Spain has just moved into the implementation phase of tightening its rules for creating and running universities. The government says this is about assuring quality and equal opportunity. In practice, it risks choking off private initiative amid growing student demand and flatlining public provision.

The government says it wants to ¡°defend¡± the public sector, but Spain hasn¡¯t created a new public university since 1998, and enrolment in public universities over the past decade has grown by just 2 per cent. There¡¯s no realistic plan to expand public capacity quickly.

That is why private enrolment has surged by 117 per cent over the same period. Private institutions now educate roughly a third of Spain¡¯s university students (about 550,000 in 2023-24) and account for more than half of all master¡¯s enrolments. That¡¯s not a fad; it¡¯s the system adjusting to unmet need.

Now look at what the decree actually does. Any new or recognised university must clear a long list of input-based hurdles. First, quality agencies ¨C the national body, ANECA, or one of its regional equivalents ¨C will have to issue a scrutiny report before the university can be approved, and the ministry will have to issue a second opinion. Among the factors the authorities will consider is whether the university in question is likely to be able to meet mandatory growth targets: student numbers must reach 4,500 within six years, and at least half of its official enrolment must be in undergraduate programmes by year six (or at least 35 per cent for institutions with a very high share of international master¡¯s students).

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

In addition, institutions will have to devote at least 5 per cent of their total budgets to research and knowledge transfer. Indeed, within five years, new universities will also have to attract competitive research income equal to 2 per cent of their annual budgets; for existing universities, that time frame falls to three years. If they fail, they will have to agree mitigation plans with the regulator, with loss of authorisation the ultimate sanction.

There¡¯s more. New universities must prove financial staying power upfront ¨C via bank guarantees or similar instruments deposited in the national Treasury¡¯s ¨C before they even open. They must provide student housing capacity equal to 10 per cent of planned on?campus undergraduate places within their early years. They must meet staff ratios of at least one academic for every 25 students, adjustable to?one for every 50 for online teaching in low?experimental fields. And they must ensure that at least half of the teaching staff in on bachelor¡¯s and master¡¯s programmes are PhD holders.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

On top of all that, universities will have to feed a greatly expanded national data system with detailed information on students, outcomes, staff profiles, budgets and research ¨C good for transparency but a heavy burden to implement.

Indeed, the same can be said about many of the measures. Supporters will say they are sensible safeguards, and no one seriously argues against quality. But policy should prioritise solving the most pressing problems we have: too few seats in the public sector, very high entry cut?offs, and, as a consequence, a growing cohort of students who, without private universities, would have no realistic higher education options.

Even the government¡¯s own narrative acknowledges long?running capacity pressures and the rapid growth in demand that private universities have absorbed. When public universities don¡¯t expand, telling private providers to ¡°do this much research, grow exactly this fast, hire exactly this mix of staff, build housing and post bank guarantees¡± is not helpful.

Yes, requiring new universities to have 4,500 students within six years will help address the capacity gap, but it also risks undermining the new regulations¡¯ quality aspirations, as well as stifling innovation. Niche or regional models ¨C which often involve partnerships with local hospitals, SMEs or tech employers ¨C now face extra risk if they miss centralised milestones. Binding pre?approval by quality agencies will filter out weak proposals, yes, but it can also turn into a de facto moratorium if agencies are risk-averse or under?resourced; universities in regions without their own quality agencies will be reliant on the national body, which could become overloaded with work.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Meanwhile, the targets for research spending and grant capture ¨C which established universities must achieve within five years and new universities within 10 ¨C will have the perverse effect of privileging inputs over outcomes. Even a practice?focused health sciences or teacher?training university with a strong local employability record must now carve out a research spending line and chase grants to satisfy a uniform metric.

The housing quotas and deposit guarantees further drain funds that could be better spent on teaching quality or student support. The former ¨C delivered directly or via partners ¨C locks up capital in bricks and mortar, especially in cities with tight real?estate markets. The latter locks it up in the Treasury.

There¡¯s a better path. Keep the tough filters for sham projects but focus them where quality really lives: outcomes. It is fair for a quality agency¡¯s opinion about would-be universities to be binding, but recurring compliance requirements should be streamlined for established, accredited universities with a strong record on graduation, employment and quality.

Spain should also reward partnerships with employers that expand access, rather than mandating identical research inputs for every institution type. And the timescale for reaching the 4,500?student threshold should be more flexible for specialist or regional models that demonstrably serve public interest.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

A policy that locks in more process and expense while the public sector stands still doesn¡¯t protect students: it protects the status quo. If we throttle private capacity, we¡¯ll push more qualified students out ¨C either abroad or out of higher education altogether. That is the opposite of social mobility. And if the state truly wants to ¡°defend¡± the public sector, it should fund additional public places and modernise delivery.

Spain needs both robust public universities and a dynamic, quality?driven private sector that can pick up accelerating demand quickly and responsibly. Right now, this decree presses too hard on the brakes.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Conrado Brice?o is the managing partner at educapartners.com.