Contrasting Images of Private Universities

1.1 University Education as a Private Versus Public Good

The distinction between the optimistic and equitable images fundamentally concerns the state versus non-state responsibility for education. The optimistic image aligns with the belief that higher education yields private benefits to the individual; therefore, those who benefit should be responsible for the costs. Additionally, when subject to market dynamics, higher education yields improved quality, operational efficiency, and responsiveness to market needs. Moreover, it can achieve broader societal goals and benefits for graduates if adequately regulated (Altbach, De Wit, & Woldegiyorgis, 2021, p. 8).

On the contrary, the equitable image emphasises the benefits accruing to society by elevating citizens’ education. These include more competent labour, better health outcomes, and broader societal contributions. While assessing these benefits based on economic theories is challenging, they cause measurable positive outcomes for society and the economy (Locatelli, 2018; Marginson & Yang, 2023). Furthermore, private institutions are profit maximizers, sometimes at the expense of quality (Altbach et al., 2021, p. 10). Unqualified instructors and deteriorating quality (Yirdaw, 2016), high dropout rates (Talar & Gozaly, 2025), and lack of quality monitoring (Holzhacker, Chornoivan, Yazilitas, & Dayan-Ochir, 2009) are some of the symptoms of privatisation evidenced in research findings across different regions.

The debate on private universities reflects a broader disagreement about the stance of governments towards public services, such as healthcare, education, and social protection. At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: Should education be viewed as “a capital investment in a risky enterprise” (Friedman & Friedman, 1980, p. 184) or as a source of significant societal benefits, warranting government protection and funding through public resources as suggested by thinkers like Hume, Smith, and Durkheim (Englund & Bergh, 2020, p. 39). While it is hard to deny the advantages of education for both individuals and society, the contention lies in determining the balance of funding between state and non-state actors (Altbach et al., 2021). However, economic arguments alone cannot provide a unanimous resolution to this debate. The answer is inherently political and varies with “changing public opinion” and the influence “of interests and political groups” (Colm, 1936; Marginson & Yang, 2023).

1.2 Tracing the Two Images in the History of University Education

The demand for higher education has been high in Greece since the end of the 19th century. When fees were introduced in 1892, families in agriculture areas made sacrifices to educate their children at universities. Interest in university education remained high after World War II. For economically weak families, it was a way out of misery and a better social status for their children (Kyriazis & Asderaki, 2008). The number of students increased more than fourfold between 1960 and 1980. Education was by far considered the best way to increase income and improve social status in Greece, as in other European countries (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 296; Scacchi, Benozzo, Carbone, & Monaci, 2017).

However, the state did not generously grant the university’s openness to all without tuition fees. After 1960, the student movement in Greece advocated for equal access to university education. This included reduced tuition fees in the 1960s, free housing and food, additional examinations for students working concurrently with their studies, and the elimination of authoritarian administrative forms. Moreover, the students actively participated in the movement, calling for the democratisation of the country between 1950 and 1967 (Katsikas & Therianos, 2007; Kyriazis & Asderaki, 2008). Similar to other countries (Scacchi et al., 2017; Vortisch, 2024), Greece, in 1964, subscribed to tuition-free university education.

In dictatorial countries, as was Greece from 1967 to 1974, the students were usually the only body of citizens capable of collective political action (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 298). The rise of students in November 1973 is the most recognisable resistance against the military dictatorship. The students’ protests at the Law School of Athens in February 1973 and the occupation of the National Technical University of Athens in November 1973 remain symbols of the struggle for a tuition-free university in a democratic society. The students’ resistance against the junta increased the influence of their movement over Greek society and strengthened the proposal of exclusively public university education. They demanded that universities be funded by the state, and this was codified in Article 16 of the 1975 Constitution. Under the influence of the student movement, the entire political spectrum agreed that university education should be free and public. In 1975, the speaker of the conservative party at the Committee discussing Article 16 of the Constitution expressed what seemed to be the dominant popular opinion in those days: “Higher education should be state only, for the fear of business,” a view which was still dominant in 2003 (Psacharopoulos, 2003).

The influence of the students’ movement was the decisive reason for Greek society’s cautiousness about the involvement of private interests in higher education. In the years following the fall of the military dictatorship, the conservative party supported the ban on private universities. In 1975, no political force opposed the right to tuition-free university education. It was the positive answer to society’s demand for a safety net for all under the government’s care (Baca, 2021; Katsikas & Therianos, 2007; Kyriazis & Asderaki, 2008). However, public universities do not guarantee equity in education. Some students work alongside their studies or live on a tight budget, while others live comfortably. Yet, tuition-free studies, student halls of residence, reduced transport fare, free meals, and free textbooks protect the economically weaker. Society considered tuition-free universities a right, and the student movement was the guardian of this right. It is not by pure coincidence that the students’ struggle for free democratic university education coincided with the dominance of the Keynesian paradigm in economics. The public university dominated during the Cold War as a result of the student movement’s demands and welfare-state policies (Peters & Jandrić, 2018, p. 554).

Greece initiated neoliberal reforms in university education following 1990. These included the introduction of evaluation processes, centralised administration, restrictions on the duration of studies, allowing the establishment of private universities, privatisation of student services, and reduced funding as a measure that would force universities to seek private funding or introduce fees. After 1990, the trade union movement declined (Zisimopoulos, Karolidis, Androulakis, & Economakis, 2017) and the student movement had lost much of its impetus and influence on society. There was no convincing voice to criticise the modernisation policies or offer a viable political alternative. However, the academic community effectively opposed these reforms, and very few of them materialised (Souvlis & Gounari, 2019; Papadimitriou, 2011).

1.3 The Constitution Casts its Long Shadow Over the Two Images

Article 16 of the Greek Constitutional Law states that higher education is exclusively provided by “public law legal persons,” “under the supervision of the State,” “Professors of university level institutions shall be public functionaries” and “shall not be dismissed.” “The establishment of university level institutions by private persons is prohibited.” The defenders of the exclusively public university maintain that the meaning of Article 16 is self-evident and that no interpretation is necessary. The ban on private universities by constitutional law has sparked significant resentment among privatisation advocates, some of whom have criticised it assertively. In an article in the “Kathimerini” newspaper, a senior judge referred to Article 16 as “The shame of our democracy.” Several experts (Floridis, 2023; Hatzis, 2017; Lakasas & Palaiologos, 2018) and conservative politicians (ekathimerini, 2023; Protagon.gr, 2017) have publicly and systematically opposed Article 16. They argued that the Constitution is not a static text, and a modern interpretation must place Article 16 in conformity with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which concerns the free provision of services (Venizelos & Skouris, 2023). In response, other legal experts argued that enabling the operation of private universities would selectively deactivate the Constitutional Law. They highlighted that the constitutional revision procedure requires a qualified majority to guarantee political and social consensus, which cannot be bypassed (Bitsika, 2024; Kontiadis, 2024; Yannakopoulos, 2023). Additionally, the rejection of reforming Article 16 during previous constitutional revisions (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2019) suggests that the government chose to bypass the constitutional barrier only when the student movement had weakened and the opposition had become fragmented (Colm, 1936; Marginson & Yang, 2023; Papaioannou, 2024).

1.4 Traces of the Two Images in Academic Literature

The liberal-optimistic image included some of the assertions of past pro-privatisation academic publications. However, these claims were refined by criticisms of public universities to enhance optimism and minimise resentment. In 2003, Pscharopoulos argued that “Article 16 of the Greek Constitution is an economically inefficient and socially inequitable law,” emphasising the costs of providing free public university education. Using standard economic analysis, he argued that not allowing foreign universities to set up campuses in Greece led to quality degradation, graduate unemployment, massive student exodus abroad, brain drain, foreign exchange loss, resources misallocation, regressive social transfers, reduced human capital investment, and social unrest (Psacharopoulos, 2003). Other publications took into account the 2008 economic crisis and the decisions of Greek governments to meet the financial demands imposed by the Troika, viewing this as a critical opportunity to reform the “outdated and failing HE system in Greece” (Giousmpasoglou, Marinakou, & Paliktzoglou, 2016).

Similarly, one can also find evidence of the equitable-pragmatic image in earlier publications. Resistance to change in public universities has been associated with the academic community’s commitment to free public universities, state protection, broad access to higher education, and the autonomy of universities. These beliefs, deeply ingrained in Greek society (Psacharopoulos, 2003), are considered defining cultural traits (Kremmyda, 2013). The supposed modernisation of universities after 1990 (Parliamentary Act No 3374/2005) undermined the basic principles of the ‘democratic’ university of the 1980s, introducing reforms that promoted the neoliberal logic. To address student concerns and mitigate their reactions, the government increased the number of admissions to higher education. However, it did little to support the expanded public university system, with the financial demands primarily addressed through European Union funding (Gouvias, 2011).

The gradual cuts in European funding and the subsequent economic crisis magnified past pathologies, and the consequences of underfunding became more profound (Zmas, 2015). The 2011 reforms promised to overcome the pathologies and dysfunctionality of public universities, aligning education with the country’s growth priorities. However, they promoted a vague concept of quality without addressing universities’ systemic issues (Gounari & Grollios, 2012). The fragmented educational reforms and the lack of coherent strategy led to the development of a highly skilled workforce that the domestic economy could not absorb, forcing many graduates to migrate abroad (Giousmpasoglou et al., 2016).

However, widening access to public university education has only partially benefited lower-income students. The massification of Greek higher education reinforced internal stratification, resulting in university degrees with differential exchange value in the labour market (Giousmpasoglou et al., 2016; Psacharopoulos, 2003). Certain departments tend to attract middle-class students, while others are more accessible to working-class individuals. A study among first-year students at the University of Ioannina found that only 10% of medical school students originated from working-class families. In contrast, in the Department of Primary School Education, the respective percentage was 60% (Sianou‐Kyrgiou & Tsiplakides, 2011).

The establishment of private Colleges after 2000 was another source of tension in higher education. Private colleges offering undergraduate courses in franchise agreements with mainly British universities failed to convince society of their quality and were characterised by “extremely low performances” (Stamelos & Kavasakalis, 2015, p. 123). Their establishment was followed by intense pressure from global and regional trends, including the World Trade Organization and the European Union, to expand higher education “beyond the provisions of the constitution” (p. 107). The private colleges that provided university education services did not alleviate the burden of university education costs for Greek families. A 2018 study found that Greek families spent more than the state to prepare their children for the Panhellenic exams and support them during their studies. For Greek families, a university education is a necessity, not a luxury, and variations in family income hardly affect the money they spend on their children’s university preparation. Lower-income families spend a higher share of the family income for their children than families from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, suggesting that university education’s promise for upward mobility rarely holds for low-income labour families (Ioakimidis & Papakonstantinou, 2018).

The recent law allowing the establishment of private universities reflects the commitment of the political leadership to neoliberalism. The poor performance of private colleges that provide university education (Stamelos & Kavasakalis, 2015) raises concerns about the quality of studies in the forthcoming private universities. Moreover, establishing private universities will not widen the scope of choices for economically weaker families. Research has shown that working-class students approach higher education decisions with a sense of uncertainty and insecurity, shaped by their experiences, which differ significantly from those of middle-class students (Sianou‐Kyrgiou & Tsiplakides, 2011). Furthermore, the 2009 crisis and the concomitant structural measures imposed on Greek society have exacerbated existing inequalities. For example, the percentage of university students whose fathers worked on farms or in fisheries was low (5%) in 2000 and remained unchanged until 2013. Additionally, within the same period, the percentage of students whose fathers were manual workers decreased from 14% in 2000 to 5.0% in 2013 (Ioakimidis & Papakonstantinou, 2018).

The austerity measures imposed on Greek society following the 2009 crisis were a significant shock to the citizens and the education system. Many technological departments were merged to reduce operational costs. Salaries of public sector employees, including academic staff, were reduced by ∼30%, and funding for on-contract tutors was reduced (Koulouris, Moniarou-Papaconstantinou, & Kyriaki-Manessi, 2014). Years after the crisis, funding for public universities has not recovered. In 2020, the expenditure per full-time student in Greece was $4,300, nearly four times lower than the OECD average of $18.105 (OECD, 2023a, p. 281). When state funding for public universities decreases while the demand for university education is high, private involvement in higher education appears as a solution (Altbach et al., 2021). When university budgets are strained, academic publications turn to management models to search for “improvement of organisational performance and customer satisfaction,” and expansion of private universities is presented as inevitable to alleviate reduced public budgets (Nisa, 2024; Texeira-Quiros, Justino, Antunes, Mucharreira, & Nunes, 2022). However, high tuition fees raise concerns about equity in university education (Delaney & Doyle, 2011; Muganga, Oladipo, & Adarkwah, 2024; Singh & Tustin, 2022). Whether establishing private universities will lower the socioeconomic barriers to university education remains an open question.

The two images of university education juxtaposed during January and February 2024 were not equally effective or persuasive. Public opinion surveys indicate that the optimistic image prevailed in the general population, although it failed to convince younger individuals (Opinion Poll, 2024; Kathimerini, 2024). Since the optimistic image reflects the official rhetoric and the political leadership’s plans for the future of higher education, it is essential to examine its key points more closely.

2.1 Private Universities for Prosperity

Private university proponents insisted on the supposed benefits for the country’s economy (Kromydas, 2017; Liberal, 2023) resulting from (a) the savings on the foreign exchange drain caused by the 40,000 students whom private universities will absorb, (b) the repatriation of researchers and academics working abroad who will now find employment in private universities, reversing the brain drain (OECD, 2023a, p. 246), and (c) the country’s transformation into an educational hub for international students (Cannings, Halterbeck, & Conlon, 2023).

Student mobility unfolds on three levels: the individual, the host country, and the country of origin (OECD, 2023a, pp. 246–250). At the individual level, mobile students are skill hunters searching for access to high-quality education at prestigious institutions to acquire skills that are not readily available in their home country. For the host countries, international students are a source of income because they often pay higher tuition fees than domestic students and contribute to the local economy through living expenses. However, a mere comparison of numbers can be misleading. For example, in 2023, 24,000 students left Portugal to study abroad. For Greece, a country with a similar population, the respective number was allegedly near 40,000. The difference in the number of outbound students is easily explained if one considers that Portugal enrolled 155,000 first-year students in higher education institutions (Governo da República Portuguesa, 2023), while for Greece, the respective number was approximately half that of Portugal. Fewer admissions to public universities lead to increased outbound student mobility.

Moreover, it is questionable whether the forthcoming private universities will satisfy the study interests of students who choose to study abroad. For example, about 40% of Greek students studying in the UK pursue postgraduate studies (British Council, 2024). This percentage is further confirmed by UNESCO statistics (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2021) and HESA data, showing that during the academic year 2020–2021, of the 9,555 individuals who left Greece to study in the UK, 3,895 enrolled in postgraduate programs (HESA, 2023). For comparison, the corresponding percentage for Cypriot students was approximately 20%, indicating that most of them pursued undergraduate studies despite the presence of private universities in their country.

Moreover, about 2,500 Greek students attended top-ranking UK universities in 2018 (Rangewell, 2018). A similar situation applies to students studying in the US. Of the 2,407 Greeks who studied in the US in 2021–2022, 1,121 attended postgraduate programs, 525 attended non-degree programs, and 761 attended undergraduate programs (International Trade Administration, 2023). These examples demonstrate that a significant proportion of Greek international students are interested in pursuing high-quality postgraduate studies, and it is improbable that the forthcoming private universities would influence their decision to study abroad. The interest of Greek students in pursuing postgraduate studies abroad aligns with global trends, recording that international students account for only 5% of total enrolment in bachelor’s, 14% of master’s, and 24% of doctoral programmes (OECD, 2023a, p. 252). Similar perplexities arise with the 4,000 Greek students who decided to attend German universities in 2021, increasing to 7,000 in 2023 (Lakasas, 2024), due to Brexit and the strength of Germany’s economy. It appears that the 40,000 outflowing Greek students who would opt to study at the forthcoming private universities is an exaggeration.

Similar concerns arise regarding the anticipated return of Greek scientists who pursue careers at universities and research centres abroad. Appelt et al., using data before the 2009 crisis, found that economic factors and research considerations play a significant role in the circulation of scientists. Key elements influencing migration patterns include expenditures on research and development, median gross annual earnings, financial well-being, and demographic changes (Appelt, Beuzekom, van, Galindo-Rued, & de Pinho, 2015). Given the devasting effects of long-term austerity in Greece, it is unlikely that a single factor, such as the establishment of private universities, would be sufficient to reverse academic migration.

University education as a source of national income aligns with OECD publications (OECD, 2023a) although it omits to consider the host country’s level of development, bargaining power in global markets, language, educational tradition, and citizens’ living standards, which are considered a-posteriori modification variables (Appelt et al., 2015). If the educational hub proposal is more than simple rhetoric, it will require institutional adaptations concerning property rights, employment relations, and legal and tax regulations. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the existing institutions will demonstrate the necessary resilience or bend to achieve the educational hub goal. Choices always entail costs, and their outcomes depend on the character of the state institutions (Karl, 2020, pp. 239–243).

Greek society was consistently exposed to the pejorative positive effects of private universities on the country’s economy long before Christmas 2023. “Should we do it like Cyprus?” wondered the Rector of the University of Patras in an interview with Kathimerini newspaper, published in November 2022. However, Greece and Cyprus have walked along different paths in terms of university education. The first public university in Cyprus admitted undergraduate students in 1992 and postgraduate students in 1997. Until then, higher education was offered by private colleges and a state-run technological institute (Kapetaniou & Lee, 2017). Moreover, the operation of private universities did not prevent 27,000 young Cypriots from studying abroad in 2021, with 15,000 of them studying in Greece, 8,500 in the UK, and approximately 900 in Germany. Only 12,000 international students arrived on the island, with 4,200 originating from Greece. Student mobility is more complex than the simple arithmetic of supply and demand would suggest.

Private universities, as businesses not for profit but for the betterment of the country’s economy, competed with education as a common good and the right to tuition-free university. In conventional thinking, university education is an industry funded by public and private money. The students invest in a sequence of educational instances to increase the probability of a better life (Firdousi, Yong, Amir, & Waqar, 2024). This perspective values individualism and considers that in a world of unlimited possibilities, priority must be given to the meritorious who aim to reach the top (Sandel, 2020). For proponents of tuition-free public universities, education is a public resource funded with public money, thereby contributing to a more educated society. This perspective prioritises the public good (Marginson & Yang, 2023) and considers that in a world of limited resources, priority should be given to the protection of the minimum that secures social cohesion, providing opportunities for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Because of its positive impact on society, university education must be accessible to all, regardless of economic background (Palmisano, Biagi, & Peragine, 2022).

2.2 Private Universities as a Catalyst to Public University Quality

The privatisation image suggested that public universities were ineffective in fostering cooperation with international partners while establishing private universities would enhance openness and global collaboration. Yale University was particularly noted for its intention to partner with a public institution and establish a branch in Greece (Liberal, 2023). However, years before, in December 2019, the Greek Ministry of Education and the U.S. Institute of International Education agreed to promote bilateral cooperation programs among higher education institutions. The Pharos Summit 2022 brought together representatives from several U.S. and Greek universities, including Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Brown, Stockton, and Johns Hopkins, to establish over a hundred agreements for increased academic exchanges and partnerships. Columbia University would launch an International Education Centre in Athens. Yale University would accept postgraduate students with no fees in an exchange program with the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA Hub, 2022). Additionally, postgraduate and doctoral students could take semester or year-long courses at Yale’s schools, which will count toward their degree (International Trade Administration, 2023). These collaborations demonstrate that the constitutional framework prohibiting the operation of private universities has never hindered the internationalisation of Greek public universities, which have proven successful in this aspect.

The constitutional prohibition of private universities and the civil servant status of the professors have been identified as the root cause of the research output of public universities falling below the EU average in 2003 (Psacharopoulos, 2003). After 2010, despite low funding, Greek universities increased their research output, exhibiting exemplary utilisation of resources (Pastor & Serrano, 2016). In 2023, the scientific output of Greek public universities had multiplied by a factor of 4,5 compared to 2003 (European Commission, 2024), and the number of academic publications per million population exceeded the European average. During this period, university professors maintained the status of civil servants, university education remained exclusively public, and the level of funding of the public universities did not change substantially, remaining one of the lowest among OECD countries (OECD, 2023a, p. 296).

Contemporary discourse assumes integration into the market endows the university with the qualities characterising all market activities, i.e. high performance for more innovative, higher-quality products or services at reduced prices (Heaney & Mackenzie, 2017). However, private education institutions often use reputation management to improve their competitive position. Scholarships are used to attract talented undergraduates and improve the university’s position in national and international rankings instead of supporting minority or economically disadvantaged students. Tuition fees are strategically increased as a marketing tactic based on the belief that a higher price tag signals higher quality (Civera, Cattaneo, Meoli, Paleari, & Seeber, 2021; Schrecker, 2010). Fitness centres and gourmet dining facilities are introduced to improve students’ lives outside the classroom. Academic teachers are subject to pressures “to mark students’ work generously” to retain the fee-paying students and ensure a high throughput (Ratcliffe & Shaw, 2015). Private universities and public fee-based institutions have numerous options to enhance their reputation and attract students, in addition to improving quality. Quality education is not a necessary consequence of competition (Civera et al., 2021). Several studies have shown that private university students express serious concerns regarding the quality of their institutions in pursuing quality education (Jingura, McKay, & Simpson, 2022; Muganga et al., 2024; Singh & Tustin, 2022; Yirdaw, 2016).

Universities often adopt cost-cutting policies to adjust their operations in response to reduced funding or to enhance operational efficiency. Adjunct, temporary, contingent faculty, and other exploitation-based employment relationships are typical ways of reducing operating costs to improve efficiency (Hill & Klocksiem, 2022). However, organisations interested in innovation and quality should avoid precarious employment because it does not facilitate employee engagement and motivation (Kaushik & Mukherjee, 2022) and hinders smooth team functioning and long-term performance (Michie & Sheehan, 2005; Wang & Heyes, 2020). Precarious employment is not suitable for highly specialised employees such as university lecturers and is more suitable for firms pursuing a low-cost strategy (Kaushik & Mukherjee, 2022; Michie & Sheehan, 2005). However, it is widely adopted in university education due to the increasing number of PhD holders and the low effectiveness of unions.

2.3 Private But Not for Profit

Despite the objections of local neoliberal advocators (Andrianopoulos, 2024), the government insisted that the new universities would be non-profit. The characterisation of the new universities as non-profit made the privatisation image friendly, although it sometimes caused confusion among the general public. However, non-profit education can coexist with the pursuit of profit (Burris & Cimarusti, 2021; Greene, 2021). The Pinochet regime, for example, portrayed the private universities established after 1980 as no moneymaking enterprises. The private universities in Chile and the non-profit charter schools in the US (Greene, 2021) are two examples of non-profit institutions allocating funds to investors through large payments for space, equipment, or services or offering well-compensated administrative positions and consulting jobs. Moreover, assigning the same name to two different types of universities confuses the students, who cannot tell which university is for-profit and which is not because they are all supposed to be non-profit (Gonzales & Pedraja, 2015).

Establishing private universities (PU) in Greece marks a significant change in higher education. Despite the government’s assurances that these new universities will adhere to the most stringent academic regulations in Europe, research indicates that 21st-century privatisations pose a severe threat to quality education (Holzhacker et al., 2009; Jingura et al., 2022; Nisa, 2024; Muganga et al., 2024; Singh & Tustin, 2022; Talar & Gozaly, 2025).

In the public discourse, the genuine concerns about the new institutions were embodied in a purported conflict between the government and the opposition. The media portrayed the students’ opposition to private universities as a part of the conflict between the modernist government and the opposition’s political agenda. They integrated students’ protests with the narrative of the opposition parties, creating the impression that the disagreement over private universities was a struggle between political parties rather than a conflict concerning the purpose and objectives of university education. This study shifts the focus away from political leadership, emphasising the views of individual students. Among the study participants, some were actively involved in the protests; others supported their colleagues’ activism from a distance, and a third group favoured the establishment of private universities. However, all students held personal views on private universities, independent of any political agendas.

This study aims to record the attitudes of a class of academically engaged engineering students on the establishment of private universities, addressing the following research questions:

• What are the students’ attitudes towards the establishment of private universities?

• What do the students think about the quality of education in private universities?

• Do they believe that establishing private universities will have a positive impact on the country’s economy?

• How do students compare public and private universities?

4.1 Qualitative Results

This section presents the comments submitted to the following Statements.

Statement 1: “The economy will benefit because many of the 40,000 young people who opt to attend universities in foreign countries will now stay in Greece.”

Nearly 40% of the comments received adopted a political perspective. Approximately 50% of the comments discussed the statement’s logical fallacy (false cause), while 10% submitted one-word comments. Of the students who submitted political comments (15), seven were in favour, and eight were against. Only a small percentage of respondents considered the relationship between establishing private universities and benefiting the country’s economy to be unproblematic. In eight comments disagreeing with the statement, a general distrust of political choices was evident, extending beyond the establishment of private universities. The students considered that the policies pursued do not benefit “the citizens” or “the people” but “capital,” “the owners,” “the rich,” and “the government.” Five students focused on the economic situation of students rather than the advantages of the country’s economy. Meanwhile, twenty students who analysed the logical structure of the statement identified seven reasons why young people would continue studying abroad after the establishment of private universities. Their remarks closely resemble texts from the OECD on the same topic (OECD, 2023a, pp. 146–150).

Statement 2: “The public university is the priority for the government”

Forty-two students commented on this statement. Five students agreed or replied with a normative statement. “I totally agree…,” “It should be like that.” Thirty-five students criticised this statement, considering that the government’s priority is not the public university. Two students examined this statement, noting the government’s increased interest in securing the professional rights of private university graduates, in contrast to its limited interest in granting professional rights to some public university graduates. The comments made by students who maintained a neutral position in the quantitative research regarding the establishment of private universities were diverse. One student agreed with the statement (“I strongly agree”) while others made…

[…] normative comments:

“Yes, it should be,” “The government’s priority should be public universities…,”

[…] doubtful comments:

“I’m not sure,”

[…] or comments expressing disagreement

“The government’s priority is to generate profits with the least complaints from its citizens.”

Their comments indicate that students who chose the middle position on establishing private universities are not halfway supportive of private universities; they simply have not made up their minds. In 12 comments, wording included “the rich,” “the profits,” “big business,” “doing favours to the rich,” “the system,” etc.

Statement 3: “Do you know whether the best universities in Europe are private or public?”

Forty-two persons replied to this question. Twelve students (29%) replied that the best universities in Europe are public. Ten participants (24%) answered that the best universities are private, while 29% said they do not know.

Statement 4: “Graduates of private universities will have the same academic and professional rights as those of public ones.”

Only eight students agreed with the statement. They considered that if certain conditions are fulfilled (the university’s curriculum, graduates’ knowledge, the prestige of the institution awarding the degree, the process of obtaining the degree, and the quality of teaching and faculty), private university graduates must be granted professional rights. Thirteen students considered it unfair to public university graduates to have equal professional rights. They referred to the difficulty of the Panhellenic examinations and the high demands for obtaining a degree from a public university, which they felt that students of private universities would not face. Seven students replied that regardless of granting professional rights, children from wealthier families will have more career opportunities.

Statement 5: “Do you believe famous universities will establish a branch in Greece?”

Twenty-two participants disagreed, eleven agreed, and seven expressed neither agreement nor disagreement. Not all the students who agreed with establishing private universities agreed with Statement 5. The country’s weak economy was the most common reason cited by those who disagreed with Statement 5. Other explanations suggest that famous universities would not risk their good name by establishing operations of doubtful profitability or academic outcome.

Statement 6: “The government will impose strict criteria on the operation of private universities.”

Eight students agreed with the statement, and 21 disagreed. Those who agreed explained their agreement on various grounds. One student interpreted the strict operating criteria as adding more difficulty to the studies, something s/he considered fair. Another commenter felt that the strict criteria aim to exercise control over private universities. Two students saw the imposition of operating criteria as a means of rationalising the operations of private universities to attract more students and increase profits, while another commenter welcomed the strict operating criteria “to avoid the chaos prevailing in public universities.” Comments disagreeing with the statement expressed distrust of government promises. Three students made cynical comments, such as “I don’t care” or “nice joke,” while six responses did not take a clear position. Table 1 displays the themes, clusters of codes, and the number of quotes categorised under each code.

The first Theme, “Perceptions of the Socio-Political Context,” scrutinises students’ critical view towards the broader socio-political and economic context. It outlines the background beliefs that shape students’ attitudes towards establishing private universities in Greece.

The students perceived that the government “serves the interests of big business” and shows a strong “desire and interest in establishing private universities for speculation.” Some comments suggested that the government “keeps bowing to private interests” and “serves its circle, who will benefit from this business move.” Others noted that because of its commitment to “implementing neoliberal policies,” the government “stubbornly tries to privatise education” and healthcare: “The government’s priority is to privatise health care, education, and society,” “bypassing any constitutional process” and ignoring the “citizens’“ needs. This results in “no interest in improving public universities” and “a proper education of the young.” Students also mentioned “no regard for the public university,” as evidenced by their “continued underfunding.”

The second aspect of their concerns critiques the perceived neglect of public universities which are suffering “from various facilities and staff shortages.” They pointed out “the continued underfunding” and the lack of “efforts to modernise infrastructure and improve conditions.” Students emphasised the need for reforms in public universities to provide better resources, facilities, and educational quality. Criticisms of the government varied from lacking “emphasis on the proper functioning of public universities” to a general lack of “interest in improving public universities.”

The third aspect connected university education to broader socioeconomic inequalities, arguing that “education should be accessible to all people, not just those having money.” They highlighted the burden of high tuition fees forcing private university students “to either work to attend or take out loans to make ends meet.” Two students noted the disparity in recognising the professional rights of potential graduates of private universities and the lack of interest in granting professional rights to some graduates of public universities. The students criticised “the system” of offering wealthy people significant advantages while those from less privileged backgrounds face considerable barriers in life and employment.

The second Theme, “Perceived Outcomes of Establishing Private Universities,” captures students’ perceptions of the potential consequences of establishing private universities. The quantitative evaluation of student comments revealed that only 23% of the participants believed that establishing private universities would significantly benefit the Greek economy, 56% disagreed, and the rest expressed scepticism or conditional agreement. Fourteen comments contested that private universities would deliver tangible benefits to the economy or society, explaining that the “economy will not benefit to a large extent” because “many students will still prefer to study abroad.” They expressed concerns that private universities “will only benefit their owners” and “capital and the government.” Regarding the economic effects on students and the general public, they considered that private universities would cause an “extra financial burden” on their students, and “certainly, the people will not be helped as the taxation will not change.” One student noticed that outbound student mobility would decrease only when “the state modernises public higher education institutions.” However, a small number of students expressed enthusiasm for the benefits accruing to the country’s economy, as “the money for their daily needs will go to the local businesses around them.” Another student extended the optimistic outlook, mentioning, “Many young people will choose to stay in Greece and will attract young people from other countries.”

The participants anticipated disruptions to university education if private universities were established. Granting professional rights to graduates is of particular concern to research participants who study at one of the departments whose graduates do not have recognised professional rights. The comments reveal that the participants disagree with the automatic recognition of professional rights for graduates of private universities.

They referred to the notoriously demanding Panhellenic examination applied to public university candidates, in contrast to the private ones, where they expect admission criteria to be more relaxed. They perceived the different treatment of the two categories of university candidates as “unfair”: “It is very unfair when you consider what each person went through.” Another aspect raised by the participants was the learning experience, the effort required to obtain a degree, and the quality of studies, noting that granting the same professional rights does not imply that “the quality will be the same.” Furthermore, they opposed granting equal professional rights to private university graduates, questioning “the quality of education they will offer and whether students will graduate with merit.” The participants mentioned the absence of transparency in obtaining a degree from a private university, as no one can say “how someone managed to get a degree.” As another student noted, “many times in private universities, you don’t earn your degree; you buy it.”

However, some participants argued that “as long as private universities follow the same curricula as public universities” or the “graduates possess the same knowledge,” they should have the same professional rights as their public university counterparts. Concerns centred on exacerbating existing inequalities and unfair treatment of the less wealthy because “those who have the financial ability” will “just pay and get their degree with much more ease.”

Regarding the alleged establishment of top-ranking university branches in Greece, only 10 participants considered this possibility viable, while the majority of the comments indicated that participants did not expect it to happen. Concerns were primarily attributed to “the poor economy,” the “huge financial debt,” the poor “infrastructure of Greece,” or the “low economic potential of young people.” Besides these economic challenges, participants noted that “corruption and lack of meritocracy” would deter famous universities from establishing operations in Greece as “they would risk their name and reputation” for “no substantial profit.” Two students emphasised the difficulty of maintaining quality when expanding internationally, stating that “the name and prestige they have built up will not necessarily carry over to their Greek branches.” On more optimistic accounts, some students expressed positive expectations based on “Discussions … with Columbia University, Yale, the University of Nicosia, the European University of Cyprus and many others.”

Imposing strict criteria on the operations of the forthcoming private universities was another point on which most comments expressed scepticism. Fifty-seven percent of the comments considered this possibility unlikely, with 7% replying with sarcastic comments. These perspectives reflect a deep scepticism about the potential outcomes of private universities, emphasising the need for quality and equity ensured by public higher education.

4.2 Quantitative Results and Discussion

5.1 Private Universities and Austerity Measures

To understand the students’ negative predisposition towards private universities, one must consider the suffering of Greek society following 15 years of austerity measures imposed by European institutions, the IMF, and the Greek governments (Sakellaropoulos, 2019; Vlachou, 2021). They replaced the social welfare system with a minimal safety net, allocating limited financial resources to citizens in extreme need, provided that the primary budget surplus targets were met. Between 2009 and 2017, the median disposable income of the general population and those living at risk of poverty fell, in real terms, by 39.8% and 45.2%, respectively, while the state’s role declined to that of a mere assistant to the extremely poor (Missos, 2021). Increasing the financial burden on families through private university education creates more uncertainty and anxiety in an already overburdened society. Unsurprisingly, the students emphasised the protection of low-income students (Item 4; Table 2) and highlighted the danger of young people losing access to university education due to the fees (Items 1, 5; Table 2). Due to the negative experiences of past privatisations, the participants received optimistic predictions about establishing private universities with scepticism (Items 1, 2, 5, and 6; Table 2).

Furthermore, the austerity measures intensified the fund-cutting policies in public universities (Delaney & Doyle, 2011; Koulouris et al., 2014) and created an opportunity for the establishment of private universities (Giousmpasoglou et al., 2016).

5.2 Private Universities and National Culture

Establishing private universities has different meanings in collectivist and individualistic societies. For the participants in this study, it meant placing economically disadvantaged individuals at risk of exclusion from higher education (Item 6; Table 2 and Items 4 and 5; Table 5). Greece is a society that leans more towards collectivism than individualism, scoring high in terms of uncertainty avoidance and power distance. In collectivist cultures, education motivated by private calculations is considered to reflect moral degeneration because it serves individualistic and selfish ends (Yang, 2023, p. 217). Collectivist societies are more focused on the common good, resulting from education, such as an educated and engaged citizenry that sustains democracy (Broom, 2011; Dennison, 2003; Yang, 2023). Broad access to education is considered to benefit society (Item 5, Table 2).

Cultural values can explain the participants’ opposition to private universities. Studies from different fields have found that adopting interpretations and policies developed in countries with different cultural values is often accompanied by stress (Charoensukmongkol & Puyod, 2024; Joiner, 2001). The answers show that the students adhere to the collectivist values of solidarity, protection, and support for the weaker members of society (e.g. Items 1, 2, 3, and 4; Table 2).

Societies have developed their cultures while coping with external adaptation and internal integration. Uncertainty avoidance triggers people’s cautiousness about changes that jeopardise their existing rights. People’s experiences tend to enhance or weaken the existing values. The austerity measures imposed in Greece and the overlapping high-inflation crisis after 2020 (Missos, Blunt, Domenikos, & Pontis, 2024) reinforce the existing cultural values and make private universities appear as yet another source of uncertainty (Item 1, Table 2). High power distance implies the acceptance of the benefits and primary role of those in powerful positions, assuming also that their decisions sustain harmony and protect the powerless (Item 3, Table 2).

5.3 Private Universities and the Perceived Role of the State

The students’ belief that the government should curb privatisations and protect the citizens aligns with publications, suggesting that citizens expect the state to protect society and secure essential human needs (Ocampo & Stiglitz, 2018). Before 1990, governments responded to the pressure of social movements and trade unions, prioritising the protection of basic human needs such as health, employment, and education. The political establishment and some citizens undervalued the role of political activism in safeguarding peoples’ rights and promoted political manoeuvres as the authentic interest of a benevolent state (Baca, 2021). Greek society became accustomed to the idea that the state’s role is to protect the citizens. People become disappointed when faced with policies that undermine the protective role of the state and render social rights purchasable services. The research findings show that the participants still support maintaining welfare policies (Schram, 2018, p. 311).

Despite the respondents’ desire for a protective state, the state is about creating order and maintaining the status quo. Class domination is fragile and unstable, and ongoing adaptations are necessary to establish power, overcome resistance, and legitimise or conceal power relations (Jessop, 2016, p. 98). Although, in past periods, the states protected employment, consumption, public health and education, these are not inherent characteristics of the states. In the 1930s, fears that high unemployment would drive people toward the national socialism of Germany or communism made Keynes’s proposal the favourite solution to maintain power relations (Wolff & Resnick, 2012, p. 17). The post-war welfare state was, among other reasons, a response to changes in Europe’s political map, the Cold War, and union pressures demanding political rights and employment safety. In the twenty-first century, the states are no longer the protectors of the public interest but the promoters of the expansion of the private sphere of the economy (Marginson & Yang, 2023). Contrary to participants’ expectations, the state is directly involved in expanding the privatisation of education (Item 3, Table 2). Privatisation and marketisation have become possible thanks to the direct intervention of governments, which promotes pro-market regulation and the protection of competition (Locatelli, 2018).

During the 20th century, the state’s protectionism was the result of strong labour and student movements. In his research, Alexander Hicks found that “political organisations and organisational politics of employees are the most persistently powerful forces operating to advance income security policy” (Hicks, 1999, p. x). Marginson and Yang note that “collective goals are achieved only through strenuous political effort” (Marginson & Yang, 2023). The welfare state was not a kind-hearted choice of the political elites but rather an adaptation to the Cold War and social unrest (Stetter, 2018, p. 191). During a period of high unionism, the states adopted a pluralistic perspective, taking opposing voices seriously and adapting accordingly to neutralise opposition, maintain order, and secure the reproduction of society (Weiss, 2021).

Opposite to what is sometimes believed, Keynesianism had little relation to alleviating the masses from poverty. It aimed to save civilisation, while the masses’ welfare was a means to an end (Mann, 2017, p. 191). Economic activities orchestrated by the governments were adopted to keep unemployment under control and maintain productive capacity (Wolff & Resnick, 2012, p. 334). The public tuition-free university that dominated after the sixties produced the specialised technocrats necessary to fuel consumption and reproduce society (Weiss, 2021) while offering some avenues for advancement to the offspring of less wealthy families (Wolff & Resnick, 2012, p. 313). The state unfolded welfare provisions hand in hand with the criminalisation of dissent (Baca, 2021) to weaken the labour unions (Schram, 2018, p. 312) maintain stability and prepare the ground for liberalism after the eighties.

Contrary to the participants’ expectations, the governments have abandoned welfare policies, including the expansion of public higher education, mainly for three reasons. The first is the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few entities, which has led to a significant decline in consumer purchasing power. The most promising investments are those related to essential citizen needs, such as electricity, water supply, health, and education. The second is the ideological dominance of neoliberalism on policymaking (Locatelli, 2018, p. 5; Shattock, Horvath, & Enders, 2023, p. 161), and the third is the weakening of the unions (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023).

Some contemporary economists claim the need for a strong welfare state to address the significant inequalities prevalent during the last decades. They maintain that the welfare state needs to be reinforced in developed countries and wherever it has been weakened due to ideological and political shifts or austerity policies implemented over the past decade, e.g. Greece (Ocampo & Stiglitz, 2018). Although such a possibility would please the participants of this study and presumably the people in other countries, it seems unlikely as long as the liberal fantasies dominate (Kraus, 2023) in the absence of a viable alternative political proposal.