On the proposed tuition hike:
UP could be State University No More
The
University of the Philippines (UP) represents a beacon of hope for the
Filipino family who have been so used to neglect and suffering: quality
education at a reasonable cost. But the latest tuition hike proposal being
pushed by the very officials of the university may permanently extinguish
the chances of the common Filipino family for a better life.
BY REYNA
MAE TABBADA
Bulatlat
The
University of the Philippines (UP) represents a beacon of hope for the
Filipino family who have been so used to neglect and suffering: quality
education for a reasonable cost. But the latest tuition hike proposal
being pushed by the very officials of the university may permanently
extinguish the chances of the common Filipino family for a better life.
The
current tuition fee of the iskolars ng bayan (literally, people’s
scholars) stands between P5,000 to P9,000, with the exception of students
of the College of Medicine in UP Manila who suffered the first whip of a
rather systematic UP administration-backed plan to increase the tuition.
But these amounts may soon change with the Board of Regents (BoR), the
university’s highest policy-making body, poised to decide if such
increases would be implemented. An Ad-hoc committee tasked to review
tuition and other fees, composed of Chairman Emmanuel de Dios, Rene P.
Felix, and Helen S. Valderama, has already submitted a 17-page final
report to the BoR that proposed to augment tuition and miscellaneous fees
of incoming freshmen of Academic Year (AY) 2006-2007, but its
implementation may have to be moved for AY 2007-2008.
If the
findings and recommendations of the De Dios Committee would be applied,
tuition fee of the country’s premier academic institution would increase
by as much as 500 percent. Today’s cost of per credit-unit stands at P300
($6.02 at an exchange rate of $1=P49.82) for Diliman, Manila, and Los
Baños campuses while in Baguio, Visayas, and Mindanao the amount is
slightly lower at P200 ($4.01). In the de Dios Committee report, the rate
can go as high as P1,500 ($30.108) for Group 1 (Diliman, Manila, Los Baños)
and P1,000 ($20.07) for Group 11 (Baguio, Visayas, Mindanao). Also, a new
bracketing system is proposed as is shown below:
Tuition-fee discounts by bracket and campus-group |
|
(in pesos per
credit-unit) |
Bracket |
Group I |
Group II |
A |
0 |
0 |
B |
300 |
200 |
C |
600 |
400 |
D |
1,000 |
600 |
E |
1,500 |
1,000 |
|
|
|
Group 1: Diliman, Manila, Los Banos |
Group 11: Baguio, Visayas, Mindanao |
This is
a huge divergence from its present equivalent system called the Socialized
Tuition Fee Assistance Program (STFAP):
STFAP brackets and
applicable |
tuition-fee discounts(in
pesos per credit-unit) |
Bracket |
Family income
in urban areas
(pesos) |
Tuition fee
discount
(percent) |
Applicable tuition
fee*
(pesos) |
1 |
0-45,000 |
100 |
0 |
2 |
45,001-55,000 |
100 |
0 |
3 |
55,001-65,000 |
100 |
0 |
4 |
65,001-80,000 |
100 |
0 |
5 |
80,001-130,000 |
100 |
0 |
6 |
130,001-170,000 |
75 |
75 |
7 |
170,000-210,000 |
50 |
150 |
8 |
210,001-250,000 |
25 |
225 |
9 |
250,001 and above |
0 |
300 |
Source: UP
STFAP-Bulletin(2001) |
*Rates for UP Diliman |
Flawed
logic
But the
conclusions and rationale given by the De Dios Committee are shaky, if not
misguided, as some sectors in the UP claim. In the position paper of the
All-UP Academic Union (AUPAU), an organization of the university’s
academic workforce, it said that “the committee has resorted to an
imagined rise in income for its clone UP student to justify a raise in
tuition and miscellaneous fees.”
With the
committee borrowing its justifications from the “market-driven principle”
where “those who have more should pay more,” the fundamental basis of the
proposed tuition fee increase (TFI) is that the average income of Filipino
families improved between 1988 to 2003, as shown by the data gathered by
the UP Office of Admission on self-reported family incomes by incoming UP
students for the year 2004. The said data serves as the statistical core
of the claims by the De Dios Committee.
Also,
the 2004 family earnings of incoming freshmen were shown to be higher than
the average income in the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES). It
sets the precedence that the present measure of fees in the university,
especially its bracketing scheme called the STFAP, is proving to be an
“increasingly inadequate system” and hence should be replaced. Shown below
are the figures from the UP Office of Admission and how it compares to the
national averages:
Family-income
distribution by decile: entering UP freshmen 2004
and all households 2003
(in thousands of pesos
per annum) |
Entering freshmen |
National |
Decile |
Income maximum * |
Average Income ** |
Average Income |
Average
Expenditure |
A
Poorest |
36,000 |
13,511 |
26,467 |
28,588 |
Second |
65,000 |
52,188 |
42,354 |
43,556 |
B
Third |
98,169 |
80,609 |
55,052 |
55,096 |
Fourth |
135,140 |
116,216 |
68,863 |
66,147 |
Fifth |
182,239 |
159,687 |
85,391 |
80,204 |
C
Sixth |
247,264 |
215,473 |
106,029 |
98,701 |
Seventh |
340,000 |
288,047 |
134,473 |
120,972 |
Eight |
509,200 |
417,122 |
175,784 |
152,501 |
The committee report further points out that the ratio
between market prices of 1989 and 2005 is 3.28 based on the Consumer Price
Index (CPI), which is used to determine the
cost of living. And with the CPI as the multiplying constant, the
committee computed the annual income of families belonging to Bracket 9 of
the present STFAP, which is pegged to be earning P250,000 or more, to have
reached P820,000 (P250,000 x CPI 3.28) so they should be paying P984 per
credit-unit (P300 x CPI 3.28) or P656 per credit-unit (P200 x CPI 3.28).
The de Dios
committee also argued that the nominal tuition fee since 1989 has declined
in its real value, decreasing to P98 and P61 in 2004 for the P300 and P200
per credit-unit cost, respectively.
According to
the AUPAU paper, the De Dios Committee failed to recognize the same effect
of inflation on the so-called improved income of the families of UP
students in 2004. As inflation stands at 7.7 percent by the end of 2005,
the daily cost of living (DCoL) of 2005 for a family of six amounts to
P650.17 in the NCR and P534.80 outside the region, according to the
National Statistics Office (NSO). Following the proposed bracketing of the
De Dios Committee, those in Bracket B who earn from P98,169 to P182,239
would only be having P272.69 to P506.21 every day, which is way below the
DCOL. Even in the case of the wealthiest bracket of UP students, the real
value of their P250,000 income is P76,219.5 (P250,000 / CPI 3.28).
As the AUPAU
claimed, other economic and social factors affecting the real value of
today’s incomes were ignored by the De Dios Committee. “The crux of the
committee’s justification for the increases in tuition and miscellaneous
fees is based on a ‘thought experiment’ assuming ‘intertemporal equity’, a
fictitious state of a clone UP student which blatantly defies hard
reality,” the paper concluded.
Divide and
rule
In an interview
with Bulatlat, Dr. Edberto Villegas from the AUPAU said that one of
the tactics employed by the proponents of TFI is the “divide and rule”
strategy. In the committee report, there was a section dedicated to a
comparison of salaries among professors and instructors in UP, Ateneo de
Manila University, De La Salle University, and the University of Santo
Tomas (UST), obviously to show the huge difference of their compensations
and then offering the TFI as a way to augment their paychecks. From such
an action, it is clear that the De Dios Committee “pit faculty welfare
against student welfare,” as pointed out by the AUPAU.
But Villegas
quickly debunked such claims, “This is not applicable to UP because we do
not operate like those private institutions as we are covered by
rationalization.” The rationalization law applies to government employees
in order to standardize their salaries.
The same tactic
is also used to the present students who will not be affected by the
proposed increase. Again, the De Dios Committee raised the concerns of two
sectors in the university and gave the false impression that they are
coming from different, if not opposing, sides of the TFI issue.
University
of the Philippines, Inc.
The last
tuition hike in UP was in 1989 in compliance with the dictates of the
International Monetary Fund as stated in the Memorandum of Economic and
Financial Agreement (MOEFA) during the Aquino administration. “In MOEFA,
government institutions like UP were instructed to look for other ways to
increase their revenues as the government will not increase their budgets
in order to pay off debts,” Dr. Villegas explained.
However, the
implications of the present propositions to implement tuition and
miscellaneous fee increases go deeper than the immediate financial
constraints it will present to the ordinary Filipino family. It is yet
another proof of the commercialization of education, one of the most
primary rights that should be accorded to Filipinos. “The rule now is to
each his own to survive the rigors of the market with its ever increasing
prices of goods and services. And the UP administration is caught within
this profit-making milieu and therefore look first after its own,” as
postulated in the AUPAU paper. This makes the university no different from
a profit-driven corporation whose sole consideration is its own survival
in an increasingly competitive playing field. And the students are treated
like customers who have to contend with the fact that they need to have
the money in order to avail of their right.
“What is
happening now is a privatization approach to education,” said Dr. Villegas
as he reiterated the insight of the AUPAU position paper that this is
bringing UP one step closer to being bought by private corporations, as is
the trend of other government institutions.
“They even have
plans to list UP in the stock market,” he shared, in a tone so serious
that it may not have been a joke done in bad taste. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.