By ANTÔNIO DAVID*
Direct doctorate is not a demerit, and doctors who have completed direct doctorates are not half doctors.
1.
On November 11, 2024, a protocol of intentions was signed between Capes, FAPESP and the six public universities of São Paulo – University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo State University (Unesp), State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp), Federal University of ABC (UFABC) and Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar) – encouraging postgraduate programs with grades 6 and 7 in the Capes evaluation to adopt changes in the postgraduate model.
The changes in question substantially alter the functioning of postgraduate studies stricto sensu, in particular the character and objectives of the first year of the master's degree; but the point that deserved emphasis in the press was the fact that the new model “shorten the path to a doctorate” (The State of S. Paul) or “accelerate entry into the doctorate” (Folha de S. Paul). It is on this point that I want to dwell here.
Direct admission to a doctorate from an undergraduate degree, or the passage to a doctorate through a master's degree qualifying exam, are provided for in the rules of a large number of postgraduate programs, in the regulations and statutes of several universities, in the rules of funding agencies and in legislation (LDB, Art. 47, § 2, and CNE/CES resolutions no. 01/2001 and 07/2017), but it is not exactly a common practice. Until now, it has been considered that the completion of a direct doctorate depends on the fulfillment of special requirements, linked to the quality and maturity of the research and the researcher.
The protocol signed last week indicates that direct doctorate studies tend to become common, at least in public universities in São Paulo. After all, the news states that master's students will choose between going directly to a doctorate or completing their master's degree, with only passing the qualifying exam, which will take place at the end of the first year of the master's degree, being sufficient to do so.
The proposal is in line with the postgraduate model adopted in other countries, such as France. On the other hand, many consider a master's degree to be essential for academic training – a position that has its reasons, including when one aspect of the Brazilian reality is taken into account: the poor educational background. This is undoubtedly felt in higher education: even in the best universities, serious deficiencies in basic skills such as reading and writing are observed. From this perspective, the master's degree would fulfill the function of “completing” the training received in undergraduate studies, giving student researchers the opportunity to improve these skills, an elementary condition for academic and professional work. As we can see, this is a controversial issue.
2.
However, one point that has not been reported is noteworthy, and it is on this point that I now want to focus: I am referring to the fact that some of the universities that signed the aforementioned protocol, as well as a large number of universities throughout the country, systematically and repeatedly adopt, in notices for selection processes and public competitions for higher education teaching, criteria that discriminate, with lower scores, doctors who completed their doctorate directly in comparison with doctors who completed their doctorate preceded by a master's degree.
I have already dealt with this subject in another article published on the website the earth is round and elsewhere. In order not to repeat myself, and to keep the focus on the protocol signed last week, I will take the example of UFSCar. In 2022, I filed a lawsuit against UFSCar because of the criteria adopted in a selection process for a substitute professor at the Philosophy Department: out of a total of 10 points for the curriculum items, the notice attributed 2 points to a master's degree.
It is obvious that such a criterion implies the summary exclusion of doctors who completed their doctorate directly – this is my case. The case became final and the decision was in my favor: the five judges of the Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region unanimously determined that UFSCar should attribute to me the 2 points for the master's degree. With the decision, I was reclassified from third to first place. The university did not appeal to the third instance.[I]
I will not report this case in detail here, but I will do so in the future, at the appropriate time and through the appropriate means, when I will address this and other bizarre criteria commonly present in the notices, such as the requirement of a degree in the area. I would like to mention just one fact: during the course of the legal proceedings, in order to defend the maintenance of the criterion, UFSCar suggested that the master's degree offers a “significant academic experience” that the direct doctorate supposedly does not offer.[ii] and that those who hold a master's degree would give “more demonstrations of achievements” compared to those who do not hold it, that is, in relation to doctors who completed their doctorate directly.[iii]
I wonder: how could UFSCar sign a protocol of intentions that clearly and unequivocally encourages direct doctorates, when, just two years earlier, the same UFSCar had raised such arguments? Does the current management of UFSCar now consider that the objective of postgraduate studies is to foster a less significant academic experience with fewer demonstrations of achievements? I would like to believe not. Or, on the contrary, has this same management changed its position and decided to recognize the dignity of direct doctorates? Or are we simply facing a scandalous inconsistency?
Considering the open selection process at the present moment, with several vacancies for substitute teacher (Notice No. 08/2024), the only conclusion that can be reached is that, unfortunately, the current management of UFSCar did not review its position: because, in some of the vacancies in the aforementioned notice, the university maintained exactly the same criteria that the TRF-3 considered abusive and illegal in 2023.
This is the case, for example, with the scoring criteria for the areas of Sociological Theory and Anthropological Theory: for both vacancies, out of the 10 points for the score of items on the curriculum, the master's degree is worth 1,5. Thus, PhDs in these areas (or in Social Sciences) who completed a direct PhD may obtain a maximum of 8,5 in the total score, which in practice is equivalent to their immediate elimination from the competition. In short, this is a criterion that punishes direct PhDs.[iv]
I wonder: apart from the fact that it ignored the understanding and jurisprudence of the TRF-3 in this new notice, how is it possible for UFSCar to adopt this criterion again in November 2024 and, at the same time, in the same month of November 2024, the same UFSCar to sign a protocol of intentions that, as is clear to anyone, encourages direct doctorates? How is such inconsistency possible? How is such contradiction possible?
Direct doctorates are not a demerit, and doctors who have completed their doctorates directly are not half doctors. Doctors who have completed their doctorates directly have the same qualifications as doctors who have completed their doctorates preceded by a master's degree, considering only these criteria. No more, no less. Above all, direct doctorates were created by and in universities – they were not imposed by others – and have been encouraged by and in universities themselves, in full enjoyment of their autonomy. The signing of the protocol by the six public universities in São Paulo is yet another reminder that this inconsistency needs to end.
*Antonio David He holds a PhD in Philosophy from USP and is a PhD candidate in Social History at the same institution. He is a temporary professor at the History Department of Unicamp and a substitute professor at the Philosophy Department of UFSCar..
Notes
[I]The judgment can be read in full at https://pje2g.trf3.jus.br/pje/ConsultaPublica/listView.seam (case number: 5007231-35.2022.4.03.6100).
[ii] “2.12. It is important to highlight that in full compliance with the law and the main activities to be carried out by whoever is hired through the selection process discussed here, UFSCar did not provide for points for the master's degree in an indistinct area, but, on the contrary, decided to specifically score the master's degree in Philosophy – since the vacancy is determined for a professor in the area of Philosophy, sub-area History of Modern and Contemporary Philosophy –, and all under the understanding that such academic experience is significant and contributes to the improvement of those who are willing to be a professor in such a field of knowledge”.
[iii] "2.5. Therefore, contrary to what the plaintiff claims, the scoring table did not generate any distortion; on the contrary, it created the conditions to score candidates well according to how much academic achievement they demonstrated in the field of Philosophy.".
[iv] It could be argued that the use of this criterion does not eliminate any candidate, since the score for qualifications is only classificatory; but this is exactly the point: instead of being ranked first (as long as they meet other requirements for the score for qualifications), doctors who completed their doctorate directly tend to be ranked second, third, etc., and are therefore not hired. And why? Simply because they completed their doctorate directly.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
