I. Background of the issue.

a. Why is there a need to have a typology of HEI’s 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. Number of students per program and level

4. 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

master’s 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 master’s 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

master’s 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 master’s degrees

at least 100 national and/ or international

publications in database

3. Master’s Colleges and Universities I

doctoral programs in five to twenty different fields

master’s 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 master’s degrees

4. Colleges, Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts

master’s programs in five to ten different fields

master’s students account for at least 10 percent of

total student enrolment

10 percent of faculty with doctorates

40 percent of faculty with master’s degrees

5. Baccalaureate Colleges – General

less than five graduate programs

master’s students account for at least 10 percent of

total student enrolment

10 percent of faculty with doctorates

25 percent of faculty with master’s degrees or 70

percent of faculty with at least 10 master’s 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) Master’s College and Universities I, (4)

Master’s 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. Bernardo’s 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 Bernardo’s 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.

Bernardo’s 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 doesn’t 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 CHED’s 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. Cobarrubias2012-63002