Nominees for the UPD chancellorship took the hot seat and addressed some of the students’ major concerns in a public forum held at the National Institute of Science and Math Education Development (NISMED) auditorium on January 24.
The nominees were: Dr. Patrick Alain T. Azanza from the College of Education, Dr. Sylvia Estrada-Claudio (University Center for Women’s Studies/UCWS), Dr. Rowena Cristina L. Guevara (College of Engineering/CoE), Dr. Caesar A. Saloma (College of Science/CS) and Dr. Rolando B. Tolentino (College of Mass Communication/CMC).
Prior to the open forum, each nominee was given seven minutes to present their vision for UPD, the full details of which can be viewed at http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/index167.html.
After the presentation, Raisa Ty, the forum moderator and one of the search committee members, read the students’ questions to the nominees.
Each nominee was given three minutes to answer each question. Due to time constraints, only seven questions were asked during the forum while the unasked questions were collated by the search committee for possible use during the individual interview. Three of the questions asked were on commercialization, large class and the 2010 Draft Code of the Student Conduct.
Commercialization. Nominees were asked to comment on incoming UP President Alfredo E. Pascual’s vision that stated, “Partnerships for commercialization of assets should be distinguished from commercialization of education” and “safeguards must be in place…to maximize the financial gains of UP from such commercial ventures.” They were also asked about their stand on public-private partnership in the University.
Saloma said a University could not exist without private-public partnership. “…UP Diliman is a partnership between the teachers like us, you, and the parents and guardians. It is necessary to start first with determining accurately and precisely the cost of running, or of operating and maintaining a university that we envision. Unless we know that, it is quite difficult for us to ascertain how much money do we want to raise in order to operate this aspect of the University, or these programs of the University. I think we have the brightest people in the country in this campus to be able to do that.”
Azanza , who concurred with Pascual’s stand on the matter, said “Naniniwala ako sa kanyang vision at naniniwala rin ako sa kanyang sinabi na hindi dapat na tingnan bilang komersiyalisasyon ng edukasyon, o hindi dapat ito maging resulta ng kung anumang komersiyalisasyon ng idle assets natin na gagawin sa Unibersidad. Naniniwala rin ako sa kanya nung sinabi niya na ang isang paraan ng pagpapaunlad ng ating Unibersidad ay ‘yung pag-aangat sa antas ng private-public partnership.”
Claudio said she is in favor of the public-private partnership in the University but it should be properly done “I don’t think that depending only on national government necessarily ensures the autonomy of this University to intervene in a critical way in public policy making and with the government…I think for the health of UP, we have to have autonomous sources of income.”
Tolentino said “I also take at heart the line quoted that the “commercialization of assets should not translate to the commercialization of education,” something that incoming UP President has articulated in his own vision statement which means that there should be no hurry in the mad dash in bringing in investors to the UP campus.” He added that there is a need to re-conceptualize the public-private partnership and collaboration. He said, “It should be something that could bring in more prestige to the University, something that we could be proud of as we develop the environmental, physical and academic spaces of UP Diliman, etc.”
Guevara, on the other hand, said “I agree with the vision of the incoming President about public-private partnership and about the land use plans of UP. It is clearly stated and there are safety measures in our charter that talk about the land being used by UP for educational purposes…What I have seen during my term as Dean of the College of Engineering is that, if you communicate your needs clearly, well, the government will listen.” She added, “Also, as dean of the College, we worked very hard with the alumni because private money is much easier and faster to utilize…It is doable and I think we have no other recourse but to do it that way. But always, we make sure that we do not stray from our main goal of academic excellence in the University.”
On the issue of large-class size. The students asked the nominees on how they plan to solve the pressing problem of large-class sizes for a number of Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) and basic courses in UPD.
All the nominees agreed that issues on large classes can be solved through additional funds for hiring additional faculty members in the colleges.
According to Azanza, technology or modernizing instructional methods is the key to solve the large-class sizes.
Tolentino said the issue depends on what is more effective and efficient in teaching the RGEP and basic courses. It also depends on the agreement within the college whether to implement the large classes or not because there are subjects, for example, the production classes in CMC that require small class sizes.
Saloma said large-class sizes can be solved through a combination of an enabling room, team of good teachers and variety of topics. He said in the case of CS, they invite lecturers from other colleges to teach some of the topics to large classes like the Science, Technology and Society subject so that students will be encouraged to attend and actively participate.
Guevara said in the CoE, they designed the overall learning environment for the students in order to handle the large-class sizes effectively. She said the College used the University Virtual Learning Environment (UVLE) for the students to be able to access their professors’ lectures and contact them as well. For basic courses with large classes handled by the senior faculty, they break it down into small discussion groups to be handled by the junior faculty.
Claudio, meanwhile, proposed for the complete return of the compulsory courses prior to the RGEP to even out the distribution problems. In addition, she is proposing a policy study that will allow the faculty to follow two career tracks: teaching and research tracks. She said it will rationalize to a certain extent some of the inefficiencies of the burden given to the faculty thus, allow those who would like to just teach to concentrate on teaching likewise with those who would like to concentrate on doing research.
On the 2010 Draft Code of Student Conduct. Nominees were also asked about their stand on the 2010 Draft Code of the Student Conduct (CSC).
Azanza, who was a former chair of the UP Student Council, said “Tingin ko dapat balikan ‘yung unang steps: konsultahin sila, tanungin kung ano ba talaga ‘yung dapat na mga elemento at mga provisions na dapat ipaloob dito, at pakinggan ‘yung kanilang mga hanay. Pangalawa, ‘yung tungkol naman sa mga pribilehiyo na dapat ibigay sa mga estudyante, sa aking vision paper, nakalagay doon ‘yung pagpapalawak sa students’ rights and welfare at tingin ko, dapat na magkaroon ng tunay na interes ang Chancellor, ang administrasyon, sa kung ano ‘yung magiging mahalaga para sa mga mag-aaral ng UP.”
Tolentino said, “From the administrative point of view, may relevance din ang pagko-conceptualize ng CSC. Ang rational naman kaya ginawa ‘yung student code of conduct ay para matuto ‘yung mga estudyante sa inaakalang tatak UP. Pero parang may problema rin dito sa idea na puwede mong i-codify ‘yung tatak UP, dahil nga code of conduct, di ba? May tatak UP na magsu-sway ng ganoong klase ng behavior worthy of a student or UP graduate. Basic ‘yung flaw nung naging proseso sa CSC. Walang student representation mismo dito sa core group na nag-formulate or nagre-formulate ng CSC. From my end, parang hindi acceptable ‘yung ganitong klaseng, kahit pa siya umabot at andaming kinonsulta, nag-focus group discussion, idinulog sa Kolehiyo o kumuha ng feedback sa bawat estudyante ng Kolehiyo, in the first place, hindi naging involved ang estudyante sa core appointment para i-reconceptualize ang Student Code of Conduct and therefore, flawed sa akin ang result ng document ng CSC. Kaya ang aking stand dito ay ibalik at bigyan ng proper representation ang mga estudyante sa pamamagitan ng kanilang student council na mag-craft nitong CSC.”
Saloma said “There is no perfect document so we need to review the CSC. As Dean Tolentino mentioned, I really fully agree even in previous meetings of the executive council na we need to refine and in fact make more accurate and precise the definition of misconduct and dishonesty. There has to be more refined range of possible penalties so that those who unfortunately did something that is not right, they will be able to redeem themselves and start all over.”
Claudio said, “Many of the proposed revisions are reasonable and actually helped protect the students.” However, she proposed that “Perhaps, it would have been better to have students in the committee. When I hear objections, I think that means that the social preparation for this goal needs to be improved and put forth.”
As a member of the committee that crafted the Student Code 2010, Guevara explained, “Until now, it (CSC) has not been discussed by the University Council. But if you will check, for example, the Charter of the University, it specifically says that responsibility of crafting, approving and recommending to the Board of Regents the Student Code actually belongs to the University Council.” However, she said in the process of consulting with the students, the committee follows some of their proposals.
—Haidee C. Pineda