COMPARISONS OF COUNTERFACTUAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS

Golgher, André Braz

doi:10.1590/3610508/2020

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigo Original • Rev. Bras. Ci. Soc. 36 (105) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/3610508/2020 copy

COMPARISONS OF COUNTERFACTUAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS

COMPARAÇÕES DE POLÍTICAS DE AÇÕES AFIRMATIVAS SIMULADAS NA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS

COMPARAISONS DE POLITIQUES D’ACTIONS POSITIVES SIMULÉES À L’UNIVERSITÉ FÉDÉRALE DE MINAS GERAIS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Tertiary education attendance in Brazil varies remarkably among different population groups. In order to decrease inequalities and increase the proportion of minorities in public universities, many institutions of higher education in Brazil have implemented affirmative action policies since the 2000s. The main objective of this paper was to analyze different counterfactual affirmative action policies at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) based on simulations, measuring the proportion of minorities and the level of academic performance at this institution under each scenario. The current quota policy of 50% for students from public secondary schools, divided between four main groups (non-poor/non-minority; poor/non-minority; non-poor/minority; poor/minority), was shown to be well-designed to promote higher proportions of minorities among the student body. However, if academic performance is also taken into account, the best options would be either a quota policy of 50% divided between poor and non-poor students or a bonus policy based on a linear function of course competitiveness with an average bonus of 6%.

Keywords:
minorities; affirmative action policies; bonus; quotas; UFMG

Year	Exam for selection	Slots	Affirmative action policy
2009	UFMG exam at both stages	Increased remarkably	Bonus policy: 10%/15%
2010	UFMG exam at both stages	Increased remarkably
2011	ENEM at the first stage and UFMG exam at the second	Approximately constant
2012
2013			Quota policy: 12.5%
2014	ENEM as the sole stage		Quota policy: 25%
2015			Quota policy: 37.5%
2016			Quota policy: 50%

		Bonus (%)
		Policy 1	Policy 2	Policy 3
Mean value		5.8	7.3	8.7
Time spent in public institutions	Type of secondary school diploma
0	Private	0	0	0
1-3		2	2.5	3
4-7		4	5	6
8-11		6	7.5	9
0-3	Public	6	7.5	9
4-7		8	10	12
8-10		10	12.5	15
11		12	15	18

Quota Policy group	Students from private secondary schools	Students from public secondary schools
1	All	All
2	All	Black/Pardo/Indigenous; White/Asian
3	All	From low-income households; From high-income households
4	All	Black/Pardo/Indigenous from low-income households; Black/Pardo/Indigenous from high-income households; White/Asian from low-income households; White/Asian from-high income households;

	Policy	Indicator
		1	2	1	2	1	2
		Race		Income		Public school
	No policy	100	100	100	100	100	100
Bonus	5/7	35	79	72	80	34	75
	6.5/6.5	56	80	74	82	35	76
	8/8	42	75	64	76	25	77
	10/10	31	76	54	70	26	90
	12/12	28	80	42	65	45	120
	Linear 6%	55	65	71	77	29	80
	Linear 8%	40	60	59	71	49	125
	Linear 10%	28	68	48	69	76	167
	Time - 5.8%	27	75	46	72	48	129
	Time - 7.3%	23	84	36	69	80	172
	Time - 8.7%	32	105	30	72	105	204
Quota	Private/Public 40%	75	80	85	87	50	50
	Private/Public 50%	62	65	77	77	41	54
	Private/Public 60%	42	59	65	73	40	100
	Black/Non-Black 40%	77	81	84	86	50	49
	Black/Non-Black 50%	71	63	76	77	41	52
	Black/Non-Black 60%	58	54	64	72	42	99
	Poor/Non-Poor 40%	69	76	75	77	48	49
	Poor/Non-Poor 50%	57	63	68	66	42	53
	Poor/Non-Poor 60%	40	58	56	61	41	98
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 40%	72	80	74	77	50	47
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 50%	66	64	67	66	44	50
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 60%	42	50	49	57	92	85

	Policy	Indicator				Mean ranking
		1	1	2	2
		Index A	Index B	Index A	Index B
	No policy	100	100	100	100	23
Bonus	5/7	47	9	78	48	11
	6.5/6.5	55	15	80	50	15
	8/8	44	7	76	44	9
	10/10	37	4	78	47	8
	12/12	38	5	89	63	11
	Linear 6%	52	11	74	40	11
	Linear 8%	49	12	85	53	14
	Linear 10%	51	10	101	79	16
	Time - 5.8%	40	6	92	70	12
	Time - 7.3%	46	7	108	99	14
	Time - 8.7%	56	10	127	153	18
Quota	Private/Public 40%	70	32	72	35	16
	Private/Public 50%	60	20	65	27	11
	Private/Public 60%	49	11	77	43	11
	Black/Non-Black 40%	70	32	72	34	15
	Black/Non-Black 50%	63	22	64	25	11
	Black/Non-Black 60%	54	15	75	38	12
	Poor/Non-Poor 40%	64	25	68	29	13
	Poor/Non-Poor 50%	56	16	61	22	8
	Poor/Non-Poor 60%	46	9	73	35	8
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 40%	65	26	68	29	14
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 50%	59	19	60	21	9
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 60%	61	19	64	24	10

	No policy	First semester	Third semester	Weighted average
	No policy	0	0	0
Bonus	5/7	-1.00	-0.39	-0.59
	6.5/6.5	0.40	0.38	0.39
	8/8	-0.95	-0.87	-0.90
	10/10	-1.62	-1.48	-1.53
	12/12	-2.03	-1.92	-1.96
	Linear 6%	7.28	7.34	7.32
	Linear 8%	-1.25	-1.21	-1.22
	Linear 10%	-1.62	-1.63	-1.62
	Time - 5.8%	-1.62	-2.13	-1.96
	Time - 7.3%	-2.17	-2.20	-2.19
	Time - 8.7%	-2.02	-1.91	-1.95
Quota	Private/Public 40%	5.13	4.61	4.78
	Private/Public 50%	0.12	0.11	0.12
	Private/Public 60%	-0.67	-0.42	-0.51
	Black/Non-Black 40%	0.13	-0.07	0.00
	Black/Non-Black 50%	-0.11	0.04	-0.01
	Black/Non-Black 60%	-0.75	-0.38	-0.51
	Poor/Non-Poor 40%	1.20	0.60	0.80
	Poor/Non-Poor 50%	0.20	0.04	0.09
	Poor/Non-Poor 60%	-0.52	-0.09	-0.23
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 40%	-0.13	-0.54	-0.40
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 50%	-0.33	-0.01	-0.12
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 60%	-0.61	-0.14	-0.30

	Policy	Index/Indicator
		B2	A1	B2	A1	B2	A1
		Minorities		Equal weights		Academic performance
Bonus	5/7	47	29	47	33	46	37
	6.5/6.5	38	30	32	26	25	21
	8/8	44	24	45	30	46	36
	10/10	48	20	50	29	51	37
	12/12	59	25	60	35	61	44
	Linear 6%	25	23	20	18	14	13
	Linear 8%	53	35	53	39	52	43
	Linear 10%	61	39	60	44	59	48
	Time - 5.8%	62	28	63	38	64	47
	Time - 7.3%	67	35	68	44	68	52
	Time - 8.7%	66	50	65	53	63	55
Quota	Private/Public 40%	20	48	17	38	13	27
	Private/Public 50%	15	39	15	33	15	27
	Private/Public 60%	40	30	41	33	41	36
	Black/Non-Black 40%	23	51	23	44	22	36
	Black/Non-Black 50%	16	46	18	41	20	35
	Black/Non-Black 60%	35	37	36	38	37	38
	Poor/Non-Poor 40%	15	43	14	35	12	26
	Poor/Non-Poor 50%	10	34	12	30	14	26
	Poor/Non-Poor 60%	30	20	30	23	30	25
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 40%	26	54	29	50	31	45
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 50%	11	41	15	38	19	34
	Black/Non-Black/ Poor/Non-Poor 60%	17	47	21	44	25	40

Objective	Taking into account those who apply to each group of courses	Best policy	Best policy of different type
Increase the proportion of Black/Pardo/Indigenous students	Yes	Bonus policy based on time in public school – average bonus of 7.3%	Quota policy of 60% divided between poor/non-poor
Increase the proportion of Black/Pardo/Indigenous students	No	Quota policy of 60% divided between Black/non-Black/poor/non-poor	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 8%
Increase the proportion of students from poor households	Yes	Bonus policy based on time in public school – average bonus of 8.7%	Quota policy of 60% divided between Black/non-Black/poor/non-poor
Increase the proportion of students from poor households	No	Quota policy of 60% divided between Black/non-Black/poor/non-poor	Equal bonus policy – average bonus of 12%
Increase the proportion of students from public secondary schools	Yes	Equal bonus policy – average bonus of 8%	Quota policy of 60% divided between students from private/public schools
	No	Quota policy of 40% divided between Black/non-Black/poor/non-poor	Bonus policy – 5% for students from public schools and 7% for Black/Pardos/Indigenous from public schools
Increase the proportion of minorities	Yes	Equal bonus policy – average bonus of 10%	Quota policy of 60% divided between poor/non-poor
Increase the proportion of minorities	No	Quota policy of 50% divided between Black/non-Black/poor/non-poor	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%
Socially optimum – minority inclusion first	Yes	Equal bonus policy – average bonus of 10%; Quota policy of 60% divided between poor/non-poor	-
Socially optimum – minority inclusion first	No	Quota policy of 50% divided between poor/non-poor	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%
Socially optimum – equal weights	Yes	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%	Quota policy of 60% divided between poor/non-poor
Socially optimum – equal weights	No	Quota policy of 50% divided between poor/non-poor	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%
Socially optimum – academic performance first	Yes	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%	Quota policy of 60% divided between poor/non-poor
Socially optimum – academic performance first	No	Quota policy of 40% divided in poor/non-poor	Bonus policy based on a linear function – average bonus of 6%

Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais - ANPOCS Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 315 - sala 116, 05508-900 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 11 3091-4664, Fax: +55 11 3091-5043 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: anpocs@anpocs.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mail: agolgher@cedeplar.ufmg.br