Editorial
After an UPCAT-esque anticipation, the Presidential Advisory Council (PAC), composed of executives and chancellors of the University of the Philippines (UP), finally released a proposed policy for the semester in light of the pandemic.
The proposal states that PAC was “prompted by the need for even greater compassion” and that it recognizes the “difficulty of pursuing academic work … in the face of survival concerns.” These words sound like an indication of a pro-student (and pro-faculty) policy ahead. But alas, while PAC would like to present itself as “paying closer attention to the need of students,” their actual proposed policy fails to support their pretense.
PAC wants the semester to end, a popular option backed up by many student formations. But unlike students, PAC does not want mass promotion. Instead, it opts for a pass-drop scheme and wants the semester to end on April 30, about two weeks from now.
Students will be given a “deferred grade” and have until May 31, 2021 to submit requirements and earn a “pass” grade. Prerequisite requirements to enroll a course are waived. Meanwhile, graduating students who want to finish their degrees by the earliest possible time have to submit all course requirements within the coming midyear term (in general). The specific deadline will be set by the constituent universities. (The clarification on graduation was provided by a memorandum from the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Many students found the PAC proposal confusing by itself.)
It is astounding how PAC claims to want to “reduce the growing anxiety of students and faculty” while proposing a scenario that does the opposite.
Yes, students will not be technically delayed (because prerequisites are waived) but graduating students without internet access will be. These graduating students who could otherwise hunt for much-needed jobs — an especially essential task after this pandemic — are instead held back to deal with academic requirements. And we can only imagine the stress and pressure that graduating students with online access will face as they muster the strength to finish the remaining requirements of the semester.
It is baffling how PAC notes these graduating students who need “to begin earning for their families” while setting the students’ urgent concerns aside so that it can do some assessment, unfairly leaving those who can’t keep up.
While not facing such an immediate dilemma, non-graduating students will also have to deal with drawbacks of this policy. While they can still enroll “as usual” next semester, they will have to complete alongside their regular courses the backlog of this semester.
How can anyone be healthy if they have to deal with two regular semesters — which are already stressful on their own — while preparing for completion requirements for a third semester, which could have ended already? And considering that students will do this after (or god forbid during) a global health crisis and a likely subsequent recession, we are prompted to ask whether PAC understands the notion of welfare.
According to PAC, the reason for this policy is that “there is no sufficient basis for assessing students.” Why — in the middle of this pandemic — is PAC so bent on assessing students? It seems that it is more important for PAC to determine which students pass and which do not rather than allow students to prioritize their health and urgent needs. And how can we even make a trustworthy assessment if such a policy will only trigger more stress and anxiety that students are not even learning anymore?
It is also quite strange to think that while PAC does away with numerical grades, it allows for optional adjectival remarks such as “excellent,” “very good,” and “good.” Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of reducing students’ grade anxiety? Yes, this semester will not be included in the computation of the students’ General Weighted Averages. However, these remarks will be on students’ transcripts. It is even more bizarre that a student can ace a course next semester but potentially fail (i.e. earn a “DRP” grade) the prerequisite course taken this second semester.
We reiterate that implementing a mass promotion policy will not jeopardize students’ education. Bridging programs and course revisions should still help students achieve the goals of the curriculum.
And as for graduating students, it is true that they might no longer be urged to study the last topics of their degree if we give them a pass. But do we really have to ask ourselves whether those last topics are more important than a job that could be feeding a family ravaged by the outbreak? True, those topics might be needed in order to get a job in the first place but certainly not any job. The student should be able to make a choice for herself whether she is willing to extend her stay in UP. A delay should not be enforced on her for reasons that she has no control of.
The fate of students and faculty this semester (and the next) is now in the hands of the Board of Regents (BOR) who will decide on PAC’s proposal this Thursday, April 16. The regents should know better and prioritize health over any artificial assessment of excellence. Mass promotion now!
