Public universities must be free, high-quality, and socially accessible. These are non-negotiable values in the Brazilian context. These institutions were conceived and consolidated under a fundamental principle: that their governance must be the responsibility of the academic community itself, as an expression of its institutional autonomy and its commitment to the public interest.
Professors (mostly) and the academic community, which includes students and administrative staff, elect their leaders: faculty members participate in councils, deliberate on institutional directions, and rightly defend the idea that university autonomy is an indispensable condition for the production of free, critical, and socially relevant knowledge. In a country like Brazil, where public universities are responsible for the majority of scientific output, this model of academic self-governance is not just a tradition, but a vital element.
This arrangement brings clear benefits. Those who experience the daily routine of the classroom, research, and outreach understand, better than any external manager, the specificities of academic work, its technical rigor, its pace and time, as well as its tensions. The university could hardly fulfill its social role if it were governed solely by short-term logic, financial metrics, or interests unrelated to science.
While we acknowledge the importance of the issues above, a potentially uncomfortable question lingers in the academic community: has the university management model evolved in line with the complex institution that the contemporary Brazilian university has become in recent decades?
Federal and state universities manage budgets of billions of reais; they also maintain university hospitals, support foundations, international contracts, technology parks, inclusion policies, and innovation programs, which demands constant interaction with oversight bodies. Despite this, most of their leaders reach top management positions without specific training in public administration, finance, or institutional governance. They learn the job directly on the job, often amidst budget crises, cutbacks, and political disputes. It is not uncommon for excellent scientists to be thrust into executive roles for which they were never prepared, which is not an individual failing, but a structural one.
The data helps to put this issue into perspective. The analysis of data from the TCU's Integrated Survey of Public Governance and Management (iGG 2021) by Santos and Souza (2022) [1The data shows that, among the 63 federal universities evaluated, 15 institutions (24%) were classified in the initial stage of governance, 38 (60%) in the intermediate stage, and 10 universities (16%) reached the advanced stage in the iGG. When specifically observing the organizational public governance index (iGovPub), which aggregates the mechanisms of leadership, strategy, and control, the results remain similar: 15 universities (24%) in the initial stage, 37 (59%) in the intermediate stage, and 11 institutions (17%) in the advanced stage. These numbers suggest that most Brazilian federal universities operate at intermediate or initial levels of maturity in governance, according to the TCU criteria, indicating a structural gap between the institutional complexity of these organizations and the installed capacity for strategic management, organizational leadership, and institutional control.
A stark contrast emerges when we look at universities abroad. German universities adopt a governance model that combines academic leadership and professional management: the rector or president (Rector [fem.:Rektorin] ou President [fem.: President]) leads the strategic and scientific directions of the institution, while the Chancellor (chancellor/Kanzlerin) acts as a professional manager responsible for administration, finance, human resources, and infrastructure, all forming part of the university's executive body. The structure also includes a University Council (Hochschulrat) with external representatives, which advises and supervises strategic development, as well as a Senate (Senat) that deals with academic matters and legislates internally. This separation of functions promotes the professionalization of administration without overburdening academic leadership with operational tasks, while ensuring internal and external participation in institutional governance.2This model is observed in several German public universities, where the Rectorate includes both the rector and the chancellor as executive members.
French universities adopt a governance model similar to the German one, but with greater state influence. There is also a combination of strong academic leadership with professional administrative management. The university president (président de l'Université), necessarily a senior academic, is equivalent to the Brazilian Rector and exercises scientific, strategic, and institutional leadership, defining teaching, research, and development policies, as well as legally representing the institution. In parallel, the Director General of Services (directeur général des Services – DGS) acts as a professional manager and is a career civil servant, responsible for budget execution, human resources, infrastructure, procurement, legal aspects, administrative systems, and internal organization. Both are part of the university's executive team, along with thematic vice-presidents. There are also some aspects similar to the Brazilian organization, but with the requirement that the DGS's training be in the area of management. Governance is complemented by collegiate bodies such as the Board of Directors, with internal and external members, and the Academic Council, responsible for academic policies.3This model ensures a functional separation between scientific decision-making and operational management, promoting administrative professionalism, institutional efficiency, and alignment with national higher education guidelines.
In the United States, universities (in general) have a strongly structured and professionalized governance system, with a very clear separation between academic leadership and professional management. Public and private universities in the United States face strong pressure for financial sustainability, which therefore shapes their system. The highest authority is the Board of Trustees, responsible for appointing the president, approving the budget, defining major policies, and overseeing the institutional mission. The president acts as the university's CEO, leading the overall administration, representing the institution, and driving key strategies, while the provosts are the main academic executives, responsible for teaching, research, curriculum, and coordination. In addition, professional management teams, such as vice presidents for finance, operations, human resources, and technology, handle administrative, financial, and operational functions, separate from academic authority. This more formal model of university governance in the US proposes that scientific and pedagogical decisions be made by academic leaders, while technical and operational management is conducted by qualified administrators under the supervision of the Board.
As described, American universities have a clear focus on management. This is a concept that is generally antagonistic in Brazilian academia due to fears of losing scientific autonomy. The Brazilian model is closer to the aforementioned European structures (naturally, given its historical and institutional origins). In Germany and France, academic autonomy is also valued, in the same way that we advocate for it here, but with more complex structures specifically committed to management.
Attempts to strengthen permanent technical structures or introduce modern governance practices in Brazilian universities can (are) sometimes seen as a threat to academic freedom. Paradoxically, one could argue that resistance to formalizing management could actually weaken the very autonomy we seek to protect. Furthermore, isn't university autonomy overestimated when one depends almost entirely on annual funding subject to budget cuts, as is the case with federal universities? Or when the university must operate under constant fiscal uncertainty, even in models considered relatively stable, such as those of São Paulo state universities?
Funding for higher education in Brazilian federal universities comes almost exclusively from the federal budget, whose instability affects long-term planning. Budget cuts and freezes are recurrent, highlighting how vulnerable this model makes institutions to political and fiscal cycles. In contrast, American and European universities diversify their funding sources more through endowment funds, private donations, contracts with companies and philanthropic foundations, which requires (and at the same time enables) more strategic management.
This discussion becomes more complex when we incorporate the dimension of gender representation. Despite important advances in recent decades, the highest positions in Brazilian university management continue to be predominantly occupied by men. We still live with the phenomenon of lower female representation as one ascends the institutional hierarchy. Rectors and pro-rectors still reflect a historical pattern, predominantly occupied by men. Women make up 59% of higher education students, but represent only 47,6% of professors among faculty members in federal, state, and private universities.4Looking at CNPq productivity grants (in 2022), women represented about 35% of the grant recipients. If we look at the different strata, the 2022 data showed that women were only 26% of 1A grant recipients and 11% of senior grant recipients.5].
Recent data may be somewhat more encouraging, but still inspire reflection. Currently, Brazil has 69 federal universities, and, according to the National Association of Directors of Federal Higher Education Institutions (Andifes), about 30 of them are now led by female rectors, representing approximately 43% of federal rectors. This number reflects growth compared to previous years: between 2018 and 2021, it was estimated that the country had around 12 to 15 female rectors, a number that began to grow more consistently from 2022 onwards, with new appointments and institutional changes. Despite this progress, female leadership still does not reflect the composition of the student body (and even faculty) of universities. Furthermore, we must consider the female presence in other high-level management positions, such as pro-rectorships. Gender inequality in university management remains a structural challenge in the higher education system.
Internationally, the problem appears even worse. Information from the European University Association indicates that only 18% of institutions on that continent are led by women.6It is also observed that there is a timid growth of female leadership in high-level university management positions. In the United States, the female presence in university presidency positions grew from 9,5% in 1986 to 33% in 2022.7However, the female faculty in the United States represented (in 2023) almost 45%8], still reflecting the inequality highlighted here.
In Brazil, the number of female rectors in federal universities may be encouraging, but it demands continuous attention. Addressing this imbalance will require more frequent and valued equity commissions and institutional debates. It is generally agreed that more diverse management teams (not only in terms of gender!) lead to more robust decision-making processes and demonstrate greater social sensitivity and better institutional performance, which is especially important in complex organizations like universities. If we ignore this dimension, we will waste talent and perpetuate inequalities that the university itself should be fighting.
The 21st-century university unequivocally needs to preserve its academic autonomy. Academic autonomy is a fundamental principle. And proper management (not necessarily outsourced) can be a positive complement to good education and science. Considering seeking support from management professionals, diversifying leadership, financially planning for the future, and consulting international experiences are actions that do not weaken the public university. On the contrary, they can be the condition for it to continue existing as a space of intellectual freedom, knowledge production, and social commitment, with fundamental support from society.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
References:
1. https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/iberoamericana/article/view/17085
2. https://www.uni-koeln.de/en/university/at-a-glance/governance
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aix-Marseille_University
4. https://www.gov.br/inep/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/noticias/institucional/mulheres-representam-59-das-matriculas-na-educacao- superior
5. https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/desequilibrio-no-sistema
6. https://www.eua.eu/news/eua-news/women-in-university-leadership-some- progress-but-more-to-do.html
7. https://www.pewresearch.org/chart/women-college-presidents
8. https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/fall-2025/data-snapshot-women-faculty- and-faculty-color-fall-2023
Cover photo:
