Recent changes to the Ministry of Education’s (MEC) policies regarding the ENEM national exam have sparked significant backlash among students. As the exam approaches, set for November 9 and 16, 2025, many express concerns about the new rule allowing candidates to use scores from up to three previous editions of the exam for university entrance through the Unified Selection System (Sisu).
Policy Overview
The primary goal of this policy is to expand access to higher education by offering greater flexibility for repeat exam candidates. However, it has garnered criticism, particularly from first-time test-takers who feel disadvantaged by the change.
Student Reactions
- Many students have taken to social media to voice their discontent.
- A petition against the new rule has amassed over 30,000 signatures on Change.org.
- Critics argue that the policy fosters unfair advantages for those who have previously taken the exam multiple times.
- Some students labeled the change as elitist, benefiting those with the means to prepare for the exam across multiple years.
Lack of Community Consultation
Opponents of the policy also highlight the timing of its announcement. The decision was made public on October 24, just weeks before the exam, with little consultation from the student community. This has led to further frustration among prospective candidates.
Impact on the Selection Process
According to the new guidelines, the highest score obtained from any of the last three ENEM editions will be considered for Sisu selections. For instance, candidates applying for Sisu in 2026 will have their scores from 2023, 2024, and 2025 evaluated.
Expert Opinions
Renato Pedrosa, a researcher from the Institute of Advanced Studies at USP, noted that discussions about the use of past ENEM scores date back to the exam’s inception. He mentions that the original concept aimed to allow scores from past years to be applicable for a certain duration without requiring annual retakes.
Future Implications
Regarding potential changes in competition levels for popular courses, Pedrosa believes that cut-off scores may rise, although definitive conclusions can only be drawn after the first implementation of the policy. The MEC, in response, maintains that the adjustments are meant to broaden the candidate pool, thereby enhancing the chances of filling available university seats.
Moreover, the MEC emphasizes that several public institutions already use multiple ENEM results in their selection processes. Continuing dialogue with educational institutions is promised to ensure effective access policies to higher education, reinforcing student equity.
Conclusion
The MEC’s new policy allowing multiple ENEM entries attempts to adapt to the evolving landscape of academic admissions. While aimed at increasing flexibility and opportunities, this decision also raises important questions about fairness and equitable access to education.
