CAPES Ratings: GRADE 07

The evaluation of the National Graduate Education System (SNPG) is conducted by CAPES and includes participation from the scientific community.

The goal is to endorse the quality of graduate programs, promote research, and allocate scholarships.

The ratings range from 1 to 7, with scores of 6 and 7 indicating a high international standard of performance for doctoral programs.

Below are the most recent evaluations conducted by CAPES:

Program Self-Assessments

The Cardiology Program has undergone two self-assessments: one conducted by USP with the support of program coordinators, and another carried out by members of the coordinating committee.

The Program has a tradition of closing each academic year by finalizing the entry of all intellectual production data into the Sucupira Platform, compiling them in a spreadsheet, and presenting the results to its advisors. This spreadsheet includes: CNPq research productivity fellows; student flow, including undergraduate research and graduate students; scholarship holders; and intellectual output, with scoring by category and indications of participation by alumni and current students. During the annual meeting, based on the presented results, yearly and quadrennial goals are established.

In the first semester of 2024, the Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies at the University of São Paulo (PRPG/USP) conducted a university-wide self-assessment of graduate programs, supplementing any individual self-assessment initiatives of the Graduate Programs (PPGs). The main objective was to deepen understanding of each program, highlight strengths and weaknesses, identify potential improvements and innovations, and establish an action plan. All programs received a compilation of data provided by PRPG/USP and were encouraged to reflect on key aspects of their program, considering their educational mission and commitment to excellence. Programs submitted their conclusions to PRPG/USP, which forwarded them to external reviewers for independent critical analysis. These reviews were then analyzed by members of the Graduate Council, who highlighted the key findings. The final results and reports were returned to the PPGs. Finally, PRPG organized an in-person workshop that brought together PPG coordinators to share experiences, discuss common strengths and weaknesses, and propose improvement actions.

The report on the self-assessment process organized by the University of São Paulo, approved by the Graduate Council, is available at: https://www.prpg.usp.br/pt-br/apoio-administrativo/avaliacao-capes

Additionally, to conduct a more detailed evaluation, the Program’s Coordinating Committee held a meeting to carry out an internal self-assessment. Relevant topics were selected and sent to all committee members, including student representatives. A favorable environment was created for the self-assessment, allowing for free expression among participants. It is now understood that the purpose of graduate programs is not only the production of knowledge but also student development. Therefore, the assessment must capture this dimension, which is inherently a process and not just a product. The self-assessment aimed to foster proximity between evaluator and evaluated. It enabled reflection on the context and policies adopted, as well as the systematization of data leading to decision-making.

  • Tools and Processes Used

A web-based spreadsheet was created and sent to all committee members. Each member individually completed it with their own perspectives and plans for the program. After collecting all evaluation forms, the program coordination consolidated the material and, in a joint meeting, standardized the assessment and reached a final analysis.

  • Pedagogical Proposal

The committee analyzed the Cardiology Program’s pedagogical proposal and considered it very good. It assessed infrastructure, research lines, courses offered, and scientific output. There is clear integration among faculty, the institution, and student output. The program focuses on student training, student production, and societal impact. The renewal of the faculty with young researchers is an example of how the program encourages student development.

  • Student and Alumni Flow

The committee assessed student learning and considered it very good. Students are continuously evaluated through scientific seminars, individual and group evaluations, and the qualifying exam. Student and alumni flow was considered very good, with consistent enrollment numbers, defended theses, and alumni tracking data. The program has further improved its tools for monitoring alumni.

  • Faculty Alignment with Educational Goals

The self-assessment deemed the faculty to be of high quality. The program regulations were updated in the last quadrennium to regularly require scientific production, engagement with the program, direct involvement in student research, and student training. Professors are evaluated at the end of each course through an anonymous student feedback form submitted to the program. These metrics are shared with the professors and used to drive improvements.

  • Impact of Scientific Production

The committee rated the scientific output as very good. It highlighted the program’s significant research production, strong involvement of students in most research activities, and the relevance of the studies to society. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no negative impact on productivity. There is a clear shift in focus toward student-led production and the quality of student training.

  • Summary of the Self-Assessment

Over the past eight years, the program has made significant progress in alumni tracking, focusing on student development, integration with the University, alignment with University and CAPES policies, and maintaining an emphasis on internationalization and inclusion. The Dinter Cardiology-UFPB initiative is an example for the next quadrennium, reinforcing the program’s commitment to student training and institutional renewal.