Review & Assessment of

Programs Offered by State

Universities and Colleges
(SUCs)

Rosario G. Manasan and Danileen C. Parel

Philippine Institute for Development Studies
2 September 2014
Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Overview of presentation
Objectives of the study
Approach and methodology
Findings
Future steps

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Objectives of the study

Review and assess the different
programs being offered by the major
SUCs in regions not included in the
earlier study vis--vis
their mandates
Program duplication (i.e., courses being
offered by other SUCs and other SUCs in
the same region)
the quality of graduates produced

Recommend courses of action as well

as an action plan to pursue given the
findings above to improve the
relevance and quality of course
offerings of the SUCs
Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Motivation of the study

Why the concern about faithfulness to
mandates?
Offering programs outside mandate
increases number of program offerings
higher per student cost wastefulness
Offering program outside mandate
program duplication
Why the concern about program duplication?
Program duplication crowding out of
private sector

Why the concern about quality?

Creation of SUCs typically attributed to
the need for access, but access is only
meaningful if one also gets quality

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Approach & methodology

Coverage all SUCs across all regions
Desk review of program offerings,
enrolment therein and passing rates in
PBEs of individual SUCs
Key informant interviews conducted with
selected SUCs officials, and regional
officials of the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) and the National
Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA)

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Overview of presentation
Objectives of the study
Approach and methodology
Findings
SUC program offering vis--vis
their mandates
Program duplication
Quality of instruction
Future steps

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

SUCs program offering vis their mandates

50%-90% of programs offered by majority of SUCs are
outside their core mandates
Some 20 SUCs have limited mandates
More than 50% of all SUCs allowed by their charters
to offer programs outside of their core mandates at
the discretion of the Board of Trustees
90%-100% of program offering of a small number of
SUCs are within their core mandates
Some 10 SUCs have remained faithful to their core
mandate
Some 10 SUCs have recently been converted in
recent years from colleges to universities thereby
expanding their mandates
Mandate of some SUCs are broad and all
encompassing to start with

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication
Given prevalence of SUCs with program offerings
outside their core mandates, it is not surprising that
there is duplication in their program offerings relative
to those of other SUCs and PHEIs in the same region
SUCs programs classified into
o programs that are unique to the SUC under
study
o programs that are offered by the given SUC
and any one of the other SUCs but are not
offered by PHEIs in the same region
o programs that are offered by the given SUC
and any one of the PHEIs but are not offered
by any one of the other SUCs in the same
region
o programs that are offered by the given SUC
and any one of the other SUCs and any one of
the PHEIs in the same region

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication
2005/06

2006/07

ALL REGIONS
2007/08 2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

Programs offered
Programs unique to SUC
Programs offerred by SUCs that are also offerred by
any other SUC or PHEIs
Programs common to SUC and PHEIs only
Programs common to SUC and other SUCs only
Programs common to SUC, other SUCs and PHEIs

45.32
54.68

44.42
55.58

44.38
55.62

43.39
56.61

44.05
55.95

44.15
55.85

19.99
12.19
22.50

19.27
13.00
23.31

19.56
12.37
23.68

20.18
11.68
24.75

20.35
12.41
23.19

19.51
12.70
23.64

10.20
89.80

9.51
90.49

8.90
91.10

9.29
90.71

8.55
91.45

8.09
91.91

10.78
16.11
62.91

10.99
15.48
64.02

9.77
13.75
67.58

9.45
11.65
69.62

9.05
11.75
70.65

8.84
11.36
71.71

665062

673964

693776

746620

825513

928850

Enrollment
Programs unique to SUC
Programs offerred by SUCs that are also offerred by
any other SUC or PHEIs
Programs common to SUC and PHEIs only
Programs common to SUC and other SUCs only
Programs common to SUC, other SUCs and PHEIs
Total Enrollment

On the average, the program duplication rate varies from 73%-75% if computed based
on total number of program offerings and 89%-92% if computed based on total
enrollment

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication
Over 70% of all the SUCs covered under
this study registered duplication rates
(computed based on number of programs
offered) that are upwards of 75%
Highest Duplication rate: Region VII
86%-90% (total number of program
offerings)
96%-99% (based on total enrollment)
Lowest Duplication rate: ARMM
69%-71% (total number of programs
offered)
82%-86% (based on total enrollment)

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication

High rates of program duplication

appeared to be associated with an
increase in the number of programs
offered by SUCs during the period
Around 80% of the SUCs covered
have increased the number of
programs they are offering in
2005-2010

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Why is program duplication an issue?

Results of Manasan (2011) suggests
number of programs offered tend to
increase per student cost of SUCs
FGDs with private higher education
institutions (PHEIs) indicate that
program duplication is a problem from
their perspective
Crowding out
Uneven playing field

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

SUC are crowding out PHEIs

PHEIs officials point out that when
SUCs offer programs that PHEIs
traditionally offer PHEIs find it difficult
to compete against SUCs in attracting
students because of the low tuition that
SUCs charged
Although CHED provide
scholarships that allow students to
enroll in school of their choice, the
support value is low relative to
tuition charged by PHEIs
When enrollment in program
declines continuously, faculty
retrenchment cannot be avoided
sometimes
Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Uneven playing field .

Many PHEIs also decry what they perceived to
be a double standard in regulation/ monitoring
of SUCs and PHEIs by CHED
Some CHED regional officials admit that
CHED has difficulty applying the same
standards on SUCs because of the socalled autonomy that their Charters vest
on SUCs
According to PHEIs, SUCs offer courses
despite the fact SUCs do not have the
needed facilities and qualified faculty while
CHED strictly enforces the its Policies,
Standards and Guidelines (PSG) on PHEIs
(especially true of satellite campuses)
o With detrimental impact on quality of
instruction and PBE passing rates

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication a non-issue?

Some SUC officials say that program
duplication among SUCs and PHEIs is a
non-issue
An important goal of SUCs is
providing access and equity
o Need to consider geographical
characteristic of region;
duplication may be necessary
when you have regions composed
of island provinces

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Program duplication when the shoe is on the other foot

Some SUC officials think that

branches of national universities (e.g.,
UP, PUP, TUP, PNU) in the regions
tend to give rise to undue
competition to the SUCs in the said
regions
Same is true with respect to the
presence of a branch/ extension class
of a regional SUC in a region that is
outside of its original catchment area

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Dental Medicine
Environmental Planning
Geology
Mechanical Engg
Medical Technology
Medicine
Mining Engg
Nutrition and Dietetics
Optometry
Social Work

2004
34.7
46.4
57.1
45.2
43.4
51.2
56.3
48.9
65.8
44.6

Average Passing Rate- All HEIs

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
35.5 33.1 34.6 43.3 40.1
57.4 53.7 52.8 47.3 55.0
78.0 74.5 74.0 65.5 60.5
45.6 47.7 51.8 56.5 56.0
51.9 46.6 51.6 59.6 51.2
53.2 54.1 59.3 57.5 68.0
75.8 62.5 64.5 72.9 61.1
50.0 52.2 56.4 52.2 67.5
72.5 66.2 63.3 59.0 59.9
50.0 51.6 47.1 51.9 53.2

2010 2011
44.2 96.5
62.5 59.5
56.3 61.5
62.0 63.5
66.0 70.6
59.7 66.2
56.4 71.1
70.4 67.0
86.2 85.7
57.6 64.0

Median passing rate for 38 PBEs 2005-2011 ranged from 40% to 48%
only 10 out of these 38 PBEs had average passing rates above 60% and
only 6 have passing rates above 70%
Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Quality of instruction in HEIs

On average, SUCs perform better than PHEIs in 84%
of the PBEs from 2005-2011
SUCs improve their advantage further during
the period in about 31% of PBEs - criminology,
customs administration, forestry, geology,
elementary education, marine engineering,
medical technology, midwifery, mining
engineering and nursing
However, edge that SUCs used to enjoy in the
early part of the period has eroded in about
69% of the PBEs accountancy, aeronautical
engineering, architecture, chemical engineering,
chemistry, civil engineering, dental medicine,
electrical engineering, electronics engineering,
environmental planning, geodetic engineering,
interior design, library science, marine
transportation, mechanical engineering,
medicine, nutrition and dietetics, occupational
therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, social work
and veterinary medicine

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

 Worrisome that there is a preponderance of

SUCs/ PHEIs with zero passing rate in many
PBEs
i.e., when SUCs are ranked according
to PBE passing rate and grouped, the
largest number of SUCs fall in zero
passing rate category
True for agriculture, accountancy, criminology,
electrical engineering, electronics engineering,
geodetic engineering, social work, elementary
education, secondary education, library
science, forestry, and environmental planning
This problem not much of a problem for
SUCs in chemical engineering, civil engineering,
and mechanical engineering, and marine
transportation
Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

20

15
SUCs

10

10

0
0

PHEIs

Passing rates
Philippine
Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies
Passing rates

100

25

[95-100)

30

[90-95)

30

[85-90)

35

[80-85)

2007

[75-80)

2005

[70-75)

Passing rates

[65-70)

Passing rates

[60-65)

35

[55-60)

40

[50-55)

40
100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

2004

[45-50)

45

[40-45)

45

[35-40)

0
[25-30)

[30-35)

5
[20-25)

[25-30)

10
10

[15-20)

PHEIs

[20-25)

15

[15-20)

SUCs

[5-10)

35

[10-15)

35

[5-10)

40

40

[10-15)

25

Percentage

45

(0-5)

20

100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

[25-30)

[20-25)

[15-20)

45

(0-5)

[5-10)

[10-15)

30

Percentage

(0-5)

Percentage

50

100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

[25-30)

[20-25)

[15-20)

[10-15)

[5-10)

(0-5)

Percentage

Passing rate in Accountancy Board

2006

30

25

20

15

SUCs

PHEIs

25

20

15
SUCs

PHEIs

Passing rates Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Philippine
Passing rates

100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

0
[70-75)

[65-70)

PHEIs

[60-65)

10

[55-60)

2009

[50-55)

SUCs
100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

[25-30)

[20-25)

[15-20)

2008

[45-50)

Passing rates

[40-45)

15

[35-40)

20

[30-35)

25

[25-30)

35

[20-25)

40
[10-15)

[15-20)

[10-15)

PHEIs

[5-10)

10

[5-10)

SUCs
Percentage

20

(0-5)

15

100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

[25-30)

[20-25)

[15-20)

35

(0-5)

[5-10)

[10-15)

25

Percentage

0
(0-5)

Percentage

40

100

[95-100)

[90-95)

[85-90)

[80-85)

[75-80)

[70-75)

[65-70)

[60-65)

[55-60)

[50-55)

[45-50)

[40-45)

[35-40)

[30-35)

[25-30)

[20-25)

[15-20)

[10-15)

[5-10)

(0-5)

Percentage

Passing rate in Accountancy Board

2010

30

30
25

20

15

10
SUCs

PHEIs

Passing rates

2011

30

30
25

20

15

10
SUCs

PHEIs

PBE
Accountancy

Many SUCs
have zero
passing rate in
PBEs in three
years in 20052011
List of SUCs
with passing
rates below
national
average is even
longer

Zero passers, 3 consecutive years

Cotabato City State Polytechnic College
Northwest Samar State University
Occidental Mindoro State College
Agricultural Engineering Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Romblon State University
Western Philippines University
Criminology
Isabela State University
Partido State University
Surigao State College of Technology
University of Southern Mindanao
Electrical Engineering
Mountain Province State Polytechnic College
University of Antique
Electronics Engineering Agusan Del Sur State College of Agric and Tech

Forestry

LET-Secondary

Cotabato City State Polytechnic College

Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College
Kalinga-Apayao State College
Mountain Province State Polytechnic College
Naval State University
Negros Oriental State University
Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College
University of Rizal System
Adiong Memorial Polytechnic State College

LET-Elementary

Rizal Technological University

Library Science

Bataan Peninsula State University

Batangas State University
Cavite State University
Central Mindanao University
Cotabato Foundation College of Sci and Tech
Leyte Normal University
Mariano Marcos State University
Negros Oriental State University
Pangasinan State University
Romblon State University
University of Northern Philippines
Marine Engineering
Batangas State University
Palawan State University
Surigao State College of Technology
Mechanical Engineering Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College
Nursing
University of Southern Mindanao

Zero passers, 3 non-consecutive years

Kalinga-Apayao State College
Technological University of the Philippines
Capiz State University
Mindoro State College of Agri and Tech
University of Rizal System
Leyte Normal University
Pangasinan State University
University of Southeastern Philippines

Camiguin Polytechnic State College

Caraga State University
Jose Rizal Memorial State University
Apayao State College
Batangas State University
Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Tech
Pampanga Agricultural College
Siquijor State College
Surigao Del Sur State University

Batanes State College

Sulu State College
Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College
Marikina Polytechnic College
Mindoro State College of Agri and Tech
Misamis Oriental State College of Agri and Tech
Southern Phils. Agri., Bus., Marine & Aquatic School of Tech.
Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College
Bicol University
Eastern Samar State University
Laguna State Polytechnic University
University of Eastern Philippines
West Visayas State University

University of the Philippines

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Cebu Technological University

Quality of instruction in HEIs

An average SUC passing rate that is
above that national average does
not guarantee that satellite
campuses are performing as well
There are cases where the main
campus of the SUC does not
perform as well as its satellite
campuses

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Recommendations
To help rationalize program offerings of SUCs
and improve quality
CHED to close existing programs where
SUCs performance in PBEs is under par;
CHED has CMO to this effect
o Closer scrutiny of passing rates in PBEs
show that many SUCs passing rates in
PBEs are below national average year
after year
o Given persistent poor performance of
some satellite campuses, consider
applying rule to satellite campuses
independently of main campus

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Recommendations
Improve CHEDs ability to ensure that SUCs
program offerings comply with its Policies,
Standards and Guidelines (PSGs) for these
programs
CHED to strictly apply standards on SUCs
proposing to open new programs
Through CHED chairman in Board of
Trustees but this does not happen all the
time at present
Through supervision of CHED regional
offices but ability of CHED regional offices
to do so patchy at present

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Recommendations

SUCs may be allowed to offer popular

programs provided they meet CHED
standards and provided they do not expect
NG subsidy for enrollment in these
programs
One of the SUCs in the Visayas did this
when it was pressured to offer Nursing
Need to tweak normative financing
formula to put this into effect

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Recommendations
Many of measures that SUCs put
in place to improve quality of
instruction (e.g., review classes,
administration of pre-board exams
where non-passers not given
certification needed to take PBE)
are illusory
Manasan (2011) indicates that
qualification of faculty is key

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Recommendations
CHED should enforce more
vigorously its policy of closing existing
programs of SUCs and PHEIs alike
where these HEIs performance is
under par
CHED should also consider
applying this rule to satellite campuses
independently of main campuses

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies

Philippine Institu te for Developm ent Stu d ies