Higher education in Colombia has undergone unprecedented expansion over the past two decades. Official statistics report a gross coverage rate nearing 58%, with undergraduate enrollment surpassing 2.2 million students. This growth driven by policies aimed at broadening access and promoting credit-based financing, primarily through ICETEX has been sustained by an unquestioned promise: the university as a vehicle for social mobility, guaranteeing success, labor market insertion, and economic stability. Under the meritocratic myth, the belief has been institutionalized that individual effort, validated by a university degree, ensures upward socioeconomic achievement.

However, this narrative is beginning to fracture. As Sandel ²⁶ argues, meritocracy not only fails to redress inequality but legitimizes it by reframing socioeconomic outcomes as a matter of personal desert. In Colombia, this phenomenon is particularly stark: while more young people gain access to higher education, the promise of mobility fades in the face of a segmented labor market and rising levels of student indebtedness. This article seeks to unravel this paradox by exploring how the university system rather than acting as an engine of equity has become a mechanism for reproducing structural inequality. ⁷

Recent comparative research also suggests that the expansion of higher education does not necessarily reduce inequality. Studies on belief in educational meritocracy show that individuals who strongly endorse the idea that schools reward talent and effort are also more likely to perceive social inequalities as legitimate outcomes. ^{3, 12} Likewise, analyses of higher education systems indicate that universities tend to form hierarchical clusters of prestige and opportunity, reinforcing stratification within mass higher education systems. ^{4, 21}

The research for this article was conducted using a qualitative, analytical, and documentary approach. It was grounded in a comprehensive review of specialized literature that critically addresses the role of the university in contemporary society, particularly from sociological perspectives and with a focus on the Colombian context. Based on this literature review, an interpretive analysis was carried out to understand the structural phenomena that have affected the higher education system in the twenty-first century.

The literature reviewed primarily draws from classic sociological frameworks, including authors such as Bourdieu, ⁷ Collins, ¹¹ Freire, ¹⁶ and Foucault, ¹⁵ among others. These foundational thinkers provide the conceptual basis to interpret contemporary dynamics described in peer-reviewed publications hosted on academic platforms. The analysis also incorporated secondary data obtained from official sources such as Colombia’s Ministry of National Education and the Labor Observatory for Education [OLE], as well as reports from international organizations.

For the bibliographic compilation, a systematic search was conducted in high-impact academic databases, primarily Scopus, and supplemented with national institutional repositories such as the OLE, as well as documents published by multilateral organizations like the World Bank. Keyword combinations in English included “meritocracy in higher education,” “educational inequality,” “student debt,” “ICETEX financing,” “credentialism,” “dropout in Colombian universities,” and “cultural capital and education.” The search was limited to documents published between 1970 and 2025, encompassing both classical theoretical texts—such as those by Bourdieu y Passeron, ⁷ Foucault, ¹⁵ and Collins ¹¹ —and recent empirical studies analyzing transformations in higher education systems and their social, economic, and political implications. Inclusion criteria prioritized peer-reviewed works with theoretical or empirical relevance to the Colombian case or comparability with other Latin American contexts.

Sociological research also highlights the role of family socialization in shaping educational trajectories. Middle- and upper-class families often transmit forms of cultural capital that facilitate adaptation to academic institutions, thereby influencing academic performance and persistence in higher education. ¹⁹

The interpretive process involved a theoretical triangulation of core analytical categories such as social reproduction, credentialism, and meritocracy. These concepts were used to examine the emerging disenchantment of young people with higher education in Colombia, the conditions of the labor market, and other interconnected dynamics of the twenty-first-century educational landscape.

In Colombia, particularly in the post-pandemic context, public policies have evaluated various dimensions of how students access and remain in higher education. For instance, as described by Pulido, ³¹ the most recent administration assessed and restructured the university financing system, including reforms to institutions like ICETEX, and implemented partial debt forgiveness based on specific student cases. According to Pulido, ³¹ the main beneficiaries of debt relief policies have been students and graduates from socioeconomic strata 1, 2, and 3, who also exhibit lower graduation rates and lower formal employment levels.

These findings are further contextualized by Sánchez et al., ¹⁷ who analyzed the wage conditions of recent graduates benefiting from educational loans in Colombia. Using statistical techniques such as regression discontinuity designs, they demonstrated that increased educational financing is paradoxically associated with worse wage outcomes for graduates.

Other policy initiatives, ²⁷ such as the “Ser Pilo Paga” scholarship program for low-income students, also triggered complex social dynamics within Colombia’s elite private universities.

The cancellation of such programs curtailed opportunities for low-income students to access high-quality institutions and disrupted funding channels for those universities. The failure of “Ser Pilo Paga” and broader financing strategies has been critically assessed by Bernal et al. ³²

Moreover, Acosta et al. ³³ studied salary variations among workers based on education level, providing empirical evidence of the declining returns on investment in higher education. Their findings confirm that, in the twenty-first century, the labor market has increasingly devalued professional qualifications, justifying student disillusionment toward pursuing higher education.

International evidence further indicates that the economic value of university credentials is increasingly heterogeneous. Research in Colombia shows that returns to education depend not only on degrees but also on specific skills acquired during training. ⁸ This finding supports broader arguments that higher education often functions as a signaling mechanism in which credentials communicate persistence and social positioning rather than productive skills alone. ⁹

This phenomenon aligns with findings by Camargo et al., ² who confirmed rising dropout rates in Colombian universities, particularly in non-technical programs. They identified socioeconomic status as the primary factor associated with dropout risk, highlighting the structural inequality that determines who can afford to continue studying.

This is complemented by Gamboa and Rodríguez, ¹⁷ who, building on Collins’ ¹¹ earlier work, examined how students historically associated university degrees with increased income and upward social mobility. However, these expectations are now being challenged.

Similarly, Barbosa and Camargo ² conducted a sociological analysis of stratification among Colombian universities, distinguishing between elite institutions—mostly in Bogotá—and those serving middle- and lower-income students. This stratification assigns symbolic and practical value to university degrees based on institutional prestige. ²⁸ In Bourdieu’s terms, institutional origin determines social capital.

Zimdars et al., ³⁰ examines the extent to which access to highly selective higher education institutions is associated with students’ cultural capital beyond their academic performance. The study is grounded in the theoretical framework of Pierre Bourdieu, particularly the concept of cultural capital, which suggests that families transmit knowledge, skills, cultural practices, and dispositions that facilitate educational success. In this context, the research aims to determine whether students with higher levels of cultural capital—such as stronger cultural habits, participation in artistic activities, and particular styles of communication—have a greater likelihood of being admitted to elite universities, even when their academic performance is comparable to that of other applicants.

In the other hand, Rivera ²⁴ states in her researchRivera examines how students from elite universities gain access to the most prestigious and highly paid jobs, challenging the notion that these positions are obtained solely on the basis of academic merit. Drawing on interviews and direct observations of recruitment processes in highly competitive sectors such as investment banking, management consulting, and large corporate law firms, the author demonstrates that companies concentrate their recruitment efforts on a small group of “target” universities, thereby limiting opportunities for graduates from other institutions. The study also shows that selection processes frequently rely on informal criteria such as cultural fit, through which recruiters evaluate whether candidates share similar lifestyles, interests, social behaviors, and trajectories with those already working in these organizations. In this context, elements associated with cultural capital—such as certain extracurricular activities, international experiences, or social practices linked to upper-class backgrounds—function as signals of belonging to particular social groups, while social networks and alumni connections facilitate access to employment opportunities. Overall, the study concludes that recruitment mechanisms in elite labor markets tend to reproduce social inequalities, as talent and merit are often interpreted through attributes closely associated with candidates’ social origins, thereby questioning the idea that these spaces operate fully under meritocratic principles.

Collins’ ¹¹ theory of the “credential society” remains relevant in twenty-first-century Colombia. Rather than enabling mobility, university degrees function as mechanisms of social selection, emphasizing signaling over skill development. ⁹ The value of a diploma lies less in certified competencies and more in the socioeconomic status it signals.

Other studies emphasize that different types of postsecondary credentials generate distinct labor market returns. For example, analyses of certificates and associate degrees demonstrate that alternative qualifications may offer different employment pathways compared with traditional university degrees. ¹⁰

According to the Labor Observatory for Education [OLE], 84% of graduates from accredited institutions find employment, compared to only 78% from non-accredited universities. More strikingly, accredited graduates earn, on average, 37% more. These figures reflect what Bourdieu ⁵ called “distinction”: the educational system does not democratize success—it legitimizes pre-existing hierarchies.

This reality explains widespread youth disenchantment with higher education. The combination of regional inequalities, institutional differences, lack of economic support, and the devaluation of degrees—all features of the credentialing system identified by Collins ¹¹ —contributes to early departure from university, driven not only by sociological but also economic forces.

Obtaining a degree in the second decade of the twenty-first century no longer guarantees upward mobility. Gómez ¹⁴ shows the disconnect between labor market demands and university offerings, especially in emerging economies like Colombia, where higher education fails to align with students’ realities or employer expectations.

Additionally, access expansion has largely been financed through educational loans. As Dwyer, McCloud, and Hodson ¹³ argue, student debt is not merely an economic burden but a disciplinary mechanism, in Foucauldian terms, that constrains young people’s life and career choices. In Colombia, ICETEX has played a central role in transferring the cost of education to individuals, generating what Arum and Roksa ¹ describe as a “social mortgage”: a generation of graduates accepting underemployment just to repay their debts.

Foucault ¹⁵ posits that debt functions as a technology of control, binding individuals to market logic and reproducing dominant power structures. Thus, student debt is not solely an economic phenomenon but also a sociological and political one: a power apparatus that curtails freedom and autonomy for young professionals.

In Foucauldian terms, these mechanisms are not overtly coercive but subtly shape behavior and decision-making. Long-term debt binds graduates to market dynamics, reinforcing structural inequalities—not only economically but also in terms of personal agency.

Recent literature also highlights how educational debt impacts individuals differently based on gender, socioeconomic status, ^{23, 34} and cultural capital. Returning to Dwyer et al., ¹³ their quantitative analysis shows that debt correlates with differential graduation probabilities. Women are more likely to graduate than men, who may face income-generating pressures. Students from lower-income or low–cultural capital backgrounds are also more likely to drop out.

These findings underscore the stratifying role of debt, not only obstructing educational attainment but shaping life trajectories. Debt influences critical life decisions, from employment to self-realization.

According to the World Bank, ²⁹ its partnership with ICETEX in Colombia financed 623,000 students between 2003 and 2023, with 90% of loans in 2023 going to students from socioeconomic strata 1 and 2. However, increased access has not translated into improved labor market outcomes or greater professional autonomy.

Dwyer et al. ¹³ describe educational debt as a “social mortgage,” framing it as both a pathway to education and a form of subjugation to financial systems. Paulsen ³⁴ further shows that, particularly in the arts, debt restricts career fulfillment due to low remuneration, contributing to frustration and long-term disillusionment.

From a Foucauldian perspective, ¹⁵ educational debt constitutes an instrument of power. It normalizes the societal status quo, disciplines individuals to internalize financial obligations over long periods, and shapes labor market integration without regard for personal or disciplinary aspirations. This process sustains structural inequality, reinforcing hierarchies based on gender, class, and mobility opportunities.

Arum and Roksa ¹ also critique educational financing, arguing that its expansion has compromised meaningful learning. The pressure to obtain credentials diverts attention from scientific inquiry to financial survival.

In Colombia, as noted by Salazar, Mesa, and Correa, ²⁵ the quality of employment and decent working conditions have not kept pace with professionalization. Additionally, the growth of ICETEX-based financing has outstripped the expansion of educational access, reinforcing debt’s role as a barrier to higher education.

Youth disenchantment can also be traced to the meritocratic discourse that obscures the role of social origin. As Bourdieu ⁶ contends, educational performance is largely determined by inherited cultural capital. When universities assess and certify based on academic criteria that reflect preexisting privileges, they merely validate inequality as merit.

From this perspective, merit remains subordinate to social origin. Educational institutions reproduce social structures founded on inequality, generating disillusionment when meritocratic expectations clash with structural realities.

Bourdieu and Passeron ⁷ argued that schools do not function as levers of mobility but as mechanisms that reproduce social hierarchies. Universities adapt to students’ cultural capital through codes and symbolic environments, privileging those already aligned with academic culture.

This dynamic was evident in the difficulties faced by “Ser Pilo Paga” beneficiaries—mainly from socioeconomic strata 1 and 2—who enrolled in elite private universities in Bogotá. These students struggled with economic, cultural, and psychosocial challenges, which affected their academic performance and institutional belonging, reflecting broader social inequalities.

Ultimately, the evidence suggests that access to and retention in higher education in Colombia remain deeply shaped by structural inequalities—economic, social, and cultural. Although public financing and debt relief policies have expanded access, they have not disrupted the underlying mechanisms of exclusion and stratification. Educational debt, presented as a pathway to mobility, functions as a control device limiting autonomy and life choices. Moreover, the devaluation of university degrees, graduate underemployment, and misalignment between academic offerings and labor market demands have generated widespread disenchantment. From the sociological perspective of Bourdieu and Foucauldian critique, Colombian universities do not emancipate but reproduce social hierarchies through cultural and economic capital. The meritocratic ideal underlying educational discourse is revealed as an illusion, as merit remains deeply conditioned by social origin. The contemporary challenge is not merely to expand access, but to fundamentally rethink the structure of the university system so that higher education becomes a genuine instrument of social justice.

The findings presented above illustrate the foundation for the growing disenchantment among young people entering—or aspiring to enter—university education. The meritocratic promise of individual effort as a pathway to success is continuously challenged by invisible barriers rooted in the structural inequalities characteristic of contemporary societies. In this sense, disillusionment emerges from the substantial gap between the idealized representation of universities—as neutral, fair, and reliable institutions that pave the way to social advancement—and the lived reality: institutions that reproduce and legitimize systemic inequality. This disenchantment manifests in various ways, such as a lack of motivation, feelings of misalignment or marginalization within academic spaces, and perceptions of injustice, especially among low-income students who often find that their effort has limited influence over predetermined social outcomes.

These dynamics are consistent with comparative studies of education systems showing that social origin continues to influence educational attainment even in formally open systems. ¹⁸ Research on the myth of meritocracy in higher education also demonstrates that institutional narratives emphasizing individual effort frequently obscure structural inequalities that shape academic outcomes. ²⁰

Colombian higher education stands at a critical juncture. Its quantitative expansion has not been accompanied by democratic deepening. On the contrary, the system has refined exclusionary mechanisms and legitimized inequality under the veil of meritocracy. The meritocratic discourse not only obscures the role of social origin in academic performance, but also conceals structural causality by presenting it as a matter of individual responsibility. Simultaneously, universities operate using criteria that disproportionately favor those who already possess cultural capital, thereby reproducing inequalities that are later validated as legitimate outcomes of “merit.” This dual process, unequal selection and symbolic legitimation—leads many students and graduates to experience university not as a mechanism for upward mobility, but rather as a space that confirms their pre-existing marginalization or becomes a source of unmet expectations and frustration.

From this perspective, youth disenchantment with higher education can be interpreted as a reflective response to the gap between the meritocratic ideal promoted by institutional discourse and the structural conditions that shape the university system. Rather than perceiving universities as spaces of equal opportunity, many students experience them as institutions where so-called academic merit is deeply conditioned by inherited social positions. Acknowledging this reality calls for a thorough rethinking of university policies and practices—not only to widen access, but also to revisit evaluation criteria, socialization processes, institutional arrangements, and internal logics that perpetuate structural asymmetries.