![\"\"](\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/030_Cotas_263_03.jpg\")
L\u00e9o Ramos Chaves<\/span><\/a> Students at the Federal University of ABC…L\u00e9o Ramos Chaves<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n A study by USP’s Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Student Affairs in 2016 compared the performance of students admitted through admission exams and via the SISU platform across 22 undergraduate majors. At the end of the second semester, students admitted through entrance examination had outperformed SISU entrants in majors such as medicine, law and social sciences, whereas SISU students had the edge in courses such as materials engineering, economics, physics, and chemistry. In both cases, the difference was marginal.<\/p>\n In July USP again changed its policy and instituted a system that will allocate half of its spots to public school students, with a portion of these reserved for candidates self-identifying as black, mixed race, or indigenous. The initiative will be phased in, with 37% of admissions in each program reserved for public school students in 2018, 40% in 2019, 45% in 2020, and finally 50% in 2021. \u201cThis is the first time that USP has adopted an institutional policy on social and racial quotas,\u201d says USP\u2019s associate dean for undergraduate student affairs, Ant\u00f4nio Carlos Hernandes.<\/p>\n At UNESP, initiatives like these have been in place for some time. In 2013 the university pioneered a quota system similar to the one used at federal universities. It progressively expanded its public student allocation to 50% in 2018 admissions, with part of the allocation reserved for black and mixed-race candidates so they account for 35% of total admissions. \u201cUNESP has long been successful in attracting a strong freshman population from public schools, but it took quotas to meet the 50% target,\u201d says the university\u2019s associate dean for undergraduate student affairs, Gladis Massini-Cagliari.<\/p>\n That target\u2014of reserving 50% of spots for public school students and 35% for black, mixed-race, and indigenous candidates\u2014was set as part of the S\u00e3o Paulo State Merit-Based Higher Education Inclusion Program (PIMESP) launched at the end of 2012 by the state government and adopted, in varying formats, by the three state universities. \u201cPIMESP was launched in response to public demand that a larger proportion of university students come from public schools and reflect the diversity of our population. As a result, state universities have had to redesign their admission systems,\u201d explains Fernanda Estevan, a professor at the USP School of Economics, Administration and Accounting (FEA-USP) and a scholar of affirmative action.<\/p>\n In her habilitation thesis in 2017, Estevan examined the effects of the admission exam bonus system introduced at UNICAMP in 2005, a then-innovative program designed to broaden social and racial inclusion in the university without resorting to quotas. \u201cThe program was beneficial and delivered positive results,\u201d she concluded. The system was designed around a fact which, according to Estevan, was poorly explored in public debate. \u201cIt was based on statistical evidence that candidates from public schools whose admission exam scores did not differ significantly from those of candidates from private schools could perform very satisfactorily, and often outperform their private-school counterparts. Presumably, then, granting a 40-point bonus could help to bring talents from public schools to university.\u201d<\/p>\n The researcher found that the system improved public school students\u2019 chances at being admitted to UNICAMP by 30%, in addition to increasing the proportion of students from low-income families. No undesirable effects from the bonus policy\u2014such as students losing the incentive to make an effort to pass the exam\u2014were observed. According to Estevan, there are indications that the bonus system had a positive influence on career choices by emboldening public school students to venture into the most selective majors.<\/p>\n L\u00e9o Ramos Chaves<\/span><\/a> …and medicine students at UNICAMP in 2016, where an admission exam bonus system helped to recruit 70% of freshmen from public schoolsL\u00e9o Ramos Chaves<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n The program\u2019s effects were constrained\u2014the number of admissions from public schools plateaued at 35% of total admissions\u2014by factors unrelated to its design. \u201cWhen the system was first implemented in 2005, the number of candidates from public schools rose dramatically, but then remained flat the following year. This could be explained by a number of factors, such as the larger number of admissions on offer at federal universities and grants offered for tuition in private universities within the PROUNI (\u201cUniversity for All\u201d) program, but these would need to be examined in greater depth,\u201d she explains. Renato Pedrosa, a professor at the Institute of Geosciences at UNICAMP who coordinated the admission exam from 2003 to 2011, notes that the percentage of people completing high school in S\u00e3o Paulo has stagnated at 66% for the past decade\u2014the national average is 55%. \u201cWe assumed it would increase, and with it the percentage of candidates from public schools applying for and passing the admission exams. But that didn\u2019t happen.\u201d<\/p>\n Two years ago, UNICAMP made an initial attempt to increase inclusion without having to resort to quotas by raising the admission exam bonus to 120 points. The proportion of freshmen coming from public schools was successfully pushed up to an average of 50% of the university’s total student body in 2016 and 2017, as required under PIMESP. But this had unexpected effects: in very competitive majors, such as medicine and architecture, in which candidates\u2019 exam scores are typically not very far apart, the bonus provided a huge advantage to public school students, far exceeding what an affirmative action program would be expected to provide. In less competitive degree programs, candidates admitted despite performing very poorly in their admission exams later struggled to keep up. \u201cThe exaggerated bonus distorted the exam results,\u201d Knobel admits. According to the dean, the new hybrid system of bonus points, quotas and admission exams is designed to be efficient in achieving social and racial inclusion, while also attracting candidates with high potential.<\/p>\n Experience to date with quotas and other forms of affirmative action in Brazil has dispelled initial fears that student attainment and the quality of education would decline dramatically as a result. \u201cWhen competition for admission is high, with more than 50 candidates per slot, there is virtually no risk of quota-aided students gaining admission unprepared. Because the number of high-performing candidates is always very high, there will always be plenty among them who are affirmative action beneficiaries yet able to succeed in university to become high-caliber professionals,\u201d says Renato Pedrosa. The risks from using quotas, he says, are mostly concentrated in majors less in demand, where candidates can be admitted who are not in a condition to pursue those majors. For Pedrosa, the notion that admission exams are the only appropriate method for admission is false. \u201cStudents with the highest admission exam scores rarely are the best performers in college. We can craft admission pathways that will attract students with high potential even if they do have some weaknesses or are not adequately prepared for the admission exams.\u201d<\/p>\n Sociologist Rosana Heringer has surveyed the effects of admission quotas at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), where she is a professor at the School of Education. She dismisses the notion that the system has had negative impacts on the quality of education. \u201cStudents struggling to keep up and failing STEM courses may be somewhat more prevalent among quota beneficiaries, but in fact this is common among the student population more broadly,\u201d she says. \u201cThis has always been an issue in programs where there is little competition in the admission exam. In the pedagogy degree program, many students find it difficult to keep pace with reading assignments and have not developed good writing skills. In our licentiate in physics degree program, students often struggle with courses involving mathematics. We\u2019re now also seeing these issues in some other majors, but the tools are there to address them.\u201d<\/p>\n These tools fall into two major categories: providing the financial means for students to continue their studies, especially through grants; and helping students through academic difficulties by providing pedagogical and psychological support. In Brazil, efforts have focused on the first category. Rosana Heringer is leading a research project that is evaluating how the education systems in Brazil and the US compare on admission and retention of black and mixed-race students. \u201cIn terms of admission to higher education, the systems in each country differ widely from each other. The proportion of people aged 18 to 24 attending university in the US is three times higher than here. There, college education is overwhelmingly paid for by students, although some may be benefited by household-income-based tiered tuition arrangements, student loans, and grants offered by philanthropic organizations. However, student debt has become a chronic and serious problem in the US,\u201d she notes.<\/p>\n A 50% target for freshmen from public schools led state universities in S\u00e3o Paulo to change their admission rules<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are also significant differences in student retention policies. \u201cIn the US, universities are highly committed to supporting students’ academic success and take responsibility for offering a range of support services. In this aspect, we\u2019re still lagging,\u201d she says. Support mechanisms available at US universities include mentoring, tutors, and student help desks.<\/p>\n A common criticism of affirmative action policies is that they fail to address the two root causes of underprivileged and black people\u2019s struggle to get into public university: the poor quality of public basic education and social inequality. \u201cI am in favor of inclusive policies, but I do not consider quotas to be an adequate solution,\u201d anthropologist Eunice Ribeiro Durhan, a professor emeritus at USP, said in a debate on quotas organized by the university\u2019s radio station, R\u00e1dio USP, in July. \u201cIt is trying to solve Brazil\u2019s problem of extreme social inequality through palliatives. Blacks are unable to get into universities not because they are prejudiced against, but because they are poor. Income is the single most important factor predicting academic performance. When you create quotas, you\u2019re really just sweeping the issue under carpet.\u201d Durhan coauthored a paper about affirmative action published in 2013 by the S\u00e3o Paulo State Academy of Science (ACIESP) as part of a research project coordinated by the president of FAPESP, physicist Jos\u00e9 Goldemberg. The paper calls for a reform of Brazil\u2019s primary education system to ensure students are adequately prepared, but also recommends short-term solutions such as creating prep courses and grant programs for underprivileged students.<\/p>\n Jos\u00e9 Eduardo Krieger, a professor at the USP School of Medicine who presided ACIESP when the study was published, believes the concept of quotas is at odds with the nature of universities that are meant to be at the forefront of science. \u201cMany countries are now discussing issues surrounding the sustainability of research universities. These universities play a vital role in training leaders and generating knowledge, but they also cost a lot of money to operate. Particularly in Europe, there is now a debate about the need to focus resources on a limited number of institutions so that they can continue to fulfill their role,\u201d says Krieger. A world-class university, he notes, needs to attract the best students regardless of skin color. \u201cBesides not addressing the problem of Brazil\u2019s dramatically poor primary and secondary education system, quotas can hurt our research universities. We have only a handful of them in Brazil: the three state universities in S\u00e3o Paulo and about a dozen federal universities throughout the country. We need to tackle inequality without undermining the decades of efforts it has taken to build high-quality institutions,\u201d says Krieger, who also criticizes universities\u2019 negligible effort in seeking out top talent. \u201cYou can\u2019t simply rely on admission exams. I have long advocated inviting science Olympiad medal winners to USP as many universities do in the US and Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n For sociologist Jos\u00e9 de Souza Martins, the affirmative action systems in place at USP and UNICAMP are at variance with the principles by which high-level higher education institutions ought to operate. \u201cTrue universities should seek to recruit the best talent, the finest brains, regardless of race, color, origin, gender, or religion. These universities exist not to do charity or to redress social wrongs, but to recruit and train the best professionals,\u201d says Martins, a professor emeritus at USP. \u201cIf we were addressing the issue in earnest as a society, we would have education policies in place that ensure new generations are adequately trained for the new professions of modern society before they reach university. Brazil hasn\u2019t done this. We\u2019ve left to our top universities the burden of paying our social debts. They are not equipped to solve this problem.\u201d<\/p>\n