Uma Análise do Índice Geral de Cursos usando DEA

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Favali, Joao Danilo [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
• Palavras-chave em Português: DEA; IGC; Ranking; Ranqueamento
• Link de acesso: https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=7928448; https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/59781

The National Institute for Educational Studies and Research “An ́ısio Teixeira” (Inep), an autarchy linked to the Ministry of Education (MEC), is responsible for providing information and statistics for the definition of educational policies. Within the context of higher education, there is the National System of Evaluation of Higher Education (Sinaes), which aims to evaluate institutions, courses and student performance. One of the informative tools of Sinaes is the General Courses Index (IGC), an indicator that seeks to measure the quality of each Institute of Higher Education (IES). The IGC synthesizes in a single value the average grades of undergraduate, masters and doctoral of the referred IES and is used, at least by the media, to rank them. Nevertheless, the methodology for obtaining the IGC carries an apparent paradox: it is possible for an IES to have undergraduate, masters and doctoral grades respectively higher than those of another IES, but with a lower IGC than the last one. This fact is accentuated by the methodology does not present theoretical justifications for the construction of the IGC, especially regarding the weighting factors and conversion of the grades. The purpose of this present work, therefore, is to use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) on the data of the grades - in a first moment, these grades shall be the provided by Inep, later they will be normalized - in order to propose alternative rankings. The traditional DEA-CCR model and the cross efficiency approach were used, with two variations of secondary objectives, that revealed different rankings than the IGC and did not present the mentioned paradox.