By LINCOLN SECCO*
The judicialization of public teaching competitions at USP is not new, but it tends to grow for a series of reasons that should concern the university community
In 1952, the Congregation of the FFCL of USP refused to register candidates for the Philosophy chair who did not have strict training in the area of knowledge of a competition.[I] The candidates appealed to the University Council and a legal and political battle began.
The liberal-conservative spirit of that unit confronted self-teaching and advocated the formation of a “true vocation for pure sciences and research”.[ii]
The judicialization of public selection processes for professors at USP is not, therefore, a new phenomenon, but it is likely to increase for a number of reasons that should concern the university community. In the 21st century, Brazil witnessed an expansion of postgraduate studies, which was followed by a backlog of hiring. Many notices had to establish an eliminatory test in order to make it possible to evaluate other, more specific tests. It has become common for candidates to protest against their grades. Many are experienced professors from other universities who are judged by panels that do not always have their own experience.
The panels are formed in the departments and approved by the Congregation. The time to define the profile of the future employee is when the program and the panel are set up. Note that I said “the profile” and not “the person”.
USP adopts the assessment of memorials with a public examination of arguments. Despite all its imperfections, it is better than other methods. A notice from the Institute of Mathematics and Statistics (IME), for example, provided that half of the overall grade would be allocated to the memorial's argument; and the other half would be divided equally between the didactic test and the research project. In some competitions, there is an eliminatory written test and in the second phase the memorial has a weight of 3 and the other evaluations have a weight of 1. In practice, what happens is a vote in which the candidate who has the best average with at least three of the five members of the panel is nominated.
The assessment of the memorial, according to the standard notice, takes into account arguments and evaluation. In other words, the ability to respond well to the panel's questions and to organize a coherent narrative of your academic trajectory constitute an important part of the grade. The other part must consider production, services to the community, professional experience, diplomas, awards, etc.
This allows the selection board great discretion and can lead to errors; on the other hand, it prevents the predominance of productivism and the simple election of candidates who have long been established in their careers. The USP model allows the university to decide whether a well-established research leader or a young person who will develop their potential at USP for a longer period of time is better for that specific vacancy. Both choices are legitimate.
The main issue, therefore, is not the judgment of the memorial, but the first evaluation that eliminates most of the candidates, including the PPI. The only republican measure that could be implemented without disrupting the USP competition system is to determine that in competitions that provide for the elimination phase, the tests are corrected anonymously, without identifying the candidate, using only a registration number.
It is urgent to include this in the notices. It is something that would not eliminate the subjectivity of the selection in the other phases, but it would reduce the arbitrariness of many boards that simply reject applications that do not contemplate a certain line of research or interest groups.
The University is not a place for pure rationality. Scientists are ordinary people with prejudices and worldviews. Conditions external to science have a huge impact on competitions. Max Weber himself left us these somber words for his students: “University life is therefore left to blind chance. When a young scientist comes to us for advice on his qualification, it is almost impossible for us to take on the responsibility of approving his plan. If he is a Jew, we say to him naturally: let all hope go. However, it is imperative that all other candidates also ask themselves: 'Do you believe that you are capable of watching, without despair or bitterness, year after year, mediocrity after mediocrity pass before you?'. Of course, the same answer is always given: 'Of course! I live only for my vocation.' Nevertheless, I, at least, have only known very few candidates who have endured that situation without great harm to their inner lives.”[iii]
I often give this text to my students when they want to start research. At an important university, but on the outskirts of the city, the intellectual conditions reflect the lack of resources, the lack of professional incentives and often the lack of understanding from society itself. All of this adds to the not always fair disputes within the academic social environment. However, some of us insist on living only for our vocation.
* Lincoln Secco He is a professor in the Department of History at USP. Author, among other books, of History of the PT (Studio). [https://amzn.to/3RTS2dB]
Notes
[I]History of the Philosophy Chair Competition. São Paulo: Publications Section of the FFCL of USP, 1952.
[ii]Association of Former Students of FFCL of USP. In Defense of the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters. New York: Oxford University Press, 1952, p. 10.
[iii]Weber, Max. Science and Politics: Two Vocations. Translated by Leonidas Hegenberg and Octany Silveira da Mota. New York: Cultrix, 2013, p. 24.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
