Once upon a time, my mother, perhaps in a fit of righteous motherly concern over our dismal studies, remarked, "We can only afford Ateneo!"
The remark, I presume, was deliberately ironic but it had some truth into it. You see, my mother was a teacher in Ateneo and we got to study in the institution for free until we were twenty one years old (a benefit which some younger teachers in the school wish to remove for the irrational reason that they can't avail of the benefit now). If my mother wasn't a teacher in Ateneo, I don't know where we would have ended up. And it seems plausible that, if this were the case, my siblings and I would have had to endure the quality of education in the public schools.
Hence, it goes without saying that I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to study in Ateneo and I can confidently say that I made sure I didn't waste the opportunity.
With that opening, let me now give my side of the story regarding the quintessential issue of Tuition Fee Increase in my Alma mater, particularly in the college division. Ever since I was a first year college kid, this had already been an issue, if not then, then since time immemorial. Many a student party had flourished by establishing this issue as the cornerstone of their campaigns (I don't blame them though. It's a really hot topic).
A leftist friend of mine had said that, while Ateneo can and does have the right to increase tuition fees to match inflation, it cannot do so beyond what the CHED mandates as the proper "Tuition Fee Hike". Looking back, I would have loved to ask him to crunch some numbers and provide some documentation to further elaborate his point (or was what he said mere rhetoric chewed and regurgitated from his other comrades in the field? A classic case of group think?).
But I'm not going to elaborate on that simply because I'm ignorant about the whole CHED affair. I maybe labeled as complacent and passive but I do believe that there is already a system of checks and balances between CHED and the academic community, such that any institution caught violating CHED's memos will, in due time, be penalized and if CHED bungles up anything by imposing measures that hurt or otherwise severely threaten an institution's cash flow and long-term survivability, the institution can speak up in the proper court.
With that set aside, what do I really think about Tuition Fee Increase? If for most people, this issue is a dreaded disease, for me, it's an opportunity for a little bit of social change. Lest you accuse me of being condescending, I really see this issue as a start of a new possibility, of a reality where the distinction between an Ateneo and non-Ateneo graduate is blurred or otherwise non-existent. Let me tell you what can happen if we look at Tuition Fee Increase (TFI) with this new perspective.
In the book, Heroic Leadership, author Chris Lowney had deduced that maybe more magis in the part of the Jesuits would have brought an impossible school system, such as one which catered to everyone and not just the wealthy and literate, into reality (To digress, that is the mission of the De La Salle brothers: to educate everyone. A piece of information I got from Rin, a DLSU alumna).
Currently, we're stuck with what we have now, an educational institution by the name of the Ateneo de Davao University, whose mission it is to educate, shape, and influence those who would make the greatest impact on society - the rich and famous, the wealthy and powerful, the students who would in turn be the elite class of the next society.
That's the sad but obvious fact. Nowhere in that sentence above did I mention the masses, those who may have good minds but have empty wallets (perhaps, it's already a blessing that Ateneo educates, through scholarships, a lot of deserving but poor students thanks to rich "capitalist" benefactors and, of course, the well-to-do student majority).
Having laid this down, what can Tuition Fee Increase do to remedy the situation? At this point, allow me to make some "wild" conjectures regarding the matter. First of all, if Ateneo continues to increase tuition fees, more and more students will not be able to afford it. So far, so good. These students then, if they choose to spend their time more wisely, will go around shopping for more affordable schools in the city instead of protesting against the "unfairness" of the powers-that-be.
Statistics will point out that, since the rich and privileged do not have a monopoly of good minds (on the contrary, most rich kids I know are dumb and immature), most of the geniuses of this nation (given that they've managed to graduate from high school) will be coming from the middle-class and the poor majority. Many of them won't be stepping on Ateneo for lack of funds and will instead be graduating from lesser-known universities.
And here then is the crux of the matter. I bet that there are a lot of good tertiary schools out there who cannot boast of big student populations but otherwise have competent faculties. I also do believe that the idea of "The Ateneo Graduate", the promising archetype of a bright, emotionally intelligent and mature professional, is an overrated phenomenon. I also bet that there must be many good graduates out there in the other schools who can boast of good, if not, better credentials but are otherwise shunned for the lack of a "brand" (ex: "I'm not familiar of your Alma mater. But we do have another applicant who comes from Ateneo and though his records are rather disappointing, we will take our chances with him because he comes from a very good school." Gimme a break).
Now, what does this have to do with our discussion? Well, the migration of gifted students from expensive schools to more affordable ones is an exciting movement. It is exciting in a sense that it promises a gradual but inevitable change in public opinion. Ever since, employers, no matter how impartial they might seem in front of applicants, are already biased by the names they see on resumes. But to see better qualified professionals in the workforce, who are graduates of "lesser" universities, will indeed, in time, challenge the notion that only the big players, like Ateneo, can offer superior quality education.
The "brain gain", so to speak, will benefit the larger academic community, composed of both big-time players and small-time institutions, who are struggling to carve a niche for their services. It will benefit the big-time players since this occurrence will foster a more competitive spirit among these institutions, as they try to maintain an edge over everyone else. It will benefit the small-time schools since they can now prove they can play with the big boys, with their list of impressive alumni as evidence of their success. Even better, it will benefit the greater majority of the workforce since the power of the "brand" will hereby be diminished. It won't greatly matter anymore if you're a graduate of a so-and-so university since the playing field will by then be level.
To close this post, some activists lament that the wanton increase in tuition fees constitute the ever-increasing commercialization of the educational system. But, if you really think hard about it, this commercialization is, in itself, neither positive nor negative. It all depends on one's perception and history would prove that the eventual victors are those who embrace change and know how to use it to fit their ends.
The remark, I presume, was deliberately ironic but it had some truth into it. You see, my mother was a teacher in Ateneo and we got to study in the institution for free until we were twenty one years old (a benefit which some younger teachers in the school wish to remove for the irrational reason that they can't avail of the benefit now). If my mother wasn't a teacher in Ateneo, I don't know where we would have ended up. And it seems plausible that, if this were the case, my siblings and I would have had to endure the quality of education in the public schools.
Hence, it goes without saying that I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to study in Ateneo and I can confidently say that I made sure I didn't waste the opportunity.
With that opening, let me now give my side of the story regarding the quintessential issue of Tuition Fee Increase in my Alma mater, particularly in the college division. Ever since I was a first year college kid, this had already been an issue, if not then, then since time immemorial. Many a student party had flourished by establishing this issue as the cornerstone of their campaigns (I don't blame them though. It's a really hot topic).
A leftist friend of mine had said that, while Ateneo can and does have the right to increase tuition fees to match inflation, it cannot do so beyond what the CHED mandates as the proper "Tuition Fee Hike". Looking back, I would have loved to ask him to crunch some numbers and provide some documentation to further elaborate his point (or was what he said mere rhetoric chewed and regurgitated from his other comrades in the field? A classic case of group think?).
But I'm not going to elaborate on that simply because I'm ignorant about the whole CHED affair. I maybe labeled as complacent and passive but I do believe that there is already a system of checks and balances between CHED and the academic community, such that any institution caught violating CHED's memos will, in due time, be penalized and if CHED bungles up anything by imposing measures that hurt or otherwise severely threaten an institution's cash flow and long-term survivability, the institution can speak up in the proper court.
With that set aside, what do I really think about Tuition Fee Increase? If for most people, this issue is a dreaded disease, for me, it's an opportunity for a little bit of social change. Lest you accuse me of being condescending, I really see this issue as a start of a new possibility, of a reality where the distinction between an Ateneo and non-Ateneo graduate is blurred or otherwise non-existent. Let me tell you what can happen if we look at Tuition Fee Increase (TFI) with this new perspective.
In the book, Heroic Leadership, author Chris Lowney had deduced that maybe more magis in the part of the Jesuits would have brought an impossible school system, such as one which catered to everyone and not just the wealthy and literate, into reality (To digress, that is the mission of the De La Salle brothers: to educate everyone. A piece of information I got from Rin, a DLSU alumna).
Currently, we're stuck with what we have now, an educational institution by the name of the Ateneo de Davao University, whose mission it is to educate, shape, and influence those who would make the greatest impact on society - the rich and famous, the wealthy and powerful, the students who would in turn be the elite class of the next society.
That's the sad but obvious fact. Nowhere in that sentence above did I mention the masses, those who may have good minds but have empty wallets (perhaps, it's already a blessing that Ateneo educates, through scholarships, a lot of deserving but poor students thanks to rich "capitalist" benefactors and, of course, the well-to-do student majority).
Having laid this down, what can Tuition Fee Increase do to remedy the situation? At this point, allow me to make some "wild" conjectures regarding the matter. First of all, if Ateneo continues to increase tuition fees, more and more students will not be able to afford it. So far, so good. These students then, if they choose to spend their time more wisely, will go around shopping for more affordable schools in the city instead of protesting against the "unfairness" of the powers-that-be.
Statistics will point out that, since the rich and privileged do not have a monopoly of good minds (on the contrary, most rich kids I know are dumb and immature), most of the geniuses of this nation (given that they've managed to graduate from high school) will be coming from the middle-class and the poor majority. Many of them won't be stepping on Ateneo for lack of funds and will instead be graduating from lesser-known universities.
And here then is the crux of the matter. I bet that there are a lot of good tertiary schools out there who cannot boast of big student populations but otherwise have competent faculties. I also do believe that the idea of "The Ateneo Graduate", the promising archetype of a bright, emotionally intelligent and mature professional, is an overrated phenomenon. I also bet that there must be many good graduates out there in the other schools who can boast of good, if not, better credentials but are otherwise shunned for the lack of a "brand" (ex: "I'm not familiar of your Alma mater. But we do have another applicant who comes from Ateneo and though his records are rather disappointing, we will take our chances with him because he comes from a very good school." Gimme a break).
Now, what does this have to do with our discussion? Well, the migration of gifted students from expensive schools to more affordable ones is an exciting movement. It is exciting in a sense that it promises a gradual but inevitable change in public opinion. Ever since, employers, no matter how impartial they might seem in front of applicants, are already biased by the names they see on resumes. But to see better qualified professionals in the workforce, who are graduates of "lesser" universities, will indeed, in time, challenge the notion that only the big players, like Ateneo, can offer superior quality education.
The "brain gain", so to speak, will benefit the larger academic community, composed of both big-time players and small-time institutions, who are struggling to carve a niche for their services. It will benefit the big-time players since this occurrence will foster a more competitive spirit among these institutions, as they try to maintain an edge over everyone else. It will benefit the small-time schools since they can now prove they can play with the big boys, with their list of impressive alumni as evidence of their success. Even better, it will benefit the greater majority of the workforce since the power of the "brand" will hereby be diminished. It won't greatly matter anymore if you're a graduate of a so-and-so university since the playing field will by then be level.
To close this post, some activists lament that the wanton increase in tuition fees constitute the ever-increasing commercialization of the educational system. But, if you really think hard about it, this commercialization is, in itself, neither positive nor negative. It all depends on one's perception and history would prove that the eventual victors are those who embrace change and know how to use it to fit their ends.
