Cassc Cstraw STSMC Final Paper

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015
Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

ST System Monitoring Committee
st
Survey and Report on the ST System, 1 Semester A.Y. 2014-2015
University of the Philippines Visayas

College of Arts and Sciences
Student Council
Survey and Report on the ST System, 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

st
Acknowledgement
The UPV CAS Student Council Committee on Students Rights and Welfare ST
System Monitoring Committee are thankful to those helped and contribute to this effort to
produce a report, survey, and assessment of the ST System:
To the Office of Student Affairs, Student Loan Board, and Office of the Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs for approving our various requests for data.
To the UPV University Student Council for contacting the other College Student
Councils to participate in this survey.
To CM-SC, CFOS-SC, SOTECH-SC for the active participation by administering the
survey in their campuses.
To the UPV CAS SC STRAW volunteer corps who helped in the encoding of data and
for their time in doing tasks assigned to them.
To June Elle Tanedo for volunteering to be the Committees statistics point person and
in-charge of statistical analysis.
To the students of CAS, CFOS, SOTECH, and CM for participating in the survey.
Most especially to the members of the UPV CAS SC who helped in brain storming in the
planning of this monitoring, in following up details, and supporting this committee.
Most especially also to students whose right to accessible education was deprived
because of policies that attempt to commercialize this essential right. To Kristel Tejada and
Rosanna Sanfuego and others, this is most especially dedicate to you. We will continue to assert
each students right to education and stand by the people to forward their genuine interests until
such time that the sad reality of students committing suicide because of the high cost of
education will never happen anymore.

st
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................. 1
Table of contents .................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations used ................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 7
Scope ....................................................................................................................... 7
Population and sample size ..................................................................................... 7
Results and analysis ................................................................................................. 9
I. Consideration of all cases (with scholarship) .......................................... 9
II. Consideration of all cases (without scholarship) .................................... 13
III. Difficulty in applying for ST System .................................................... 16
IV. Difficulty on enrolment ......................................................................... 17
V. Enrolment on the specified date ............................................................. 17
VI. Application for student loan ................................................................... 18
VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment ........................ 19
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: Per College Results .............................................................................. 24

st
Abbreviations
CAS College of Arts and Sciences
CAS SC College of Arts and Sciences Student Council
CFOS College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences
CFOS SC College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Student Council
CM SC College of Management Student Council
FD Full Discount
FDS Full Discount with Stipend
ND No Discount
PD40 Partial Discount 40%
SOTECH School of Technology
SOTECH SC School of Technology Student Council
ST System or STS Socialized Tuition System
STFAP Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program
UPV University of the Philippines Visayas

st
Introduction
The Socialized Tuition System was implemented as an improved version of the STFAP
last First Semester of the current Academic Year 2014-2015. This new tuition policy assumes
that the problematic STFAP was improved through faster and easier application. STFAP was
widely criticized by the different sectors of the university as a burdensome policy for the
students because of the slow processing of bracket assignments and misbracketing. In response
to this dilemma, the UP Administration, despite the opposition of the student body, decided to
reform STFAP and thus made the Socialized Tuition System. Under ST System, the previous
14-page form of STFAP has become a 2-page online form. Assignment of brackets has become
faster under the ST System.
Despite of these praises and positive assessment of the ST System, after the first wave of
implementation of the ST System and the release of brackets, the hashtag #BracketAKaNa
became a nationwide trending common hashtag in the social media. This hashtag was used by
students who experienced misbracketing in the UP System in social media like Twitter and
Facebook. This manifested the discontentment and anger of the students nationwide in the
implementation of the improved STFAP.
Due to this, the CAS Student Council in its planning for the First Semester of Academic
Year 2014-2015 has decided, after an hour of discussion, to monitor the ST System through
conducting a survey to record the students experience and determine the pulse of the students.

st
Finally, when the motion to establishing a monitoring committee was approved by the body, the
Committee on Students Rights and Welfare was tasked to prepare the necessary plans like
making the survey forms, coordinating with the University Student Council and other College
Student Councils. Last September 2014, letters to Office of the Student Affairs, Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs, and Student Loan Board were sent to request for necessary data. By
October 2014, survey forms were released to the local college student councils through their
respective point persons: CAS SC, CFOS SC, SOTECH SC, CM SC. From September 2014 to
December 2014, the focus of the Monitoring Committee was on giving out survey forms to
students and by January 2015 the focus was already on the collection of the survey forms. By
February to March, the data were encoded and analyzed.
After several months of data gathering, with the help of the local College Student
Councils and our resident statistical analyst, this monitoring has come to its final analysis.
Survey forms from CM, CAS, CFOS, and SOTECH Student Councils were returned to the CAS
SC. The CAS SC Students Rights and Welfare Committee Volunteer Corps and our resident
student statistical analyst worked for days and weeks in the collation and encoding of the data.
The convening of the CAS SC ST System Monitoring Committee is a project based on

CAS SCs commitment to assert for each Iskolars ng Bayans right to accessible education. This
initiative of the CAS Student Council is a response to the memorandum of the Student Regent to
monitor the implementation of the ST System and at the same time to contribute to the overall
struggle of the students to junk the Socialized Tuition System.

st
The CAS SC with the other participant Student Councils in this survey are optimistic that
the UP Administration will open their ears to hear out the findings and analysis of this survey.
We also look forward to a partnership of the Student Councils and the Administration to work
for genuine students rights and welfare and the protection of each Filipino youths right to
education.
Objectives
1. To determine the bracket distribution of students under ST System and the previous
STFAP in the CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH;
2. To determine the number of students experienced bracket sliding up and down or
retained;
3. To determine how the students rate the difficulty of applying in ST System;
4. To determine how the students rate the difficulty in enrolment in the First Semester of
Academic Year 2014-2015.
6. To determine the reasons of students for not enrolling on time;
7. To determine the number of students enrolled on time or not;
8. To determine the number of students availed for student loan;
9. To determine how students perceive their bracket if this reflects their socioeconomic
background and;
10. To know the students sentiments about the ST System.

st
Methodology
Stratified sampling with proportional allocation, with margin of error of 6.5%, was
applied to this survey. Samples are taken such that each course from each academic organization
will have a representation in the final sample size. Intended sample size is 900 but is reduced to
844 due to non-responses. In the final calculation of bracket sliding, 1st year students and
students with scholarships are excluded from analysis since first year students have only STS as
their bracket and the presence of scholarship has significant effect on the bracket sliding. The
rest of the analysis on other variables utilizes the final sample size of 844.
Scope
The colleges surveyed in this Monitoring are the following: CAS, CM, CFOS, and
SOTECH. These colleges became part of this Monitoring because their Student Councils
willingly agreed to survey in their respective colleges.
Population and Sample size
A. Total Population by Colleges

1563
CAS
895
CM
297
FISH
317
SOTECH

st
B. By Academic Organizations
Table 1: Samples per organization
Academic Organization
First year
Upperclass
Elektrons
56
86
Redbolts
31
82
CM
90
150
Fish
41
106
Clovers
13
20
Sotech
56
81
Skimmers
24
C. By Colleges
CAS -
320
CM -
240
CFOS -
147
SOTECH 137
(*with Scholarship is excluded with our data final tables)

st
Results and Analysis

The data of the UPV CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee show the
following results:
I. Consideration of ALL cases (with scholarship)1
Table 2: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (with scholarship)
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
-4 (4 brackets
.1
.2
.2
.4
.6
.7
18
2.1
3.3
4.1
-1 (1 bracket down
105
12.4
19.4
23.4
0 (retained)
291
34.5
53.7
77.1
1 (1 bracket up)
97
11.5
17.9
95.0
2 (2 brackets up)
19
2.3
3.5
98.5
3 (3 brackets up)
.6
.9
99.4
4 (4 brackets up)
.2
.4
99.8
5 (5 brackets up
.1
.2
100.0
Total
542
64.2
100.0
System
302
35.8
844
100.0
down)
-3 (3 brackets
down)
-2 (2 brackets
down)
Valid
Missing
Total
In order to look at the comparison between STFAP and STS, upperclassmen data only were considered on this
part because it is the upperclassmen, batches 2013 and below, that experienced the transition of STFAP to ST
System.

st
In the number of 844 students surveyed coming from CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH
(544 are upperclassmen and 300 of which are freshmen), the percentage of students experienced
bracket sliding were:
77.1 % maintained their original STFAP brackets or have experienced assignment
to lower brackets under ST System and;
22.9% experienced bracket slide up
Table 3: Recoded STFAP (with scholarship)

Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1 (bracket A)
76
9.0
14.0
14.0
2(bracket B)
180
21.3
33.1
47.1
3(bracket C)
109
12.9
20.0
67.1
4(bracket D)
103
12.2
18.9
86.0
5(bracket E1)
59
7.0
10.8
96.9
6(bracket E2)
17
2.0
3.1
100.0
Total
544
64.5
100.0
System
300
35.5
844
100.0
Total
Table 4: Recoded ST System (with scholarship)

Frequency
1(ND)
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
93
11.0
11.1
11.1
2(PD40)
209
24.8
25.0
36.1
3(PD60)
276
32.7
33.0
69.1
4(PD80)
185
21.9
22.1
91.2
5(FD)
58
6.9
6.9
98.1
6(FDS)
16
1.9
1.9
100.0
837
99.2
100.0
.8
844
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
10

st
In the previous STFAP, the bracket distribution is:

A 14%
B 33.1%
C 20%
D 18.9%
E1 10.8%
E2 3.1%
Under the ST System, the bracket distribution of the respondents surveyed were:
ND 11.1 %
PD40 25.0%
PD60 33.0%
PD80 22.1%
FD 6.9%
FDS 1.9%
Under the ST System, students are mostly concentrated under brackets PD40 and PD60,
the middle brackets, this also holds true with the previous STFAP that the concentration of
students are on the middle brackets (brackets B and C).
It may be noticed that the number of bracket A students under STFAP has decreased in
the new ST System. But there is a significant decrease on the number of students enjoying free
tuition brackets (E1 and E2, FD and FDS).
11

st
In the STFAP, 14% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST
this has decreased to 11.1%.
In the STFAP, 33.1% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition with
40% discount, under ST, this has decreased t0 25.0%.
60% discount, under ST this has increased to 33.0%.
In the STFAP, 10.8% students are enjoying free tuition but this has decreased to 6.9%
under ST System.
In the STFAP, 3.1% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST
System this has down to 1.9%.
It can be observed that the trend of the bracket distribution after the ST System was
implemented in the First Semester of the Academic Year 2014-2015 was:
There was a decrease in the number of students paying no-discount tuition under ST
System but there was also a significant decrease in the number of students enjoying free tuition
12

st
brackets. The bulk of the students were assigned into middle paying brackets (PD40, PD60,
PD80), especially under ST System, the number of students paying tuition with 60% discount
increased.
II. In consideration of cases of without scholarships (only upperclassmen data were considered in
order to see the comparison between STFAP and ST System)
Table 5: Table 1: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (without scholarship)
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
-3 (3 brackets down)
.2
.3
.3
11
1.7
2.8
3.1
-1 (1 bracket down)
65
10.3
16.7
19.8
222
35.2
57.1
76.9
1 (1 bracket up)
73
11.6
18.8
95.6
2 (2 brackets up)
14
2.2
3.6
99.2
3 (3 brackets up)
.2
.3
99.5
4 (4 brackets up)
.2
.3
99.7
5 (5 brackets up)
.2
.3
100.0
Total
389
61.6
100.0
System
242
38.4
631
100.0
0 (retained)
Valid
Missing
Total
76.9% - maintained their bracket and bracket slid down.

23.1% - experienced bracket slid up.
13

st
Table 6: Recoded STFAP (without scholarship)

Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1 (bracket A)
55
8.7
14.1
14.1
2 (bracket B)
158
25.0
40.4
54.5
3 (bracket C)
92
14.6
23.5
78.0
4 (bracket D)
61
9.7
15.6
93.6
5 (bracket E1)
16
2.5
4.1
97.7
6 (bracket E2)
1.4
2.3
100.0
Total
391
62.0
100.0
System
240
38.0
631
100.0
Total
Table 7: Recoded ST System (without scholarship)

Frequency
1 (ND)
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
55
8.7
14.1
14.1
2 (PD40
158
25.0
40.4
54.5
3 (PD60)
92
14.6
23.5
78.0
4 (PD80)
61
9.7
15.6
93.6
5 (FD)
16
2.5
4.1
97.7
1.4
2.3
100.0
Total
391
62.0
100.0
System
240
38.0
631
100.0
6 (FDS)
Missing
Percent
14

st
The bracket distribution of the respondents without scholarship:

Under STS:
ND 12.6%
PD40 29.8%
PD60 34.6%
PD80 17.1%
FD 4.1%
FDS 1.3%
Under STFAP:
A 14.1%
B 40.4%
C 23.5%
D 15.6%
E1 4.1%
E2 1.3%
15

st
III. Difficulty of applying in the ST System
Table 8: Difficulty of applying in ST SYSTEM

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
40
6.3
6.4
6.4
2 (Easy)
147
23.3
23.4
29.8
3 (Average)
336
53.2
53.6
83.4
4 (Difficult)
86
13.6
13.7
97.1
5 (Very difficult)
18
2.9
2.9
100.0
627
99.4
100.0
.6
631
100.0
Valid
Total
Missing
System
Total
83.4% of the respondents have average to very easy application in the ST System while
16.4% have difficulty.
16

st
IV. Difficulty on enrolment
st
Table 9: Difficulty level of enrolment, 1 semester AY 2014-2015

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
33
5.2
5.3
5.3
2 (Easy)
125
19.8
19.9
25.2
3 (Average)
274
43.4
43.7
68.9
4 (Difficult)
145
23.0
23.1
92.0
50
7.9
8.0
100.0
627
99.4
100.0
.6
631
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
Missing
System
Total
68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, 31.1% have
difficulty.
V. Enrolment on the specified enrolment date

Table 10: Enrolment on the specified time
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, not enrolled on time)

1 (Yes, enrolled on time)
82
13.0
13.0
13.0
546
86.5
86.8
99.8
.2
.2
100.0
629
99.7
100.0
.3
631
100.0
Valid
2 (unanswered)
Total
Missing
Total
System
86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time.
17

st
The reasons for non-enrolment on time were as follows:

47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment (this include CRS
matters, subjects, and other related).
35.58% - Financial-related reasons.
15.38% - were other reasons for the delay of enrolment which includes travel and
personal choice.
1.92% - uncleared accountabilities.
VI. Availment of student loan
Table 11: Application for student loan

Frequency
0 (No, did not apply for
loan)
Valid
1 (Yes, applied for

loan)
Total
Missing
Total
System
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
455
72.1
77.4
77.4
133
21.1
22.6
100.0
588
93.2
100.0
43
6.8
631
100.0
77.4% did not avail for student loan, 22.6% availed student loan.
While this may indicate that the number of students availed for student loan significantly
became lower under ST System, it is also necessary to look into the four-month break that may
give students the time to apply for summer jobs or their parents that were able to save money for
enrolment. This possible scenario is the limitation of this Monitoring.
18

st
VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment
Table 12: Students perception of their assigned bracket

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, bracket does not

reflect their actual
302
47.9
48.2
48.2
325
51.5
51.8
100.0
627
99.4
100.0
.6
631
100.0
socioeconomic condition)
Valid
1 (Yes, bracket reflects

actual socioeconomic
condition)
Total
Missing
System
Total
51.8% agree that their bracket reflect their socioeconomic background while 48.2% does
not.
VIII. Students comments on the ST System
Students were asked of their sentiments regarding the ST System; out of the 844
respondents, only 429 students wrote their comments regarding ST System. We grouped these
sentiments into three numerical groups:
1 These sentiments are negative of the ST System, that students think that the
system is unfair, biased, does not reflect their true socioeconomic background and suggests the
junking of the system, and even pushes for flat rate tuition system and education as a right.
19

st
2 These students are also negative and point out the loopholes in the system and
proposed certain improvements and reform on the ST System.
3 Students who had neutral sentiments toward the system; they are neither
positive nor negative.
4 These students are approving towards the system and think that they do not
have problems regarding the system.
After the grouping, the results in percentage is:
1 55.48% of the respondents are negative towards ST System and thinks that it
is unfair, biased, does not reflect their actual situation, suggests the need to junk the system,
pushes for a flat rate tuition system, and education as a right.
2 24.94% of the respondents negative through pointing out the loopholes in the
system and proposes certain improvements and reform on the ST System.
3 3.03% of the respondents are neither positive nor negative of the system.
4 16.55% of the respondents are approving of the ST System.
20

st
Conclusion
After the numbers presented, we arrived at these conclusions:
1. The number of students paying for no-discount tuition under ST System has decreased,
the number, however, of students that are tuition-free (the E1 and E2 under STFAP and FD and
FDS under ST System) decreased. The bulk of the students were assigned in middle paying
brackets like PD60 and PD80. It can be argued then that, the decrease in ND or bracket A was a
result of students reassignment to lower brackets. And can be argued further that the decrease in
E1/E2 and FD/FDS was a result of bracket sliding up of the students after the ST System
implementation.
2. 83.4% of the students surveyed have average to very easy application in the ST System
while 16.4% have difficulty.
3. 68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, 31.1% have
difficulty
4. 86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time. In this 13.3% of
students who were not able to enrol on time, the reasons cited are:
47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment (this include CRS
matters, subjects, and other related).
35.58% - Financial-related reasons.
15.38% - were other reasons for the delay of enrolment which includes travel and
personal choice.
1.92% - uncleared accountabilities
21

st
It is understandable that 47.12% of students were delayed on their enrolment because of

enrolment-related technicalities like courses enlistment, advisers signature and others as these
problems are the semestral dilemma of UP. But the figure 35.58% as the percentage of students
who had delayed enrolments because of financial related reasons is a significant figure. This only
means that despite of the Socialized Tuition and the promise of its accessibility, 35.58% of the
respondents have delayed enrolment because of financial aspect that includes: tuition, ST System
misbracketing, loan (as some of the reasons cited by the respondents).
5. After the implementation of ST System, there was a significant decrease in the number
of students applying for student loan in the 1st semester of A.Y. 2014-2015: 77.4% did not avail
for student loan, 22.6% availed student loan. However, one must need to consider the four-month
break that might have given ample time to the students and their parents to save for the
enrolment; this was not covered by the survey and thus constitutes as one of its limitations.
6. 51.8% agree that their bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background while
48.2% does not.
7. 55.48% of the respondents have a very negative reaction on the ST System. These
negative sentiments compose the majority of the students that think that ST System is unfair,
biased, and does not truly reflect their actual socioeconomic situation. This 55.48% of the
respondents even suggest that ST System should be junked and to implement a flat rate tuition
system for all and expressed that education is a right. While 24.94% maintains that ST System
has loopholes and there is a need to give it a time or to reform it. Only 16.55% are approving of
the ST System.
8. In the final conclusion, it may be true that ST System is faster in processing than the
STFAP because it is only a 2-page online form. But the first implementation of the policy was
22

st
widely criticized by the UP student body as it assigned wrongful brackets to people. Majority of
the students are aware that ST System is no different with the STFAP that brackets the right to
education. Also, majority of the students believe on the argument that ST System, or any similar
form of it, should be junked and that education be a right of everyone.
23

st
Appendix A
Per College Results
I. College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)

a. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System:
Table 13: Recoded STFAP
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
1 (bracket A)
17
6.6
10.3
10.3
2 (bracket B)
60
23.3
36.4
46.7
3 (bracket C)
42
16.3
25.5
72.1
4 (bracket D)
30
11.7
18.2
90.3
5 (bracket E1)
3.1
4.8
95.2
6 (bracket E2)
3.1
4.8
100.0
165
64.2
100.0
92
35.8
257
100.0
Total
Missing
System
Total
Table 14: Recoded ST System

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
1 (ND)
31
12.1
12.1
12.1
2 (PD40)
68
26.5
26.5
38.5
3 (PD60)
89
34.6
34.6
73.2
4 (PD80)
49
19.1
19.1
92.2
5 (FD)
17
6.6
6.6
98.8
1.2
1.2
100.0
257
100.0
100.0
6 (FDS)
Total
24

st
STFAP:
A 10.3%
B 36.4%
C 25.5%
D 18.2%
E1 4.8%
E2 4.8%
ST System:
ND 12.1%
PD40 26.5%
PD60 34.6%
PD80 19.1%
FD 6.6%
FDS 1.2%
In the STFAP, 10.3% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST
this has increased to 12.1%.
40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 26.5%.
25

st
under ST System.
In the STFAP, 4.8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST
System this has down to 1.2%.
b. Experience of bracket sliding
Table 15: Experience of bracket sliding
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
2.7
4.2
4.2
-1 (1 bracket down)
29
11.3
17.6
21.8
0 (retained)
95
37.0
57.6
79.4
1 (1 bracket up)
27
10.5
16.4
95.8
2 (2 brackets up)
2.7
4.2
100.0
165
64.2
100.0
92
35.8
257
100.0
Valid
Total
Missing
Total
System
79.4% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 20.6% slid up.
26

st
c. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 16: Difficulty level in applying for ST System
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1 (Very easy)
18
7.0
7.1
7.1
2 (Easy)
53
20.6
20.8
27.8
3 (Average)
137
53.3
53.7
81.6
4 (Difficult)
41
16.0
16.1
97.6
2.3
2.4
100.0
255
99.2
100.0
.8
257
100.0
5 (Very difficult)
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
81.6% have average to easy application in the STS, 28.4% have experienced difficulty.
d. Difficulty level in enrolment

st
Table 17: Difficulty level in enrolment for the 1 semester, A.Y. 2014-2015
Frequency
1 (Very easy)
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.9
2.0
2.0
48
18.7
18.8
20.8
3 (Average)
117
45.5
45.9
66.7
4 (Difficult)
63
24.5
24.7
91.4
5 (Very difficult)
22
8.6
8.6
100.0
255
99.2
100.0
.8
257
100.0
2 (Easy)
Valid
Total
Missing
Total
System
66.7% have average to easy experience in enrolment, 33.3% have difficulty .
27

st
e. Enrolment on the specified date

Table 18: Enrolment on the specified date
Frequency
0 (No, did not enrol in the
specified date)
1 (Yes, enrolee on the
Valid
specified date)
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
39
15.2
15.2
15.2
217
84.4
84.4
99.6
.4
.4
100.0
257
100.0
100.0
2 (unanswered)
Total
Percent
15.2% did not enrol on specified date, 84.4% enrolled on time
f. Application for student loan

Frequency
student loan)
Valid
1 (Yes, applied for

student loan)
Total
Missing
Total
System
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
193
75.1
78.8
78.8
52
20.2
21.2
100.0
245
95.3
100.0
12
4.7
257
100.0
78.8% did not avail for student loan, 21.2% availed loan.
28

st
g. Students perception on their bracket

Table 20: Students perception on their bracket
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent

reflect actual
socioeconomic
193
75.1
78.8
78.8
52
20.2
21.2
100.0
245
95.3
100.0
12
4.7
257
100.0
condition)
Valid

condition)
Total
Missing
System
Total
49.8% believe that it reflects their bracket, 50.2% believes that it doesnt reflect his/her true
bracket
II. College of Management (CM)

a. Students perception of their bracket assignment
Table 21: Students perception of their bracket
Frequency
0 (No, bracket does not reflect
actual socioeconomic situation)
Valid
1 (Yes, bracket reflects actual

socioeconomic situation)
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
128
49.8
49.8
49.8
129
50.2
50.2
100.0
257
100.0
100.0
50.7% think that their STS bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background, 49.3% think
that it does not.
29

st
b. Bracketing under ST System and STFAP:
Table 22: Bracket distribution under STFAP

Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1 (bracket A)
24
11.9
19.2
19.2
2 (bracket B)
52
25.9
41.6
60.8
3 (bracket C)
27
13.4
21.6
82.4
4 (bracket D)
17
8.5
13.6
96.0
5 (bracket E1)
2.0
3.2
99.2
6 (bracket E2)
.5
.8
100.0
125
62.2
100.0
76
37.8
201
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
Table 23: Bracket distribution under ST System

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
1 (ND)
33
16.4
16.6
16.6
2 (PD40)
60
29.9
30.2
46.7
3 (PD60)
67
33.3
33.7
80.4
4 (PD80)
32
15.9
16.1
96.5
5 (FD)
1.5
1.5
98.0
6 (FDS)
2.0
2.0
100.0
199
99.0
100.0
1.0
201
100.0
Total
Missing
Total
System
30

st
STFAP:
A 19.2%
B 41.6%
C 21.6%
D 13.6%
E1 3.2%
E2 - .8%
ST System:
ND 16.6%
PD40 30.2%
PD60 33.7%
PD80 16.1%
FD 1.5%
FDS 2.0%
31

st
80% discount, under ST this has increased 16.1%.
under ST System.
In the STFAP, .8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST
System this has up to 2.0%.
c. Experience of bracket sliding

Table 24: Experience of bracket sliding
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
.5
.8
.8
.5
.8
1.6
-1 (1 bracket down)
24
11.9
19.4
21.0
0 (retained)
72
35.8
58.1
79.0
1 (1 bracket up)
23
11.4
18.5
97.6
2 (2 brackets up)
1.5
2.4
100.0
124
61.7
100.0
77
38.3
201
100.0
Total
Missing
Total
System
79% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 21% slid up.
32

st
d. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 25: Difficulty level in applying for ST System
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
12
6.0
6.0
6.0
2 (Easy)
65
32.3
32.3
38.3
3 (Average)
99
49.3
49.3
87.6
4 (Difficult)
22
10.9
10.9
98.5
1.5
1.5
100.0
201
100.0
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
87.6% have experienced average to very easy application while 12.4% experienced
difficulty.
e. Difficulty level in enrolment

st
Table 26: Difficulty level in enrolment, 1 semester A.Y. 2014-2015

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
14
7.0
7.0
7.0
2 (Easy)
45
22.4
22.4
29.4
3 (Average)
73
36.3
36.3
65.7
4 (Difficult)
50
24.9
24.9
90.5
5 (Very difficult)
19
9.5
9.5
100.0
201
100.0
100.0
Valid
Total
65.7% have average to very easy experience in enrolment, 34.3% have difficulty.
33

st
f. Enrolment on the specified date

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, did not enrol in the
24
11.9
11.9
11.9
177
88.1
88.1
100.0
201
100.0
100.0
specified date)
Valid
1 (Yes, enrolled in the

specified date)
Total
11.9% did not enrol on specified date, 88.1% enrolled on time.
g. Application for student loan

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

student loan)
Valid
1 (Yes, applied for student

loan)
Total
Missing
Total
System
153
76.1
78.9
78.9
41
20.4
21.1
100.0
194
96.5
100.0
3.5
201
100.0
34

st
III. College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (CFOS)

a. Students perception on the bracket assignment
Table 29: Students perception on their brackets
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

reflect actual socioeconomic
36
46.8
47.4
47.4
40
51.9
52.6
100.0
76
98.7
100.0
1.3
77
100.0
condition)
Valid

comdition)
Total
Missing
System
Total
47.4% believe that it reflects their bracket, 52.6% believes that it doesnt reflect his/her true
bracket
b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (bracket A)
10.4
16.3
16.3
2 (bracket B)
23
29.9
46.9
63.3
3 (bracket C)
12
15.6
24.5
87.8
4 (bracket D)
6.5
10.2
98.0
5 (bracket E1 and E2)
1.3
2.0
100.0
Total
49
63.6
100.0
System
28
36.4
77
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
35

st

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (ND)
Valid
9.1
9.2
9.2
2 (PD40)
27
35.1
35.5
44.7
3 (PD60)
26
33.8
34.2
78.9
4 (PD80)
12
15.6
15.8
94.7
5 (FD)
3.9
3.9
98.7
6 (FDS)
1.3
1.3
100.0
76
98.7
100.0
1.3
77
100.0
Total
Missing
System
Total
STFAP:
A 16.3%
B 46.9%
C 24.5%
D 10.2%
E 2.0%
STS:
ND 9.2%
PD40 35.5%
PD60 34.2%
PD80 15.8%
36

st
FDS 5.2%
under ST System.
37

st
c. Experience of bracket sliding up and down or retain

Table 32: Experience of bracket sliding up, down, and retain
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.3
2.1
2.1
-1 (1 bracket down)
7.8
12.5
14.6
0 (retain)
26
33.8
54.2
68.8
1 (1 bracket up)
11
14.3
22.9
91.7
2 (2 brackets up)
2.6
4.2
95.8
4 (4 brackets up)
1.3
2.1
97.9
5 (5 brackets up)
1.3
2.1
100.0
Total
48
62.3
100.0
System
29
37.7
77
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total

d. Level of difficulty in ST System application
Table 33: Level of difficulty in ST System application
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
3.9
3.9
3.9
2 (Easy)
15
19.5
19.5
23.4
3 (Average)
40
51.9
51.9
75.3
4 (Difficult)
13
16.9
16.9
92.2
7.8
7.8
100.0
77
100.0
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
38

st
75.3% have average to very easy application under ST System, 24.7% have difficulty.
e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment for 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015
st
Table 34: Level of difficulty in the enrolment for the 1 semester, 2014-2015
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
2.6
2.6
2.6
2 (Easy)
14
18.2
18.2
20.8
3 (Average)
39
50.6
50.6
71.4
4 (Difficult)
16
20.8
20.8
92.2
7.8
7.8
100.0
77
100.0
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
71.4% have ease in enrolment, 28.6% have difficulty in enrolment.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, did not enrol on the

specified date)
Valid
1 (Yes, enrolled on the

specified date)
Total
Missing
Total
System
12
15.6
15.8
15.8
64
83.1
84.2
100.0
76
98.7
100.0
1.3
77
100.0
15.8% did not enrol on specified date, 84.2% enrolled on time.
39

st

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

student loan)
Valid
1 (Yes, applied for student

loan)
Total
Missing
System
Total
52
67.5
73.2
73.2
19
24.7
26.8
100.0
71
92.2
100.0
7.8
77
100.0
73.2% did not avail student loan, 26.8% availed loan.
IV. SOTECH
a. Students perception on their bracket assignments
Table 37: Students perception on their bracket assignments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, it does not reflect the

39
40.6
41.9
41.9
54
56.3
58.1
100.0
93
96.9
100.0
3.1
96
100.0
situation)
Valid
1 (Yes, it reflects the actual

socioeconomic situation)
Total
Missing
Total
System
40

st
41.9% believe that ST System bracketing reflects their socioeconomic background, 58.1% does
not.
b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and STS:

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (bracket A)
6.3
11.5
11.5
2 (bracket B)
23
24.0
44.2
55.8
3 (bracket C)
11
11.5
21.2
76.9
4 (bracket D)
9.4
17.3
94.2
5 (bracket E1 and E2)
3.1
5.8
100.0
Total
52
54.2
100.0
System
44
45.8
96
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
41

st
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (ND)
8.3
8.3
8.3
2 (PD40)
32
33.3
33.3
41.7
3 (PD60)
35
36.5
36.5
78.1
4 (PD80)
18
18.8
18.8
96.9
3.1
3.1
100.0
96
100.0
100.0
Valid
5 (FD/FDS)
Total
STFAP:
A 11.5%
B 44.2%
C 21.2%
D 17.3%
E 5.8%
STS:
ND 8.3%
PD40 33.3%
PD60 36.5%
PD80 18.8%
FD/S 3.1%
this has increased to 8.3%.
42

st
In the STFAP, 44.42% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition
with 40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 33.3%.
under ST System.
43

st
c. Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.

Table 40: Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Missing
2.1
3.8
3.8
-1 (1 bracket down)
6.3
11.5
15.4
0 (retain)
29
30.2
55.8
71.2
1 (1 bracket up)
12
12.5
23.1
94.2
2 (2 brackets up)
2.1
3.8
98.1
3 (3 brackets up)
1.0
1.9
100.0
Total
52
54.2
100.0
System
44
45.8
96
100.0
Total

d. Level of difficulty in applying for ST System.
Table 41: Level of difficulty in applying for ST System
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
7.3
7.4
7.4
2 (Easy)
14
14.6
14.9
22.3
3 (Average)
60
62.5
63.8
86.2
4 (Difficult)
10
10.4
10.6
96.8
3.1
3.2
100.0
94
97.9
100.0
2.1
96
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
Missing
Total
System
86.2% have average to very easy application in STS, 13.8% experienced difficulty.
44

st
e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

st
Table 42: Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1 semester, A.Y. 2014-2015
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 (Very easy)
12
12.5
12.8
12.8
2 (Easy)
18
18.8
19.1
31.9
3 (Average)
45
46.9
47.9
79.8
4 (Difficult)
16
16.7
17.0
96.8
3.1
3.2
100.0
94
97.9
100.0
2.1
96
100.0
Valid
5 (Very difficult)
Total
Missing
System
Total
79.8% have average to vey easy in enrolment, 20.2% have difficulty.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, did not enrol on
7.3
7.4
7.4
1 (Yes, enrolled on time)
88
91.7
92.6
100.0
Total
95
99.0
100.0
time)
Valid
Missing
Total
System
1.0
96
100.0
7.4% did not enrol on specified date, 92.6% enrolled on time
45

st

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (No, did not apply for student
57
59.4
73.1
73.1
1 (Yes, applied for student loan)
21
21.9
26.9
100.0
Total
78
81.3
100.0
System
18
18.8
96
100.0
loan)
Valid
Missing
Total
46

st
These results are verified by:
JUNE ELLE TANEDO

BS Statistics student and resident data analyst
JUDE M. MANGILOG
Councilor
Head, Committee on Students Rights and Welfare
UPV CAS Student Council
RAOUL DANNIEL MANUEL

Chairperson
UPV CAS Student Council
47

Cassc Cstraw STSMC Final Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cassc Cstraw STSMC Final Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

University of the Philippines Visayas

Survey and Report on the ST System, 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

The convening of the CAS SC ST System Monitoring Committee is a project based on

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

Population and Sample size

A. Total Population by Colleges

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

Results and Analysis

I. Consideration of ALL cases (with scholarship)1

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

Table 3: Recoded STFAP (with scholarship)

Table 4: Recoded ST System (with scholarship)

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

In the previous STFAP, the bracket distribution is:

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

76.9% - maintained their bracket and bracket slid down.

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

Table 6: Recoded STFAP (without scholarship)

Table 7: Recoded ST System (without scholarship)

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

The bracket distribution of the respondents without scholarship:

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

III. Difficulty of applying in the ST System

Table 8: Difficulty of applying in ST SYSTEM

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

IV. Difficulty on enrolment

Table 9: Difficulty level of enrolment, 1 semester AY 2014-2015

V. Enrolment on the specified enrolment date

0 (No, not enrolled on time)

86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time.

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

The reasons for non-enrolment on time were as follows:

VI. Availment of student loan

Table 11: Application for student loan

1 (Yes, applied for

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment

Table 12: Students perception of their assigned bracket

0 (No, bracket does not

1 (Yes, bracket reflects

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

It is understandable that 47.12% of students were delayed on their enrolment because of

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

I. College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)

Table 14: Recoded ST System

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

79.4% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 20.6% slid up.

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015

c. Difficulty level in applying for ST System