A new typology of Higher Education Institutions in Brazil!
Simon Schwartzman, Departamento de Política Científica e Tecnológica, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade de Campinas, sschwartzman O icloud.com
André Correia Bueno, Departamento de Política Científica e Tecnológica, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade de Campinas, andrecbuenol7 O gmail.com
Second draft, May 12, 2023
! Paper prepared for presentation at the 35th annual conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), Vienna, August 30 -September 1, 2023. This article is a product of the project “Research on Research and Innovation: indicators, methods and evidence of impact”, carried on by the Department of Science and Technology Policy, Institute of Geosciences, State University of Campinas, with support from São Paulo Research Foundation — FAPESP (Processo FAPESP 2021/15091-8). We are grateful to FAPESP for providing access to the consolidated data bases of the Higher Education Census from INEP and the Graduate Education data ftom CAPES, as well as to the Web of Science publication
data for Brazilian Institutions.
A new typology of Higher Education Institutions in Brazil
Abstract
This article proposes a typology of higher education institutions in Brazil as an alternative both to the implicit hierarchy in the country”s existing quality assurance system and the official classification of institutions adopted by the Ministry of Education. We argue that a new typology is needed because the current official assessment and classification system of institutions foster unwanted hierarchies and fail to provide useful information of policy making the individual decisions
about career choices and opportunities.
Purpose
This article proposes a typology of higher education institutions in Brazil as an alternative both to the implicit hierarchy in the country”s existing quality assurance system and the official classification of institutions adopted by the Ministry of Education. We argue that a new typology is needed because the current official assessment and classification system foster unwanted hierarchies and fails to provide useful information for policy making, institutional strategies and individual decisions about career choices and
opportunities (OECD 2018).
The main assumption behind this and other proposed typologies of this kind is that higher education institutions develop and change according to multiple motivations, incentives, and opportunities which may contradict each other, an may lead to a diffuse perception of their places and roles (Olsen 2001; Lane 1985). They are driven by the multiple stimuli provided by Clark”s triangle of government, market, and the academic oligarchies (Clark 1983), to which they respond according to their internal organization, degrees of autonomy and access to public and private resources. Typologies or classifications are a first step for the recognition and legitimation of the plurality of cultures, purposes, and goals of different institutions, which should therefore be seen and assessed in terms of what they do, and not according to unidimensional external standards. This has been the rationale of the Carnegie Classification in the United States, as well as the proposals for a European classification and the adoption of multi-raking assessment systems, among others (McCormick 2013; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2011; van Vught 2009; Brunner 2013; Bernasconi and Clasing 2015; Clark 1983; Van Vught and Ziegele 2012; Shulman 2001; Reimer and Jacob 2011)
Background
Between 2010 and 2020, access to Brazilian higher education increased by about 30%, from 6.6 to 9 million students, adding those enrolled in undergraduate and regulated postgraduate courses. It was not a homogeneous growth: Brazilian higher education, as in the most of the world, is strongly differentiated, with public and private universities, large private higher education companies, and other types of tertiary/vocational institutions and schools (Schwartzman, Pinheiro, and Pillay 2015; Carvalhaes, Senkevics, and Ribeiro 2022). Compared with other middle-income countries, it has tree striking peculiarities: the world”s large proportion of students in the private sector, with more than % of total enrolments; an extensive graduate sector with masters and doctoral programs, mostly in public institutions; and a large proportion of students in distant education
programs, most in the private sector.
Brazil has a complex quality assurance system based on national exams and indicators that takes the classic research university model as the gold standard, publishing uniform rankings that reinforces the hierarchy of prestige in a highly differentiated system. At the same time, for regulation purposes, institutions are classified along two dimensions, their legal (public, private) and academic status (universities, university centres, schools, and technological institutions). Public institutions are free, and access to them is regulated by a National Exam and quotas. Private institutions are paid, can be either philanthropic or for profit. Undergraduate courses lead to bachelor, teaching or vocational degrees (ISCED 5 and 6) (there are no undergraduate schools in the English or American sense) and are regulated by the Ministry of Education. Master and doctoral programs (ISCED 7 and 8) are regulated by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), a special agency also within the Ministry of Education. In addition, there is a large sector of unregulated post-graduation, providing MBA and other ISCED 7
specialization course programs. Table 1 gives a broad picture in terms of enrolment.?
2 The total population for ages 18-24 was 23 million, which gives a gross enrolment rate at
UNESCO?s ISCED 5/7 of 27%.
Table 1- Brazil, enrolments in higher education, 2021
Brazil, enrolments in higher education, 2021
Federal State Municipal Private Undergraduate (*) Universities 1,088,811 573,254 24,099 2,983,024 University Centers 7,966 4,099 8,211 2,/99,068 Schools 6,444 81,962 11,739 1,173,944 Technological institutes 223,228 Total 1,326,449 659,315 48,699 6,956,036 Graduate (**) Master 150,155 57,814 1,583 42,041 Doctoral 91,739 42,783 312 19,005 Total 241,894 100,597 1,895 61,046 Specialization (***) 1,363,675 Total 1,568,343 759,912 50,594 8,380,757
(*) Source: INEP, Censo da Educação Superior, 2021 (**) Source: CAPES, Plataforma Sucupira (***) Source: IBGE, PNAD Contínua, 1 trimester, 2021
Traditionally, higher education in Brazil was mostly a system for the administration of access to the learned professions in medical, law and engineering schools (Coelho 1999). Starting in the 1930s, but with more intensity since the 1970s, the Brazilian government invested in the organization of a system of selective public universities with full-time staff, incentives for graduate education and research, which also became the standard bearers for education in the traditional and new liberal professions. One by-product of this drive was the growth of an academic profession composed mostly by university teachers, unionized and endowed with civil servant status and job stability, part of which were also qualified researchers (Schwartzman and Balbachevsky 2009; Schwartzman and Balbachevsky 1993). This resulted in two main public university networks, the federal system, with about 70 institutions, and the state system of São Paulo, with three major
universities, as well as other state institutions in other parts of the country.
This was and is an expensive, selective system in a relatively poor country, which could not keep pace with the growing demand for higher education led by urbanization and the expansion of basic education. At first, government responded to this demand by tolerating it, while trying to make sure that it would follow the standards set by the public institutions. During the Fernando Henrique Cardoso presidency, 1995-2002, the Ministry
of Education established a national exam for university graduates (Schwartzman 2010)
implemented the yearly national census of higher education, and a system of assessment and support for masters and doctoral programs, also in public universities. At the same time, private higher education was allowed to respond to market demand either as
philanthropic or as for-profit institutions.
Starting with the Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva government, since 2003, the emphasis switched from quality control to access, through a series of degrees and new legislation, including the programs PROUNI (“University for All”), in 2004, a creating a number of tuition free places in private institutions in exchange of tax exemption (Costa and Ferreira 2017); REUNI, im 2007, providing additional resources for federal universities do open up evening courses and expand enrolment (Paula and Almeida 2020); new legislation in 2009 upgrading an existing network of about 40 federal technical schools to university status (Nascimento, Cavalcanti, and Ostermann 2020); the creation, in 2010, of a national fund to sustaining an expanding student loans program for the private sector, with no limitations and fully guaranteed by the federal government (Souza 2022); the 2012 “quota law”, requiring that 50% of new entrants in federal universities should come from public schools or from black or indigenous races (French 2021); and the creation of 14 new federal universities. With these policies, enrolment in federal universities increased from about 500 thousand to 1.2 million between 2000 and 2015, but most of the expansion occurred in the private sector, from 1.8 to 6 million (Figure 1) (Schwartzman 2022c). To sustan these policies, public expenditures by the Federal Government for higher education went from to 10 to 23 billion dollars between 2008 to 2017 in real terms, while the accumulated debt of the student loan run out of control. (Secretaria do Tesouro
Nacional 2018).
Figure 1- Brazil, expansion of higher education, 2000-2021
Brazil, expansion of higher education, 2000-2021. Source: INEP, Censo da Educação Superior
The emphasis on access was not enough to compensate for the inequalities that exist in Brazilian society and is reproduced throughout the education ladder (Balbachevsky, Sampaio, and Andrade 2019). Data on household income of students in higher education shows that those in private institutions are, on average, richer than those in the public
sector, and both significant richer than the country”s average household (Table 2) >.
Table 2 — Brazil, household income per capita, 2021
Household income per capita, 2021
Mean Standard Deviation H Ed students in private institutions S2,093.31 S2,783.75 H Ed students in public institutions S1,715.52 S1,935.30 General population S1,358.20 S2,180.10
Source: Tabulated from IBGE, PNAD Contínua, 2021
This data seems to contradict the usual notion that public institutions are more selective than private ones. There are two explanations for that. The first is that private higher education is much more prevalent in the country”s richest regions (83% in the State of São Paulo, for instance) than in the poorest (59% in the Northeast). The other explanation is that the expansion of federal universities, with the creation of evening courses. and the
affirmative action programs, made it easier for poorer students to enter public institutions.
3 For a family of 4, a per capita income of 2,000 reais at the time meant about 1,600 US dollars
in September of 2021.
The 2012 quotas legislation required that, by 2016, 50% of the places in federal universities should be reserved for students coming from public schools and non-white. Still, by 2021, only 30% of the enrolled students were admitted as quotas beneficiaries, and still had to achieve high grades in the National Exam or Secondary Schools (ENEM) to enter to the more prestigious universities and careers like medicine, engineering, or
law.
During this period, there was an attempt to replace external assessments with self- evaluations. However, this attempt ultimately failed, resulting in the continuation of a system based on tests and quantitative indicators known as SINAES*, run by the Ministry of Education. In practice, this system only affected small institutions in the private sector (Ribeiro and Verhine 2012; Verhine 2015). Governance in public institutions remained under the control of rectors elected by teachers, students, and administrators. In contrast, the private sector benefited from tax exemptions and generous student loans, which favoured the creation of large conglomerates. These conglomerates attracted
private investors, were listed on stock exchanges, and managed for maximum profit.
In terms of the Clark triangle, therefore, higher education in Brazil can be described by a large market for the private sector, strong professional and academic oligarchies controlling the internal life of public institutions, working in partnership with a large public bureaucracy providing resources and regulations. This arrangement was shattered first by economic depression, starting around 2004, and was aggravated by the hostility of the right-wing government of Jair Bolsonaro against the education sector between 2019 and 2022. With the return of Lula to the presidency in 2023, the good relations between government and the academic oligarchies were restored, without, however, the abondance
of resources of the past.
Methodology and data
The first task for this project was to create an integrated data base with information about the country's higher education institutions?. The main source is the yearly National
Census for Higher Education implemented by the National Institute for Education
* SINAES - Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior
* Microdata available on request, please get in touch with the authors.
Research (INEP), which, unfortunately, does not include information on graduate education. CAPES* collects and publishes data on masters and doctoral programs but adopting different criteria to identify the institutions. For this study, we combined the two data sets for the period 2010-2020 in one integrated file, and added other information, as needed, on student flows, student socioeconomic status and scientific output. The creation of the integrated data file required intensive visual inspection, cleaning, and recoding work, given the inconsistences between the data sets and among years. Unfortunately, Brazil lacks information of the labour market for higher education graduates at
institutional level, which places a significant limitation in our analysis.
There are two ways of developing a typology, either by statistical approaches that allow entities to be grouped according to their similarities or differences, or by intentionally identifying the most significant dimensions. For this analysis, we decided to classify the institutions by combining their legal status (public, private); their size (larger than 30 thousand students or less); the relative proportion of students in graduate education; and the proportion of students in vocational education. In addition, for the private sector, we created a set of non-profit, community or religious-based institutions, and used their academic status as another differentiation criteria. This resulted in 9 types of institutions, a classification we used at first for analysing the data from 2018 (Schwartzman, Silva,
and Coelho 2021), and, in this paper, for the 2010-2020 period.
The classification of higher education institutions
Table 3 lists the 9 types that resulted from this analysis, their definitions, and the number of institutions and students they enrolled in 2020, and Figure 2 shows the changes in the system between 2010 and 2020. The most notable feature is the large number of students enrolled in a few large private institutions of type I, and how they grew in those years,
mostly at the expense of the smaller institutions of type VII.
9 CAPES — Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Table 3- A typology of higher education institutions for Brazil
A typology of higher education institutions for Brazil number of graduate and Number of undergraduate students Type Definition Institutions (2020) (2020) Private institutons with 30 thousand students or 1. Large private institutions more 22 3,203,804 2. Large, comprehensive public instutions with significant | Public institutions with 30 thousand students of graduate education more, 15% of which in graduate education programs 13 587,480 public institutions with less than 30 thousand 3. Specialized or small public institutions with significant |students, 15% of which in graduate education graduate education programs 23 356,331 4. Selected community, religious and philantropic private |A selected list of private institutions not belong to institutions other types 88 594,073 Priate institutions with university or university centre 5. Private universities and university centers status not belonging to types 1 or 4 302 1,707,020 6. Public, teaching institutions Public institutions not belonging to types 2 or 3 153 1,174,833 7. Private schools or faculties Private schools not beloinging to other types 1575 1,261,001 Institutions with 50% or more of the students in 8. Vocational institutions vocational courses 275 167,557 Institutions with 50% or more of the students in 9. Research and graduate education institutions graduate programs 74 11,894 Total 2525 9,063,993
Figure 2 — Enrolment in higher education by types, 2010-2020
Enrolment in higher education by types, 2010-2020
3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000
1,000,000
Type I- Large private institutions
Between 2010 and 2020, 33 private institutions had more than 30 thousand students in any given year. They are for-profit institutions, several of which are publicly traded, owned by companies that have gone through an intense process of merges and
acquisitions”. Among them, in 2020, they enrolled one third of the higher education
7 The main companies are Anima, Cogna Educação, Ser Educacional, and YDUQs.
students in the country (Table 4). Most of their students are working adults that can only study in evening or distance courses*. With the reduction of public support for student loans after 2014, they increased the number of students in distance education, while keeping their teaching staff small, and the tuition prices low. More than 60% the students are in the social professions (administration, law, economics) or education. Most of the teachers work part-time, and only a third holds a doctoral degree, which is nominally
required for teaching in higher education.
Data on attrition rates are taken from a cohort analysis performed by the National Institute for Educational Studies — INEP — im which students that enter undergraduate each year, starting in 2010, are followed until they graduate or abandon their studies (INEP 2018)”. On average, of the students who entered higher education in 2010, one third had graduated im 2015, half have dropped out, and the remaining were still enrolled. Required completion time varies depending on the careers, but the typical duration is four years. The five-year attrition rate — the percentage that have dropped out - is highest for students in institutions type I and VIII (vocational institutions), and lowest, but still very high at
409%, for the elite universities of type II.
8 Data from PNAD Contínua for 2021 confirmed that 90% of those at age 30 enrolled in private
higher education were in the labor force, and 81% were actually employed.
https://www.gov.br/inep/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/dados-abertos/indicadores-
educacionais/indicadores-de-fluxo-da-educacao-superior
10
Table 4 — Type 1 Institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type | institutions - Main chacteristics of students and teachers
% students
in social % students |professions students in distance land Accumulated enrolment |per teacher |education [education |Meanage lattrition rates 2010] 1,356,224 52.3 46.9% 66.1% 31.2 2011] 1,410,165 49.1 45.3% 63.9% 30.7 13.5 2012] 1,567,121 58.4 50.0% 64.3% 31.0 28.6 2013] 1,617,986 61.2 50.3% 63.2% 30.9 39.6 2014] 1,923,493 68.0 51.6% 62.6% 30.8 48.9 2015] 2,108,407 66.9 50.7% 61.7% 30.9 54.1 2016] 2,171,825 73.9 54.3% 62.9% 31.1 58.8 2017| 2,390,522 83.9 57.9% 63.5% 31.4 60.4 2018] 2,476,504 95.7 63.8% 63.3% 32.1 60.6 2019] 2,652,532 110.2 69.7% 62.3% 32.5 60.3 2020] 3,197,925 153.4 76.8% 60.1% 32.6 63.2
Type II — Large, comprehensive, public universities with significant graduate
education.
There are 18 public universities that, in several years, entered this classification, with more than 30 thousand students enrolled, among which 15% or more in postgraduate courses. These are comprehensive institutions that come closest to the ideal model of research university prescribed in Brazilian legislation. They combine undergraduate and graduate education, develop research, cover all major fields of knowledge, and serve a diverse public. They include the three public universities in São Paulo, USP, UNESP and Unicamp, and 15 federal universities. In 2019, they served nearly 800,000 students, less than 10% of the country's total enrolment; in 2020, because of the pandemic, this number
had reduced to less than 600 thousand.
In contrast with the institutions of type I, the students in this group are younger, study on campus, and enjoy a very favourable student / teacher rate of about 15. We lack information on their socioeconomic status, but we can presume that many of them do not need to work and came from private schools and better educated families. In 2020, these institutions enrolled 48% of the doctoral students in the country, and 30% of those in regulated MA programs (Table 5). Most of the teachers have doctoral degrees, have full-
time contracts and stable civil servant status.
1
Table 5 — Type IH institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Tipe Il institutions - main characteristics of students and teachers
Students teachers mean age % with full- % in doctoral % in MA student per in distance (undergradu attrition Total % with doctoral time year Total enrollment programs programs teacher education ate) rate teachers degrees contracts
2010 476,152 7.2% 10.7% 14.6 5.7% 27.6 32,599 76.1% 71.5% 2011 554,927 7,3% 10.7% 14.5 5.4% 27.9 ES) 38,197 76.5% 72.5% 2012 613,968 74% 10.6% 14.7 5.6% 28.4 19.2 41,660 78.3% 73.5% 2013 491,788 10.7% 12.2% 14.6 3.6% 28.3 29.4 33,628 83.0% 80.2% 2014 528,602 10.9% 12.2% 14.0 3.8% 28.5 38.5 37,839 82.2% 80.1% 2015 569,238 11.0% 12.1% 13.9 2.9% 28.4 43.2 41,022 82.3% 78.1% 2016 550,271 11.3% 12.6% 14.5 2.2% 28.4 47.2 37,927 84.9% 81.5% 2017 626,997 10.7% 12.2% 14.5 4,2% 28.2 49.8 43,318 84.3% 81.5% 2018 740,443 10.8% 12.6% 14.8 4.2% 28.3 53.2 50,174 84.7% 80.3% 2019 796,265 10.6% 12.5% 15.1 5.0% 28.3 54.6 52,805 85.4% 80.3% 2020 587,480 12.0% 13.0% 15.1 3.6% 28.4 55.0 38,978 89.9% 81.9%
These are also the main scientific research institutions in the country. One indicator is the
number of scientific articles published in journals indexed in the Web of Science.
Between 2010 and 2020, they published 44% of all articles by Brazilian authors in this
set, and these articles were, on average, more cited than from those of other groups of
institutions, except for the specialized ones in type VIII (Table 6). Compared with the
global baseline, the citation rate is relatively low, an indication that Brazilian science,
even at its best, does not meet the international average.
Table 6 — Scientific publications by Brazilian authors in Web of Science, 2010-2020
Scientific publications by Brazilian authors in Web of Science, 2010-2020 citation per Times Cited publication
1. Large private institutions
2. Large public instutions with significant graduate eucation
3. Specialized or small public institutions with significant graduate education
4. Selected community, religious and philantropic private institutions
5. Private universities and university centers
6. public, teaching institutions
7. Private schools or faculties
8. Vocational institutions
9. Research and graduate education institutions
other institutions
Total Brazil
Global baseline
Web of Science
Documents
11,132
389,175
149,178
33,319
20,637 175,513 6,011 2,729
62,238 27389 877,321
141,579
6,479,619
2,275,902
495,724
309,199 2,275,096 121,846 23,940
1,134,973 520664 13,778,542
36,405,847 758,863,525
12.7
16.6
15.3
14.9
15.0 13.0 20.3
8.8
18.2 19.0 15.7 20.8
% Brazil
1.3%
44.4%
17.0%
3.8%
2.4% 20.0% 0.7% 0.3%
71% 3.1% 100.0%
Type HI - Specialized or small public institutions
education. They are like those of type Ilin terms of their students and teachers (Table 7). The main differences,
There are 38 institutions that met the criteria for this type between 2010 and 2020
— public institutions with less than 30 thousand students, with at least 15% in graduate
besides the size, is that that several of these in type HI started as specialized institutions in specific areas and regions, and then added other fields of study to gain university status. Examples are the Federal University of São Paulo,
12
created in 1933 as a medical school, that became a federal university in 2005; the University of Viçosa, created in 1922 as an Agricultural School that became a federal university in 1969; and the Federal University of Itajubá, founded as early as 1913, as an Electric and Mechanical Institute, became a federal school of Engineering in 1968, and a University in 2002. Others started from the beginning as smaller, local institutions. Another difference is that they are more likely to be located outside the country's national or state capitals (Table 8). Finally, they have, proportionally, more graduate students in masters", and less in doctoral programs (
Table 9). In broad terms, these institutions could be described as a part of a drive
to create a set of regional universities, in contrast to those in group 2, which tend to be
nationally oriented, and with those in group 6, that are mostly teaching institutions.
However, it is not clear they do have a regional orientation in terms of their research and
teaching programs, and, in any case, they include just a minor part of the country”s higher
education enrolment.!º
Table 7 -Type II Institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type Ill institutions - main characteristics of students and teachers Students teachers % in % with
Total doctoral % in MA student per in distance accumulated |Total doctoral
year enrollment programs programs teacher education |meanage | lattrition rates |teachers degrees 2010 238148 5.5% 9.8% 12.7 6.3% 26.0 18684 69.1% 76.0% 2011 224790 5.6% 9.8% 12.7 7.8% 26.5 8.3 17736 68.3% 73.6% 2012 318326 5.1% 94% 12.9 8.3% 27.3 21.4 24682 67.6% 73.2% 2013 172432 9.8% 12.9% 11.8 6.7% 26.8 32.9 14654 73.1% 66.3% 2014 176544 10.1% 12.9% 11.9 6.8% 27.0 39.2 14774 78.0% 72.8% 2015 176813 10.1% 13.6% 11.7 5.1% 271 44.4 15084 78.0% 76.4% 2016 242478 9.2% 12.8% 11.9 5.1% 27.4 46.8 20399 79.5% 79.9% 2017 203666 10.1% 13.1% 12.4 6.6% 27.3 47.1 16393 83.0% 80.7% 2018 209024 7.8% 12.2% 11.9 6.7% 27.9 50.0 17588 80.0% 76.4% 2019 259482 7.5% 11.8% 12.3 5.8% 27.8 51.9 21177 81.8% 75.8% 2020 356331 8.9% 13.6% 10.6 7.3% 28.3 52.6 33613 81.0% 78.6%
Table 8 — Students by type of institution and location, 2020
Students by type of institution and location, 2020
capital Region cities North [Northeast [Southeast South CenterWest
1. Large private institutions 0.0% 2.3% 48.5% 42.4% 6.8% 59.6% 2. Large public instutions with significant graduate eucation 0.0% 18.5% 53.1% 20.4% 8.1% 94.7% 3. Specialized or small public institutions with significant graduate education 9.2% 15.9% 27.0% 35.6% 12.4% 46.4% 4. Selected community, religious and philantropic private institutions 1.9% 10.3% 36.8% 45.1% 5.9% 34.6% 5. Private universities and university centers 7.0% 22.5% 48.5% 13.6% 8.4% 52.3% 6. Other public institutions 9.9% 35.4% 34.7% 11.0% 8.9% 49.7% 7. Private schools or faculties 9.3% 28.7% 40.3% 10.0% 11.6% 35.5% 8. Vocational institutions 0.6% 9.8% 67.8% 13.5% 7.6% 48.3% 9. Research and graduate education institutions 0.0% 0.0% 25.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% Total 4.4% 16.3% 44.6% 26.3% 8.3%, 53.4%
1º The total number of students fluctuate along the years because of the institutions that enter or
leave the group each year because of fluctuations in the number of students and the proportion
in graduate programs.
13
Table 9 Proportion of doctoral and MA students by type of institution
Proportion of Doctoral and MA students, by type, 2020
Graduate Students
% doctoral % Master 1. Large private institutions 5,879 35.0% 65.0% 2. Large public instutions with significant graduate eucation 48.1% 51.9% 3. Specialized or small public institutions with significant gradua 39.7% 60.3% 4. Selected community, religious and philantropic private institut 35.5% 64.5% 5. Private universities and university centers 21.6% 78.4% 6. Other public institutions 244% 75.6% 7. Private schools or faculties 17.8% 82.2% 8. Vocational institutions 14.8% 85.3% 9. Research and graduate education institutions 32.3% 67.7% Total 37.7% 62.3%
Type IV - Selected community, religious and philanthropic private institutions
Besides the large distance higher education companies of type I, the private sector has other institutions with distinct characteristics, that we have tried to identify with types IV, V and VII. The growth of the private sector took place at first through community, religious and philanthropic institutions that wished to function autonomously from the State, but also to respond to a growing demand for access that the public system did not absorb (Durham and Sampaio 1995; Levy 1986; Sampaio 2000). Until 1996, the legislation did not allow for the existence of for-profit education institutions but, im practice, many private institutions made their profits by circumventing the legislation. The decision to authorize intended to clearly distinguish between effectively philanthropic and business institutions, with different rules on tax exemption or obligations. This formal distinction remains, but in practice, incentives such as the Student Loan Program and PROUNI, which exempt for-profit institutions from taxes in
exchange for vacancies, ended up by making this difference less clear.
For this type, we sought to identify educational institutions that somehow maintain their philanthropic, community or religious objectives, either for profit or not. The list, of about 100 institutions, was produced by identifying institutions that are affiliated to the Brazilian Association of Community Institutions of Higher Education !!,
Catholic universities, institutions of other religious denominations, and others. In terms
H https://site.abruc.org.br/
14
of enrolment, this group represents less than 10% of Brazilian higher education and has been decreasing in size over the years. Part of this decline is explained by the fact that the size of some of these institutions have been fluctuating, approaching, or remaining at the threshold of large private for-profit institutions (type I) such as Universidade
Presbiteriana Mackenzie, Centro Universitário Internacional, and Centro Universitário de
Maringá. Table 10 — Type IV institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers Type IV institutions - Main chacteristics of students and teachers % students in social Teachers Teachers % studemts % students professions with wiith full- | Accumulate In graduate students in distance and doctor's time d attrition enrolment programs | perteacher education teaching Meanage degree contracts rates 2010 648,926 4.4% 22.9 8.7% 21.3% 27.6 25.2% 32.2% 2011 699,583 4.3% 23.3 12.1% 22.6% 27.8 25.8% 32.2% 12.9 2012 653,704 4.9% 20.5 8.2% 18.6% 27.6 27.3% 32.9% ZA 2013 664,115 3.7% 26.7 8.6% 18.8% 27.8 27.9% 32.9% 37.1 2014 705,988 3.8% 26.5 8.3% 19.3% 27.7 29.2% 32.8% 45.1 2015 718,174 4.0% 25.3 9.1% 19.1% 27.3 30.9% 33.0% 50.9 2016 662,315 4.4% 22.9 74% 16.2% 27.2 32.9% 32.9% 53.9 2017 637,338 4.6% 21.7 8.1% 15.1% 27.3 34.8% 32.8% 56.0 2018 619,713 4.8% 20.9 11.8% 15.6% 27 37.1% 32.3% 57.1 2019 644,241 4.8% 20.9 17.0% 18.3% 28.1 39.1% 33.1% 58.0 2020 594,073 5.4% 18.5 16.9% 15.2% 28.1 40.9% 32.7% 58.0
To some extent, these institutions are the counterpart, in the private sector, of those of type III in the public sector, as shown by the indicators on Table 10. Smaller institutions, trying to maintain a niche of better-quality education, but struggling with limitations of resources. They have resisted the onslaught of distance education, offer a broader menu of careers, maintain a reasonable ratio of students per teacher, and retain a significant team of teachers with doctoral degrees and full-time contracts. They seem also to be more locally oriented, with the higher proportion of students in the country”s southern region, which has a tradition of local autonomy. They cannot compete with the large companies of type Lin terms of tuition costs, nor with the public sector for the lack of subsidies. In recent years, however, many public institutions have started to suffer with budget cuts, the rigidity of civil service rules and internal political strife, creating opportunities for a small but growing segment of elite private institutions to grow and compete for qualified students that can pay, in fields like economics, public
administration, engineering, medical education, and others.
Type V - Private universities and centres.
This category includes private universities and university centres that do not fit either
15
type I, large distance teaching companies, or type IV, community or differentiated
institutions.
Brazilian legislation distinguishes universities, defined as comprehensive institutions that operate in all areas of knowledge, do research, and teach at undergraduate and graduate levels, from colleges, which are generally limited to providing undergraduate degrees in certain areas. Universities have the autonomy to create new course programs and open new vacancies that isolated colleges do not have. Public universities can be created by federal or state law, but private universities must go through a complex and costly authorization and recognition process. Of the 204 universities existing in Brazil in 2021, 113 were public and 9] were private. Due to pressure from the private sector, since the 1990s, Brazilian legislation has started to admit the existence of “university centres” which, in practice, have the same autonomy as universities, but less requirements, especially regarding research and postgraduate activities. Between 2010 and 2020, enrolment in these centres almost tripled, while enrolment in private universities
stagnated (Figure 3). Figure 3 — Type V institutions, 2010-2020
Type V Institutions, 2010-2020
Table 11 presents the main characteristics of these institutions. They are like those im type IV, except for the larger concentration of students in teaching and social professional programs, and the almost non-existing graduate education, despite their university or semi-university status. The proportion of teachers with doctoral degrees is smaller, and the attrition rate, of 52% in 2015 for those admitted in 2000, is close to those of type IL With 1.7 million students im 2020, about 18% of total enrolment, these
institutions seem to have remained in a middle ground between the large, massive
16
distance education institutions of type I and the more differentiated institutions of type
Iv.
Table 11- Type V institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
enrolment 1,177,123 1,165,076 1,246,735 1,307,483 1,295,530 1,248,887 1,303,230 1,352,157 1,581,378 1,755,852 1,707,020
% students In graduate students programs
1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0%
per teacher
22.8 23.0 23.9 25.2 24.4 24.4 24.7 25.0 26.1 26.2 25.2
% students in distance education
5.0% 5.6% 5.9% 6.8% 6.5% 5.8% 6.0% 74% 9.9% 13.7% 16.0%
% students in social professions and teaching 52.3% 51.0% 48.9% 47.2% 44.8% 42.8% 41.5% 41.5% 41.1% 41.5% 40.5%
Mean age 27.7 27.8 27.8 27.9 27.9 27.6 27.6 27.7 28.1 28.4 28.8
Type V institutions - main characteristics of students and teachers
Teachers with doctor's degree 18.0% 19.1% 19.8% 20.5% 222% 23.0% 24.6% 26.2% 27,4% 29.1% 29.8%
Teachers wiith full- | Accumulate time d attrition
contracts rates 29.8% 29.7% 30.1% 31.2% 30.2% 30.7% 31.6% 30.9% 31.7% 32.6% 31.0%
11.9 27.7 39.1 46.9 52.0 55.9 57.5 59.9 60.5 59.8
17
Type VI - Public teaching institutions
This type brings together public institutions that are primarily dedicated to teaching, and do not have graduate students in a significant number. It includes federal, state, and municipal institutions, as well as most of the federal institutes of science and technology established in 2008. In all, 90 institutions are included in this classification at different
times, with around one million students, just over half of the public sector in the country.
Table 12 shows the general characteristics of students in this group. In contrast to the other types of the public sector, 2 and 3, there are almost no postgraduate courses. The students are older, most are studying in the social professions, and few are in distance education courses. The proportion of teachers with doctoral degrees is growing, and the proportion with full-time contracts and civil-servant status is higher, an also growing. Despite the presence of the Federal Institutes in this group, enrolments in vocational courses are few, as well as in the areas of more technical training, or health. Courses are face-to-face, with about a third of students studying at night, and distance learning has not developed much. In general, what is observed throughout the decade is a certain
stagnation, with enrolment oscillating around 1.2 million.
Table 12 — Type VI institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type Vl institutions - Main characteristics of students and teachers % students in social Teachers Teachers % studemts % students professions with wiith full-. Accumulate In graduate students in distance and doctor's time d attrition enrolment programs | perteacher education teaching Meanage degree contracts rates 981,571 6.6% 14.1 9.7% 58.1% 27.6 36.2% 78.0% 1,055,201 6.8% 14.8 9.6% 57.4% 27.9 37.6% 79.9% 7.5 997,660 6.2% 14.9 10.7% 59.1% 28.4 36.2% 79.3% 19.2 1,268,827 6.3% 14.1 10.4% 55.1% 28.3 44.3% 83.5% 29.4 1,300,589 6.4% 13.9 10.8% 54.7% 28.5 46.9% 84.5% 38.5 1,293,437 6.9% 13.7 9.8% 52.5% 28.4 48.7% 84.5% 43.2 1,304,515 7.3% 13.6 9.2% 51.7% 28.4 50.6% 85.3% 47.2 1,359,386 7.4% 14.1 11.9% 51.8% 28.2 53.3% 85.8% 49.8 1,284,506 6.9% 13.7 12.5% 50.3% 28.3 54.3% 87.1% 53.2 1,189,407 6.7% 13.3 11.3% 51.2% 28.3 54.7% 86.7% 54.6 1,174,833 7.2% 13.7 11.9% 48.9% 28.4 59.3% 86.8% 55.0
18
Type VII — Private schools or faculties
This type includes around 2,500 for-profit and non-profit private schools that appeared in the higher education census in the decade, im a constant process of opening, closing, or merging. Each year, around 1,600 are listed. Itis a large group of small institutions, with around 600 students each, spread throughout Brazil. They offer just one or a couple or evening or teaching programs. As Table 13 shows, these institutions have not moved to distance education, have less students per teacher than in other segments of the private sector, and only a small percentage of the teachers hold doctoral degrees and have full- time contracts. They are, clearly, struggling to survive in a very competitive market
environment, and this main explain why this segment is shrinking.
Table 13 - Type VI institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type Vil institutions - Main characteristics of students and teachers % students in social Teachers Teachers % students % students professions with wiith full- In graduate students in distance and doctor's time Accumulated enrolment programs -perteacher education teaching Mean age degree contracts attrition rates 2010 1,611,545 0.2% 16.3 2.71% 53.2% 27.8 10.1% 6.0% 2011 1,744,740 0.2% 17.4 3.3% 51.7% 27.8 11.5% 5.6% 9.6 2012 1,759,524 0.2% 17.7 2.6% 50.8% 27.7 12.9% 5.5% 24.7 2013 1,861,781 0.2% 18.5 23% 49.9% 27.7 13.1% 5.4% 34.7 2014 1,996,125 0.2% 19.2 2.2% 47.8% 27.7 15.0% 5.0% 43.0 2015 2,034,017 0.3% 19.8 2.0% 46.9% 27.6 15.6% 4.7% 48.5 2016 1,967,528 0.3% 20.1 2.6% 45.7% 27.5 16.9% 4.5% 53.9 2017 1,882,581 0.3% 20.4 1.7% 44.6% 27.3 18.4% 4.0% 55.5 2018 1,719,057 0.4% 19.0 2.8% 44.0% 27.4 20.2% 4.7% 56.0 2019 1,499,744 0.4% 17.3 4.3% 44.2% 27.6 25.0% 5.5% 56.4 2020 | 1,261,001 0.6% 16.8 6.9% 44.3% 27.8 27.0% 4.1% 56.3
Type VIII — Vocational Institutions
Type VIII institutions are those in which at last half of their students are in vocational programs, which means that this is the institutions” core activity. In Brazil, these two or three years, post-secondary course programs are called “technological”, meaning that they are supposedly practical and applied. In most countries, the segment of vocational education is significant, similar or in some cases even larger than conventional higher education (United Nations Educational and Organization 2020). In Brazil, the segment is small, but growing. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of students in such programs increased from 12% to 18% of total enrolment. Most of these students are in large private
institutions, from which they are just a small part of their operation.
19
Early in the decade, one in four of the students in vocational programs where in specialized institutions of type VIII. In 2020, they were just one in ten. One important difference between the course programs in specialized institutions and in large private ones is that the former gives more emphasis to technical fields, such as engineering and information technology, while the latter give more emphasis to business, administration, and law. However, in both the field of business, administration and law is the largest (Table 14). This shift from technical to administrative fields may be reflection of the recent changes in the Brazilian economy, in which the industrial sector is shrinking, and the services sector expanding. But it may also reflect the strategy of the private sector to provide cheaper courses that can be delivered at distance and do not require physical
installations and equipment.
Table 14 — Fields of study, vocational students, 2020
Fields of Study, vocational students, 2020
Institutions Institutions 65.1% 19.3% 6.8% 8.8% 1,223,851
Table 15 provides the main indicators about students and teaching staff of type VIII
institutions. Itis a small segment and getting smaller. Students are older, and the attrition rate is high — 48% of those entering 2010 have dropped out by 2014. The conditions of the teaching staff are like the private sector, in terms of teachers with doctoral degrees and full-time contracts, but the student / teacher rates are better. Distance education have
not increased much, and almost half of the students are in technical careers.
20
Table 15 — Type VII Institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type VIll institutions - Main characteristics of students and teachers Students teachers Teachers
% students % students with Teachers students in distance in technical Accumulated |total numbe doctor's wiith full-time
enrolment perteacher education careers (*) Meanage | attrition rates|of teachers degree contracts 2010 194,056 14.3 8.6% 39.0% 27.7 13,581 11.9% 39.0% 2011 216,638 14.5 77% 374% 27.9 8.7 14,939 13.5% 38.5% 2012 233,164 14.9 5.2% 37.8% 27.9 26.7 15,668 15.2% 38.9% 2013 209,349 14.2 2.71% 422% 28.0 39.2 14,772 16.1% 374% 2014 201,299 13.8 3.2% 44.3% 28.1 48.3 14,585 19.0% 41.4% 2015 191,368 12.5 4.1% 46.2% 28.3 54.1 15,259 21.0% 41.8% 2016 176,735 12.3 4.2% 46.2% 28.2 60.2 14,325 23.1% 43.3% 2017 177,513 11.8 6.7% 47.3% 28.2 62.2 15,045 26.4% 47.0% 2018 175,528 14.0 9.4% 45.6% 28.6 62.1 12,529 26.0% 38.0% 2019 172,700 13.8 11.7% 45.6% 29.1 62.3 12,499 28.3% 36.2% 2020 167,557 13.9 15.4% 45.2% 29.4 61.3 12,049 29.7% 36.0%
(*) Science and mathematics, engineering, information technology
The two largest providers of vocational education in this group are the Centro Paula Souza, an agency of the São Paulo State government, and some institutions in the network of Federal Institutes of Education, Science and Technology. Paula Souza was established in 1969 to coordinate a network of vocational secondary, and in 2006 became responsible for a smaller network of “Faculties of Technology” (FATEC) (Schwartzman 2014). In 2020, Paula Souza had about 208 thousand students in secondary education, and about
94 thousand in the Fatecs.
The Federal Institutes were established in 2008 trough a legislation that reorganized and granted university status to a previously existing network of federal centres of technical secondary education. The expectation was that they would become the main providers of public, vocational post-secondary education in the country, but they did not grow much, gave more emphasis to traditional BA and teaching degrees, and started to organize some graduate programs as well (Figure 4). In 2020, there were 35 such institutes enrolling about 327 thousand students in secondary, 90 thousand in undergraduate and 6 thousand in graduate degree programs!2. Compared with the state schools, which enrol the bulk of secondary education students in the country, the federal institutes are a privileged heaven, providing free full-time education im well-equipped installations and well-paid teachers. Students are selected through entrance examinations, and once graduated, they
benefit from the quota system in public higher education for students coming from public
2 Data on secondary school enrolments at the Paula Souza and Federal Institutes are from the
2020 School Census (Censo Escolar).
21
schools. They are, in short, a classic example of academic drift, with vocational
institutions moving up the prestige ladder of university education (Schwartzman 2011).
Figure 4
Enrolment in Federal Institutes, by degree granted, 2010-2020
a ia 016 2017 201
018 2019 200
150000
100000
O 2011
208
50000 i
2012
ss 201
3 2014 2015 2
BEBA mTeaching Vocational m Graduate
Type IX — Research and graduate education institutions
This type includes institutions that have only graduate programs. They are listed in the databases from CAPES, but not in the higher education census. In total, 90 institutions appeared in this group in the last 10 years, 60 of which in 2020, with about 10 thousand students, most of which in MA programs (Table 16). They include federal institutions such as Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Tecnológico da Aeronáutica, Escola Nacional de Ciências Estatísticas, Escola Militar de Engenharia, Escola Nacional de Administração Pública, Escola Superior de Guerra Escola de Guerra Naval and those associated with the Ministry of Science and Technology (Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas and Instituto de Pesquisa da Amazônia, among others); state institutions, such the Instituto de Pesquisa Tecnológicas, Instituto Butantã and Instituto Biológico in São Paulo; and several medical institutions such as Fundação Antônio Prudente do Hospital C. Camargo, Instituto Fernando Figueira, Instituto de Pesquisa da Santa Casa de Belo Horizonte, Sociedade Beneficente Israelita
Albert Einstein and Instituto Nacional do Câncer.
22
Table 16 — Type IX institutions — main characteristics of students and teachers
Type IX Institutions - Main characteristics of students and teachers
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total number of students 8312 8737 9338 9319 10050 10337 10799 11323 11435 11996 11894 In doctoral programs 19.9% 20.3% 20.3% 26.2% 25.6% 26.6% 26.4% 26.4% 271% 26.9% 28.4% Total number of teachers / researchers 2325 2622 2993 3336 3693 3757 3936 3831 3793 4051 3969 Students per teachers 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.8 27 2.8 PEA 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Main fields of study: (%) Agrarian sciences 3.6% 4.4% 4.1% 3.0% 2.5% 2.8% 2.71% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 1.8% Biological sciences 10.2% 10.5% 11.5% 10.2% 10.1% 11.0% 10.7% 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% Health Sciences 13.8% 12.4% 12.2% 15.1% 15.6% 14.7% 13.7% 13.4% 14.2% 14.8% 15.7% Exact Sciences 6.0% 5.5% 5.1% 6.9% 10.1% 5.5% 5.3% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1% 5.2% Humanities 2.4% 1.4% 1.0% 1.5% 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 3.1% 3.8% 4.2% 44% Appied social sciences 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.2% 3.2% 4.3% 5.9% 6.8% 9.3% 6.9% Engineering 247% 24.8% 24.4% 20.6% 19.3% 18.2% 17.8% 17.0% 16.4% 15.0% 15.3% Mutidisciplinary 8.1% 8.8% 9.3% 9.2% 10.6% 10.9% 11.5% 12.0% 11.6% 10.5% 11.4% Medicine and dentistry 13.1% 15.4% 16.2% 16.8% 16.4% 17.6% 17.7% 16.3% 16.7% 16.6% 16.1%
The same as with type VIII, these institutions are just a small part of the much larger
sector of graduate education in Brazil, dominated by the large, comprehensive
universities of type 2 (Table 17). To get the full picture of graduate education in the
country, it would be necessary to include the large but barely visible segment of MBA
and specialization courses mentioned on table 1. The differences between the heavily
subsidized graduate education sector concentrated in public universities and regulated by
CAPES and the much larger MBA and specialization sector, unregulated and
concentrated in the private sector, is clear on paper, but much less so in terms of what
they in fact do, is a matter of public policy still to be addressed (Schwartzman 2022b)
Conclusions and policy implications
This typology corroborates the seminal intuitions of Martin Trow and Burton R. Clark on
the transitions from elite to mass higher education, with growing institutional
differentiation and the combined effects of government, market and oligarchies on the
ways higher education systems are shaped (Trow 2007; Clark 1978). The term “academic
capitalism” has been used recently to describe the dynamics of contemporary higher
23
Table 17 Graduate education in Braiil - Main indicators, 2020 I- Large public dl instutions with | Specialized IX-
I-Large significant or small Selected V-Private Vlother VII - Specialized
private graduate public private university pujblic VII - Private Vocational graduate
institutions eucation institutions institution and centers universitgies schools instituions education Total Number of grraduate students 5,879 146,579 80,143 32,087 16,395 84,079 7,196 800 10,459 383,617 % in doctoral programs 35.0% 48.1% 39.7% 35.5% 21.6% 24.4% 17.8% 14.8% 32.3% 37.7% Teachers in graduage education 1,216 37,522 22,220 6,164 4,307 27,418 1,566 243 3,969 104,625 Graduate studentsm per teacher 4.8 3.9 3.6 5.2 3.8 31 4.6 3.3 2.6 3.7 Total number of publications in Web of Science 1,209 47,792 22,653 4,429 2,713 20,560 827 252 7,082 107,517 Publications per teacher 1.0 13 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.0 18 1.0 Main fields of study: (%) Agrarian sciences 0.6% 8.8% 7.9% 2.0% 4.8% 5.9% 0.2% 0.0% 12.6% 7.1% Biological sciences 7.4% 12.3% 11.2% 8.7% 10.0% 8.3% 6.0% 5.0% 17.9% 10.7% Health Sciences 3.9% 8.9% 8.2% 2.9% 1.9% 8.9% 3.5% 34% 6.0% 7.7% Exact Sciences 5.5% 9.3% 8.4% 8.8% 1,4% 9.2% 3.7% 3.5% 5.0% 8.4% Humanities 48.7% 18.6% 18.0% 48.3% 39.2% 23.1% 43.3% 40.0% 7.9% 23.5% Appied social sciences 5.8% 15.4% 9.7% 8.5% 9.9% 10.0% 1,2% 7,3% 17.4% 11.8% Engineering 4.9% 7.0% 6.5% 44% 2.5% 7.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% Mutidisciplinary 9.8% 4.9% 7.8% 11.0% 16.7% 13.2% 12.7% 10.1% 12.9% 8.8% Medicine and dentistry 12.6% 10.4% 9.3% 4.7% 11.2% 6.0% 28.7% 30.8% 18.3% 9.4%
education system, characterized by strong market orientation and entrepreneurial leadership, having the United States as the main reference. In Brazil, the private institutions of type I fit well this model, but all other types are bounded by the presence of state institutions, regulations and the influence of professional and academic oligarchies (Schwartzman 2022a; Brunner, Salmi, and Labrafia 2022: Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). In spite of its expansion and differentiation, and, beyond its contribution for enhancing human capital, higher education remains a positional good which is demanded by the population, controlled or manipulated by a multiplicity of actors, and generates a competition for credentials that can be wasteful and harmful for those who
are left behind on its trail (Collins 1979; Wolf 2002).
The effort to look at national higher education systems from the standpoint of a typology allows for a more complex view than any unidimensional approach, making it possible to see how different drives shape the peculiar features of each institutional type. The classification presented here suffered from the limitations of existing data and compatibility problems. At least three crucial pieces of information are absent , the costs involved, the socioeconomic conditions of students, and the dynamics of the labour market. Another missing information is how the professions are regulated, and the way
these regulations impinge on the workings of the institutions.
From a policy point of view, the adoption of classifications of this kind by regulatory agencies could lead to a clearer identification of the specific niches of different institutional types, which could be regulated and supported according to their goals, the different segments of society they attend, and the different products they deliver. Ideally, this would make the higher education systems less hierarchical, with different institutions
performing at their best in their specific niches.
But, at the same time, institutions and their constituencies may resent being pinned down to a specific type, given the implicit or explicit hierarchy that any classification can generate. In an environment of permanent competition for prestige and recognition, institutions may prefer to remain ambiguous and not very explicit about their roles, and this may explain why typologies of this type are not formally adopted by national
governments.
The conclusion is that, for the researcher, for analysis and interpretation, there are strong
reasons to move forward getting better data, making them more consistent, and
24
developing new classification methods. At the same time, one should be cautious in turn
these results into official classifications.
References
Balbachevsky, Elizabeth, Helena Sampaio, and Cibele Yahn de Andrade. 2019. "Expanding Access to Higher Education and Its (Limited) Consequences for Social Inclusion: The Brazilian Experience.” Social Inclusion 7 (1). doi: 10.17645/s1.v711.1672.
Bernasconi, Andres, and Paula Clasing. 2015. "Legitimacy in University Government: A New Typology." Education Policy Analysis Archives 23:71.
Brunner, José Joaquín. 2013. "On the Classification of Universities / Sobre la clasificación de universidades." Pensamiento Educativo 50 (1):115-29.
Brunner, José Joaquin, Jamil Salmi, and Julio Labrafia. 2022. Enfoques de sociologia y economia política de la educación superior: aproximaciones al capitalismo académico en América Latina. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2011. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2010 edition. Menlo Park: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Carvalhaes, Flavio, Adriano S Senkevics, and Carlos A Costa Ribeiro. 2022. "The intersection of family income, race, and academic performance in access to higher education in Brazil." Higher Education:1-26.
Clark, Burton R. 1983. The higher education system academic organization in cross- national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, Burton R. 1978. "Academic Differentiation in National Systems of Higher Education." Comparative Education Review 22 (2):242-58.
Coelho, Edmundo Campos. 1999. As Profissões imperiais: advocacia, medicina e engenharia no Rio de Janeiro, 1822-1930. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.
Collins, Randall. 1979. The credential society. New York: Academic Press.
Costa, Danielle Dias da, and Norma-Iracema de Barros Ferreira. 2017. "O PROUNI na educação superior brasileira: indicadores de acesso e permanência." Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas) 22 (1):141-63.
Durham, Eunice Ribeiro, and Helena Sampaio. 1995. "O Ensino Privado no Brasil.” In Documento de Trabalho, 18. Universidade de São Paulo, Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre Educação Superior - NUPES.
French, Jan Hoffman. 2021. "Race, Racism, and Affirmative Action in Brazil and the United States." Latin American Research Review 56 (4):988-97.
INEP, Diretoria de Estatísticas Educacionais. 2018. Metodologia de Cálculo dos Indicadores de Fluxo da Educação Superior. Brasilia: Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (Inep).
25
Lane, Jan-Frik. 1985. "Academic Profession im Academic Organization." Higher Education 14 (3):241-68.
Levy, Daniel C. 1986. Higher education and the state in Latin America : private challenges to public dominance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCormick, Alexander C. 2013. "Classifying Higher Education Institutions: Lessons from the Carnegie Classification." | Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación: Educacional Latinoamericana 50:65-75.
Nascimento, Matheus Monteiro, Cláudio Cavalcanti, and Fernanda Ostermann. 2020. "Dez anos de instituição da Rede Federal de Educação Profissional, Científica e Tecnológica: o papel social dos institutos federais." Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos 101:120-45.
OECD. 2018. Rethinking Quality Assurance for Higher Education in Brazil. Paris: OECD.
Olsen, Johan P. 2001. "Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics.” The American Political Science Review 95 (1):191-8.
Paula, Camila Henriques de, and Fernanda Maria de Almeida. 2020. "O programa Reuni e o desempenho das Ifes brasileiras." Ensaio: avaliação e políticas públicas em Educação 28:1054-75.
Reimer, David, and Marita Jacob. 2011. "Differentiation in higher education and its consequences for social inequality: introduction to a special issue." Higher Education 61:223-7.
Ribeiro, Jorge Luiz Lordelo de Sales, and Robert Evan Verhine. 2012. "Implementação do Sinaes nas instituições brasileiras de educação superior: uma análise comparativa a partir de estudos de caso."
Sampaio, Helena. 2000. Ensino superior no Brasil - o setor privado. São Paulo: FAPESP / Hucitec.
Schwartzman, Simon. 2010. "The National Assessment of Courses in Brazil." In Public Policy for Academic Quality — Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments, edited by David D. Dill and Maarja Beerkens, 293-312. Dordrech Heidelberg London New York: Springer.
. 2011." Academic Drift in Brazilian Education." Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana 48 (1):14-26.
. 2014. "O Centro Paula Souza e a Educação Profissional no Brasil." In Educação Básica em São Paulo - avanços e desafios, edited by Barjas Negri, Haroldo de Gama Torres and Maria Helena Guimarães de Castro, 187-216. São Paulo: SEADE / FDE.
. 2022a. "Entre Berlin y la bolsa: capitalismo académico en Brasil?" In Enfoques de sociologia y economía política de la educación superior: aproximaciones al capitalismo académico en América Latina, edited by José Joaquin Brunner, Jamil Salmi and Julio Labrafia, 137-69. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.
. 2022b. "Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação no Brasil: duas faces da mesma moeda?" Estudos Avançados 36 (14):227-54.
26
. 2022c. "Políticas de Expansão para a Educação Superior." In Para não esquecer: políticas públicas que empobrecem o Brasil, edited by Marcos Mendes, 516-43. Rio de Janeiro: Insper / Autografia.
Schwartzman, Simon , and Elizabeth Balbachevsky. 2009. "The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment: converging or diverging values and beliefs?" RIHE International Seminar Reports - The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives 13.
Schwartzman, Simon, and Elizabeth Balbachevsky. 1993. "The Academic Profession in Brazil." In Documento de Trabalho, 19. Universidade de São Paulo, Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre Ensino Superior - USP.
Schwartzman, Simon, Rómulo Pinheiro, and Pundy Pillay. 2015. "Higher Education in the BRICS Countries - Investigating the Pact between Higher Education and Society." In Higher Education Dynamics, Vol. 44. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schwartzman, Simon, Roberto Lobo Silva, and Rooney RA Coelho. 2021. "Por uma tipologia do ensino superior brasileiro: teste de conceito." Estudos Avançados 35:153-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-4014.2021.35101.011.
Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional. 2018. "Aspectos fiscais da educação no Brasil.” In. Brasilia: Ministério da Fazenda.
Shulman, Lee S. 2001. "The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education.” Menlo Park: Carnegie Publication.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Souza, Pedro Ivo. 2022. "Fundos Garantidores com Participação da União." In Para não esquecer: políticas públicas que empobrecem o Brasil, edited by Marcos Mendes, 143-73. Rio de Janeiro: Autografia Edição e Comunicação Ltda.
Trow, Martin. 2007. "Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWIL." In International handbook of higher education, 243-80. Dordrecht: Springer.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2020. "Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.” 92310038.
van Vught, Frans. 2009. Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education. Vol. 28: Springer Science & Business Media.
Van Vught, Frans A, and Frank Ziegele. 2012. Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank. Vol. 37: Springer Science & Business Media.
Verhine, Robert E. 2015. "Avaliação e regulação da educação superior: uma análise a partir dos primeiros 10 anos do SINAES." Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior 20 (3).
Wolf, Alison. 2002. Does education matter? myths about education and economic growth. London: Penguin.
21