On wanting to be up to par

Part 1 – CHEd’s verticalization initiative

HAVING been in graduate studies since the 1980s, I have witnessed varied public and private efforts to make Philippine tertiary level of education up to par with the world’s best. These efforts are initiated both where the powersthat-be are and at the grassroots level as well. Let me share our read-

well-intentioned attempts.

The verticalization Structural initiative.

Having sat as a graduate school dean in several CHEd consultations, I noticed that this initiative tended to be understood in two related ways. One, that degrees of faculty members from the baccalaureate to graduate studies be verticalized within a discipline or

- ment and supervision of graduate programs aligned to the baccalaureate degrees a college offers, be transferred to said college from the graduate school of a university. In so providing, CHEd would foresee the implications to organizational structure of such a move. From the grassroots' side, we expected that CHEd, based on the intended verticalization, would not permit the opening of graduate courses that had no corresponding bacca-

of study. With higher education stuck on verticalization, planning for faculty development or continuing professional development was to be strategic, that is, further studies of faculty members aimed to qualify them for the eventual transfer of the master and doctoral level courses aligned to the baccalaureate programs offered in their respective colleges.

constraints.

Verticalization has had structural implications such as eventually doing away entirely with a separate graduate school which historically had been administratively distinct from baccalaureate colleges. This did not sit well with incumbent graduate school deans since there will eventually be no need for them as graduate school deans. However, these were false fears. Why? Because the academic degree qualifications level of many deans

did not match the proposed structural change, and similarly, not all college faculty members had masters or doctorate degrees. Said deans would not qualify to head the graduate programs of their respective colleges nor would they have enough regular faculty members to teach graduate courses. After several months of consultation held all over the country, a sobering change was made. Only

undergraduate deans were to have programs in verticalized structures. Since most graduate schools did not have full-time faculty, necessary

had to be made. To date, given a much better proportion of deans with graduate degrees, that best of intentions of the CHEd, to verticalize the management of graduate programs, has not become a total reality. However, there are universities which have opted to have a combination of verticalized and general management systems for graduate programs. Universities with undergraduate deans having doctoral degrees usually have within their colleges vertical programs from up to doctoral degrees. Meanwhile, other programs not structurally verticalized in a college remain lodged with the traditional graduate school as a separate unit.

Implications of divided management of graduate programs and suggestions.

After a decade and a half of verticalization, to date, many universities still have the traditional graduate school along with colleges that have remained as undergraduate colleges. Given this, and if verticalization is still the “in-thing,” college deans should be allowed membership in graduate school councils — or their senior faculty members as representatives, including whose colleges will eventually manage the master and doctoral levels along with their baccalaureate pro- united body in the university that tackles graduate level policies.

For otherwise, if several colleges already having the graduate levels apart from the graduate school, the tendency is to have policies that seem over- strict for a program/s while the same policies in another program/ s may be looked upon as lenient. These policies from admission to graduation and the requirements arising from these policies should be reviewed for fairness/ rationality by a body working as a team. An academic council can duly review the balancing of graduate level requirements arising from policies. It is seldom, though, that academic councils include graduate-level matters in their agenda. More than enough matter about undergraduate programs is keeping such councils to delve into graduate level matters. What with universities having to cope with accreditation, ISO, and other “musts” such as the Institutional Sustainability AssessmentSelf Evaluation Development (ISA-SED), or maintaining as well the institution’s deregulated or autonomous status or as center of excellence or for development, etc.

Preventing specialization myopia.

Verticalized programs need a broadened review of student learning outcomes from the baccalaureate up to the doctoral level. To avoid needless overlaps while maintaining enough connections among courses there is need for course mapping. Given colleges handling all the levels of tertiary education, some “adopting/borrowing” of courses from other colleges avoids verticalization becoming pure play. A possible missing out are cognates which are courses under a different college or academic department within a college. Colleges need to share related courses and for them, through their deans/ representatives to work as teams. To illustrate, a literature masters in the Teachers Education College may be broadened/enriched or provided a more meaningful context if history and/or philosophy courses in the Arts and Sciences College, are added as cognates. Unlike free electives, cognates are electives meant to enrich the context of a discipline; hence, while cognates expand one’s horizons, specialization courses pro-

This prevents specialization myopia.

Direct income and direct cost of contact hours.

In verticalized programs, tuition, if not fees, would necessarily vary. Hence, direct income in a university/college would likewise vary. Undergraduate tuition costs less. Graduate level tuition costs more. Contact hours for graduate level teaching may count more peso-wise than for contact hours for baccalaureate teaching. There also is the matter of advising theses and/or dissertations and in editing these capstones. Clear regulations on mixed assignments vis-à-vis a full load should be spelled out — whether full load is in terms of undergraduate contact hours, their equivalent to graduate level contact hours and whether mentoring research capstones, counted as part of a faculty teaching load, has corresponding contact hours on the graduate level. All these should be considered leaving space for dialogue. Dialogue means including the

in decision- making that affects them or their students. Such practice evokes in employees a sense of ownership on decisions made and that such policies and guidelines are necessary for systemic change. In introducing verticalization, we hope to sustain excellence in both instruction and capstone mentoring. As we said, we try to be up to par with the world’s best!

Next week: Verticalization multi-disciplinarity?

or