Reoista del Centro de

Estudios Educatiaos, 1, no. 4 (7977),7-34.

Camp, Roderic A. "The Cabinet and the Técnico in Mexico and theUnited States." lournal of Comparatiae Administration, no. 3(August, 797 7), 200-201.

"Intellectuals: Agents of Change in Mexico?" fournal ofInteramerican Studies and World At'fairs, 23, no.3 (August, 1981).

-. /Mexican Governors since Cárdenas: Education and Career

Contacts." lournal of Interamericqn Studies and World Affairs, 76,no. 4 (November,7974).

"The Middle-Level Technocrat in Mexico." lournal ofDezteloping Areas, 6, no. 4 (1uty,7972),571-582.

-. /The Political Technocrat in Mexico and the Survival of the

Political System." Latin American Research Reuiew,20, no. L

(1985), 97-778.

Carnoy, Martin. "Education in Latin America: An EmpiricalApproach." In Viewpoints on Education and Social Change in LatinAmerica. Center for Latin American Studies. Occasional

222

BIBLiOGRAPHY

Publications no. 5. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1965,

pp.41-54.

-. 'Earnings and Schooling in Mexico." Economic Deoelopment and

Cultural Change,15, no. 4.

Cochrane, James D. "Mexico's New Científicos: The Díaz OrdazCabinet." Interamerican Economic Affairs, no. 21 (Summer, 1967),

67-72.

Coleman, Kenneth M., and john Wanat. "On Measuring PresidentialIdeology through Budgets: A Reappraisal of the WilkieApproach." Latin American Research Reaiew, 10, no. 1 (Spring,7975),77-88.

Consejo Interamericano para Educación, Ciencia y Cultura (CIECC).

"Exodo de profesionales y técnicos en los paíseslatinoamericanos" Reoista del Centro de Estudios Educatiaos,2, no.2 (7972),61-83.

COPLAMAR, Necesidades esenciqles en México. México, D.F.: SigloXXI, 7982, Yol.2 (La educación).

Covo, Milena. "Apuntes para el análisis de la trayectoría de unageneración universitaria." In Educación y realidad socioeconómica.

México, D. F.: Centro de Estudios Eclucativos, 1979.

Cravalta Franco, María Aparecida, and Claudia de Moura Castro."La contribución de educación técnica a la movilidad social."Rer¡ista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educatioos, 11, no. 7, 1.-42.

Cruz Valverde, Aurelio. "Economía y educación: Una panorama."Reaista de Educación Superior, NS 30, 32.

Davis, Russell G. "The Manpower Requirements Approach toEducational Planning." In Plnnning Education for Deaelopment:Volume l, Issues qnd Problems in the Planning ot' Education inDeuelopins Countries, USAIDlHaraard. Ed. Russell G. Davis.Cambridge, MA: Center for Education and Development,Harvard University, 1980.

de Ibarrola, María. "El crecimiento de la escolaridad superior enMéxico como expresión de los proyectos socioeducativos delestado y la burguesia." Cuadernos de lnttestigación Educatiua,9.

-. zEstudio de producción, mercado de trabajo, y escolaridad en

México." Cundernos de Inaestigación Educatiaa 74.

-. "La formación de profesores y Ia producción nacional." Rez,ista

de Educoción e lnaestigación Técnica, no. 14 (Autumn, 7984),22-37.

223

»4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

"El progreso del país requiere que todos los técnicos tengan trabajo:Echeverría." El Día, July 23, 7977.

Espinosa, Evan D. "La explosión demográfica en México: Análisis yimplicaciones educativas." Reaista de Educación Superior, NS 25,1,648.

Folger, John K., and Charles B. Nam. "Education of the AmericanPopulation." In Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.Ed. Ivar Berg. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.

Foster, Edward, and Jack Rodgers. "Quality of Education andStudent Earnings." Higher Education, no. 8 (1979), 21.-37.

Fretz, Deirdre. "Wanted: Engineers." Mexico fournal, November 13,1989, pp.25-26.

Fuentes Molinar, Olac. "Universidad y democracia: La miradahacia la izquierda." Cuadernos Políticos, 53 (January/April,1987),4-78.

García Sordo, Mario. "Desempleados o subempleados, más de 90 milagrónomos." El Financiero, October 5,7988, p.39.

Glade, William P. "Revolution and Economic Development: AMexican Reprise." In William P. Glade and Charles W.Anderson, The Political Economy of Mexico. Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 1963, pp. 87-88.

Goldblatt, Phyllis. "The Geography of Youth Employment andSchool Enrollment Rates in Mexico." In Education andDeaelopment: Latin America and the Cnribbean. Ed. Thomas J.LaBelle. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, 7972.

Gómez Campo, Víctor Manuel. "Educación superior, mercado detrabajo, y práctica profesional: Un análisis comparativo dediversos estudios en México." Reaista de Educación Superior,NS45,548.

-. /Relaciones entre educación y estructura económica: Dos grandes

marcos de interpretación." Reaista de Educación Superior, NS 41(January-M ar ch, 1.982), 5-43.

Gómez Junco, Horacio. "Presente y futuro de cinco innovaciones en elTecnológica de Monterrey." Reaista de Educación Superior, OS 4,no. 1 (1975),3246.

-. /Teaching and Research in the Social Sciences." Voices of Mex-

ico (]une-August, 7987), 20-22González Casanova, Pablo. "México: El ciclo de una revolución

BIBLIOGRAPHY »5

agraria," Cuadernos Americanos, 120, no. 1 (January-February,

7962).

Gortari Rabiela, Rebeca de. "Educación y conciencia nacional: Los

ingenieros después de la revolución mexicana." Reaista Mexicana

de Sociología, 49, no. 3.

Grindle, Merilee. "Power, Expertise and the 'Técnico': Suggestions

from a Mexican Case Study." lournal of Politics,39, no' 2 (May,

7977),399426.Guardarrama H., ]osé de jesús. "México necesita multiplicar 20 veces

su número de ingenieros antes de 25 años." El Financiero, April1.9,7988, p.53.

Gruber, W. "Career Patterns of Mexican Political Elites'" Western

P olitical Quart erly, 24, no. 3 (SePtember, 797 7).

F{anson, }ames A. "Federal Expenditures and 'Personalism' in the

Mexican 'Institutional' Revolution." In Money and Politics in

Latin America. Ed. ]ames W. Wilkie. Los Angeles: UCLA LatinAmerican Center Publications, 7977.

Hinojosa, Oscar. "La universidad privada escala posiciones como

proveedora de funcionaríos." Proceso, March 37,7986,pp. 6-77.

Hirsch Adler, Ana. "Panorama de la formación de profesores

universitarios en México." Reaista de Educación Superior, NS 46

(1983), 1,644.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The Goals of Development." IntLnderstanding Political Deaelopmenf. Eds. Samuel P. Huntingtonand Myron Weiner. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1987.

Ibarra, María Esther. "Decide la SEP que se encojan las universi-dades," Proceso, September 29, 1986, p. 7.

"La investigación tecnológica, en crisis." Unomdsuno, January 29,

7990, p.3.

Jaksic, Iván. "The Politics of Higher Education in Latin America."Latin American Research Rertiew, 20, no.1 (1985), 209-227.

Keesing, Donald, B. "Employment and Lack of Employment inMexico, 79OO-70." In Quantitatiae Latin American Studies:

Methods and Findings. Eds. ]ames W. Wilkie and KennethRuddle. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications,

7977.

-. //§f¡sstural Change Early in Development: Mexico's Changing

Industrial and Occupational Structure from 1895 to 1950." lournal

BIBLIOGRAPHY

of Economic History, 29, no.4 (December, 7969), 716-738.de Leonardo Ramírez, Patricia. "Los cuadros de la d.erecha.,, El

Cotidiano, 24 (July-August, 1988), 89-94.

León López, Enrique C. "La educación técnica superior." In El perfil deMéxico en 1980. México, D.F.: Siglo XXI Editores, 7970.

Levy, Daniel. "Serving Private Enterprise and the State: AComparison of Mexico's Private and Public Universities." Paperpresented at XI Congreso Internacional de LASA (Mexico City,September 29-October 1,1983) cited in ]osé Angel Pescador andCarlos Alberto Torres, Poder político y educación en México(México, D. F.: Unión Tipográfica Ediiorial Hispano Americano,1985).

Lipset, Martin. "Values, Education, and Entrepreneurship." In Elitesin Latin Americs. Eds. Martin Lipset and Aldo Solari. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 7967.

Llinas Zárate, Isabel. "La universidad ha cumplido con crecesdespués de la revolución: Luis E. Todd," Unomtísuno, january 28,7990, p.2.

Lomnitz, Larissa. "Horizontal and Vertical Relations and theSocial Structure of Urban Mexico." Latin American ResearchReaiezu, 77, no. 2 (7982), 57-74.

Lomnitz, Larissa, Leticia Mayer, and Martha W. Rees. "RecruitingTechnical Elites: Mexico's Veterinariarts." HLLrnan Organization,42, no.1 (Spring, 7983),23-29.

Lorey, David E. "The Development of Engineering Expertise forEconomic and Social Modernization in Mexico since 1929." InSociety ond Economy in Mexico. Ed. ]ames W. Wilkie. LosAngeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1989.

-. /Higher Education in Mexico: The Problems of Quality and

Employment." In Reciprocal Images: Education in Ll.S.-MexicanRelqtions. México, D. F.: ANUIES, 1990.

-. /Mexican Professional Education in the United States and the

Myth of 'Brain Dtain'," Ensayos (Revista del Departamento deRelaciones Internacionales, Universidad de las Américas-Puebla), 4, no.9 (1988), 56-59.

-. /Professional Expertise and Mexican Modernization: Sources,

Methods, and Preliminary Findings." In Statisticql Abstract ofkttin America, vol. 26, pp. 899-972.

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mabry, Donald J. "Changing Models of Mexican Politics, a ReviewEssay." The Neru Scholctr,5, no. 1 (1975), 31,-37.

Mabry, Donald J., and Roderic A. Camp. "Mexican Political Elites7935-7973: A Comparative Study." The Americas, no.31 (April,1975),456-467.

Marquis, Carlos. "Sobre los egresados de la UAM-Azcapotzalco."Reuistg Latinoamericana de Estudios Educatiaos,14, no. 4 (1984),

87-108.

Medin, Tz,vi. "La mexicanidad política y filosófica en el sexenio deMiguel Alemán, 1946-1952." Estttdios Interdisciplinarios de

América Latina y el Caribe,1, no. 1 (january-]une, 7990), 5-22.

Medina, Alberto Hernández, and Alfredo Rentería Agraz. "El perfilde personal docente en las universidades de provincia." ReaistaLstinonmericana de Estudios Educatiaos, 74, no. 3,73-65.

Mendoza Rojas, Javier. "Política del estado l'racia la educaciónsuperior, 1983-1988." Pensamiento Uniaersitario, 68 (NuevaEpoca).

"Mexican Higher Education Degrees." Translation of article from La

lornada, October 6, 1989, in U.S.-Mexico Report, 8, no. 11

(November, 7989), p. 72.

"México necesita 300 mil profesionistas por año, para asegurar sucrecimiento," Ocho Columnas (Guadalajara, Jalisco), October 15,

7989.

Moffett, Matt. "Brain Drain Slows Mexico's Development:Researchers, Professionals, Skilled Workers Are Lured Abroad."WalI Street lournnl, May 5, 1989, p. A7.

Montavon, Paul. "Some Questions on Education and EconomicDevelopment." In Viewpoints on Education and Socill Change inLatin America. Occasional Publications no. 5. Lawrence:University of Kansas Press, 1965.

Muñoz Izquierdo, Carlos. "El desempleo en México: Característicasgenerales." El Trimestre Económics, 62, no.167 (7975).

-. /Evaluación del desarrollo educativo en México (1958-7970) y

factores que 1o han determinado." Reaists del Centro de EstudiosEducatk¡os, 3, no.3 (7973).

-./Observaciones críticas a una previsión de recursos humanos

basada en el enfoque de Herbert Parnes." Retsista de Educación e

Inaestigación Técnica, no. 10 (1981), 66-73.

227

»8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

-, and José Lobo. "Expansión escolar, mercado de trabajo, y dis-

tribución de ingreso en México: Un análisis longitudinal, 7960-7970." Reaista del Centro de Estudios Educatiaos,4, no. 1,9-30.

-, ]osé Lobo, Alberto Hernández Medina, and Pedro Gerardo

Rodríguez. "Educación y mercado de trabajo." Reoista del Centrode Estudios Educatiaos, 8, no.2 (7978),1-90.

-, and Pedro Gerardo Rodríguez. "La eseñanza técnica: ¿Canal de

movilidad social para los trabajadores?" Reaista de Educación e

lnaestigación Técnica, no. 6-7 (double issue) (July-August-September, 7980), 70-86.

Myers, Charles Nash. "Proyección de la demanda de médicos enMéxico: 1965-7980." Reaista de Educación Superior,l, no. 3 (7972),

77-103.

Nava Díaz, Eduardo. "Perspectiva de complemento alfinanciamiento del sector público en materia de educaciónsuperior: El caso de México, 1.967-7980." Reaista de EducaciónSuperior, NS 17 (7976), 48-86.

Osborn, Thomas Noel. "A Survey of Developments and CurrentTrends in Higher Education in Mexico." Boulder: University ofColorado International Economic Studies Center, n.d.

Oxenham, John. "The University and High-Level Manpower."Higher Education, no. 9 (1980), 643-655.

Padilla, Jorge Díaz. "El impacto de los planes de desarrolloeconómico en la demanda de servicios de ingenierosindustriales." Reoista de Educación e Inaestigación Técnica, no. 4(January-February-March, 1980), 60-68.

Padua, Jorge A. "Movilidad social y universidad." In La crisis de laeducación superior en México. Ed. Gilberto Guevara Niebla.México, D.F.: Nueva Imagen, 1981.

Peña de la Mora, Eduardo. "Evaluación de las actitudes decompromiso social en institutos de educación técnica superior."Reaista de Educación e lnaestigación Técnica, no. 73 (March, 7982),9-'17.

Pérez Roche, Manuel. "Algunos aspectos de la restructuraciónacadémica de la enseñanza superior: Cursos semestrales, salidaslaterales, y sistemas de titulación." Reaisto de EducaciónSuperior, 1, no. 4 (7972), 9-1,6.

Pescador Osuna, José Angel. "El balance de la educación superior en

BIBLiOGRAPHY

municipio de Naucalpa, Estado de México: Notas e indicadores

para su estudio." Reaistn de Educttción e Inaestigación Técnica, no'9 (7987),43-70.

Ribeiro, Darcy. "Universities and Social Development." In Elites in

Latin America. Eds. Martin Lipset and Aldo Solari. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1967.

Ríos Ierrusca, Herculano. "El análisis de los recursos humanos en la

medicina." Reaista de Educación Superior, no. 6 (1980),67-82,

Rivero, Martha. "La política económica durante la guerra'" In Entre

la guerra y la estabilidad política: El México de los 40. Ed. Rafael

Loyola. México, D.F.: Grijalbo, 7990.

Romero Bueno, Marcel, Manuel García Macías, and Francisco Reyes

Araneo. "Historia de la educación secundaria técnica en

México." Reaista de Educación e lnaestignción Técnica, no. 12

(1982),7-72.

Safford, Frank. "Politics, Ideology, and Society." In Spanish America

After lndependence. Ed. Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1987.

Samaniego, Norma. "El desafío del empleo ante la modernización."In Los profesionistas mexicanos y los desafíos de la modernidad.

México, D.F.: Editorial Diana, 1989.

Schiefelbein, Ernesto. "ljn modelo de simulación del sistemaeducativo mexicano." Reaistq del Centro de Estudios Educatirtos, T,

no. 4 (7977).

Schmelkes de Valle, Corina. " ¿Por qué no se titulan graduados en

México: Una investigación sobre pasantes como profesionales.Alternativas y recomendaciones para su titulación." Reaista de

Educación e Inaestigación Técnica, no. 10 (1981), 45-65.

-, et al. "La participación de la comunidad en el gasto educativo:

Conclusiones de 24 casos de estudio en México." ReaistaLatinoamericana de Estudios Educatiaos, 13, no. 7,9-47.

Scott, Robert E. "The Government Bureaucrat and Political Change

in Latin America." lournal of International Affairs, no. 20 (1.966),

294-95.

"El sector educativo debe preparar cuadros técnicos acorde con las

necesidades del país: CANACINTRA." Unomásuno,lune 26,

7987, p. 74.

Skidmore, Thomas E., and Peter H. Smith. "Notes on Quantitative

BIBLIOGRAPHY

el sexenio L976-7982." In UAP, Perspectiaas de la educaciónsuperior en México. Puebla: UAP, 1984.

-, and Carlos Alberto Torres. "Educación superior, cultural,

política y socialización del personal del estado: El papelpolítico contradictorio de la universidad pública y privada enMéxico." In Poder político y educación en México. Eds. |osé AngelPescador and Carlos Alberto Torres. México, D. F.: UniónTipográfica Editorial Hispano Americano, 1985.

Philip, George. "Public Enterprise in Mexico." In Public Enterpriseand the Deoelopment World. Ed. V. V. Ramanadham. Londonand Sydney: Croom Helm, 1984.

-. /Mexican Politics Under Stress: Austerity and After." In Politícs

in Mexico. Ed. George Philip. London: Croom Helm, 1985.

Portas Cabrera, Eduardo. "La demanda, el personal docente, y elfinanciamiento de la educación superior en México." SocialService Project for ANUIES, n.d.

Prysor-]ones, Susanne. "Education and Equality in DevelopingCountries." In Planning Education for Deaelopment: Volume I,lssues and Problems in the Planning of Education in DeaelopingCountries, USAIDlHaraard. Ed. Russell G. Davis. Cambridge,MA: Center for Education and Development, HarvardUniversity, 1980.

Quintero H., José Luis. "Metas de igualdad y efectos de subsidio dela educación superior mexicana." Reaista del Centro de EstudiosEducatiaos,8, no. 3 (7978),59-92.

Rangel Guerra, Alfonso. "Higher Education and Employment." InEducation and Work: A Symposium. Ed. Daniel Heyduk. NewYork: Institute of International Education (IIE), Council onHigher Education in the American Republics (CHEAR), 1979.

-. t'La decentralización de la educación superior." Reaista de

Educación Superior, NS 19 (1976),42-48.

-. /Objetivos de la enseñanza superior frente a los requerimientos

del desarrollo y el avance técnico." Reaista de EducsciónSuperior, OS 1, no.7 (7972),33-38.

"Reflecciones sobre planeación, 19L7-7985." In Antología de laplaneación en México (1917-L985). Vol. 1. México, D. F.: Fondo deCultura Económica, 1985.

Requelme, Marcial Antonio, et al. "Educación y empleo en el

BIBLI.GRAPHY 231

History: Federal Expenditure and Social Charrge in Mexico since

791,0." Latin American Resesrch Rersiew, 5, no. 1 (Spring, 7970),

77-85.

Smith, Peter H. "La movilidad política en el Méxicocontemporáneo." Foro lnternacional, 15, no. 3 (1,975), 399427.

Snodgrass, Donald R. "The Distribution of Schooling and the

Distribution of Income." ln Planning Education t'or Deuelopment:

Volume I, Issues nnd Problems in the Planning of Education in

Deaeloping Countries, LISAIDlHaraard. Ed. Russell G. Davis'Cambridge, MA: Center for Education and Development,Harvard University, 1980.

Solari, Aldo. "secondary Education and the Development of Elites."

In Elites in Lstin America. Eds. Martin Lipset and Aldo Solari.

New York: Oxford University Press,7967.

Stern, Claudio, and Joseph A. Kahl. "Stratification since the

Revolution." In Comparatioe Perspectioes on Stratit'ication: Mexico,

Great Britain, and lapan. Ed. Joseph A. Kahl. Boston: Little,Brown, and Company, 7968,

Trujillo Cedillo, josé Manuel. "Educación y capital humano." Reaista

de Educación e Inaestigación Técnica, no. 14 (Autumn, 7984), 32-57.

Urquidi, Víctor. "Technology Transfer between Mexico and the

United Statás: Past Experience and Future Prospects." Estudios

Mexicanos, 2, no. 2 (Summer, 7986), 779-793.

Vielle, ]ean-Pierre. "Planeación y reforma de la educación superioren México, 7970-1.976." Reaista del Centro de Estudios Educatirsos,

6, no. 4,9-37.

Villagómez, Rafael, and Herculano Ríos. "Recursos humanos para la

industria siderúrgica." Reoistct de Educación Superior, NS 18

(7976),3-26.

Villareal, René. "El desarrollo industrial de México: Unaperspectiva histórica." In México:75 años de reaolución.

Dessrrollo económico L México, D. F.: Fondo de CulturaEconómica,1988.

Waggoner, Barbara Ashton. "Latin American Universities inTransition." In Viewpoints on Education and Social Change inLqtin America. Center for Latin American Studies. OccasionalPublications no. 5. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1965.

Wichtrich, A. R. "Manpower Planning: A Business Perspective." In

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Education and Work: A Symposium. Ed. Daniel Heyduk. NewYork: Institute of International Education (IIE), Council onHigher Education in the American Republics (CHEAR), 1979.

Wilkie, James W. "From Economic Growth to Economic Stagnation inMexico." In Statistical Abstract of Latin America, vol.27, pp.973-936.

"The Six Ideological Phases of Mexico's 'PermanentRevolution' since 1910." fn Society and Economy in Mexico. Ed.|ames W. Wilkie. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American CenterPublications, L990.