james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 4 February 2009 Issue (Page E-4)

---

In light of the need to impose educational reforms, CHED has proposed to retool the system into having five-year college courses across the board.

In this plan, the first two years at the college level will be use for “pre-university” courses, supposedly to equip students with skills that would immediately land them jobs should they forgo further specialization.

Ideally, the plan will be put in motion by next school year, amid soaring unemployment rates and the world’s biggest economic crunch since the Great Depression in 1929.

It has gotten me wondering whether the government is looking too far ahead in coming up with a solution—or if it is indeed even looking for one.

In the first place, effective educational reforms necessitate two things: a clear view of the problem, and a well-defined connection between the problem and the solution. It is this link between problem and solution that I cannot fully appreciate.

The problem with our system is not so much in the number of years, but in the caliber of the education it gives.

Right now, our educational system is a moldering mess. Curricula are not up to date, and neither are the ways with which we we educate. While the rest of the world is revolutionizing through computers, we are revolting from the lack of textbooks (which themselves are factually lacking) and classrooms without teachers. There are many students but not enough teachers. In many cases, schooling has become a formality which students undergo without truly learning anything. It is for this reason that so few of us even reach college.

At this point, should we even be talking about expanding years in college when we can barely prepare our students for it?

But say for the sake of argument that we tackle it on the level of the university itself. Ideally, the extra year creates space for more meaningful learning and specialization. Yet if we look at the structure of the policy itself, practically nothing changes.

Currently, the first year of many universities is spent on general education (to compensate for the lack of training our basic education has given) and the next three years is spent on the course itself. Under the proposed system, two years will be spent on “pre-college” courses, and the next three years for specialization. Seems like the only real change is that college students take freshman year twice.

Besides, in an age where specialization has become the key to employment, one has to doubt whether we can feasibly leave school after two years of pre-specialized education.

Before we think about expanding years in college, we should revisit our college curriculum first, and see whether we exact accountability from schools that do not deliver.

Then we have to think about whether families can handle such a change. Not so long ago, millions of Filipinos lost their educational savings by investing in faulty college plans. Nowadays, these same people are reeling from the impact of the financial crisis, which has resulted in significantly reduced incomes, if not outright unemployment. One has to wonder whether they can handle the added expense of another year of college. Indeed, one has to wonder whether they can currently handle the expenses of four years in college.

This is even worse for students who mostly depend on scholarship and financial aid. As you increase the number of years required for education, you also increase the amount of money that must be invested to ensure that a student graduates. This will make scholarships more competitive, and this means that it will be more difficult for poor yet worthy and intelligent students to have access to higher education. Yet here we are talking about how to best utilize the talent of the youth.

Granted, it is admirable that our administration is thinking of ways to make meaningful reforms to the education system. It is also good that we have begun caring about being up to par with international standards. But before we gaze outward and think of big solutions, it is necessary to introspect and discern the kind of changes we need to make first.

At least then, our government won’t seem like it’s looking for a cheap way to reduce unemployment figures.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 28 January 2009 Issue (Page E-3)

---

In all my eighteen years, I have never seen a president-elect who was as enthusiastically received as Barack Obama was when he was sworn into office. His inauguration was such a big thing that even people in my age group, who don’t normally give a damn about politics, stayed up to watch it. Nowadays, we would only do that for DVD marathons or concerts. It makes you wonder why that is.

My own opinion is that Obama’s case is special for two reasons.

The first is that his presidency comes at a time when things could not be bleaker. This makes his spirited reception all the more surprising. Obama’s predecessor may have been cooperative in helping him make the transition, but he also left a ton of trash for him to clean up. Among that sea of garbage is a messed up war, a botched foreign policy, and a mismanaged economy. It is perhaps unfortunate that he’s got his work cut out for him by this much.

The second is that Obama continues to defy the realms of possibility. Here is a name that was virtually unheard of in the political arena five years ago. Now, he is perhaps the biggest name in all the arenas, political or otherwise, which you can imagine. He is so charismatic that he invites comparisons to Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and even Abraham Lincoln. Add to that the fact that he is an African American, one who was once even criticized for not being “black enough” because he had Caucasian blood. His success is downright intriguing, to say the least, but intriguingly enough, it is also inspiring.

It is because of these two reasons, the impossibility of his odds and the improbability of his achievements, that he inspires hope within the rest of us.

I believe that’s the most important commodity we have nowadays. We live in a time where even rich people become homeless and nations get bankrupt. If this is the way the things are going to be over the next few years, it’s going to be hard for a lot of us to keep on living. But if money isn’t going to make the world go ’round, then we need something else to back on.

I guess this is what Obama understood about his presidency. He understands that he will take the front in a time when change is so real it’s so hard to believe in. Even so, expectations of him are nothing short of monumental. And if he is going to succeed—indeed, survive—in his presidency, he knows that the first thing he must do is to rally his people. That is why in his inauguration speech, he focused on “the faith and determination of the American people, upon which this nation relies.”

Nothing inspires people better than the knowledge that you believe in them.

Deflecting expectations aside, his story in itself is something we can draw hope from. Toward the end of his speech, he talked about equality, the spirit of democracy. “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed,” he said, “Why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

If he can overcome the odds, then we can, too.

As for us, the people who will soon inherit the world, he is a person we can look up to. I think it’s admirable that he tries to present his best face without being hypocritical, such as in his ongoing effort to quit smoking. In a world where it has become so easy to set morals aside, he reminds us that there is still value in being persons of integrity and character.

In the end, Obama’s election is a reminder that good still wins in this world, that there is space for hope in these trying times. No one can say for certain what the future will bring, but I am certain of one thing.

There is at least one change we can believe in.