Michelle A. Ventura
Structures and Organization of Higher Education in the Philippines (DEASOHEPN)
Position Paper Subject: Towards Rationalizing Philippine Higher Education by Dr. Allan B. Bernardo
I. Background of the Issue
A. A significant number of reasons and purposes have been articulated concerning the creation of typologies or classification scheme both in the Philippines and abroad since the 1960s. In the House Bill number 363 of the 15th Congress, introduced by Hon. Marcelino A. Teodoro, it was explained that the provision of a definite system for determining the number and distribution of different types of HEIs is necessary in rationalizing the SUCs and all other Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines for allocating resources and for developing interventions for various types of HEIs . Another, and one of the original reasons, is to develop support in research on higher education by providing sound/viable basis for classifying an increasing number of HEIs which on the part of policy-makers will enable them to target policies and programs to categories of similar and related institutions. For students, they will be better able to identify the appropriate institutions for them and make better informed choices. Business and industries would be able to determine which institutions to partner with. A typology that helps HEIs position themselves in the academic market was proposed by Zemsky and Massy (cited in Finn 1998). The mushroom-like proliferation of public HEIs charging extremely cheap tuition and fees but are actually substandard in terms of the quality of academic learning they offer to students is an addition to the concerns. Since these public HEIs offer basically same programs with the private HEIs, despite this aspect on quality, private HEIs are given unfair competition. As a result, there is an influx of students to public HEIs, thus, a greater demand for subsidized higher education and the sad outcome is that all of these, at the expense of basic education.
B. According to Dr. Bernardo (1998), a classification scheme should be useful and could be utilized in order to obtain significant statistical values/data on the distribution of different types of HEIs in selected or assigned regions of the country. This could be used as a reference by CHED in rationalizing standards and making developmental interventions necessary to improve the present status or condition of our HEIs. To give concrete examples, he enumerated some parameters which includes library holdings, research outputs of faculty, faculty development programs, research programs development, to name a few. According to Dr. Bernardo, a certain caveat should be heeded if only to further refine the current typology being used. He likewise proposed the adoption of a typology by the Commission itself for quality purposes. Dr. Bernardo opposes the opinion of some of the discussants that says Philippine universities cannot be typed for reasons that SUCs have been established for a variety of reasons such as politically while private schools are established religiously and academically. Dr. Bernardo stresses that even in the United States where the Carnegie 2000 is being employed, some colleges exist as a result of land grants, some are state-funded and some which are funded for religious purposes. Dr. Bernardo agrees to the fact that indeed, simply typing HEIs is difficult that is why according to him, there should be a reckoning of the non-quantitative aspects of typing. He stated that funding is not solely limited to marine research but as a matter of fact, a significant number of funding exists for various types of social science research, technological and agricultural research. He reiterated that there are so many funding for research worldwide but an institution definitely and logically needs to position itself first if it desires to be a Research University.
Zemsky and Massy...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50759057/3/Why-Do-We-Need-A-Typology-of-Higher-Education-institutions2. © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004 18.11.04 2 Overview presentation Carnegie Classification US and UK typologies Rationale for a typology Methodological issues Socrates Project CEIHE I Socrates Project CEIHE II Cooperation Switzerland – CEIHE II
CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004 18.11.04 3 Carnegie Classification (US) 1973:
Please join StudyMode to read the full document