Opinion – Cecilia Machado: Increased competition in Enem makes access more difficult for students with fewer resources

Every year, millions of students who finish high school try their luck on the Enem (National High School Exam), one of the main gateways to higher education, as many universities use the grade of this test as an admission criterion in its selective processes. This year there are only 3.1 million enrolled in Enem, the lowest number since 2005, when the test was mainly aimed at high school proficiency.

The number disappoints. The number of applicants had been growing in response to the multiple objectives that Enem began to contemplate, being, for example, also used as a criterion for admission to public universities and for granting scholarships and financing from ProUni and Fies. In 2014 there were 8.7 million subscribers, the maximum value of the historical series.

The pandemic certainly contributes to this year’s statistics: compared to 2020, they are just over half of those signed up. Difficulties with remote education are reflected in the educational trajectory of young people in different socioeconomic contexts: while the enrollment of whites dropped by 35%, that of blacks and browns dropped by 52%.

Would everything go into the pandemic account? On the one hand, the increase in the poverty situation of families and credit restrictions should guide the decision-making pendulum of young people towards a labor market that has not yet recovered, and which, at the same time, will be less and less able to absorb unskilled labor. On the other hand, the number of subscribers was already on a downward trajectory long before the pandemic, suggesting that the reasons behind the phenomenon could also be different.

Enem enthusiasts argue that a universal admission test reduces barriers to accessing higher education, as the same grade can be used for admission to multiple universities. And as more universities use the exam in their admissions criteria, the options for choosing candidates expand. The integration of the educational market brings a welcome gain in the allocation of students to universities.

Critics, however, argue that a standardized selection increases competition for vacancies. Considering that young people finish secondary education in different learning conditions, the reduction of access barriers can increase inequalities, especially in tests where the level of preparation (which increases with family income) is a determining factor for performance.

In fact, access to higher education has become increasingly competitive, as seen in the selection for public universities. Among those who adopted the Sisu (Unified Selection System) –a platform that uses Enem scores in the allocation of vacancies–, the cutoff scores for admissions increased. At the same time, market integration has allowed students from other regions of the country to compete for places throughout the country, stimulating student migration.

Sisu’s centralized allocation also resulted in admissions of older candidates, in line with the hypothesis that a test as important as Enem increases candidates’ preparation time. The effects on grades and migration were greater the higher the quality of the university, which further expands the stratification in the allocation of students to courses (Machado and Szerman, 2021).

It is true that expanding the range of options and allowing students to choose the best courses available remains a desirable goal, but while conditions for preparing for Enem remain uneven, increased competition makes access more difficult for students with fewer resources. Improving access to higher education inevitably involves improving learning conditions in secondary education.