I.

Background of the issue. a. Why is there a need to have a typology of HEIs in the Philippines? The typology is a system for classifying higher education institutions (HEIs) that shall guide policy makers in rationalizing distribution and operation of higher education institutions in the Philippines. More particularly, typology is aimed at determining the number and distribution of different types of HEIs in the country as well as, per region and province; guide researchers, students, policy- or decision-makers in analyzing and making decisions regarding the higher education sector; and provide basis for the rationalizing standards, for allocating resources and for targeting development interventions for different types of HEIs. Through typology, we could minimize program duplication between and among HEIs- between public and private HEIs, among State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), and among branches within SUCs. Further, we could be assured of the

optimum use of the scarce human and material resources in higher education toward enhancing overall capacities for instruction, research, and extension (Teodoro, 2010).

b.

Discuss the guiding principles in the typology of HEIs in the Philippines as proposed by Dr. Bernardo? According to Dr. Bernardo institutions of higher learning shall be classified on the basis of the following features:

1.

Level of higher education programs - to distinguish institutions that have the capability to offer higher education programs beyond the baccalaureate from those that offer mostly baccalaureate programs and concentrate on the regular higher education function of instruction.

2.

Breadth of educational programs and services the number of programs and disciplines offered.

3. 4.

Number of students per program and level Capability or qualification of faculty as indicated by the highest degree earned by the faculty.

5.

Productivity of the faculty as indicated by the number of national and/or international publications.

Proposed typology of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines by Dr. Allan Bernardo.

1.

Doctoral/Research University I Extensive

doctoral programs in more than forty different fields masters programs in more than 100 fields

 at least 5000 enrolment at graduate level, which should account for at least 15 percent of total student enrolment 25 percent of faculty with doctorates 40 percent of faculty with masters degrees at least 100 national and/ or international publications in database

2.

Doctoral/Research University II Intensive

doctoral programs in twenty-one to forty different fields masters programs in fifty-one to 100 fields at least 3000 enrolment at graduate level, which should account for at least 15 percent of total student enrolment 25 percent of faculty with doctorates 40 percent of faculty with masters degrees at least 100 national and/ or international publications in database

3.

Masters Colleges and Universities I

doctoral programs in five to twenty different fields masters programs in ten to fifty fields at least 1000 enrolment at graduate level, which should account for at least 15 percent of total student enrolment 20 percent of faculty with doctorates 30 percent of faculty with masters degrees

4.

Colleges, Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts

masters programs in five to ten different fields masters students account for at least 10 percent of total student enrolment 10 percent of faculty with doctorates 40 percent of faculty with masters degrees

5.

Baccalaureate Colleges General

less than five graduate programs masters students account for at least 10 percent of total student enrolment 10 percent of faculty with doctorates 25 percent of faculty with masters degrees or 70 percent of faculty with at least 10 masters degrees

II.

What other experts are saying about it? Reactions and comments from the experts and educators in educational arena flowed in on the proposed Typology of HEIs. There are some negative response on it, and others, I assume stays on fair sides. The proposal of the five and only five types of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) namely: (1) Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive, (2) Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive, (3) Masters College and

Universities I, (4) Masters Colleges, Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts,

(5) Baccalaureate Colleges-General - may not be helpful in looking at the Philippine HEIs says Fr. Salazar, The President of University of San Carlos. After closely studying the hierarchical cluster analysis method Dr. Bernardo used, he found some imperfection on it that may lead to unfair analysis and inconsistencies about the status of the HEIs in the Philippines. He suggests to explore for a more accurate ways of

classifying the HEIs. Though he considers that it might be of help during first round of classification, to give us an indication of where our HEIs are, he was adamant that Carnegie 2000 has a bias in some ways and another, and there are inadequacies of the instrument, he stubbornly urged not to be trusting of the results unless Philippine factors shall have been considered, further he stressed that Carnegie 2000 is American in origin and orientation, hence he advised that we must be careful in

applying it directly and unquestioningly to Philippine system. Dr. Maria Serena I. Diokno, UP-Vice-President for Academic Affairs appears to be in same tune with Fr. Salazar. She was also quizzical about the hierarchical cluster analysis method used in the study. She even

mentioned the studies happened in UK, where universities in there have also undergone into clustering; applying the same statistical method which unfortunately also arrived in a fuzzy result. In the propose classification scheme, one of the factors to consider in assessing the viability of HEIs is whether the programs have enough

breadth to attract a broad student clientele was given importance by Dr. Bernardo. He said that institutions that offer a wide range of programs are more likely to have more flexibility in dealing with external forces-this include market demands for graduates of certain programs, changing student preferences in programs, variations in program related costs, changes in policies affecting the academic programs and other policies. He added that an HEI with a broader range of programs will have more elbowroom to allow compensatory and transitory schemes to survive these external features, moreso, the HEI will show greater internal efficiency in its operation. Dr. Bernardo further explained that to attain this internal efficiency, the breadth of programs needs to be matched by a healthy student enrolment and a proportional number of qualified fulltime faculty members in which is the bulk. He expound that there must be some levels of equilibrium need to be established among the number of programs, students, and faculty to ensure the viability of the HEI, and these three dimensions happened to be also the limiting factors in the HEIs internal efficiency. Dr. Bernardo also pointed out that to rationalize the higher education system; it should take into consideration the distribution of viable and non-viable institutions, with the view of reducing, merging, or closing it. The bulk and breadth of programs of an institution can be used as one of the basic parameters to rationalize the SUCs; it can justify the

distribution of institutions across geographic sectors in a way that also rationalizes the allocation of financial resources. Responding to Dr. Bernardos statement, Dr. Diokno, vehemently rejected the idea of bulk and breadth of programs and services aspect in the proposed typology. In a precise manner, she said that there is no correlation between bulk and breadth in certain types of degree programs that by nature are not marketable but are necessary to an academic institution. She cited an example, in the area of the basic field of human knowledge program that does not get a lot of majors because this field does not get a high paying job, but can made contributions to knowledge not only on fundamental but also essential to academic life. She also disagrees about how the final classification arrived and how it was done, that she thinks are very crucial component in the study. Nevertheless, she implied that parameters to measure or to capture quality have to be added to the typology. Among other participants that connote negative impression about the typology of HEIs are Dr. Francisco Nemenzo from UP, Dr. Henry Sojor, and Dr. Serafin L. Mohayon. Dr. Doming Cabanganan, though not exactly against the levelling and ranking of state colleges and universities, expressed his worries about rationalization because of the possible effects of it on quality and excellence among HEIs in terms of funding schemes. He asserted that

there is no point comparing academic institutions and polytechnic colleges and universities, where in fact the need of those HEIs is different from one another, hence the funding of each institutions may vary. To clear his point, he illustrated the needs of a polytechnic institution to purchase equipment, supplies and materials for instructional purposes. While an academic institution can teach academic subjects even with 50 students and one instructor, it would be hard to teach technological courses with this number of students without equipment and facilities. He was

insinuating then that when it comes to funding allocation, polytechnic institutions should have a better provision even if the ratio of student teacher is 1:20. Factors then like these should be given careful

consideration in rationalizing HEIs, not the bulk and breadth of programs and services I presume. Feedbacks from Dr. Leonardo Manalo, Dr. Michael Alba, Mr. Nap Imperial, and other consultants are not directly opposing the proposed typologies; they are more of requesting to have it refine. Joel Tabora, S.J. posted on On the Davao Consultation on Typology-Based Quality Assurance, dated January 13, 2012 in connection with Dr. Allan Bernardos proposed typology of HEIs, stated his viewpoint. I did not see a necessary connection between the targeted quality

output and the proposal of the five and only five types of HEI.

He further said that the Philippine universities must be appreciated in the context of their development in the region in which they operate. If some compromise is to be achieved between the really real global university and our Philippine universities on the ground, one should in justice have a deep appreciation for the really real universities in Cotabato, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro, Naga, Baguio and Tuguegarao. Otherwise, the proposed policy is disastrous in its arbitrariness, he ended. Dr. Serafin L. Mahayon affirmed what Tabora pointed out, when he said that the SUCs offer programs that are uniquely needed by their community, and the universities have been doing it since then.

III.

What is your position? Are you amendable with the suggested typology? Do you disagree with what Dr. Bernardos position? Cite your reasons for agreeing/ disagreeing. Be sure to back up your position with what other experts are saying. What do you recommend after carefully analyzing various sides of the issue?

When Chairman Rolando Dizon said that the CHED is helpless in the existing law, and they have to amend the mother law, the Higher Education Act of 1994, so that they can achieve an effective balance between the autonomy of SUCs especially in the area of establishing new state colleges and the conversion of colleges into universities, I have to

think that massive revisions on the existing law is needed to prioritize by the commission. Clearly the quality of higher education is a matter of national concern. The challenges in assuring quality HEIs have figured largely when a lot of higher education institutions claimed to be university, colleges, etc., sprout all over the country, either as a branch of a mother institution, others, sad to say out of nowhere. As a result, inadequacy, and poor quality of education roam around the country. The right balance of quality programs offered between and among HEIs between public and private HEIs, among State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), and among branches within SUCs can assure of the optimum use of the scarce human and material resources in higher education toward enhancing overall capacities for instruction, research and extension. It is in this context that various efforts at establishing a typology of higher education institutions as a basis for very important and difficult policy decisions to allow the CHED to intervene meaningfully in the development plans of HEIs. Using the 2000 Carnegie Classification System, the categorization of university as proposed by Dr. Bernardo leaves little room for HEIs to grow creatively into universities as they would in practice be confined to the pre-set conditions. Although ideally presented as a way to promote diversity, it appears that the end-goal of a typology-based would result in homogenized HEIs.

In an age where the interdisciplinary approach to learning and the discovery of new knowledge is so important, the types seem to keep the liberal arts/humanities speaking to themselves and the professions speaking to themselves (Tabora, 2012). My position in this arduous issue of typology of higher education institutions as proposed by Dr. Bernardo is the same as what other experts and educators wanted. Refine it by allowing several models of universities, and not just the one-size-fits-all university type which in fact doesnt fit many long-practicing universities in our country. I would have agreed in him if he classified the HEIs as he patiently explaining, of how, granting the HEI types according for what its mission actually is (p. 117). Backing up my point of view, Tabora, S.J., (2012) posted on the Davao Consultation on Typology-Based Quality Assurance that it would be possible to evaluate the HEI outputs based on HEI types. Schools would choose their types based on a recollection of their respective missions. A school that wishes to serve based on a mission to respond to the needs of an LGU community would choose to be a community college. A school that wishes to contribute to the technical development of the economy would choose to be a professional college. Outputs based on types would be based on much more discerning inputs. Those who are interested in professional development would then not have to worry about research

and research publication in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore investments in institutional development would be better placed based on type. The output quality would be based on the inputs according to type. Assessment would be easier. Doing so would allow CHED to focus its limited resources on improving the performance of truly regulated HEIs, in the process improving the quality of higher education in general (retrieved/8.1.12).

IV.

References:

Bernardo, Allan B. (2003) Towards Rationalizing Philippine Higher Education http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=one-size+university+type+pdf Davao%20Consultation%20on%20TypologyBased%20Quality%20Assurance%20 Official CEAP Paper on CHEDs Proposed Outcomes- and Typology Based Quality Assurance http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hb00363%2Bmarcelino+teodoro typology+of+higher+education+institution&source=web&

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for DEASOHEPN

Position Paper Towards Rationalizing Philippine Higher Education

Submitted to: Erlinda A. Cayao, Ed. D

Submitted by: Susan L. Cobarrubias 2012-63002