In the history of the Unicamp entrance exam there are many conceptions, collaborations and perspectives of analysis on its impacts and developments. As an admissions instrument, there are profiles and expectations that drive both candidates and the university community gathered around its 67 undergraduate courses. On the eve of the closing of registration for the 2018 entrance exam and considering the changes planned for its next edition, it is necessary to think broadly about admission policies and the scope of choices that will be made by the university.
When professor Rubem Alves, on October 15, 1985, proposed the creation of an entrance exam for Unicamp, he noted that since “it is inevitable that there will be a selection process for those who will enter our universities, we must not forget that There are many unexplored alternatives for doing this.” [I] The observation remains current, considering that, as in the main universities in the world, the variety of admission criteria can reduce inequalities in access and strengthen the plurality of people, knowledge, stories and experiences that stimulate the production of other knowledge and ways to read the world.
Relying on a single entry measure can set young people's expectations and undermine the creative capacity of those responsible for offering and developing teaching, research and extension activities. The series of alternatives that Unicamp will debate, also in the coming days, on the model for implementing ethnic-racial quotas, the creation of an indigenous entrance exam, the improvement of the Affirmative Action and Social Inclusion Program (PAAIS), the possible expansion of ProFIS, the partial offer of places by SISU, in addition to other alternatives, echo other aspects highlighted in the debate on the creation of the Unicamp Entrance Exam.
The connection between the entrance exams and secondary education, at the time 2nd grade, was criticized by Rubem Alves in the 1985 letter. The educator observed that schools, because of the entrance exam, were “crystallizing and institutionalizing a series of deformations that range from the narrowing of the interest of young people and the waste of intelligence until the unfair preliminary selection that eliminates the less favored classes”.
In many ways, the Unicamp Vestibular, based on the purposes of its countless collaborators, innovated over three decades. But it is also a well-known fact that social, educational, scientific and cultural transformations have moved at a speed greater than the ability to accurately detect so many changes that fit into a system of selection and classification of entrants. Knowledge, taken as something almost commonplace, comes to us from different places and our interactions with the world around us have become even more complex. A proof, however comprehensive it may be, is always limited to the procedures, contents and propositions it presents. The ability to think, establish relationships, develop hypotheses and interpret scientific procedures and social processes requires continuous analysis, criticism and improvements.
“Science becomes more beautiful when understood as an adventure of men and women like all of us” [II]
Another idea from Rubem Alves is that knowledge cannot be taught only as formulas and successful results. Trials, errors and imagination are generally not valued in educational experiences in basic education. A selection test, like the entrance exam, can induce other ways of asking questions, suggesting relationships and, in some way, dialoging with primary and secondary education.
Such questions, however, do not escape a fact that can never be ignored: education occurs in concrete conditions and very varied realities. Inequality of opportunities, for example, is a reality that impacts the assumptions of universal education. In this sense, Professor Rubem Alves' frustration was enormous: the entrance exam could induce some changes, but it did not have the power to alter the economic, cultural and social order that conditioned approval in rigorous and highly selective processes.
The challenge that arises, considering the demands of the society that maintains the public university, is how to advance other formulations that permeate the admission mechanisms and the tests that are carried out. Can entrance exams incorporate other profiles of questions and knowledge?
I think so and, as such, the answers to the challenges of our times emerge from transparent constructions, publicly debated and with a clear commitment to the principles of a public, free, autonomous university that expresses being attentive to its own time and to the of the students who enter it. The multiple choices that open up should not be seen with temerity, but with the restlessness of a university that thinks, at the same time, boldly and responsibly, in addition to never having surrendered to triviality and convenience.
[I] Permanent Committee for Unicamp Entrance Exams (COMVES). Unicamp entrance exam: 30 years. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2016. p. 12.
[II] Rubem Alves. Proposal for Unicamp entrance exams. 05/05/1986. In: Unicamp entrance exam: 30 years. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2016. p. 38.
