Seven out of ten young Peruvians will never set foot in a university
En Lima, dos visiones sobre el futuro de la juventud peruana se enfrentaron en un debate formal entre representantes de Juntos por el Perú y Fuerza Popular, partidos que compiten por definir qué significa realmente apostar por los jóvenes. Detrás de las cifras y los programas propuestos yace una pregunta más profunda: ¿es la educación superior un derecho universal o un destino reservado para quienes pueden costearlo? Lo que está en juego no es solo política pública, sino la forma en que una sociedad decide quiénes merecen oportunidad.
- Siete de cada diez jóvenes peruanos no acceden a la universidad bajo el modelo actual, una estadística que Juntos por el Perú usó como acusación directa contra el legado fujimorista.
- El programa 'Mi primera chamba' propone entregar S/6,150 a cien mil jóvenes para financiar su formación, una intervención concreta en el momento más vulnerable de su entrada al mercado laboral.
- Fuerza Popular respondió con su propia urgencia: miles de jóvenes terminan la secundaria sin rumbo claro, y muchos abandonan sus sueños —educativos o deportivos— por falta de dinero para el transporte o las matrículas.
- Zunini lanzó un golpe directo al historial de su rival: noventa mil jóvenes que aplicaron a Beca 18 quedaron excluidos mientras el gobierno anterior priorizaba gasto militar.
- El debate no resolvió nada, pero reveló que la juventud ya no es un tema secundario en la política peruana —el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones lo colocó como uno de seis pilares temáticos centrales.
Ernesto Zunini y Rosangella Barbarán se sentaron a debatir con una pregunta implícita entre ellos: ¿qué le debe el Estado peruano a sus jóvenes? Zunini, de Juntos por el Perú, fue directo: bajo el modelo vigente, siete de cada diez jóvenes nunca pisarán una universidad. Su partido propone reconocer la educación superior como derecho constitucional, ampliar las becas estatales para jóvenes en extrema pobreza y lanzar 'Mi primera chamba', un programa que entregaría S/6,150 a cien mil jóvenes para invertir en formación acreditada a través del Banco de la Nación.
Barbarán, representando a Fuerza Popular, habló desde la experiencia propia: jóvenes que estudian y trabajan al mismo tiempo, atletas que abandonan sus sueños porque no tienen para el pasaje. Su propuesta no apunta a la universidad sino a los institutos técnicos, que modernizaría con mayor inversión para ofrecer caminos reales hacia el empleo calificado sin exigir un título universitario.
Zunini no dejó pasar el contraste. Recordó que Beca 18, el programa de becas del gobierno anterior vinculado al fujimorismo, dejó fuera a noventa mil jóvenes que habían aplicado a Pronabec con la esperanza de convertirse en profesionales, mientras el presupuesto se destinaba a otros fines, incluidos aviones militares.
El intercambio expuso una tensión real: ambos partidos reconocen la crisis de acceso y empleo juvenil, pero difieren en si el problema es estructural —quién tiene derecho a la universidad— o instrumental —cómo mejorar las rutas técnicas existentes. Que el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones haya incluido juventud y deportes como uno de solo seis ejes temáticos del debate entre equipos técnicos dice mucho sobre el peso político que ha adquirido esta generación. Si alguna de estas propuestas pasará del discurso a la política pública, eso aún está por verse.
Ernesto Zunini stood across from Rosangella Barbarán in a debate that crystallized a fundamental disagreement about Peru's young people. Zunini, a policy strategist for Juntos por el Perú, did not mince words: the Fujimori political legacy had left the country's youth in precarity, and the time had come to ask whether Peru would continue down that path or choose something different.
The numbers Zunini cited were stark. Under the current model—what he called the Fujimori model—seven out of every ten young Peruvians would never set foot in a university. That statistic hung in the air as he laid out his party's answer: treat higher education as a constitutional right, not a privilege. Junini proposed expanding state scholarships with a specific focus on young people living in conditions of extreme poverty. The ambition was clear, even if the path remained to be detailed.
But Zunini's vision extended beyond scholarships. His party was announcing a new program called "Mi primera chamba"—roughly, "My First Job." The mechanics were straightforward: one hundred thousand young people would receive 6,150 soles each, deposited into accounts at the Banco de la Nación, to be spent on accredited training and skill-building. It was a direct intervention in the moment when young Peruvians enter the labor market, often without resources or guidance.
Across the table, Barbarán offered a different diagnosis and remedy. Fuerza Popular, the party associated with Fujimori's political legacy, centered its argument on technical education. Barbarán spoke from lived experience: many young people finish secondary school without knowing what comes next. Some, like her, had to study and work simultaneously. Others abandoned their studies because they could not afford them. In sports, the same tragedy repeated—talented young athletes forced to abandon their dreams because they lacked the money for transportation to training. Her answer was to modernize Peru's technical institutes through substantial new investment, creating pathways to skilled work that did not require a university degree.
Zunini did not let the moment pass. He reminded Barbarán that Fuerza Popular's record on scholarships told a different story. The Beca 18 program, which had promised educational opportunity, had left ninety thousand young applicants out in the cold. Those young people had applied to Pronabec—the National Scholarship Program—with the hope of becoming professionals. Instead, Zunini said, the previous government had chosen to spend money elsewhere, including on military aircraft.
The exchange reflected a real tension in Peruvian politics. Both parties acknowledged the crisis: youth unemployment, the barrier of cost, the gap between aspiration and access. Both offered solutions rooted in education and training. But they disagreed on whether the problem was structural—requiring a reimagining of who gets to attend university—or tactical, requiring better technical pathways for those who would not. They disagreed, too, on whether the current government's priorities reflected genuine commitment to young Peruvians or merely rhetoric.
The National Electoral Jury had designated six themes for these technical team debates between the two parties: infrastructure, state reform, agriculture and environment, economy and employment, health, and youth and sports. Youth and sports was not a side issue. It was one of six pillars. That fact alone suggested how central the question of Peru's young people had become to the country's political conversation. What happened next—whether either party's proposals would move from debate to policy—remained to be seen.
Citas Notables
We must have the courage to speak about youth given the Fujimori legacy. We must ask ourselves whether we want to continue with this Fujimori model or change it.— Ernesto Zunini, Juntos por el Perú
Many young people finish school without knowing what comes next. Some had to study and work at the same time. Others abandoned their studies because they could not afford them.— Rosangella Barbarán, Fuerza Popular
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Zunini specifically invoke the Fujimori legacy when talking about youth policy? It seems like he's making this personal rather than just policy.
Because the Fujimori era shaped the institutions and priorities that young Peruvians face today. When he says seven out of ten can't access university, he's not just citing a number—he's saying that model created this scarcity. Invoking the legacy is his way of saying: this didn't happen by accident.
And Barbarán's focus on technical education—is that a genuine alternative, or a way of accepting the scarcity?
That's the real question underneath their debate. She's saying not everyone needs university, and that's true. But Zunini would argue that by emphasizing technical pathways, you're accepting a two-tier system where some kids get university and others get trade school based on their family's money. She'd say that's realistic; he'd say it's surrender.
The "Mi primera chamba" program—six thousand soles for training. Is that enough to actually change someone's trajectory?
It's a down payment. Six thousand soles covers months of accredited training, maybe certification in a skill. But it only works if the jobs exist on the other end. The program assumes the labor market will absorb these newly trained young people. That's the bet.
What about Zunini's jab about the ninety thousand students left out of Beca 18?
That's a wound that hasn't healed. Those ninety thousand young people applied, qualified, and were told no because the money ran out. For Zunini, it's proof that Fuerza Popular talks about education but doesn't fund it. For Barbarán, it's probably a budget constraint she'd rather not relitigate.
So who wins this debate?
Depends on what voters believe about Peru's young people. Do they believe they deserve university access as a right, or do they believe the country should invest in creating good technical jobs? Both answers are defensible. The one that wins is the one that feels true to people's lived experience.