I think tuition free increase is justified. Basic education is a right, but college education is already a privilege. In terms of resource allocation, I think that the government should spend more money in the public school system, and let tuition fees increase for unis. Of course, this is probably the strongest case for the tuition fee increase, and the principle behind it is intergenerational fairness. The 300-per-unit were prices in 1981. That’s more than 20 years ago. It’s unfair for UP students then, who had to pay up that amount of money, and we take advantage of the non-price adjustment.

Relatively speaking, it’s still cheaper. Public universities still need public subsidies. But it’s a matter of the piece of the pie, and cooperating to help fund the school. I think what should be done is to enhance the STFAP bracket system and more programmes for student loans.

And people always thought only the poor ones are being discriminated against. We get that on a regular basis too. LOL. Anyway, I am for tuition fee increase. We know them government people, and Gloria too, and I know they won’t budge. So instead of yapping around I’d just be willing to pay however much it is that they ask for. Besides, UP is for the intelligent, not the poor.

Celeni, exactly. That’s why it’s called tertiary education. It’s sad though, that you most often need to have gone to college in order to get decent paying job around here.

What? You see logic in the need to be fair to people in the past?! Wars were waged in the past to gain freedoms, should we wage them now too to be fair to our forefather’s sacrifices?? The way I know it, “intergenerational fairness” is a progressive thought that puts in mind the conditions of future generations and not the other way around.

And that your line of thinking is exactly a reason why TFI (tuition fee increase) now should be opposed. You see how the 1989 increase have been used over and over again to justify TFI now? What will stop TFI in the future? You’re setting a dangerous trend of surrendering to state abandonment.

Kamusta naman, it’s not as if free education is really “free”. Taxpayers pay for that thing. It’s probably fair for taxpayers who avail of the education, but what about the taxpayers who don’t? What is the “fair” subsidy? In case you noticed UPD’s student demography, only a few people get in, and it’s the people who can pay up who does. If we bring in “intergenerational fairness”, you prirotise basic education, you make public schooled students more competent to enter your public unis.

It’s not as if our forefathers only fought against tuition free increases. Even models of social democracy takes a laxer standard on subsidisation of tertiary education. Singapore, for example, is not really gung ho on providing free education in NUS or other pretigious universities, they course it through various financial programmes including payment schemes that are tied to the students’ parents’ bank account.

“In case you noticed UPD’s student demography, only a few people get in, and it’s the people who can pay up who does.”

obviously, most of your colleagues in UP are well off. get out of your shelter and look at UP’s real demographic statistics.

you’re also presupposing that the gradual abandonment of tertiary education translates to the prioritisation of basic education. but such is not the case.

I refuse to “share” the burden of paying for state university education when I see the that the government has the billions to fund it anyway but conveniently spends them on militarization and other such dubious projects

The proposed social bracketing of tuition fees also presupposes that there will always be a constant number of well-off students who will carry the burden of paying for the less privileged. do you honestly think such will be the case? if less students from high income families enroll in UP, who shall carry the burden of paying for the poor students? the state?! hell, you’ve just given them the best excuse to never and even lessen state subsidy. TFI opens the floodgates of a state university that will become unaccessible to the poor who actually need university education.

wadapak, kakasimula ko pa lang sa public finance and you’re bombarding me with so much irrelevant points.

tuition fee increase DOES NOT mean abandonment of tertiary education. prioritisation does not equate to abandonment, if you want me to redefine terms for you, i would. but i don’t want to mistaken you for an idiot, just brainwashed by your uh… school government.

if you refuse to participate in a semi-subsidised tertiary education, that’s your call. the subsidy will go to someone else, the system won’t die out. i do agree that a lot of corruption should be trimmed down, but in a vacuum, i’d rather public funds trickle-down to basic education.

the second comment is self-contradictory. the point of defending for a non-tuition-fee-increase is to save poor-income bracket people from paying a high tuition fee increase, yet on this comment, you’re now defending the well-off students who doesn’t have the capability of putting a balance of uh… payments. you calibrate tuition fees according to your capability to pay. it doesn’t eliminate state subsidy. do the frigging math. heck, we have had an entire math dep do that for us. people are just being stubborn, making this seem like a national strategy, when really, you’re just protecting the interest of your income-class.

“tuition fee increase DOES NOT mean abandonment of tertiary education.”

-> You can NOT guarantee this! My point also was, TFI and social bracketing rests on the assumption that there will ALWAYS be a constant number of rich students who will carry the burden of paying higher fees. you cant bank on that assumption! what if less rich students enroll in UP exactly because the system is biased against them? who will carry the poor students’ burden? You can’t expect the government to reinstate and increase state subsidy anymore. they would have been given the great excuse of leaving UP to fend for itself exactly because of TFI.

You’re making an assumption, I’m making an assumption, we’re truce. There will always be a constant demography of well-off students trying to enter UP because haller, it’s UP, however you put it. You can hold classes in a jungle and if you keep the pool of professors constant, people would still be paying for this education.

this is what you don’t understand: just because rich students pay more, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they solely carry the burden. that’s what discriminatory pricing does. rich people are just less sensitive to prices, and have a higher reservation price. add that to a constant state subsidy, you’ll have happier profs, more incentive to get better teachers and better the facilities. DUH. stop being stubborn.

You’re being stubborn too! there is no guarantee that the poor will pay the same/less because you cant bank on the assumption that there will always be rich students who will carry much of the burden. widen your perspective, Celeni. we’re not talking about just UP Diliman here. We’re talking about a systemic increase in tuition fees from UP Baguio to UP Mindanao!

If you’re going to contest on my openness, I did have previous apprehensions on tuition fee increases, but that was because I was looking out for my own interests. AND YOU EDITED MY COMMENT! So much for freedom of speech. (YOU ASKED ME TO EDIT IT SILLY -bikoy)

I think the discourse on tuition fee increase is just a symptom of attention-deficit-ness of the university council. We should fight for greater state subsidies for public elementary schools.

BTW, if you want a guarantee, refer to my previous comment. There is incentive for a paying student population, because given that excellence is a constant in the university (the premise of my rich-students-paying-high-tuition assumption), people will always be willing to pay for that type of education (and how many times do I have to tell you, just because I’m paying 20,000 a semester instead of 6,000 doesn’t mean I’m shouldering ALL expenses - you guys tend to exaggerate figures). If there weren’t any incentives for private-school kids to go to UP, even your 60-40 statistic won’t exist.

This is the biggest flaw in the logicless battle: Just because tuition fees increase, it doesn’t mean state subsidies will STOP. If it does, than by all means, take your battle to the streets. Stop the dead-end rhetoric and whining.

On a personal hirit, your face looks ridiculous. Get rid of your facial hair!

just some points:

1. education is a right, not a privilege. that goes for tertiary education as well. education should be the government’s highest priority (not debt servicing or the military.) education is “free” because people pay taxes for social services (among other things). the people paid for education, and they should rightfully have access to it. education should not be a commodity which is only made available to those who can afford it.

2. re: demography, granting without conceding that more and more “rich” people ARE getting into UP, it’s because of the crappy primary and secondary educational systems, which suffer from the same issues as the tertiary.

3. the STFAP does not at all guarantee fairness. in the first place, it was created to make ToFI more palatable to the students. it functions in such a way that more people subsidize and there are fewer scholars, thus generating profit.

4. our forefathers (?) DID fight against tuition increases. please check your history.

5. state universities and colleges are supposed to get government subsidy for ALL its students. to affirm the logic that “rich students should subsidize poor students” is to pass on the burden of subsidy to the students themselves! which justifies state abandonment of education.

I think the discourse on tuition fee increase is just a symptom of attention-deficit-ness of the university council. We should fight for greater state subsidies for public elementary schools.

Where did you ever get the idea that the call for greater state subsidy for UP is exclusive of the call for greater state subsidy for education as a whole?! why do you talk as if whatever UP gets its taken away from basic education funds. and what makes you say that if state u’s give up their funds the basic education sector will get it?! it only makes the funds available for whatever purpose policymakers want. and knowing this administration…

Just because tuition fees increase, it doesn’t mean state subsidies will STOP

what’s the guarantee that it won’t? you’re being terribly naive as to what priorities our government has and as to what it has been doing.

Basic education is a right, but college education is already a privilege.

“Section 1, Article XIV. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” -Philippine Constitution

On Bikoy: I asked you to edit my 8:26pm comment when I wrote strategy instead of tragedy. Wuuuh.

Anyway, both you and Karl are repeating the same things over and over again, but I’ll try to be creative in responding to them.

On education as a right: Utopically, it would be nice if premium education on all levels could be hm… “serviced”. But the reality is: financial resources are limited. Yes, we lament the demise of budget misallocation, but it does not mean we have to be solely dependent on government budgets. A tuition fee increase does not *essentially* deny us of the right, otherwise, no one would go to UP in protest of the fact that we actually pay a substantial amount of money when it was supposed to be our “right”. This is the point of contention with the forefathers thing: If our forefathers reached to a compromise in a shared subsidisation of our much coveted tertiary education, why don’t we continue that tradition albeit in real/current prices? The value of the current tuition was a third of what they paid for in 1980s, which essentially means that there were, at a certain extent, denial of particular opportunities, but at the same time, was able to service some.

The reason why government can’t stop giving subsidies is the very reason to your existence. It’s unhumane to have complete disregard for tertiary education, although I still think it’s a privilege. I’ll use your Philippine Constitution quote against you. It mentions promote and protect the right to quality education on all levels… quality education does not equate to free education. Tuition fee increase does not take away the right of people to study, it does not deteriorate educational quality, and it does not take away quality education.

Oh yes, and a little light on pricing/public subsidisation. Even with the tuition fee increase, it’s not enough to completely subsidise the education of a single student, let alone, promulgate the idea that a rich student paying 20,000 a semester would be subsidising a poor student who would pay the same rate. In private schools, they’ll be paying about 30,000 – 120,000 a semester, which means essentially, government would still be subsidizing rich student paying for the 20 grand, only, he would get hm… a *socialised* form of subsidy. Of course, the soundness of the proposal hinges on the fact that STFAP should be reformed. And it’s not about making profit, it’s about bettering educational conditions. Which goes back to the happy teachers, better facilities point I aforementioned.

hindi pa rin iincrease ang suweldo ng teachers sa kikitain sa TFI kasi nakatali ang UP sa Salary Standardization Law … so no happy teachers pa rin

Haha Vivisect. Touché. But laws can be amended (and now, there’s sound reason to do so). And finally, give them benefits they deserved (which could be non-monetary compensation).

This is the point of contention with the forefathers thing: If our forefathers reached to a compromise in a shared subsidisation of our much coveted tertiary education, why don’t we continue that tradition albeit in real/current prices?

exactly because it creates a dangerous trend of gradual state abandonment!

pare, ibook gamit at pare ang dami ng comment. iba na talaga UP. di na siya pang masa pre.

To Bikoy: No, because if the state would be the only source of funds for state universities, there’d be no state university because it’s not enough. there can’t be a trend towards abandonment. that’s bad for voters’ perception. basic politics.

As for neon, irrele ka lang. Hindi nga pang masa ang UP, para siya sa mga taong hindi tulad mo, para lang siya sa mga matatalino (at yung may backdoor powers - meaning merong mga bobong nakakalusot :P).

Celeni:

Contrary to your statement, pang-masa ang UP. That’s the whole logic of having state universities and colleges, as well as all public schools in general–so that everyone can get in. I’m rather appalled by your derogatory remarks. Remember, hindi lahat ng maykaya/may degree ay matalino. Ang intelligence ay hindi nakatali sa class. Hindi bobo ang masa, Celeni.

Now, regarding “quality” vs “free” education. Do you mean to say that those who can’t afford it would have to make do with crap education while those who can afford it are the only ones who can enjoy good education? That’s basically saying that education is only for those who can pay–thus, comercialization. Education is meant to be free AND of good quality. You can’t separate the two.

Next, you say that we shouldn’t be totally dependent on government budgets. But if it can’t provide sufficient and quality social services to its citizens, what is a government for? Are you saying that we should rely on big capital (like, say, Ayala and its new UP S&T Park) as an “alternative” to education? Mind you, many higher education institutions (with big fees at that) are already invested on by Yuchengco, Tan, Gokongwei, etc. — and they wouldn’t do that if they didn’t profit from it.

And regarding the UP tuition-was-1/3-of-its-original-cost argument, that’s also a fallacy. Granting that prices DID increase and the peso DID undergo devaluation, then EVERYTHING decreased in value– tuition AND wages. So there’s no good/sound reason to adjust. Besides, wages havent increased since then, but the cost of living has gone way up. So people still can’t afford ToFI.

Regarding better facilities, happier teachers–that’s a fallacy as well. As earlier mentioned, faculty can’t just get bigger compensation packages because of ToFI–they have the SSL, and the wage increase is a totally different issue. About facilities, it’s the state’s job to prvide for that (through the UP budget for maintenance and other operating expenses). that comes from general appropriations (and not the revolving fund, where the tuition and other fees go). it’s unfair to burden the students to subsidize school facilities.

and regarding lack of state funds, well, maraming pera ang pilipinas. napakayaman nating bansa. but more than half of our budget goes to debt servicing. i’m sure you’re familiar with the IMF-WB, GATT-WTO issues. There you go.

i think celeni is right. i agree that funds should be alloted to public highschools. the reason why lots of rich kids get into UP, is because they had good educational background, and they passed UPCAT cos of this. almost everywhere, the good highschools are private ones (except science highschools which are public). and only the rich kids can afford to go to private highschools like ateneo, bikoy. so there. allocate more money to public schools, so they get good education. they pass the UPCAT, and there, more public school students in metro manila, or anywhere else, will go to UP campuses, not just UP Diliman.

sino ba nagsasabing hindi bigyan ng funds ang primary at secondary education?

btw, regarding utang. tama naman na bayaran ang utang. marami akong kilalang mga classmates na mahirap at umuutang ang mga magulang nila para paaralin sila. ibig sabihin ba nun kalimutan na lang ang utang? isipin mo na lang kung ano ang pwedeng mangyari sa nanay mo na umutang para lang paarlin ka, tapos kinalimutan na lang ang utang nya. what more sa isang bansa na ganun na rin ang gagawin. malas lang natin na interes pa lang ng utang ang binabayaran natin. pero wala tayong magagawa. hindi tama na hindi natin pansinin ang utang natin. OO, natin, kasi pilipino din naman tayo. kahit utang yan ng mga taong hindi ko naman ibinoto. magreklamo ka kapag merong kang kilalang kapitbahay o kaibigan na hindi nagbabayad ng buwis or pag bumibili ka sa mga sarisari store na hindi nagbabayad ng buwis or kung anupaman. hindi ko nilalahat. although aminin mo, marami sila.

sino ba ang nagsabing may “nagsabi na hindi bigyan ng funds ang primary at secondary education?” ? ewan ko lang ha.

Let’s say that UP really is for the intelligent and not for the poor,the question then would be: is intelligence a monopoly of the rich?

Take the classic example of the most recent NSAT’s top-notcher: That would be undeniably the cream of the crop. But he didnt study in UP Diliman despite being accepted in the Chem Engg Department. Why? Because he’s from a peasant community in Eastern Visayas. Now, given that cheap tuition that certain people like to brag about is already unaffordable for many of the “Intelligent”, a tuition fee increase will only worsen the situation.

As for the tuition fee increase being justified because of rising prices, one should ask him/herself: Did wages increase too? If anything, the depreciation of the purchasing power of the average Filipino (as compared to the purchasing power of the late 1980s) should be a justification for increased state subsidy in social services.

Obviously, some people here don’t really read. Social services in many countries (such as Norway) are meant to be a safety net. In other words, it provides education/health/housing for people who normally cant afford to do so.

Lets all pray for the sake of some students that the tuition fee increase doesnt push through. If it does, I wouldnt see as far-fetched the idea of poor students taking out their frustrations on their better-off snobby schoolmates.

Karl:

My comments would only be derogatory to those who are too passionate for the cause. And for that, I applaud you.

But on to ideas. I did claim somewhere that academic performance is attached to income class. Trends show that. This is where the misrepresentation comes in: academic performance is not tantamount to intelligence. Papua New Guineans are as smart as everyone in the world even if they don’t have university degrees.

So with that being settled, I agree na hindi bobo ang masa, but I’ll argue na kaya rin magbayad ng masa. They might not be able to pay NOW, but they’ll be able to in the future if they use their education properly.

So that argument pretty much covers your idea of inseparability of quality and free education. Because as I already mentioned, there is no such thing as “free” education. Someone is paying for it. In fact, if you want to jazz up policies, I think the consistency of tax contributions (not even the magnitude of the contribution) of the students’ parents should be taken into account. But that’s for a different discussion all together. The point here being: quality education can come relatively cheap, and discriminatory price adjustment is the way to go.

If government was already inefficient in the basics of social service, who are we to demand something as peripheral as tertiary education? There are far more important things than tertiary education: like my resounding rhetoric on basic education, basic immunization, housing and shelter, et al. I’m not saying that the government is doing a good job in allocation, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t be as demanding when there are so much worst things than getting a “low” government subsidy. It’s not as if we’re being totally ignored, in fact, we are prioritized compared to other state unis, heck, we’re even prioritized compared to other UP campuses. And the completely tangential attack on the Ayala S&T park… malamang, we’re not going to be “completely” reliant on it, it’s a good complement to the entire educational funding sh-bang. Complements and alternatives are completely different things Karl. Just because you allow Ayala to build something in your campus it doesn’t mean “OMG! We’re gonna be commercialised and we’re all gonna die to the capitalist ends!!!” If you read Forum, the thing is like Stanford’s Silicon Valley… India’s science parks in its prestigious state IT schools (forgot the exact name dropped thing) or your own local examples with the private universities. It’s meant to make both ends meet, corporations need the brainpower, schools need their money (and preempting the entire “but they wouldn’t need it if the government was paying up!” well, guess what? you can never have too much money, and you can never have the too much of the “best” facilities). I don’t see the link why that’s a bad thing.

I’ll pretend you didn’t give the wage-adjustment argument because mahaba-habang usapan pa yan. Prices naturally do increase, but wages aren’t constant or decreasing, they increase too. It’s true that minimum wages might not be as optimal, but the way you portrayed things is an exaggeration. Parang wala ng purchasing power ang mga Pilipino. Power to the piso! Ohyeh! (sorry, inside joke).

The happy teacher, better facilities can’t be a fallacy, it’s a possibility. All of the (non-Econ) profs I asked are for the tuition fee increase. Malamang di naman nila paglalaban yun if it doesn’t make their ends meet. As I said, SSL can be amended. You of all people should know by now that laws can be written and rewritten to make it more dynamic. That’s why we always have the battle cry for change and for the “better” policies to make the most number of people happy. As for facilities, general appropriations are highly politicized, and I don’t see why students shouldn’t have a hand in paying for facilities. They are the ones who depreciate the school facilities after all, they should pick part of the tab.

Anyway, I want to assume you didn’t say the IMF/WB (yeah, you don’t really borrow money from GATT/WTO) utang thing. Because assuming that the money didn’t disappear in ghost government projects and we actually had it, it’s still a question of: do we let this country be a bad credit of the world? Don’t you think that people in government, no matter how corrupt and self-seeking they could be, reconsider the repercussions of defaulting our worldly debts? Debts could be a bi-product of mistakes in the past, but it doesn’t mean it’s an unreasonable trade-off for social services.

Now for the funnier comments.
whatifikissyou and Bikoy:
Yeah Bikoy, not everyone can go to Ateneo that can provide the smooth intellectual transition to Diliman. The truth is, public school people are discouraged to try UP, guess what? not because of the price, but because of their academic preparedness. So if we take linear logic into consideration: non-tuition-fee-increase leads to a higher state subsidization demand leads to a deprioritization of basic education. So in direct response to your response: sinong nagsabing hindi na tayo bibigyan ng state subsidy?

Sorry, ang haba ng previous response ko but I didn’t address Anton’s uh… comment. Anyway Anton, ang labo nung example analysis mo about the NSAT topnotcher, I dunno the explicit implication of him not attending UP. Clarify up.

As for those people you don’t think know about Norway and it’s nearby countries who are welfare states, well guess what? Welfare states have problems too. They get dependency issues. Safety net is good at a particular extend but if you put it in the Philippine context, the safety net would be an opportunistic endeavor for those who will get prime access to these resources. Plug it in a vacuum, a safety net would cause over-reliance on the government for what they need and a relaxation of standards to pursue greater goals (you’ll always have the government covering your ass everytime you fail after all). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s just that there’s always two ways of looking at things. Nothing’s perfect.

NOTICE: there is a parallel but shorter discussion here which you might not want to miss

ang labo nung example analysis mo about the NSAT topnotcher, I dunno the explicit implication of him not attending UP. Clarify up.

you kept asserting that university students are university students because their parents could afford to send them to the university. in other words, you keep saying that university education or intelligence is a monopoly of those who can pay for it.

what anton was saying was that such is not true. the nsat topnotcher is an example of many poor peasant children who are smart enough to top the NSAT but will not be able to afford university education in UP because of TOFI.

Your problem with attacking my points is that you misconstrue them as my “assertions”. I never made a sweeping statement about the middle-upper-middle-class monopoly of intelligence. It’s a dead issue because I addressed intelligence already. I just explained that universities don’t have a monopoly on intelligence, but the dominant trend (dominant is not an absolutist perspective) is that people in the higher income class have more children who end up pursing university degrees. If that’s not clear here’s a personal example: I can say that maths achievers in the Philippines are mostly of Chinese decent. It’s a different statement from saying that everyone who does well in Maths is Chinese. I’m not Chinese after all.

Which makes Anton’s example more problematic. Because of the absence of the ToFI, it means that the variable cannot be the cause of NSAT boy’s demise. In fact, para siyang ewan. Coz if you have topped the NSAT, malamang you should be smart enough to secure financial grants/aids. Government negligence should never be an excuse for lack of “diskarte”.

So yes, it’s still a bad example.

Clarification lang: bad example doesn’t mean it’s untrue, it’s just bad in the context of the discussion. In fact, it even looks like an isolated instance.

[...] Second, as I got off the Philcoa jeep and on to an Ikot, there were rallyists lined up along the center of the road. I’ve never really seen a rally in the evening, and in front of Vinzons Hall at that. As we, the passengers of the jeep, waited for more of us, a guy from the crowd appeared at the side of the jeepney and gave a short lecture on what they were fussing about. It wasn’t the Kule issue but the even more alarming tuition fee increase by 300%. Of course you would expect the “left” side of UP to oppose such tragedy. I agree with them in that respect. UP is UP. The University of the Philippines deserves better, if not the best treatment possible. That said, I guess the BOR has been driven into a corner on this one. War or no war. [...]

The TFI proposal is not as simple as raising the tuition fee increase from 300 to 1000 per unit, as we all know by now (or at least we should before reacting). The proposal came up with a restructured STFAP based on what the 2004 freshmen’s submitted ITR (and i think we can’t argue here that students would falsify their ITRs to make it bigger than what it really is) . From that we can see that if TFI takes effect by the next school year, most UP students would fall on the bracket where they would pay either 300 or 600 per credit unit. And for those who belongs to the poorest 20% would even have greater stipend of P12,000 than the what current STFAP gives. Also, there is an adequate number of students who are able to pay the full tuition of P1000 to support the other brackets. i think if you read the proposal with open mind, without prior judgement, you can see that it can be justified why an increase should take place and that those proponents of TFI proposal did not make UP students worse off. The proposal is fair and realistic.

Also i agree with Celeni, basic education is a right, and if we really want to help those at poverty level, we should fight for greater subsidy not for UP but for those primary and secondary schools so students from poor families would have the chance to enter UP. Calling a greater subsidy for the university is taking away resources from other public educational institutions…

“I think tuition free increase is justified. Basic education is a right, but college education is already a privilege. In terms of resource allocation, I think that the government should spend more money in the public school system, and let tuition fees increase for unis”.
‘Also i agree with Celeni, basic education is a right, and if we really want to help those at poverty level, we should fight for greater subsidy not for UP but for those primary and secondary schools so students from poor families would have the chance to enter UP. Calling a greater subsidy for the university is taking away resources from other public educational institutions”

Sobrang nakakairita ang pahayag na ito. Pano magiging justified ang TFI e state university nga ang UP na dapat ay nangunguna sa pagbibigay ng mura (affordable/accessible) at dekalidad na edukasyon. Lumilikha lamang ito ng di-makatarunang batayan upang makapag-aral sa Unibersidad. At sa usapin ng STFAP, alam na natin ang kasaysayan nito mga kapatid. Paki-research na lng po. At bakit kailangang maging privilege ang college ducation? Sa puntong ito, tinatanggap mo na ang ganitong bulok na sistema, na wla na tayong mgagawa pa para rito.. At tungkol sa punto ninyo ukol sa unis at public school system, Hindi iba ang usapin ng public school system (basic education or whatever u call it) at ng mga unis na sinasabi nyo. Usapin ito ng attitude ng ating gobeyerno sa edukayon sa kabuuan. (pati na rin sa iba pang basic social services.)

at tungkol sa intergenerational fairness na binanggit: In my own opinion, its our responsibility to ensure the welfare of future genrations. We can do this by any small means that we can. Lahat ng bagay na meron tayo ngayon ay dahil sa pagpupunyagi ng mga nakaraang henerasyon. Lahat ng mga karapatan at kalayaang tinatamsa natin ay bunga ng mga pakikipaglaban ng mga nauna sa atin. Mga pakikibakang hindi madaling napagtagumpayan. Pakiisip ng implications ng TFI. Mag-reflect muna tayo mga kapatid kung hindi obvious sa inyo ang halimaw at injustice na dala nito.

“If government was already inefficient in the basics of social service, who are we to demand something as peripheral as tertiary education? There are far more important things than tertiary education”

e hello, kaya nga tayo may gobyerno! we’re paying taxes nga po. at tingnan mo kaya ang alocations ng budget para sa sinasabi mong mga impt things. kung apathetic ka sa ganitong cause, i pity you. hindi kita masisisi kung bakit mabababaw ang itinuturo ng finance subjects mo sa yo kaya hindi mo nakikita ang tunay na isyu. puro teorya ka lng, kulang ka sa praktika. magmasid ka sa paligid mo….

[...] You can read arguments and counter-arguments at Bikoy’s site. I’m tired. [...]

Pinoy Stupid wrote: UP is for the intelligent, not the poor.

I beg to disagree. UP is for the poor AND the intelligent, and because it\’s a public school, it should serve intelligent-poor people before the intelligent-affluent UP-wannabes.

Hi macky,

Mairita ka na kung maiirita ka, pero ako rin naiirita na. Lahat ng isyu mo nasagot na sa lahat ng comments at yung comments sa kabilang thread. Get a life, while you’re at it since you obviously are too lazy to read and just want to repeat the same things over and over again in the Filipino language to be more I don’t know… socially relevant.

as for ana,
well, intelligence isn’t exclusive in income class (again, a reiterated point), just because you’re of a higher income class doesn’t make you a “UP wannabe”. In case you didn’t know, meron na ngang affirmative action FOR public school students. Of course, it’s the demise of the country that BASIC EDUCATION (no macky, this DOES NOT INCLUDE TERTIARY EDUCATION - because by definition college education is mainly for individualistic gains) system, but it’s a meritocracy more than anything else if we’re talking about universities. Especially if it’s THE UP Diliman.

at san mo naman nakuha yang definition mo ng college decucation celeni? ang hirap sa yo puro ka kasi mga teorya. hindi masama ito ngunit mas mapagpasya ang praktika. imagine the phils kung wala tayong college grad. at again to reiterate din, tulad ng sabi ni bikoy, hindi ibig sabihin nito pababayaan natin ang basic educ. i know basic educ, silly din. tingnan nga natin sa kabuuan kase. sa kontekstong ito, hindi mo pwedeng basta i-adapt ang ginawa sa ibang mga bayang. hindi necessarily pareho ang sitwasyon sa knaila. models tha work for them may not work for us because of different concrete conditions present. halimbawa na lng ang mga developed nilang basic industries as against ours and so on. basta mahaba usapan. i have a life timang haha. kelangan nating ng mga college grad. kaya nga may mga SCUs hello. (itawag mo na yan). ibatay mo kasi ang mga argumento mo sa praktika, sa mga nangyayari rito at hindi yang iginigiit mong mga teorya na yan. watsoever din . pagnilayan mo kasi hindi mo naman talaga lubusang nasasagot kaya nga siguro andami mo nasasabihan na nasagot mo na ang mga isyu nila. nagre-recur. and to reiterate din, i have a life ha, timang. haha. bwahaha celeni.

“just because you’re of a higher income class doesn’t make you a “UP wannabe””

wala naman sinabi si ana na ang higher class lang ang UP wannabees. it’t not even implied.or kung anumang dahilan kung bakit mo nasabi yang pahayag na yan, very obvious naman di ba?

hanggang ngayon wala parin akong naririnig na sensible na sagot kung bakit kailangang i-subsidize ng gobyerno ang tertiary education particularly ang UP.

sobrang mali ang logic na porke inilalaan sa mga maling bagay ang budget ng pamahalaan e.g. all out war sa npa atbp. eh tama ng sabihin na dapat sa UP at iba pang state universities na lang inilaan ang budget.

bakit? unang una hindi naman talaga obligasyon ng gobyerno ang pagpapaaral sa kolehiyo. mas tamang sabhin na sana sa elementary at secondary education na lang inilaan ang pera dahil iyun naman talaga ang sakop ng responsibilidad ng estado. at naniniwala akong iyon talaga ang dapat bigyan ng importansya, hindi ang tertiary education.

kung may dapat mang sisihin dahil sa biglaang TFI na ito, walang iba kundi ang mga naunang administrasyong ng UP dahil hindi nila ginamit sa pagre-raise ng pondo ang mga pagkalaki-laking lupa na ibinigay sa kanila ng gobyerno noong itinatag ang UP.

heh. pano nga pala mangyayari yun eh sa tuwing iu-utilize ang mga idle na lupain na pagaari ang UP eh kokontrahin ng mga tibak na yan.
komersyalisasyon daw.

ayan. may kome-komersyalisasyon pa kayong nalalaman eh. di nyo naman talaga naiintindihan yang mga pinag-sisisigaw nyo. tapos sisigaw ulit kayo ng komersyalisasyon ngayon.

sadyang puro kayo kakitiran ng utak.

[...] You can read arguments and counter-arguments at Bikoy’s site. I’m tired. [...]

musta naman yun, UP na yan ah.