ano nangyari sa mga can't afford na UPians nung nagtaas ng 300% tuition fee?

[scarlet_chewy]

any updates...???

[oatokaidnih]

walang effect ang tuition increase sa mga upperclassmen, ewan ko lang kung yung misc fees ay ganun pa rin. sa mga incoming freshman simula ngayong AY 2007-2008 ang pagtaas ng tuition. kahit na mataas na ang tuition, marami pa rin ang nag enroll, karamihan ay nag apply sa STFAP para mabawasan yung tuition. yun nga lang kawawa pa rin talaga sila pati yung iba pa na hindi na pumasok dahil walang pambayad

[atenean_blooded]

Slightly off-topic:

I was reading one of the letters to the editor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (sometime in February, if I remember correctly; I'll see if I can dig it up from the Inquirer website). The writer was more or less neutral about the tuition fee increase, and did mention some pros and cons. But he was most critical about one thing: how UP treats students who fail subjects, or those students who simply spend too much time in college.

The writer was advocating a position that UP students who fail subjects ought to be required to pay the tuition fee for the retake of those subjects (or was it for just the failed subject?) in their full value (which I imagine is more or less the cost-per-unit AFTER the tuition fee increase), and to similarly penalize those students who wallow enough in college and only finish after five, six, or seven years, instead of the four or five that a decent student would take to complete the degree program.

His rationale was that UP is a state university, which is supposed to be a place where some of the better students in the country go to. Admission is competitive, and since funding and resources are scarce, students ought to make the most of their studies, which are largely subsidized by taxpayers, by doing well, and finishing promptly so as not to unnecessarily burden the university (I am paraphrasing here).

While the author was probably making some (possibly unfair) generalizations, his position sort of made sense to me. I mean, passing the UPCAT (which really isn't very hard) and having decent high school grades (which really isn't very hard either) in order to achieve a decent university predicted grade which qualifies you for admission to UP (which, again, isn't very hard if you apply yourself) does just that: it qualifies you for admission to the university. But it doesn't entitle some UP students, who are "iskolar ng bayan" and all that, to waste, in a manner of speaking, precious resources, which could have been better harnessed by a slightly less-qualified student who may have made better use of them but was not admitted for one reason or another.

UP, even before the tuition fee increase, already charges much more than other state universities (like PUP, for example). And that's understandable, since there are more university resources that need to be deployed, and so on. I think the tuition fee increase will help UP, although it may be at the expense of those who don't have the means to pay. But then again, the financial aid and incentive offered by having most of the expenses subsidized by taxes should be emphasized.

What do you think?

[009460]

^Parang iba lang yung dating ng tanong.. Hehe.. "can't afford.."

Anyways, walang sarcasm, malamang siguro hindi sila nakapag-enrol kasi di nga nila afford. Pero kumpara naman sa IBA (others), mas affordable pa rin ang tuition and fees sa UP (simply the "best" Philippine university). Tingin ko marami pa rin ang magiging turnout ng enrollment. Freshies lang naman ang apektado sa TFI.. Lastly, may pera namang nakalaan ang mga UPian para sa kanilang edukasyon. It's their priority kaya kahit medyo mahirapan, magagawan ng paraan yan.

[cretinous00]

They'll get scholarships to Ateneo.

[Dacs]

Slightly off-topic:

-snip-

What do you think?

While noble (and practical at that one resource-wise), this is hard to implement for these reason that there are a lot of factors that lead to a student failing a subject. This ranges from just utter exercise of stupidity in making calls in college (i.e. bulakbol) to such unfortunate circumstances that fall upon an unlucky student (financial or family issues).

We cannot selectively choose students to be sanctioned either. Heck, they cannot get STFAP right, let alone this!

[burn_my_eyes]

no nangyari sa mga can't afford na UPians nung nagtaas ng 300% tuition fee?

talk to some prostitutes. you'll find some of them there.

[n3X]

Slightly off-topic:

I was reading one of the letters to the editor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (sometime in February, if I remember correctly; I'll see if I can dig it up from the Inquirer website). The writer was more or less neutral about the tuition fee increase, and did mention some pros and cons. But he was most critical about one thing: how UP treats students who fail subjects, or those students who simply spend too much time in college.

The writer was advocating a position that UP students who fail subjects ought to be required to pay the tuition fee for the retake of those subjects (or was it for just the failed subject?) in their full value (which I imagine is more or less the cost-per-unit AFTER the tuition fee increase), and to similarly penalize those students who wallow enough in college and only finish after five, six, or seven years, instead of the four or five that a decent student would take to complete the degree program.

His rationale was that UP is a state university, which is supposed to be a place where some of the better students in the country go to. Admission is competitive, and since funding and resources are scarce, students ought to make the most of their studies, which are largely subsidized by taxpayers, by doing well, and finishing promptly so as not to unnecessarily burden the university (I am paraphrasing here).

While the author was probably making some (possibly unfair) generalizations, his position sort of made sense to me. I mean, passing the UPCAT (which really isn't very hard) and having decent high school grades (which really isn't very hard either) in order to achieve a decent university predicted grade which qualifies you for admission to UP (which, again, isn't very hard if you apply yourself) does just that: it qualifies you for admission to the university. But it doesn't entitle some UP students, who are "iskolar ng bayan" and all that, to waste, in a manner of speaking, precious resources, which could have been better harnessed by a slightly less-qualified student who may have made better use of them but was not admitted for one reason or another.

UP, even before the tuition fee increase, already charges much more than other state universities (like PUP, for example). And that's understandable, since there are more university resources that need to be deployed, and so on. I think the tuition fee increase will help UP, although it may be at the expense of those who don't have the means to pay. But then again, the financial aid and incentive offered by having most of the expenses subsidized by taxes should be emphasized.

What do you think?

Hmmm Ive pondered about this na rin. Its a matter of POV din kasi. If u treat UP people who fail or who stay longer in college as COSTS, then we should limit or penalize them for "wasting" taxpayers' money. However, UP people should be treated as INVESTMENTS. When they fail, they should learn from their mistakes. If they stay longer in college, they should learn more. Staying longer in UP or in college in general is not a bad thing per se. Malay natin di pa niya nahahanap course talaga na hanap niya or s/he really wants to finish that course pero nahihirapan siya, etc. We shouldnt penalize people who are DEVELOPING. Now, some may argue na for every person who stays longer, someone is also denied admission/resources. This may be. But going back nga to the treatment as investments, its a matter of expecting larger returns from UP people who stay longer, etc. UP graduates are not a burden to taxpayers, they are investments of the Filipino people for our common future.

[atenean_blooded]

Hmmm Ive pondered about this na rin. Its a matter of POV din kasi. If u treat UP people who fail or who stay longer in college as COSTS, then we should limit or penalize them for "wasting" taxpayers' money. However, UP people should be treated as INVESTMENTS. When they fail, they should learn from their mistakes. If they stay longer in college, they should learn more. Staying longer in UP or in college in general is not a bad thing per se. Malay natin di pa niya nahahanap course talaga na hanap niya or s/he really wants to finish that course pero nahihirapan siya, etc. We shouldnt penalize people who are DEVELOPING. Now, some may argue na for every person who stays longer, someone is also denied admission/resources. This may be. But going back nga to the treatment as investments, its a matter of expecting larger returns from UP people who stay longer, etc. UP graduates are not a burden to taxpayers, they are investments of the Filipino people for our common future.

Well-put. I understand that a whole lot of people in the Philippines (not just UP) enter college without really knowing what they want to do, and without any clear direction. I just wonder if "bad" "investments" like these are things that the public education system can afford. And I guess the investment analogy may be pretty good in that there is no guarantee of any decent "return" on the part of taxpayers. So what do we do to "bad" investments? Tolerate them?

[n3X]

Well-put. I understand that a whole lot of people in the Philippines (not just UP) enter college without really knowing what they want to do, and without any clear direction. I just wonder if "bad" "investments" like these are things that the public education system can afford. And I guess the investment analogy may be pretty good in that there is no guarantee of any decent "return" on the part of taxpayers. So what do we do to "bad" investments? Tolerate them?

bad investments happen. thats it. people make mistakes. nothing more to it. u just need to educate people to limit it. and i think its already limited. bagot na nga mga tao e. haha

[atenean_blooded]

bad investments happen. thats it. people make mistakes. nothing more to it. u just need to educate people to limit it. and i think its already limited. bagot na nga mga tao e. haha

Yes, and how exactly do we go about "educating" people to limit these "bad investments"? Taxpayers don't get to choose where their taxes go (at least, not directly, but that's what Congress' job is supposed to be, and Congress doesn't have direct oversight over bad students).

[Kolmogorov]

Hmm.. I think that's the reason for the MRR (maximum residency rule) which is 6 years for a 4-year course and 7.5 years for a 5-year course. You're not allowed (supposedly) to stay in UP beyond the MRR to stop you from further wasting your parents' money and the government subsidy.


And yes, the current UPians are not affected by 300% tuition increase

[followyoudown]

I'm not 100% certain, but as far as I know the STFAP under the new fee increase actually makes it so that the bottom bracket (ie the poorest among the UP students) actually gets an allowance, instead of having to pay for tuition.

I'm not sure what the situation was before the fee increase, but if they already get an allowance without it, then after the increase the allowance is even bigger. If there was no allowance, then obviously, free tuition plus a stipend is better than having to pay, right?

The tuition fee increase, as far as I know, only really increases the fees of the top 2-3 brackets, meaning the people who are most likely able to afford the tuition.

[iRebirth]

^ if that is the case, STFAP is favorable then ?

what do you guys think?

[math_techie]

Under the current system, those in Bracket A and B actually partly subsidizes those in Brackets D and E. The surplus in the TF of those in the upper brackets are used for allowance for those in D and E.

I have a problem with this kind of setup, since this means, that the university can only recieve a limited number of D and E students, since it would need to provide allowances for those students. The balance would be tilt for those who are in the upper brackets.

If we have a scenario where 100% of upcat qualifiers would be in the D and E brackets, where would UP get the money to provide education and provide allowances for those students?

[quents]

those brackets are problematic in the first place...

[atenean_blooded]

Hmm.. I think that's the reason for the MRR (maximum residency rule) which is 6 years for a 4-year course and 7.5 years for a 5-year course. You're not allowed (supposedly) to stay in UP beyond the MRR to stop you from further wasting your parents' money and the government subsidy.

I agree. But don't other schools, private or public, have a maximum residency rule anyway? And in the meantime, what's to stop "bad" "investments"/students from maxing out the residency arbitrarily or without consideration for the consequences of the subsidy that could've gone to other students?

[Dacs]

I agree. But don't other schools, private or public, have a maximum residency rule anyway? And in the meantime, what's to stop "bad" "investments"/students from maxing out the residency arbitrarily or without consideration for the consequences of the subsidy that could've gone to other students?

People make bad calls at one point in their lives. My college secretary (when I went to his office to thank him just after the result of my board exam has been released) called me a "near miss" case.

I was about to be dismissed from my college and had my college secretary decided to uphold it, God knows where I'll be right now.

Thankfully, he gave me another (and last) chance to finish my degree. The rest is history

But he told me that he was really decided (then) to dismiss me, but he decided not to (for whatever reason, he didn't tell me though).

This might have nothing to do with extending your stay (though I stayed for quite a while ) though. Nonetheless, this is a controversial issue and an institution must do something to mitigate these cases.

[n3X]

Yes, and how exactly do we go about "educating" people to limit these "bad investments"? Taxpayers don't get to choose where their taxes go (at least, not directly, but that's what Congress' job is supposed to be, and Congress doesn't have direct oversight over bad students).

Whats the percentage ba of these bad "investments." I dont think its that large. Why are we overtackling this problem e meron na ngang in-place na solutions like MRR? Its a simple cost-benefit analysis, why put a mechanism pa to further solve this. Its just gonna cost more taxpayers' money. In my opinion, the MRR is already enough. This problem is exaggerated and largely misunderstood. Thats my final word on this topic. OA na.

[quents]

ako 2x na muntik ma kick out.

nahirapan ako sa PE at ROTC.

buti na lang narebutt (sic) yung college secretary ng profs ko.