Provision as a crosscutting dimension of the objectives of university education

By and large, the professors interviewed expressed a prospective conception of what can be expected from a subject. The subjects taught have, as a common objective, to contribute in giving a professional output to the students, to obtain an employment more easily, to develop a profession or even to establish their own business.

In this regard, there would be a striking consistency between the institutional goals, collected in the statutes of the university itself, and the more concrete discursive levels. This is not dogma or an institutional set point applied mechanically by the teaching staff but, it seems like evidence that meets the needs that the people, in this case the students, express and claim.

Hence, what gives meaning to the knowledge acquired is its adaptation to the labor market. And it is this principle that permits relating such knowledge with people. It responds to a principle that homogenizes the particularities: the market demands. This way of conceiving the purposes is the most transverse if we look at the sex, qualifications, types of qualifications (degree or diploma) and the group of people interviewed. On the other hand, having knowledge as an objective, or that knowledge responds to particular needs each student has in particular are sectorial objectives (we will later deal with it).

Q: Do you think it will be useful to your students?

R: The subject?

P: Yes.

R: Yes, it is essential. It is very useful.

Q: Why?

R: Well, first, the topic of networks, nowadays they have to know what is happening behind the machine. They connect to the Internet, the type of problems they can have when connected. People no longer have only one computer at home. You probably have your computer, your husband's, your son's, you already have a small network, you have to know everything going on, and in addition, during the practices we seek to introduce them in a last-generation language that they will probably use in the private sector. I am, I am super convinced that it is a subject that will help a lot.

Q: Why giving them a perspective?

R: Yes, because first you explain what is happening behind that machine connected to a cable, and that they have to know and understand when there are problems why these problems are happening.

Q: Mm.

R: Apart from that, that is the most theoretical part of the subject, in the practical part we make practices related to networks, but using programming languages that for sure, for sure, they will use in private companies, and they have not been taught before. We already know what has been done in other subjects, we look at what they do in other subjects not to...

P: [Cut] overlap, repeat.

R: Exactly. And they didn't know these languages and we decided to suit them to our practices for the students to study them, because they will arrive to the private sector. Right, perhaps they get distracted and they have not learned and they haven't assimilated everything, but they have learned many things, of course. It helps them to go much faster, and they are adapting to what they find in the private sector. Because in the end, what they have to know is where to look for the information, acquire the basic concepts that will help them to think and understand everything behind the subject.

(Reg. 495-506. Interview 19p: Professor in the last course of Technical Engineering in Computer Systems).

The interviewee links the content of the subject with the utility it has in the professional activity, especially its adequacy in the private company (which she appoints recursively). There is a latent principle to value things, it is to consider if a subject is essential or not depending on whether it is useful. But a utility defined in heteronomous terms, this to say, defined by appealing to external principles, outside the academic internal dynamics: market rules. It is from this objective that content and skills are organized in an efficient way to avoid overlaps or gaps in the set of subjects of the career.

However, it is worth considering if a priority attention to the adequacy of purposes of the subjects to the market implies locating on an exclusively prospective level. If we look only to the relationship between the purposes of the subjects and the needs that people expressly need to meet, it would seem that: the student appears as a future employee in a private company. But if we took off from this level, we can identify an effect that links this conception of the purposes with a closer concept to care.

In spite of the fact that the purposes are associated to the labor market, thereby some things are explained and others are not, some competencies are developed but not others, there is a paradoxical implication: setting the objective in preparing students for the labor market implies helping them develop the principle of reality and its autonomy, aspects closely linked with care practices. This would be an effect that in most of the speeches is not made explicit as a desired purpose.

Let us use the pun, there would be care through provision. It would seem, through their speeches, that professors propose a generic order, close to care, which is to respond to what students will lack, but its realization, paradoxically, is done by formulating attentive goals to principles of equivalence, in response to the market and not the single voices of each student.

As we have pointed out, the professional output is, at the same time, the common denominator with the conceptions that students express. In some way, each subject is evaluated by students in function of the degree to which it is appropriate to such principle. At this point, professors offer provision and it is what students expect, but a provision adjusted to principles of equivalence. The relations that are established in the course start from a generic guidance, a background, which is the achievement of the goal, but an objective subjected to the principle of professional requirements of the market, supported by the degree, which will offer greater opportunities and better conditions for work.

Q: What do you expect from university?

R: To be more prepared for the labor world than I am now, to acquire knowledge. And also, in part, to have a degree, because surely with the degree I will get paid much more than what I get now. That is what I believe.

(Reg. 11540-11541. Interview 17a: first course student of Technical Engineering in Computer Systems).

We do not know whether this is indeed the case, nor can we discard that what the interviewees express can be a way to legitimize the knowledge that is taught or learned (in the end, being able to evaluate up to what extent certain knowledge in particular is useful or not to work is something quite difficult to clarify and on which there is not enough empirical evidence). nevertheless, what matters here is to make it clear that what is expressed is a relationship subject to an instrumental rationality (it is a rationality that has increasingly colonized the world of education, as already pointed ^{Curráis Porrúa and Pérez-Froiz, 1995}; ^{Schön, 1992}; ^{Contreras, 1990}; ^{Giroux, 1990}).

The instrumental rationality the interviewees express is to assign the subjects in particular and the careers in general certain purposes, professional opportunities, as evident goals, as something that must be achieved just because. That is to say, virtually no person interviewed mentions why such goal must be pursued, why it is so important, why, in short, it is desirable (^{Horkheimer, 2002}).

It is an obvious reality, stereotyped. In this sense the goals pursued are not subject to criticism, that is why the most common, widest, and most widespread goal among the interviewed people, irrespective of sex, certification and collective, is to contribute to provide professional opportunities, it is also the least reflective among those interviewed.

Within this instrumental relation, the teaching staff is forced to become a source of knowledge useful for the labor market and the students, receptors who demand it. This does not mean there is not an inkling of uncertainty around that objective, but when perceived as the previous paradox in terms of efficiency, is the goal achieved?

While studying their last course, students express a certain degree of uncertainty about what is to come after graduation. On the professors' side, even though they underscore how important it is to deliver useful knowledge, they know they are suspects of not doing so. Perhaps such a controversy that holds sway and disseminates the educational activity is better understood when no expectations are expressed around it, including professional opportunities.

A: What do I expect from my university...? Nothing, I expect nothing. Do you mean from the school?

A: Yes.

Q: No. I expect nothing.

Q: Can you be more specific?

A: No, I expect nothing from my school. I don't think any... Nobody will hold the door for you...OK, I get my degree, they give it to me, but the university doesn't really...no, I expect nothing.

(Rec. 15977-15981. 3rd. interview, senior female student of the B.A. in Teaching, specialized in Pedagogy

And if someone does not expect anything from their university education, then what is there for them? It is important if a senior student makes this claim. Perhaps they are talking about a mourning process, the end of an era and the beginning of another, full of uncertainties that seem difficult to control. Maybe they point out at a change in position for them as a subject: from doors being opened for them to opening them for themselves, and along facing such dilemma, the abyss of nothingness.

From provision to care in the objectives of university education

Professional opportunities - the common denominator we have pointed out between professors and students -, gender does not clearly show to have an influence on qualifications or the group of people who talk about the topic. Things are different if we look at other stated objectives. The ones of the training activities focused on things and the people-centered ones are differentiated by sex, qualifications and the collective. The female professors involved in the degrees in Teaching, Pedagogy and Workplace Relations do not express any purpose focused on things and their goal; they would rather indicate people-centered objectives (besides those related to the professional opportunities, afore mentioned).

Q: Do you think this subject will be useful for your students?

A: I think it will be useful. My students sometimes do not know why it will be. I try, as I said before, to work different items. When my students arrive on the first day, I ask them what their expectations are and they tell me things related to their personal growth, to free speech, to scopes within the curriculum, etc. They face a subject (-) what I'm trying with them is that visual culture, its images and the disciplines belonging to art history, cultural studies, art education, and so on, enable them to work critically with images and understand visual environments, making childhood their key topic, right? I think this will be very useful for them as children's teachers; to be able to think about what type of images are good when working with children, because, you know, children's classrooms are very, very visual spaces, right? I also, intend to make them understand the area of Arts as a historically built section. I mean, I do not want them to teach the things they were taught. [My female students] are grown-ups, so I may have people who went to a nursery school twenty-five years ago, and they are willing to teach arts the way were taught back then, without understanding why, these types of practices belong to Franco's time curricula in arts before 1970's law, right? So, I devote the first part of the course, development of teacher's reasoning, to critically think about everything from a more cultural point of view, and from a more contemporary perspective of our teaching environment. It's hard for them to identify how good it is for them to do so, because I do not explain them things to be directly applicable in the classroom, I do not give them a recipe. It requires hard work. Then there is a lot of work to understand why it is important to develop critical thinking professors, why they have to prepare themselves too, and not only things about children. We also have to talk about them, right? I am talking about the girls because it is mostly a class of girls. That's why I say I have a very clear view of how it is good for them. Now, you are going to talk to them, and one of the evaluation methods is a personal interview, from which I have identified this doubt "Everything has been very interesting, but how is it going to help us as professors? Right? (-) They go through it, huh? In the end, the course continues, but obviously, we move back and forth on this dilemma. "

(Rec. 3874-3877 Interview 1p, First-year teacher of the B.A. in Teaching, specialized in Early Childhood Education).

Beyond the references to the professional utility of the aforementioned subject in this fragment, we can identify some hot spots when she points out she wants to train her students as such and not only to teach them things about the purpose of the subject, which are girls and boys. It looks like the aim of the course is to include students as part of the content.

It is not just to know about certain issues on art education, but also to develop a discourse that affects them. We do not know up to what extent singularization affects the contents, but we can say that becoming singular in every student is a part of the contents. This willing to singularize is manifested in the fact that the professor we refer to performs oral exams.

Perhaps we could say that care appears in the program, within the will to impact student's mind. Perhaps it is expressed as a goal, to influence the moral foundation of the female students, and this aspect is not expressed in male students obtaining a degree. Likewise, this goal seems to generate some kind of tension or conflict with the students, which makes it mandatory to be explained and discussed, showing that what is defined as a need by the professors does not necessarily coincide with students' demands.

From the type of relationship that is targeted, it would move away from an instrumental rationality of the goals. It would seem that people-centered purposes would not be linked to a given conception taken for granted. It would be necessary to explain why they are desirable and therefore, possibly criticized. In this sense, it would seem that this kind of goal is something neither expected nor obvious in university. Another way to introduce the goals to people and their needs is pointing out the kind of needs the course may help to meet:

Q: Do you think it will be helpful for your female and male students?

A: I do think so. I think it will. Being useful is one thing, that they like it is a different thing.

Q: Got you! (Ja, ja)

A: (Ja) It happens to all of us with the subjects we study. But the first day I always tell them that social security is something that accompanies us throughout our lives. Calculating a benefit ... a family member will ask how he is going to retire and how much he will get, or they will come up with the idea if they become unemployed at some point, how much they will get and whether they are entitled to unemployment assistance. So it shows a practical perspective. It is a subject that will always chase us. Then, some of it is more fun, some other part is more boring, but useful for sure.

(Rec. 1195-1198 Interview 11p: female teacher of the last course of Labor Relations).

How useful it is? It is shown in the kind of attention you can give to the people next to you and to oneself (expressed by means of examples), when you can deal with their concerns and help them. But in this case, care consists in placing knowledge, Social Security, focused on people. The goals of the course expressed in this quotation do not consist in learning the subject matter itself, or getting a professional career, but helping a family and oneself, the interviewee states, and therefore introduces the way that gives meaning to the subject, the singularization on the needs of people who are particularly important for students.

On the other hand, apart from the purposes related to the professional career (previously mentioned) Law, Technical Engineering in Computing Systems and Computer Engineering professors indicate that goals have to focus on valuable core knowledge concepts rather than on people-centered ones, under the expression of an instrumental rationality that is not subjected to criticizing these purposes (something common among professors).

A: Let's see, I tell you what I expect from them. That they learn how to fight using these tools is a little superficial; but to learn how to do research on the web to troubleshoot when necessary. Let's see, it is oriented to people who want to program. If you become a manager, it does not apply to you any longer; but it is on you how to fix computer problems, along the programming process of developing software.

(Rec. 1478. Interview 23p: female Professor of the last course of Computer Engineering).

The professor's aim is to ensure that female and male students know how to solve technical problems. Problems understood as things they confront, as a force of nature that has to be subdued, even using violence; in this case, a computer-like nature which must be tamed.

This way, in terms of goals, the female professors close to "womanly" degrees meet the role that is socially assigned and expected from them as a gender by minding about people. Whereas, in the female professors close to "manly" degrees the expectation is to adopt thing-centered goals, by focusing on content learning.

This would seem to point out that the gender of a degree would be more influential than sex on professors, to the point to discipline professors in the gender of the degree. But is this true for the professors? In this case it is not clearly obvious. Law, Technical Engineering in Computing Systems and Computer Engineering professors meet the expectation of gender assigned to their sex when they adopt goals focused on things (besides those related to a professional career, previously mentioned).

Q: What skills do you think the students acquire in this subject?

A: Basically, they get to know the mechanics, the structure, but especially the practical functionality of the process. To know how a civil or a criminal proceeding develops, according to their characteristics. What a man has to do with a bill of exchange. What procedure should be chosen and how the process works.

Q: Besides knowledge, what skills do they develop or put into practice?

A: None at first. Simply getting to know how it works, which is the inconvenient, the tails of the coin, the downside of what I was talking about: it is a very practical and without theoretical neither explanatory nor excessive philosophical foundations. Even introducing many elements of what is called sociology of law, not about how law should work, but how it works in practice.

Q: Then, they aren't strategies learned, ways to...?

A: No.

Q: It is information that later doesn't imply any specific skill.

A: Exactly. This is left for other subjects to handle. For example, there is a practicum, where it is developed. We simply explain how the process and legal texts work, how to understand them, jurisprudence in general.

(Rec. 4172-4179 Interview 16p: professor of the last course of Law).

The interviewee focuses on the objective of learning and acquiring knowledge and information, to the point of saying that everything related to learning skills would be covered in other subjects. The emphasis on the goal of learning the structure and process of the legal procedure strictly in terms of a thing is expressed, even considering those involved in the process as things.

The man thus expressed that the example is not a person whose particular needs have to be met, but it is one more piece of the procedural mechanics that must be learned and located in place. This should not make us believe that all the objectives of the subjects focused on things refer exclusively to learning the content itself. In some cases, a nuance that further reinforces the priority of such objectives is introduced. Apart from the idea of providing knowledge and information, it is proposed to change the concept that students have of the content to learn.

For example, in the case of Informatics, this goal consists in moving from a particular conception of informatics as a singular user (there are so many possible uses and interests as there are people), to a scientific and technological concept, characterized by standardization and shared rationality, an expected goal when studying Computer Engineering. This goal is an objective of procedural nature that aims to move students from particular to general bases.

Therefore, it is an objective that seeks to group together students, probably as a counterweight to a specific type of students whose pre-university knowledge has been formed in response to personal needs, being partial, particular, and limited knowledge by definition. The importance given to this objective by the interviewee can be seen in the price he is willing to pay, the loss and demotivation of students.

It is different for those degrees closest to the feminine. Those interviewed, involved in these careers, expressed objectives related to both, care and provision relations, unlike the male ones in which, except for one case, all the goals expressed refer to provision relations.

In this sense, it would seem that the feminine degrees do not have the same impact on men as the masculine have on women. In other words, discipline would not be the same, to the point that in the case of female professors, it seems to be due primarily to the gender of the degrees in terms of training purposes, with little difference if it is a diploma or a degree; while for male professors, it would be the imperatives of their own gender.

In the case of female professors, if they express thing-based goals, they do so, daring to oversimplify because they characterize the degree. If male professors do the same, it is something that characterizes the gender position of men. One possible interpretation is to understand that gender in most university educational activities is masculine.

^{Simpson (2004}) has explained something similar in her analysis of men working in female areas and of women working in male fields. In this case a symmetrical situation does not occur. She points out that men are welcomed in female areas and are expected to act like men (implicitly recognizing their qualities are needed in the profession); while women are neither welcomed nor expected to act womanly (implicitly recognizing their qualities are not necessary in the profession). Summarizing: men build up their masculinity, women are masculinized.

Hence, in general terms, the difference between feminine and masculine degrees is that female professors do not always express objectives linked to care, only in those degrees closest to the feminine. Meanwhile, male professors always express objectives linked to provision in all degrees. However, there are two nuances that limit this general conclusion. The first refers to feminine degrees; a male professor includes an objective focused on people, which -in this indicated general framework- would transgress the conception of the objectives associated with their sex.

Q: Well, do you think that what you teach is useful for your students?

A: I do, but at two levels. I always tell them there are things that are helpful in the profession and things that are good for life. And considering the field in which we work, both levels are due.

Q: And, Why will it be useful?

A: It will be useful in their lives because, when you talk about communication, you talk about knowledge; when you talk about aspects of basic anthropology, you're talking about things that affect these individuals' personal relationships, their capabilities to interpret things, to understand human relationships... and well, all of that affects what's personal, of course.

Q: What about their professional life?

A: Professionally, it is just the same, because of course, as we are saying, it helps you to understand your own responses, reactions, and the ones from others. It is nothing more than creating a shared emotional field, in which you may influence the others, being respectful at all times, of course. But it is not an aspect of technology applied to a specific case, right?

(Rec. 3635-3640 Interview 6p: first year professor of Pedagogy).

All in all, not only the importance of contributing to the students' degree is noted, but also the importance of impacting each person, and thus trying to singularize the learning process, adapting it to the characteristics and needs of each female student while influencing their personal lives. The second nuance refers to male qualifications: a female professor includes an objective focused on things, in terms of people. So, in the framework we have pointed out it would transgress the provision ​​conception of the objectives linked to the gender of the degree where this female professor teaches, and does so in an indirect way, through an example that mentions in her story.

Q: And, do you thing the subject will be useful for your students?

A: Yes, I absolutely do!

Q: Why do you think so?

A: Because a computer engineer must know ... I mean, it is not only about designing algorithms, but if you want to solve a problem with a computer, you must know how to break it down into sub-problems, then structure and analyze them. You must identify the pros and cons, what may happen around them... and all of this is covered in the subject. In other words, let's consider a problem we have... I don't know...let's say there is a hospital there, with God knows how many doctors and patients coming in, and you have to analyze how to arrange the patient's lists, trying that all of the doctors sort them out, and you want patients to be arranged in short queues... from here, you must analyze the data arrangement you want to use, what problems may occur. For instance, it is necessary to have a list for the incoming-patients queues to know if they are empty, which one is the most crowded... if there are more or fewer doctors available in every queue, or we may add more doctors or patients in any line in a flexible way...

(Rec. 2024-2027 Reg. 21p. Female professor of the first course of Computing Engineering).

What hits the eye in this quote is the goal of the subject, to solve problems. The main aspect of it is the thing. And the resources to solve the problems are basically cognitive. However, the point here is shown up when the interviewee sets a situation in which people are not treated as mere things. The orientation to the thing is qualified for a final, fuzzy purpose, which is not necessarily a part of the resources to solve the problem: the wellbeing of people queuing, expressed through the avoidance of waiting beyond the necessary. Although it is a hue, it should be highlighted because it is outstanding in the speech of those closest to masculine degrees.

In the case of students, things are different. It should be noted that for this group we have limited data that might be explained by the effects of sexism at university, which even reaches the sphere of research. Students of the degrees analyzed are set in a sexist way. This has affected the possibility of performing structured interviews to every group of students to the point of not being able to find neither male students in the Teaching and Pedagogy degree willing to be interviewed, nor female students from Computing Engineering and Technical Engineering in Informatics Engineering.

This absence was balanced by increasing the number of interviews to students of Teaching and Pedagogy, as well as the ones of Technical Engineering of Computer Systems and Computing Engineering. The consequences of such decision are that our interpretations on the degree's gender impact, in terms of the students' objectives and the subject-context care and provision relations, are limited.

As mentioned previously, obtaining a degree is one of the objectives they claim for and expect to achieve through a university and its subjects. In this sense, they are oriented toward provision, basically considering professors as suppliers. Along with this, obtaining the degree expresses another level of provision, in this case it is more generic, and it would correspond to the credentialist dimension of our society and implicitly linked to labor market or performance through profession.

We cannot identify significant differences between female and male students when defining the objectives linked to academic training in terms of care and provision, but some nuances. As for the objectives centered on things, the female students expressed the executive aspect of achievement, meaning, achieving the goal, in this case, obtaining the degree, while male students rather mention the object of achievement, knowledge itself. In any case they are in the field of provision and it is placed where they locate the purposes of academic training.

In this sense it seems that the students, even if they are starting or finishing the career, express training objectives oriented to provision, which could be a first indication that the relationships experienced, in the context of the subjects in particular and the career in general, are not intended to modify the provision ​​starting position, in any case it is maintained or strengthened.

In fact it is, as we have mentioned, something that fully agrees with many of the purposes of the most common subjects among professors, also subjected to an obvious instrumental rationality. They also fit the general purposes of the university, which shows a surprising harmony between what the market requires, students, faculty and the institution itself, which in this case means a supplying ​​position before the objectives of academic training. In this sense, from the point of view of the purpose, it would seem that basically the aim is to train future suppliers, both women and men and it seems that there would be a widespread agreement.

This does not mean that students do not link academic training to the objectives focused on people, but we could qualify those objectives, largely as side effects of the academic training activity, which in the case of professors are not even mentioned, but in the case of students they take a very important significance. Both female and male students point making friends as a target, enjoy college and personal life in a different way to how they have lived their previous formative stage, freshmen with the excitement of novelty and seniors with some nostalgia, as shown in the following two quotes, respectively:

Q: What do you expect from the university?

A: I hope to live things that I have not lived before, to learn as much as possible, because it is something that I am studying and that I like. And I don't know (-), by now I expect that. I hope for surprises (ja).

(Reg. 12049-12050. Interview 2nd: female student of first course of Master. Specialty in Early Childhood Education).

Q: And what do you expect from the university?

A: The degree (jaja).

Q: Basically.

A: I expect, I expect very little, because it seems to me that everything it had to give me has been given already. If I come back... I will surely never stop studying; I would like not to stop studying. Well, I do not know if I will ever stop studying. I would like to say that when I finish studying Law I will obviously look for a job that is related to Law and it will be really my livelihood, but I don't know, I will continue studying, surely, I will continue studying. But that won't be the same, as I will not look for a first job. No longer will I be here and look for the crew and see where we are going and what we are doing this weekend. Because they will say: "Listen, you are 36 where do you want to go this weekend? You have to go with your wife and your children, got it?" that will be the answer, I guess. Whatever had to be given, I believe that I have received it, and that I am still receiving it. At least I still need to finish this course, and the end of this course continues to be as large as the first, second, third and fourth.

Q: And what is that?

A: What is it? It is, above all, to share the end of exams with the people that you won't see any longer because you finish this year. And the last exam with those people who are special, very special, in fact I would like to say, people don't grieve for the exams, people grieve because it is the last one and they won't return to be together any more, since they don't know if they will see many of those people again. Indeed, we are friends, we are great friends but there are many stories that despite being great friends won't continue. That is quite clear. And it is not that I know, I mean, every beginning has an end. That is wrong, I will continue here and they will leave. That really gives me a bad feeling. That's why I am in a rush to finish.

(Reg. 14817-14822. Interview 16th: senior student of Law).

Additionally, there is not either any noticeable difference between male and female students when it is linked, in a few cases, the direct impact of academic training in the subjectivity of the person as a goal. That is to say, when training is taken not only in terms of provision but also as a type of context that allows students to mature as persons or progress in learning in response to their singularity. In fact, when students link the academic training received at university and its impact on their training as people. Even when they express that they feel their university training not only is preparing them as future professionals, but also as people (especially pointed out by the students of first course), the idea of academic training at that level is anchored to the acquisition of knowledge that we could say is for personal use, or what some people interviewed labeled as "lesser culture".

A: Man, personal also, personal, well I have learned many things. Let's see, general culture, for example I have learned where teletext comes from, just to say something. That is one thing that you always... I make many absurd questions.

Q: Yes.

A: My girlfriend tells me constantly. Probably we are going to a place to have dinner and I say... and they serve a slice of toast and I say, and what do they do with the rest of the slices? Because they always serve the biggest.

Q: Right, right.

A: It is not that, it is bigger bread, but well I wonder about everything. As for example what I told you, they have explained the teletext to us, how mobile phones work, those things on a personal level, I am not going to work explaining to people that is the teletext.

Q: Right.

A: But on a personal level, it is culture that one learns.

(Reg. 10042-10048. Interview 20a: senior student of Technical Engineering in Computer Systems).

Ethical and moral dimensions are not perceived as a central aspect that they receive or should receive in their academic training. Regardless of sex, degree and level of course, there would be a broad agreement to consider that, mainly, what they have is academic training, which would help to strengthen the circle between what university has formally as a purpose, what the teaching staff offers and what the students receive.

In this framework, basically supplier, however, we can highlight some nuances: personal growth via the attainment of intellectual maturity; and the recognition of a certain ethical and moral impact through the culture of sacrifice and effort or being aware of some of the limits that are significant to personal life as illustrated in the following quote:

Q: What you study, do you think it has to do with your academic training or more with your training as a person?

R: Both. Yes, it provides academic training of course (-) and as a person, because it makes you conscious of things that you didn't have an idea. I don't know, the fact of browsing legal texts that we have, on TV... of course they don't tell you anything but there are -articles and things you say "how terrible, how come this thing is here?, why haven't they changed it" and without having entered in this career or any other that deals with these topics you don't realize, don't get involved in anything, and obviously you take the dynamics of indifference. As you don't know, you consider it unimportant. Of course when you know it, it can affect your life and you react. (-) Especially on topics of social security: widowhood, retirement pension, orphanhood, what would happen, what possibilities you have, the quantity of things that people can claim and they don't because they don't know about it. And that would have to be enhanced.

Q: And how do you think this career has changed you? At a personal level.

R: Being more conscious, I knew that there were things that... You know? They are over there. As you don't know it well you don't think it is important. As you are studying and going deeper... you realize and say "so many things that must be changed". Yes, above all to change because it is very important. I already knew that... it is good to change. But when you get into this career people can't just establish, they have to improve themselves and not only in their work but also in their everyday lives. Reading the newspaper, updating.

Q: Did you realize that the first year? Did it begin to change in this regard the first year?

R: Yes, yes.

(Reg. 13703-13708. Interview 11a: senior student of Labor Relations).

The person's formation is in the background and it seems to some of the interviewed people something difficult to achieve. The reasons, at this point, vary. In one case the impossibility of achieving it due to the fact that there is not a proper context was pointed out. This would be the intensive use of tutorials, not only to resolve doubts about the content of the subject, but on more general and transversal topics, which would start to affect the most personal aspects of students.

In other cases default qualities are mentioned, with which the university educational activity has very little to do. In this case, the necessity that students like their activity to do it well is located as a central element of the argument. There would be a certain essentialist interpretation: people do or study something because they like it. People do not like what they do for the fact that they do it. Qualities would be a precondition, about which the interviewee suggests there is little to do. It seems that everything indicates that students' view in regard to the purposes associated with academic training is basically prospective, where the formative activity the university provides contributes with it, and ultimately reaffirms it.