Commission

on Higher Education Octob sr 2003

Towards a Typology of Philippine Higher Education Institutions
Allan B_ L Bernardo Lasallian Institute of Devefopment and Educational Research

Abstract The study is an attempt to explore and develop typologies in the Philippine context for purposes of providirig a system for rationalizing the sues, in particular, and all HEIs, in general. The study has three parts. The first part is an attempt to apply the Carnegie Classification system to a sample of Philippine sues and private HEls. The purpose of d_oing so is to ascertain the viability of the deaign principles underlying the Carnegie Classification system, The results suggest an overall face validity in the categories, but a need to reconsider the indicators of the HEls commitment to research and higher level scholarship. The results also indicate some egregious discrepancies between current "labels" of HEls and their academic profiles and functions. The second part is an attempt to arrive at an empirically derived typology using a statistical procedure called the hierarchical cluster analysts. This statistical_procedure is used to by researchers to see how a sample of cases may be grouped together based on a hierarchical comparison of similarities and differences among the cases. The purpose of the second part of the study is to reveal possible dimensions for classifyinq Philippine HEls. The result of the study indicate the need to consider the breadth and bulk of the functions and operat.ons of the HEls in a classification scheme. Finally, based on the learning from the first two studies, and in consideration of the intended uses of the typology in the Philippine setting, a proposed typology is described a-nd discussed in the third part of the study. The proposed typology groups institutions into graduate capable lnsfituticns and baccalaureate institutions, and further groups institutions in terms of the breadth and bulk of their operations. The functions and implications of the proposed typology are discussed, For purposes of rationalization, a simplified five-level typology is proposed: (a) doctoral/research university, (b) master's colteqe, (c) baccalaureatelteaching university, (d) baccalaureatelteaching college, and (e) specialized or community college. Finally, issues regarding the effective utilization of the typology schemes are discussed.

Towards

a Typology

of Philippine

Higher

Education

Institutions

Alian B. \. Bernardo Lasallian Institute of Development and Educational Research 1. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Why Do We Need A Typology of Higher Education institutions? In the Philippines, the move to develop a typology serves one primary purpose, and that is help towards the rauoneuaatrcn of higher education institutions (henceforth, HEls) in the country, particularly of the public hi9i1er education sector 1.2 Typ%gies of HEls in the PhUippines

There are. two important themes in justifications for the various proposed typcloples. First, there is a need for a rational typology as many institutions are in effect misrepresenting themselves by misappropriating academic names and titles. Second, there is also a perceived need to rationalize appropriations to SUCs based on their mandate, functions, and operations as HEls. In addition, classification scheme could be used to determine the number and distribution of different types of HEls for the entire country, region, province, and so on. Classification scheme can be used to rationalize standards and developmental interventions for different types of HEls. 1.3 Notes on the Typologies and their Uses

For most of the typologies described, the classification is according to what Teichler (2003) refers to the horizontal dimensions (e,g., conceptual, curricular, or organizational profiles) or the HEls, and not the vertical dimensions (stafu.s and'or quality). In the Philippine context, the difference between the horizontal and vertical dimensions should be emphasized. The various typologies proposed are intended only to group HEls according to their functional characteristics. The categories indicated in the various proposals are not supposed to be interpreted as being ordered in some ranking of quality Finally, we should note that there is a high degree of functional-specificity in the various typologies currently being used and those being proposed, Because of the functional-specificity, we cannot expect one typology to be applicahle tor all purposes and contexts. We can also not expect the typologies 10capture all the ctsnrctcuannes acrcse institutions 1.4 The Present Study The present study is an attempt to explore and develop typologies in the Philippine context for purposes of providing a system for rationalizing the SUCs, in particular, and an HEls, in general. The study has three parts.

The two-part process is expected . even as 25. The system is the first stage of a wo-pa rt plan to update a classification system that was first Irst published in 1973. The specific objective of undertaking this classification process is to have a first pass of classifying higher education institutions using a scheme that is fairly detailed in its criterion in order to reveal aspects or dimensions of the diversily of Philippine HEls that ought to be considered in a taxonomy of Philippine HEls. According to Shulman. 2. 'the classification was designed to support research in higher education by identifying categories of colleges and universities that would be 'homogeneous with respect 10 the functions of the institutions and characteristics of students and faculty members. Chapter 2: Applying the Carnegie Classification of 2000 The purpose of this sub-study is to deterrnme how a sample of Philippine higher education institutions (HEls) could be classified using the 2000 Carnegie crass'ncauon of colleges and universities. The data used to guide the sampling process. is to group the HEls "according to the missions as revealed in existing data on their behavior. according to Shulman.HEls According to the Carnegie 2000 The distribution of public and private Hfils across the different r:alegories of the Carnegie 2000 is shown in the table below." 2.0% of public HEls and less than 2. The second part is an attempt to arrive at an empirically derived typology using a statistical procedure called the hierarchical cluster analysis. and the data used for the classification precess for the 223 HEls were all derived from the database of the CHED on HEls. For purposes of the study.99% of the private HEls in the sample actually call themselves "universities. Finally.1 The 2000 Carnegie Classification: Some Background Intcrmatlcn The 2000 carrenleictassmcaucn of Institutions of Higher Education (or. Note further that less than 4.2% of the publicly funded HEls are graduating students mostly in one or two fields only. consisting of 126 publicly funded HEls and 97 private HEls." .0 be completed in 2005. a sample of public and private Philippine HEls was Obtained. The MIS office of the CHED supplied the data.06% of private HEls are committed to research and education at the doctoral level. Carnegie 2000) is a work in progress.Typology of HEls:Executive Summary.page n The first part is an attempt to apply the Carnegie Ctas surceuon system to a sample of Philippine SUCs and private HEls.1 Philippine ." The main de siqn of the classification scheme. a proposed typology is described and discussed in the thin I part. based on the learning from the first two parts.40% of publicly funded HEls and 32. when the Carnegie Foundation expects to issue a more comprehensive scheme using updated data on HEls in the United States. 2. The Sample. and in consideration of the intended uses ot the typology in the Philippine settinq. the Carnegie 2000. Some 35.

there are HEls which are labelled "university" presumably because they offer a diverse range of offering (across disciplines/levels).00 42. is not always credible._ -~j----4!~~ '"~oo _ There seems to be face validity to the differentiation among the specialized institutions. This viability of the categorization is credible especially as it is based on actual accounting of number of programs and number of e-ircnees and/or graduates from the programs.-~-+---]L=t.:~q # 5 26 to Came ie 2002 Private % 45 36. and other direct indicators of research activity There was interesting observation related to the specialization courses.--I---.99 ~C·"iO"""'--·------+--'-c'''2'''5 --.27 41 ~dill. and this related to the existence of dual-specialization institutions. on the other. the baccalaureate colleges. pnqe iii ~~ of Pubfie and Private HEls A~~. What was interesting about these institutions was the apparent incoherence in the dual specialization . We also see schools that are labeled to have certain types of speciailza'icns but actually provide educational prccrams and graduate students in an entirely different focus. For example.Typology of HEls: Executive Summary.~·--I--~~-+--~4.r~'t"~tio~C. the differentiation between the doctoral/research universities. and the master's and doctoral colleges and universities. and did not consider data on research funding. However. on the one hand. For example.-4 Dual-Specialized 21 Doctoral/Research Universities Mastel's College & Universities Baccalaureate Colleges 4.4~3. there are clear discrepancies between the supposed mission and scope of some HEI's functions and its actual behavior or performance. For example. and the master's couepee and universities.0MO.lle~g~e. The problem seems to be related to the fact that what differentiates the doctoral/research universities and the master's colleges/universities is simply the relative proportion of doctoral degree graduates from the institution. The Carnegie 2000 classification scheme based the ir categorization only on the type of program offerings. but they actually 'Jrant degrees only in one/two fields.80 # 2 32 3~.4"o--I~~1~4---~1 -'1T4. There is some concem about the viability of the specific categorization sene ne within the broad categories. we noted cases where the school is clearly labeled as 'college of aeronautics" but it "behaves" like a liberal arts-baccalaureate college.---r~4~1'"2--1 ~·:~.~--+--0203--+-~18~.00 20.

electronic databases on international publications. the analysis reduced the number of at each step unlil only one cluster is left The grouping of the HEls in hierarchical cluster analysis is not determined by pre-defined theoretical considerations about how the HEls should be grouped. Chapter 3: An Empirically-Derived Typology The purpose of this sub-study is to determine how a sample of Philippine HEls could be classified based on an empirically-based sorting of HEls. There are fewer of the larger extensive institutions and more of the small-scale institutions as shown in the table below . etc. the Tukeytest for post hoc pairwise comparison of means was used tc. In particular. Data for one schoolyear was considered.) were derived from the extant CHED IMS database.3 The Results The cluster analysis indicate that there is an inverted pyramid in the distribution of HEls. After the clusters were identified. programs. the interpretation was aided by conrJucted multivariate comparison of means of the various quantitative characteristics of the HE!s 3. Then the means were compared using a Multivariate Analysis of Variance with each of the 45 variables as dependent vana'ues and tile cluster groupings as independent variable.1 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis Hierarchical cluster analysis is a statistical procedure for identifying relatively homogenous clusters within a sample of items or cases based on measurable or quantitative characteristics of the different cases. Data on school statistics (enrollment. the daLl on 45 variables were encoded and entered in a database for use in the cluster analysis. a statistical procedure was used to derive a classification system for the sample of public and private HEls The specific objective of this undertakiuq is to develop a classification of HEI~ that is based on actual similarities and differences among the HEls in the sample using a statistical procedure called hierarchical cluster analysis 3. and tables of contents of selected national journals were consulted The hierarchical cluster analysis procedure was used to classify the 2?3 HEls. page fv 3. identify the Significantly different means among the various cluster means 3.2 Method For each of the HEls in the sample described in Chapter 1. For the data on research productivity. Means were computed for each cluster for each of the 45 variables. The analysis begins with each case as one cluster then sequentially combines the clusters. !n the analysis conducted in the present study. The challenge in hierarchical cluster analysis is 10find meaningful interpretations or bases for the clustering after the clustering is completed. After the MANOVA. and in doin[ so.TypologyOfHEIs: Executive Summary.

We can only assume that the data in the databases of the CHED are complete and accurate. (d) The crerecterraauon of the clusters depended on a post hoc assessment of the different variables. (a) The analysis was highly dependent on the data quaIity.Typology of HEls. Private % 1. Th'~ hierarchical cluster analysis clearly indicates that the distances among the cases within the cluster were derived from multiple indicators taken together (this would explain the apparent anomalous cluster noted earlier).09 1. there were also important differences among programs·of similar bulk and breadth.0 3. instead of in a linear manner.59 0. For one. the cluster enalysls revealed certain important dimensions that need to be considered in developing a typology of Hels in the Philippine context. range and proportion of graduate programs.it seems that it is important to consider tile 'bulk" and "breadth" of operations of the HEls. However. and the values considered v-here means without consideration of variation within the cluster. These differences seem to relate to the HEis capability to maintain graduate level programs (i. These limitations notwithstanding. proportion of faculty members with graduate degrees) Finally.79 2.03 0. Executive Summary.e. and it is always possible to include a wider set of variables It is likely that the inclusion of even a few new variables would result to changes in the clustering. and that we cannot base the clustering on ojivious singular variables . (b) The indicators of research productivity used in the study are quite strict..59 2. these various critical variables might need to be considered simultaneously or in parallel. enrollment in graduate poogral"1s. However.rs Methodological considerations. in some cases.page v Distribution of HEls Accordin to Hierarchical Clusters Category f----_:UbliCI :Funde~o Unique Cases Extensive 2 c. it seems obvious that there is underreporting of data. • Extensive f • 'Extensive 4 arecuate-ca able s.03 1.38 ~~~::~: .38 1. (c) The analysis worked on a fixed set of variables. although the indicators used are the most "obiecfive" and verifiable indicators of research productivity.

institutions that offer a wider range of programs are more likely to have more fiexibility in dealing with external forces that impose themselves on the operations of HEls. merging. HEls that puts together the best features of the Carnegie 2000 classification system and the empirically derived classification system developed uSing the hierarchical cluster analysis. Bulk and breadth of programs . Level of higher education programs.2.: Executive Summary.1. Generally speaking. 4. in considering the dlmeruions of bulk and breadth of programs and sarvices we can rationalize the distribution of institutions across geographic sectors in a way that also rationalizes the allocation of financial resources.2.2. (0) the bulk and breadth of educational programs and services. graduate level training) that is needed to improve the faculty profile of most HEls. Thus. With this main consideration in mind. Capability and productivity of tile facully.. and to apply this proposed taxonomy to the same sample of Philippine higher education institutions HEls used in the two previous attempts.2.e . However. as the HEls program and . 4. One of the factors to consider in assessing the viability of HEls is whether the programs have enough breadth to attract a broad student clientele. the main consideration was to develop a typology that was gOing to be useful to CHED and higher education policy makers. one important facter to consider is the capability of institutions to over higher education programs beyond the baccalaureate. Institutions thai can offer master's and doctoral degrees will have a special role to play in intensifying the human resource development and high-end capability efforts in HEls and in the population at large. particularly in efforts towards developing HEls and ratlonalizing the Philippines higher education system. we describe a proposed taxonomy which derives from-the best features of the two previously applied taxonomies. with the view of reducing. and (c) capability and productivity of the faculty 4. 4.md services.1 The Proposed Classification Scheme In making the final proposed typology. Chapter 4: A Proposed Typology In this chapter. page vi 4. These HEls will also play in important role in improving the resourcr s and capabilities of less developed HEls as they can provide the continuing educational programs (i.3. HEls need to maintain a minimum set of requirements for its faculty.TypOlogy of HEI!. the foUowing dimensions derived from the two earlier taxonomies were considered important: (a) the relative emphasis given to graduate level education. or closing the latter. Efforts to rationalize the higher education system should also take into consideration the distribution of viable and non-viable institutions. Given that higher education in the Philippines comes to close to iii "mass" higher education system. The specific objective of undertaking this classification process is to develop a classification of.

3.Typologyof HEts:Executive Summary. there would be HEls only in Seven cells. ~ _ Low «4.000 and over 250 FTfaculty Sizable HEls with student enrollment of between 4.2nJ~titutions __. we can define four levels' Expansive HEls with student enrojment of more than 10.. For the smaller number of graduate-level capable HEls.page viii For bulk of services. (This is why only seven cells are named or abeled.-reaching/B~ "j students & <: 250 FT Teachmqrgacc.__ .c.000 students' I Teachlng/Sacc 'Specialized College & <150 FT faculty) College 3 1 ··-I····--""""""BrOacr-· ~eriSive0o~ l I ~al students (~I._ Student enrollment Range of Programs and FT Faculty Comprehensive 'I ~.Extensive doctoral Programs in more than 40 different fields master's programs in more than 100 fields at least 5000 enrollment at graduate level.diHerenlfield~ (6·20differenlfioldsj' Comprehensive . College 1 faculty) University 1 ~(4.000 to 10. Graduate-Capable Higher Education Institutions.000 and less than 50 FT faculty The two dimensions could be crossed in a 3 x 4 matrix so that we can have 12 possible combinations Ie.000 to 4. -students & 150-250 Teaching/Sacc.) These seven cells would be the viable combinations of the two dimensions. comprehensive & expansive baccalaureate HEls and specialized small baccalaureate HEls). .:. which should account for at least 15% of total stude tt enrollment 25% of faculty with doctorates 40% of faculty with master's degrees at least 100 national and/or inlernational publications in oatabere .2.000 and between 50 and 150 FTfaculty Minimal HEls with student enrollment of less than 1.OOO &<50 FT Specialized~C0iie9"9 2 faculty) We hypothesized that out of the twelve possible combinations. College 2 FTfaculty) Universit:t. 4. See table below to see how the cells or types for Baccalaureate' HEls can be reckoned with in regard If") these two design elements rvcciccv of Baccalaureate Higher Educati.eaChingISacc.000 and 150 to 250 FT faculty Small HEls with student enrollment between 1.l.000-10.000 ~en~----T. we can distinguish among five levels and their distinguishing features Research/Doctoral University I .

(he HEl was placed in that level for that dimension. the HEI was considered for the next level. the combination cell was identified.Typology of HEls: Executive summary.sity/Cc liege II . If the HEI data matched the requirements of the highest level of one dimension. If the data did not meet the requirements. Ones the two levels were defined. page Research/Doctoral Unive. HEls with at least 10% of enrollment at the graduate level shall be grouped in the graduatelevel capable HEI category The Baccalaureate HEls were then be classified in terms of the instituti. The same was done with the other dimension. which should account for at least 15% of total student enrollment 25% of faculty with doctorates 40% of faculty with master's degrees at least 100 national and/or international publications in database Master's University doctoral Programs in 5 to 20 different fields master's programs in 10 to 50 fields at least 1000 enrollment at graduate level. which should account fur at least 15% of total student enrollment 20% of faculty with doctorates 30% of faculty with master's degrees Master's College master's Programs 5 to 10 different fields master's students account for at least 10% of total student enrollment • 10% of faculty with doctorates • 40% of faculty with master's degrees Specialized Graooate College less than 5 graduate programs master's students account for at least 10% 01total student enrollment 10% of faculty with doctorates 25% of faculty with masters degrees or 70% of faculty with at leest master's degrees 4. The HEI data were compared to the requirements in the highest levels of each 01the two dimensions (breadth & bulk). HEls with less than 10% of enrollment at the graduate level were grouped in the baccalaureate HEI category.4 Process of Classification in Proposed Taxonomy IX The first step of the process was to differentiate institutions in terms of ralativa emphasis on graduate education. until the HEI data met the requirements of tholeve! for that dimension. l(1S shall be classified in terms of breadth and bulk of programs and services. and the HEI was grouped in that category . and so on.Intensive doctoral Programs in 21 to 40 different fields master's programs in 51 to 100 fields at least 3000 enrollment at graduate level.

.

and so on. and specialized college). . Using the same metric for quality for all institutions.q.'useful" for most of the stakeholders. quality. page xiii However. comprehensive teaching/baccalaureate university.of the purpose(s) for which the typology would be used. Therefore.. the standards and indicators of quality for research/doctoral Universities should be articulated. even significantly. quality standards and indicators may be articulated for each broad category. Based on the learnings from the two attempts.. or 3) could be used by policy makers for making more fine-tuned decisions about tn a viability. and then a new taxonomy was empirically-derived using statistical procedures. comprehensive teaching/ baccalaureate university 1. master's college.Typologyuf Hlils: Par1ialReport 1. A foreiqn-develcped classificaLion scheme {l.s. will not provide the HEls helpful guides for their in3titutionai planning arid lrnprovemerv. That is.ls (at least of some acceptable and viable number of types). as distinct standards and indicators of quanty for comprehensive teaching universities should also be articulated. any decision to adopt and/or design a typology of HEls in the Philippine sf-ould begin with a very clear erucneuo. The sub-categories (e. it might be better to use only the main categories (e.e. Chapter 5: Conclusion The purpose of this study was to explore and develop a typology of Philippine HEls that could serve as a tool for rationalizing the higher education sector.g. from each other because each typology is designed for a particular purpose and therefore considers different dimensions in the classification of HEls. different) for each broad category. as we appreciate the diversity of the "horizontal types" of Philippine Hl:. and the viability and usefulness of the proposed typoloyy was discussed. the Carnegie 2000) was applied to a sample of public and private HEls.ls in the country. These two attempts at classifying Philippine HEls indicated several dimensions that may be important 10 consider for developing a useful typology of Philippine HE!. Indeed. and other aspects related to the aim of rationalizing the HEls in the country The broad categories might also be sufficient if Ihe higher education decision makers decide to use the categories to rationalize development programs and mterveut'ons for HEls For development programs that aim to improve quality and effectiveness 01HEls. The dimensions of similarities and differences among HEls that would be used should be appropriate for the purposets) defined To make the proposed typology more '. It is important to underscores that these quality standards and indicators should be specific (and therefore.. doctoral/research university. 5. The categories are few and different enough to allow tor a viable nomenclature and differentiation system for wafting with the large number of HF. baccalaureate university. It is inevitable that typologies would vary. regardless of their type. a proposed typology was developed. there should then be an articulation of different "vertical types" for each of defined categories in the typology. 2. if they are going to be useful for in stituiional improvement efforts.

and features of . desiqn. Finally. and'efficlently storing informationaboutthese HEls.p..the typology of Philiprine . HEls. t~e process of fine tuning the purposes. the usefulness of any typology for any purpose relies a great deal on . effort . .Typology of HEIs: 1"lIbal neoort 1.there should be .: At present. validating.tne accuracy and completeness of the data ~sed in the typology .lge xiv such across-the-board quality prescriptions might misdirect or mislead HE!s and point them to development goals that are inappropriate given their institutional character.In.a sirnultanecus.at gathering.' .. here does not seem to be a fullproof system for gathenng many forms of important data on HEls in the Philippines.

Typology HEls:FinalReport. age 2 of p Table of Contents Page 3 4 Acknowledgements Ltst of Tables and Figures Chapter 1: Introduction Why Do We Need A Typology of Higher Education lnetitutions Typologies of HEls in the Philippines Typologies of HEts in Other Coutrtes Notes on the Typologies and their Uses The Present Study Chapter 2: Results Applying the Carnegie Classification of 2000 The 2000 Carnegie Classification: Some Background tntorrreuon The Classification Process Philippine HEls According to the Carnegie 2000 Discussion Summary Chapter 3: Results An Empirically-Derived Typology Heirarchical Cluster Analysis The Results Discussion Summary 5 5 7 10 13 15 18 18 19 20 22 44 50 52 52 53 ~~~ References ~ 58 74 78 81 81 88 Chapter 4 A Proposed Typology The Proposed Taxonomy % 115 131 Chapter 5: Conclusion .

Cheryl Carlos. for their most enthusiastic and constant support the entire the MIS I research undertaking. page a Acknowledgements This research Cornmsslon Information. Serena Diokno. led b'l us Director Dr. offices for their assistance. and Jojo Grecia for providing capable research assistance for the short duration of the project.Slj-Manila I also thank Dr. Planning. Rod Salazar. I also acknowledge Lasallian Institute the support provided by leadership very and staff of the (LlDER).Executive Vice President Vice President for Academics and Research. Frederick So. the Accounting Office. '9Y of HEls: Final Report. Pada. the HEDF Directorate. Bernardo .Typal. of the clear directions I thank Meliza Calleja. Ma. who provided on Higher Education. and Interim President of Dl. would also like to thank the Corrm. by a generous Office for Policies. Lily Garcia. grant from the Research. the Office of the and the. the DLSU-CHED Research and Coordinating Office (URGO). SVD for their very helpful comments on an earlier version of this report. Zonal Research Center. I 'also thank the other CHED offices. I would like to thank the CHED-OPPRI. Division· Chief Mrs. the for Development the University and Educational Research College of Education. Allan B. including and the Accounflng office.sslon Cristina project 0 Padorina. .and Research members. Dr. Jean and the other during staff Tayag. and Fr. and on Higher Education. especially for the realization Cornrn. study was made possible.1.

7 4.2 and Figures Page 2.4 4.1 2.lnst'tuttone Distribution of Public and PrivateHEls According to Carnegie 2002 Descriptive Statistics Per Category Unique Cases Descriptive Statistics Per Category Extensive Higher Education Institutions Graduate-Capable Higher Education Instituticins Srnall~Scal_e_Higher'Education.7 3.5 3.111 Figure # Title 1 Sample Developmental Pathways for Different Types of HEls .6 2.2 3.1 4.3 2.2 Associate's Colleges Specialized .3 3A 3.B 5.5 2.page 4 List' of Tables Table # 2.2 4.6 4.1 Title Doctoral/ResearchUniver~ities Master's Colleges and Universities 23 26 31 35 3B 44 49 59 62 63 65 70 74 91 96 99 102 106 107 10B 109 116 BaccalacreateOctteoes 3.Typology of HEls: Final Reporl.liistitutions Distribution of·HEls According to Heirarchical Clusters Typology of Baccalaureate Higher Education Institutions Graduate-Capable HEls Comprehensive TeachingfBaccalaureate HEls TeachingfBaccalaureate HEls Specialized Colleges Descriptive Statistics Per Category Distribution of HEls According to Proposed Typology Assessment of Viability of Hlils According to Type Summary of Public HEls in the Three Typologies Summary of Private HEls in the Three Typologies 123 Page .6 4.1 5.5 4.4 2.3 4.

. and even expansion of private higher education.g. rationalization particularly of higher education (henceforth. higher HEls. 1998) propose a typology position themselves develop a typology in the academic that helps higher education In the Philippines. schemes for higher education. page 5 Chapter 1: Introduction Why Do We Need A Typology In different classification of Higher Education institutions? or parts of the globe. it is but natural that . Johanson. this direction and the advantages is presently being undermined brought by "rivate of public by the proliferation These public HEls charge extremely low tuition and fees for matriculation and often in the to the privata in basically the same programs offered by private institutions. 1998) have noted thai the private higher the outcomes note that of the public 'sector. institutions and that is help towards the HEls) in the country. are many strong Several reports (e. education Educational arguments sector in the Philippine scholars and policy exceeds makers there for the strengthening. market. there are moves to develop typclojies for different purposes.Typology of HEls: Final Report. of the public higher education sector. 2000) used in the United States Zemsky and Massy institutions the move to to support research on higher education. (cited in Finn. education However. thus providing "unfair" competition If the public higher education sector continues to grow. the Carnegie Classification was developed Scheme (Shulman. improvement. serves one primary purpose. sector. same geographic/market HEls. For example.

(a) larger demands for subsidized higher educatlor. In this regard. studies of the Philippine Bank·& 2000. research. page ·6 the private possible sector would shrink There are at least two problems with this would scenario. . the Commission specific directions towards on the rationalization Ester of higher education.between publlc and private Hlils. and extension. defined the Former CHED Chairoerson following directions for Albano-Garcia rationalization Reducing the number of public HEls. require larger allocation for higher education at the expense of basic education. and (b) a larger proponionofunder-performingHElsthat inputs and processes All evaluation Asian Development Reform. on have Bank.. World Task higher education Presidential sector (SA8 opruate with sub-par e.g. among SUCs. defined.Typology of HE Is: Final Report. (2002) has For example. and among the branches within SUCs. Optimizing the use of scarce human resources in higher education and material resources overal capacities with the end view of enhancing for 'Instruction. 1999. M"lOimiz'lng program duplication between and among HEls . a re-study of the role of public higher education in the Philippines Many proposals have been made to rationalize the operations of public HEls vis- a-vis Higher the private Education higher education (CHED) has sector. Force on Commission 1995) Educational recommended Higher Education.

56 in 1990. number of programs. I of NCe No. they are grouped according to program orientation (e. there is an exlstinr scheme of classifying and leveling SUCs. comprehensive. scholarships. which defines four levels of SUCs. According to Pada (2001). faculty size and profile. the leveling of SUCs is determined by the Department of Budget and Management: "through a quantitative evaluation of enrolment size. page 7 Towards these directions. when SUr:s are classified. On the other hand.. for purposes of .Typology of HEls: Final Report." The present version of this leveling scheme is articulated in Section 11. for example. science & technology. One of the most important reform measures towards these directions is the strengthening of the typology of HEls. and the introduction of normative financing schemes for SUCs. Typologies of HEls in the Philippines Presently. agricultural. number of dormitories and residents. extension and non-formal training activities. According to NCe No. 1979 with the provisions of NCC No. circulatar was promulgated in connection with the rationalization of compensation of executive positions in SUCs. 12.). the classification and leveling of sues was This implemented as early as May 1. the integration and transfer of CHED supervised institions. resources devoted to research. etc.g. 1l_. several major reform measures have been implemented. appropriations for cun ent operating expenditures from national and local government sources and such other related factors to be updated every two years.

" proposes to classify public HEls into three groups: State Universities. extension. and production." There are other similar proposed bills in Congress that seek to define a classifications scheme. These two categories are further . "An act defining the typology of public higher education institutions. a State University shall be a comprehensive university. and Community Colleges. page 8 defining the salary grade of the university president. extension. The bill includes specific provisions defining the minimum requirements to qualify as State University. offer pre-baccalaureate and associate level programs and Bachelor of Technology. research. For example. A more functional typology is being proposed by the CH~D in a draft bill in both houses of Congress." Finally. one proposed bill introduced by Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta in the Upper House of Congress defines two cateqories: pre-university and university level HEls. only the The bill further proposes that a State College shall "perform of instruction. and offer a full range of baccalaureate. among other budgetary concerns. provided said programs may be accredited towards regular baccalaureate degree programs in SUCs. and offer functions baccalaureate and non-thesis master's degree programs in various disciplines. This draft bill." In other words. tile bill proposes that Community Colleges shall"perform the functions of instruction. doctoral and post-doctoral programs in various disciplines provided said programs meet CHED requirements and standards. State Colleges. master's. extension and production. and production.Typolvgy of HEls: Final Report. The bill proposes that a State University shall "perform all the four functions of instruction.

Moreover. Colleges. the rationale for appropriating appropriations "higher" titles such as university is in order to justify higher or financial support from the government. there is a need for a rational typology as many institutions are in effect misrepresenting themselves by misappropriating academic names and titles. and Universities.Typology of HEls: Final Report. other hand. Indeed. agricultural/fisheries.. comprehensive). There are two important themes in justifications for the various proposed typologies. Other educational scholars have proposed articulated other me ms by which a typology of HEls can be a potent tool towards rationalization of HEls In the Philippines. On the technology/polytechnics. There is also a perceived need to rationalize based on their mandate. The proposed scheme differentiates among Learning or Education Centers. r . Academies or Institutes. and so on. region. and operations as The idea is that a viable typoloqy will capture the variations in the operations of HEls and provide a sound basis for rationalizing appropriations. Bernardo (1998) proposed that a classification scheme could be used to determine the number and distribution of different types of HEls for the entire country. functions. First.g. province. Oftentimes. normal/teacher education. many public HEls are now labeled "universities" (by legislative fiat or some other means) but do not demonstrate any of the commonly prescribed functions or characteristics of a university. page 9 categorized according to program specialization (e. appropriations to sues HEls. This leads to the second theme in the justifications. a proposed bill introduced by Representative Ted Failon in the Lower House of Congress proposes a standardized nomenclature and standards for higher education. For example.

requirements in so far as library holding. Scott. The first type refers to the multidisciplinary and technical universities which offer higher level education in a broad range of disciplines. in Europe. For example. the HEls of the second type are more likely to be considered co-equals of universities. which Exemplars of this emerged in the 1960's are focussed on the professions. faculty development programs. second type are the British "polytechnics. For example. 2003). research development programs. although more recently. research outputs of faculty. Likewise. page 10 classification scheme can be used to rationalize standards and developmental interventions for different types of HEls. the traditional higher education system is generally characterized as having a binary system which differentiates between two broad types (see e. and other qualityrelated reform programs could be selectively implemented depending on the target type of institution. 1995.. rather than the . the university was viewed as the apex of the higher education sector. Teichler. among others could be perged at more appropriate levels depending on the type of institution. Typologies of HEls in. Teichler (2003) noted that in Europe. and cast in the mole of the German Humboldtian model. Other Countries In many parts of the world there are various classification schernes for HEls that are being followed." the French "Instituts Universitaires de Technologie" (lUT) and the German "Fachhochschulen. there is presently more emphasis on the length and level of tho educational program.Typology of HEls: Final ~eport. On the other hand." In the past. the second type.g.

2001) Institutions: quoted from National Center for Educational Four-year-and-above institutions: Institutions or branches that award at least a a-year degree programs. In the British system. private. private..Typology of HEls: Final Report. HEls in terms of other criteria. page 11 type of program and institution. or associate's creditable toward a Two-year but less-than-a-veer confer atteast degree).' At tile base of this three- . 1995). or higher award in one or more post-master's. have actually on length and level of program seems to be rounom the Department of Educatioll'slnh!grated HEls into one of three (the following are where Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) classifies degree awarded levels. polytechnics (Scott. for profit) can be found in the An 'Interesting case of how public HEls are grouped state of California.g. or post-first- certificate. non-far-profit. nondegree-grantirg. institutions: Institutions or branches that diploma. based on highest by the insntunons Statistics. or 2-year formal award (certificate. which has a three-tiered system. been also labeled universities A similar emphasis the United States. or (b) type of financial vs. professional or a post-baccalaureate. that have a 2-year program baccalaureate Less-than-2-year degree. institutions: Institutions or branches that only have a program lasting less than 2 years that result in a terminal occupational award or are creditabletoward The IPEDS also further degree-granting classifies a degree at the z-vear level or hiJher such as (a) control (e. public.

Tile cl. Thirty years after. which offer courses towards a twoyear associate's degree. A person who completes the associate's degree can system is the and which transfer to a four-year California institution. however. page 12 tiered system are the community colleges.Typology of HEls: Final Report. the current version. and wide range of system. At the top of the three- tiered system is the University of California system. will be discussed more extensively . it has gone through some important the most viable typology changes in the most recent version (2000) en route to a more final revision slated for publication in 2005. bachelor's degrees. California In the case of the California also indicate different levels of quality as far as inputs are of For example. At the middle of the three-tiered State University System.l~siflcation system was first published researcher increasingly in 1973 and the purpose of the system was to help support by providing viable categories to describe an on higher education large number of HEls. and the debates surrounding in the next chapter. comprising of nine campuses which offer courses towards four-year. in the Community Colleges The faculty quality and other learning System. types of institutions concerned. library. thu three master's and doctoral programs. which comprises bachelor's of 23 campuses offers courses leading to a four-year degree. resources are also of a higher of these inputs in the University of California and the quality decrease as one goes down the three-tiers The most widely-recognized Carnegie Classification of colleges typology of HEls in the United States is the and umverstnes. tbe admission is highly selective in the Uruve-sity System but is practically profile. the Carnegie system is still used. The Carnegie system. open adrnsaior.

they may lack status among "there are convenience institutions. educational." The minded. based on some index . Finn HEls in mass- (1998) noted how Zemsky and Massy proposed 'a scheme of classifying terms of their academic markets. addresses different alternative classification schemes have been proposed to concerns of the higher education system For example. "mass-provider of all ages. students proposed scheme scant provide an alternative way of understanding the academic of marketplace. and their Uses the classification dimensions is according (e. page 13 More recently.q. part from their very institutions. provider. as well as the types of decisions made by students within this market Notes on the Typologies For most of the typologies what Teichler (2003) described. the various typologies and not rankings of institutions of institutions. of their relative lack of selectivity. time" HEls. taxonomies In other words. to refers to the horizontal conceptual. or organizational profiles) or the HEls. ar d not the vertical dimensions proposed are pure (status and/or quality). aspiration . curricular. "Brand-name hlqh-stetcsplacee and selectivity. and new frameworks for studying the dynamics and operat'one HEls.many of whom attend Because Finally. campuses and convenience are selective." than enroll large and career whose market power comes mainly On the olher numbers hand.Typology of HEls: Final Report. celebrated for the user- friendliness and market responsiveness".. Acccirding to Finn institutions. (1998). for whom liberal-arts These institutions degrees hold serve mostly jobappeal. status They use three categories: brand-name. are those "of students backgrounds.

Thus. the California three-tiered of the vertical and horizontal system). instead. in the proposed bill for rationalizing of "State University" should not be considered to be a higher category than "State College" in terms of quality. Thus. characterized are different Institutions that are named uniV{..g . even in the California for each of the three tiers.Typology of HEls: Final Report. Hlils are the substantive system. In some cases. one may view the classification scheme as naving . the difference dimensions intended should only be emphasized. In the Philippine context. the main bases of classification Indeed.rslty should not be as being better than those that are named COlleges. page 14 of quality. in the various AlthOugh lt might be. they should become better colleges based on the indicators of quality for colleges Related to the above nole is the clarification also made by Teichler (2003) that the various HEls may be grouped in terms of "types" or they may be viewed as points in a spectrum. there seems to be some confounding dimensions (e. The standards and indicators of quality for universities different from the standards and indicators of quality for colleges. a·distinct vertical assessment can be used between the horizontal and vertical typologies proposed are The various to to group according their functional indicated characteristics. these cases. but even in dimensions. the categories to be interpreted as being ordered in some ranking HEls. colleges do not have to become universities. are not supposed to do so. Universities from colleges and they cannot be compared in terms of similar are standards of quality. in order to improve In the Vertical din-ensio». the category For example.temotmp proposals of quality.

Indeed. we consider the types to be related in terms of some dimensions. Classification Tile purpose of doinq so is to ascertain the viability of system. The first part is system to a sample of Philippine an attempt to apply the Carnegie sues and private HEls. The second the design principles underlying the Carnegie Classification . Finally. in general. The study has three parts. WE cannot expect one typology to be applicable can also not expect the typologies similarities typologies and differences. students.p. Because make analysts and oectsjone as regards the of the functional-specificity of typologies. researchers. to akl specific sectors The in the various typologies proposed categories are intended (e. Even if it is important among types as indicative of a vertical (t. across for all purposes and contexts. all the distinct qualities. we should note that there is a high degree of functional-specificity currently being used and those being proposed. and highlight only the dimensions salient or usetut for the particular function that the typology was developed for Tho Present Study The present study is an attempt to explore Philippine context for purposes of prcvidlnq and all HEJs. and develop typologies in the a system for rationalizing the sues. it is expected and differences mat (III! would somehow oversimplify the similarities across HEls in any system. not to thing of the relationships quality or status) dimension...Typology of HEls: Final Report.e. policy.or decision-makers) higher education sector. We both that to capture institutions. page 15 orthogonal types or related types that vary in terms of some dimensions. in particular.

based on the 'earning from uses of the typology in and discussed in the the first two studies. data were not available for 24 of HEls were included in tt. This statistical used to by researchers based on a hierarchical cases.e HEls. we determined the number of HEI~ to be from the region. The Sample For purposes of the study. First. the total we simply converted the percentage .. Region 1 accounted the country). colleges these sample For the private HEls. The purpose to see how a sample of cases may be grouped together comparison of similarities and ortrererces IS among the of the second part Philippine HEls. The goal was to sample at least 100 private f-lEls so to integers (because of rounding. and in consideration the Phlllppine setting. and thus only 126 publicly funded flnal share in the total number of HEls all for approximately 5. country. page 16 part is an attempt 10 arrive at an empirically procedure called the hierarchical derived typology using a statistical procedure is cluster analysis. sampled Based on this proportion. The initial plan was to include all publically-funded the 111 SUCs and 39 non-chartered HEls in the state-eunded That includes and universities (NCSUCs). a multi-stage we determined each region's proportional sampling procedure was used.q. a proposed of the intended is described typology third part of the study. a sample of public and private Philippine HEls was obtained.35% of atl HEls in over Ihe country (e.TypolGgy of HEls: Final Report. However. of the study to reveal possible dimensions for classifying Finally.

NCR. The data used to guide the sampling process. medium. . From the 105 private HEls ide ntified.When terms of student population. the target sample lor the region was relatively large (e. and thus the final sample of private HEls was 97. and small HEls in terms of student population . The MIS office of the CHED supplied the data. criteria: half of and the reqlon was done. using the following the institutions samples were the larger HElsin the other half were smaller HEls. the selection of HElsiri Once this number was determined.g.. we selected from large. classification and the data used for the process for the 223 HEls were all derived from the database of the CHED on HEls.. 8 had incomplete data.TypOI! '9Y o(HEls: Final Report page fl went over 100 and was actually 105 HEls). Region 3).

different of Philippine Thus.page 18 Chapter 2: Results Applying the Carnegie Classification of 2000 how a sample of Phl. system was used to categorize allthe state colleges and university and a sampling of private HEls. of colleges In particular. Final Report. we also expected in the classification that some aspects of the 2000 Carnegie scheme would probably capture other aspects of the diversity quite et'ectively. among Philippine that questions would arise about the "goodness-of-fit" These questions would probably of the HEls to come to tore the categories because and vice versa. On the other classification HEls are not been accurately hand.ippme using the 2000 Carnegie the 2000 Carnegie The purpose of this sub-study higher education Classification Classification institutions is to determine (HEls) could be classified and universities.Typologyof HEls. of perceptions that some dimensions represented of the diversity of P~ ilippine HEls scheme. HE Is that ought to be considered in a taxonomy For example. in applY·lng the 2000 Carnegie ctasslttcatlon and We system to HEls dissimilarities anticipate we expect that there would be aspects of the similarities HEls that would not be adequately captured. on the whole we expect that this nxercrsn would point to aspects of the diversity of Philippine HEls that ought to be considered in . The specific objective of undertaking this classification a first pass of classifyinp fairly detailed hiqher education metrtunons process is to have that is of the of using a scheme in its criterion in order to reveal aspects or dimensions diversity Philippine of Philippine HE!s.

the classification purposes. Shulman also notes that has been used for many unintended through the years. and to guide allocation of grant programs. or they may be revealed by their absunce in the same classification scheme. According to Shulman." This scholarly purpose notwithstanding. when the Carnegie Foundation expects to issue a more comprehensive scheme using updated data on HEls in the United States. and first published in 1973. Carnegie 2000) is actually a work in progress. is to group the HEls "according to the missions as revealed in existing data on their . these aspects of diversity may be derived from the 2000 Carnegie Classification. The nvo-part process is expected to be completed in 2005. in his foreword to the Carneqie 2000. actually just the first stage of a two-part plan to update a classification system that was first developed in 1971. "the classification was designed to support research in higher education by identifying categories of colleges and universities that would be 'homogeneous with respect to the functions of the institutions and characteristics of students and faculty rnernbers.Typology of HEls: Final Report. The 2000 Carneqle Classification: Some Background Information The 2000 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Educatior Tile system is (henceforth. the classification has been used to establish rankings of HEls. according to Shulman. page 19 a 'locally appropriate taxonomy. The main design of the classification scheme. For example. to make decisions about institutional funding.

the HEls commitment to advanced scholarship or graduate education is determined by referring to a range 0. page 20 behavior.Typology of HEls: Final Report. indicators like the number of disciplines in which an HEI offers a doctoral program. This process is stated as follows. 3. Institutions that conferred no degrees at or above the bachelor '3 level were assigned to the Associate's category.d (across all degree levels) was examined for possible classification in one of the specialized categories." Thus the classification scheme has always been based on er. the HEls commitment to the liberal arts is ascertained by referring to the proportion of degrees granted in the liberal arts areas compared to the others. The extent of an institution's concentration of degrees in a single fie. Universities- . Institutions conferring a total of at least 50 doctorates per year across at least 15 fields were assigned to Doctoral/Research Extensive. Fot example. quoting from the Carnegie 2000 report: 1. On the other hand.ipirical indicators of what are presumed to be dimensions of the HEls mission. The Classification Process The process of classification followed the same step-wise process used in the Carnegie 2000. 2. and the number of graduates in such doctoral programs. This includes institutions with no conferral data whose highest offering was less than a bachelor's degree.

were asaiqred to Doctoral/Research 5 Institutions across Unlverslttos-Intenslve. l nstituilons but Colleges where bachelor's degrees account for at least 10 percent awards (including less than 50 percent of all undergraduate certificates) 9 Institutions were assigned to Baccalaureate/Associate's where bachelor's Colleges percent of degrees account for at leasl50 all undergraduate awards (including certificates) and whc re at least 50 percent of bachelor's degrees Baccalaureate 1u.Typology of HEls: Final Report.tnstitutions all Colleges-Liberal are in liberal arts fields were assigned to Arts. a total cr at least 40 master's degrees per year to Master's Collegp. conferring Universities 6. .s and conferring at least 30 fields were assigned I. degrees account for at least 50 percent of (including certificates) but less than 50 where bachelor's awards undergraduate percent of bachelor's degrees are in liberal arts fields were assigned to gaccalaureate Colleges-General. or 20 doctorates overall. roage21 4 Institutions at least conferring a total ot at least 10 doctorates per year across 3 fields. Institutions a total of at least 20 master's degrees per year II were assigned to Master's Colleges and umverstnes 7 Institutions where bachelor's awards degrees account for less than 10 percent (includ'lng certrncates) were assigned to of all undergraduate Associate's B.

"these 'nstituuons typically offer a wide of throuqh doctoral programs. HEI met the criteria for this category of the Philippines vtsavas. During and they are committed to graduate education the period studied. individually. Universities Universities-Extensive to the Carnegie 2000. as they would be classified . (UP) System. page 22 Even following tbis very detailed sequence of processes.Typology of HEls: FinalReport. we describe the results of the classification will describe each category in the Carnegie 2000 and describe the Philippine HEls that fall under each category DoctorallResearch Doctoml/Research According baccalaureate the doctorate. Mindanao. if the autonomous campuses of the UP System are of this category. they awarded 50 or more degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines" Only one Philippine this HEI is the University Dillman. These will be discussed in the subsequent sections. Philippine HEls According to the Carnegie 2000 process We In this section. There were many cases when the institution could not be classified in any of the categories defined in the Cal negie 2000. 8aguio. classified Los Banos. The 'In none will meet the requirements Diliman and Los Banos campuses the next: category (see below) come closest.nqly. it was not e'wavs easy to classify all the Philippine Hlils. University. '111111 campuses the in Manila. Not surpris. and Open Interestingly.

page 23 Table 2. and the College of Agriculture (b) Central Mindanao University and Forestry) in Reqion 5 in Region 10 . During 2000.1 Doctoral/Research According Universities-Intensive to the Carnegie programs. they awarded at legs! 10 doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines. this category (a)' Bicol University (including the additional campuses in Tabaco and Four SUC's are classified in Polangui.Typology of HEI'S' Final Report. and they are committed to graduate education the period studied. 'These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate through the doctorate. or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall" Six HEls met the criteria for this category.

already However.clivity note the rather divergent among the HEls. we count levels of research activity and prodt. even among the six HEls listed in this category. Master's Master's Colleges and Universities Col/eges and Universities I to Carnegie 2000. vlsavas. 'These institutions typically offer a wide According range of baccalaureate through programs. and both are from the Note thai HEls in this category ere supposed research highest (ie . verification.TypologyofHEls: Final Report. to be institutions that value or the level and dissemination as indicated by their commitment to doctoral education. knowledge levels of scholarship) production. page 24 (c) Technological University of the Philippines (including the adrlitional campuses in Toguig. (d) Benguet State University Trades.ptmew . more masters degrees per year across three or more drsc. and they are committed During the period studied 10 graduate education they awarded 40 or the master's degree. and Cavite) in the NCR the Benguet School of Arts and in the Cordillera (including and the Buguias-Loo Region Polytechnic College) Administrative Two private HEls are classified NCR (e) Adamson University (f) De La Salle University-Manila in Ihis category..

g. Centro Silliman University.Typology of HEls: Final Report. University. Mindanao State nine SUe's Ecija (e.. College). Mariano Marcos State in this category Polytechnic State College of Antique. page 25 From including Nueva the total sample.q. Cotabato City State Polytechnic and 11 private HEls (e. Xavier University.2. Ateneo de The complete list of waster's Escolar University). University. College). to graduate the master's degree.. (e. Cebu State College of Science Mindanao State University). St. Angeles University Recolletos. and they are committed During the period studied. they awardee' 20 or more master's degrees per year. Masler's Col/eges and Universilies II to Carnegie 2000 "These institutions typically offer a wide edt. Foundation.g:. sue's were included met the criteria for this caleqory. Don Mariano of Science State University and Technology. 20 HEls meet the Marcos criteria Memorial for this category.g. The complete list of Master's II are shown in Table 2.2 Cotloqe enc University CduC<lIIOn Note that HEls in the two levels of the Master's cateqory are supposed to be cornrmuec to graduate through their .cation According range baccalaureate through programs. Universities Zamboanga and urtoe Arturo Eustaquio Colleges Foundation. HEls Western (e. Manila University. State University." A total of 36 HEls from the sample Seventeen University. University The other 19 were private of Negros Inc Occidental Far Eastern College and and Technology. College and Universities I are shown in Table 2. Paul Uruversity-Tucueqarao..

: -t'J~~ya -E. Pilar. On the other at Specialized in a hand.Q!!@_@? __<JlI]f. _ ----"-'---:~:~jv~~ _ sue SUC p'rivate 2----T·· 3 6"" _(_Ela.'_e~_h_l!g. lapaz.. the latter being an applied subfield of the former. Sigma College of Science & T. but the field of Economics is a distinct field from Sociology._ 9_~pizl_f'\stitute of Tec_h_no!ogy.!J!"}(v~_~srty .MasJf:Jr'. and Social Work). Social Institute (AS!). does not meet the crttsrta of 1110two precedinq categories extremely because the range of disciplines covered in their qrauuate offerings is limited (i.i"£"~~!~?t&Q. Sapian.2 Master's Colleges and Universities --'--'Don Mariano ~t . The technical definitions of the Carnegie 2000 also do not allow for a broad cluster of disciplines considered one specialized field) such as Social Science. Masler's College .9_I!_g.lD~~~~~:~"~~~-'---·-'-"-~1 Table 2. Sociology. also in one of the categories (see below) because the range of disciplines is not specialized (It may be possible to consider Sociology and SOCial Work as one field.Y~C§!~i~§_L. the AS! does Institutions single field.. La Union) North I':lu_~vay~?:c. Asian to graduate education. not qualify Economics.~()_gy. as it offers only pradoate However. ? Marcos Memorial State University .S(?t1tb!o?_Union.ayaSt~I~_P(llyt_§lc~ni~ College P~_ul.9\j~_-Q_r:li\Je'rsitY_~f$~ie._.!~1)_.e.nce:~rl~T echnctcpy P"clilay-State-Pohitechnic College (Capiz.cmere added another subcategory to accommodate one institution that We clearly indicated its commitment level programs. page 73 offering of master's degree programs We can also note the diversity in the perceived quality of graduate programs in these 39 HEls. this HEI.Typology of HEls: Final Report. the most of which are at the Master's level. to be __ R~9i9n: Ij. Pontevedra) slit 'SUC ._.§_2._M_idLa_Union.

__p~taJe Junior Community College.IdE11\.f:g~_i~:" Laguna State Polytechnic Colleqe _(Siniloa~.g~.t:J.ne_~!_"!3o_~<3. Univer_~i_ti' -Sulacan'State Unive-rshy ~~~~~n~1~I~u1t~~~~J~.:>9r:!l-!-._q~P. Alabat Junior Comnunity College. San ___ A~g.§lg§D2J!~g_!3_1"1 !. Pollio Junior Community g_~g~_.). Lucena Dual Training and Livelihood Center.g.l_~~~CJ:t_~p_a.Typology of HEls. page 27 (Batac.Q9!3_li_(l1"1 B_a!!uag.r_~i-!-~_ElUg. Dingras.~.. _~an_P_a~l() qiti'..Q!:J..Q!_1. Cand on) __ Ph Cagayan State University ---2"-- _J:r:~@l_~). Currimao. lmal Report. _".~gr~~_<:!:_nilippi ne_s_(yig an.. Alabat Junior Community College.~r[i~~·wo~~~~~nT~--t%~ltt:-(LUk~-an:"lnf~ -.P_i_Elt" chez: San Isabel a State University _ __[gf__hi!_g_~~.9_~)_ .~:8._~~roe~IQf) _ o_f Arts & ~_r<3..~~n~g!:!!1_~!~g)'~~ao~g) _ . .~?.~.ati()I"1!?I __ S~_h_t?(ll_ -~ :-~·~~~~t.~_I_~_~~i~§r_~~IY_Y.f~E~!_tY.

_.g~) _ "9 Z:. .F_ar _~.II~. q~~ag!f:l?~<:lue0) __ .~~[iY~~-1f--f\l. Table 2.\_Iil_Q~.]~~~!'i~]~i~~jit._.§_o~.Nc~_"~~I!)1§!0.~ _ _ ..-.-Qrm2£.Institute .2 (continued) Master's Colleges and ...~i? Colleges Foundation --Mounts'in'P-rovince-Stale Polytechnic Economics --~CARCARAGA Private Priv-ale Private' Private Private Private College sue tl?0rlt'?9.~i\ipp_j~~s.g_C?I.U idental-Recolletos ·¢:e~0J~~c:~~..-.~f Fi. ':l_f_li\J~..<l Q_~.~i~~i%~~:~~~gOY: C:arme~).. 9 Paiompon Insitute of Techno_log)._ ·.ollege 10 ~~~<i§~~f:l_9~~rCl~r6iy_~.erslti~s.LJ?_il-.~~tl_£..sh~ries) C ~ity "..I.._" ' __ Cebu State College of Scie-nee and Techn'ology (Cebu City.Universities --~~.ations Inc . Moalboal. I?<lg.-_-___ ~ __ .:=~_ _ .I::rivale Private ~..i._l~~.lllle_rll and CAR.?st_ernUniyersity -Prf\iai"e ·SU·C Priv-at~ ~'~~~J .C:_q_I_I~. p.C 1 0 _~t_~g~Y~~_~~~~Q~:g~9l~g"e___ -.~~_~ty_Q_~a..~~~= 6 6 6 -7 7 PolYtechnic-Sta!e. . Tadian) Northern Mindanao Staie Institute of Science & Technology sue .g~.1ge 28 ~~~.~.~\i~6~I~_~~~~!!~1:: gU0~n-~gC.:i.~~r_§~2~~_qf_p~gi...I_§yr. .r. Polytechnic College-Tuburan... Fishery and Industrial College-San Francisco._.Typology of HEls: Final Report. .g.oJf~..i{J. --- ____(l~cl().~.~g_~~.["lgas: .9t!J.!! ._~§:~tJ~~0~!.~chool.I..:~_G~il~g~ _ _.~?~:~~~t~~~§~~_]~iy.~g!!g_LJ!tu~~J .cQijEige of Antique (S' '._~r1..U_~~D~~~i!'!?2.().:_.... Daanbantayan. M()_':If_lt_[)9_t!'!.ta9U.all}bo~nga Artu~o Eus. ----1cf f3uki~non Stale <::.gf__t_h~_P~ili ppines -NC"R.e(s' __Jig!3 _~~i~"n . COllege of Fisheries. ::o. College of Agriculture-Sudlon-Bartll.._9:~n!r~.. Argao._ Western Mindanao State University _ ...\l. ue .~sFound.~.g~ -"-'~TCR..~!i.~~r1. College of Industrial Tecnnoloav-Danao.C:.

munity College. Abuyog Corr. they awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.Liberal Arts can be found in Table 2. Brokenshire College.g. The rest were publich HEI's (e.3. Central Mindanao Technical Institute. page 29 Baccalaureate Colleges Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts The Carnegie 2000 states: "These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied. Philippine State College of Aeronautics. Pamantasan ng Makati." . San Beda College). Baccalaureate Colleges-General Carnegie 2000 states. 18 HEls meet the criteria of this category. The complete list of Baccalaureate Colleges .Typology of HEls: Final Report.g. "These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. Malabon Community College).. they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields. During the period studied. and Saint Louis University). Half.. three of the HEls in this category are called "universities" even as their program offerings clearly indicate that their emphasis is on undergraduate liberal arts education (these are: Feati University. Interestingly." From the total sample. or 9 were private HEls (e.

Adventist University. The HEls in this category are shown in Table 2.Typology of HEls: Final Report.g. North Cotabato Institute of Technology). "These institutions are underqruduate to Carnegie colleges where majority of the conferrals are below the baccalaureate level (associate's degrees and certificates). Marinduque State College. Polytechnic University of the Philippines)..g. Five are public HE. Divine Word College of Laoag. Ilocus Sur Polytechnic State College.es Sur State Agricultural College). bachelor's degrees account for at least 10 percent of undergraduate awards.e.. Ateneo de Naga University. Bacca/aureate/Associate's According Colleges 2000." Only seven HEls in the sample fit this category. Partido State University).3. Ifugao State College of Agriculture and Forestry. Camiguin Polytechnic State College).s (e. .g.g. Leyte Colleges). and the other two are private HEls (e.. Theresa's College.. The list of Baccalaureate Colleges . During the period studied. Majority (21) are private HEls (e.. Eleven are public HEls (e. One of the seven in the category is called a university (i. Palawan State University. two HEls in the category are supposed to be specialized culleges according to their names (see Tarlac College of Agriculture and Camarir. We also note that 11 of the 36 HEls in this category are called universities (see e. Naga College Foundation. paqe 30 A total of 32 HEls from the sample are classified in this category.General is shown in Table 2. Republic Central Colleges.3. St. University of San Carlos.g. Quirino Polytechnic College). Moreover.

Others There were several HEls in the sample that rlid not fit any oflhe Carneqic 2000 categories These but fell under the general category of Baccalaureate baccalaureate COlleges HEls had most of their programs allhe level. but do not offer any programs in the liberal arts disciplines..Typology of HEls: Final Report. Vizcaya State Institute of Technology. Urdaneta Community College). Lyceum of Batangas.q.. Nueva Sur Polytechnic College. . (e. which is the hallmark of the Baccalaureate There were 28 HEls in this category.. Thus. page 31 Baccalaureate Colleges . Camartnes Siquijor State College. The HEls in this category are shown in Table 2. the emphasis on liberal College is missing. arts education.g. Gallego Foundation Carlota City College). 17 were public HEls (e.3. Eleven were private HEls La Inc. Manuel V. Colleges.

'Private" -··'--8"0(.Typology of HEls: Final Report.!i3chnic. Southern Iloilo Poli!'.·--- =--=§~~~~ __ (Don Jose Sustiguer Monfort National Memorial College.... ". Leon National College of Agriculture. page :"12 ience 8.CQllege) Q~~~~~O_~Q~"!i0 . Dumangas Polytechnic College. Technology·-- . San Enrique Polytechnic College. Private·· .

--.Typology of HEls: Final Report. page 33 N8LJC-..---su-cpiTvate ---sue PrIvate" .

7_._:~jI~TI:~~§. . ..~~. 6 Aklan State University SUC (Aklan National College of Fisheries. . --' NSUC ..·.... Banga.~_S_!Cl.SUC 8 Samar State Polytechnic College _____ . 8 ._. __J9ala~~g_~r:!9Jl?Y..gE)_!~_9. ... _._ ._ g ~_ .~i_~§l_~_!.... _.___ . ._~~?.---..(~~~<:':.. ._. .._y~tol1r:!g_ al C_~~? _ol~. __ . . Institute of Management & Information Technology. Forestry & SUC Technology ________ .. Western Aklan Polytechnic College) 6 COlegio (j-eISa·gradoCorazo·n -·-·-····Pr:·i\i·at"e--- -de-jes·us-·-·· .. __ . -_ suc 8 Eastern Samar State College ______ ..:"?q.. ._.!(~g~·jir£~E~r~=~~=·~~·..~~b.I_~g_~ ._..I._§._..-~:=~:·-. ..- .-.__.__ .:::$._~.I!. .-.-.§_g..Er.. _.._. School of Agriculture & Agriculture-Based Technology.. __ 7 Central Visayas State College of Agriculture.-. d _ .-.__ _... .--._... . with "These institutions offer associate's award degree certificate programs few exceptions. . Northern Panay Teachers College.-. . __ _?__...I:'E~~B~:f~~3\~S]0N:~:. Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College SUC (Ajuy Polytechnic College._ .[es.--._. .._ .--._gS"ll..l~g. '-_ '.!§.-.. ._... ---8·-.. Private ____ ....----._ §~q!:lJj_Q. . .._§. Hinunangan) -T"ibiJ-rcCo-Tan-dnco·-Memorlilfinstltute·o-fScience &-. .t:l:_~lijJ . ..... Concepcion Polytechnic College.§ ..._. . .Eg_l:!. _____ SUC Southern Leyte State College of Science & Technology (San Juan.r:!9~~~._I.GCiJle.Oth~rSw~.. .~~2.f.iJ. .~s.-...~ .9Y~._~<?~il _ _ I?:_!:_?g_~~~_.--~----~-- sue'-- ____ ..-..--. ... Butad Polytechnic College.§lI. _________ J.~ ....·..__ .~.-~_-:~-:·-:.. Ki ~_g _ _g9. f_ .. page 34 Table 2..L'2.. - b~!~!_~_~~..-.. ~~._ S __ E ___ .Jr?~.- .-~.I7C~_. . no baccalaureate .____ (g_§!!:1:_~_~. ------.. . Barotac Nuevo Polytechnic College..... ~-' ~9 ~~_!()_~ __ (School of Fisheries & Fisheries-Based Technology. .!~ __ ~()JL~g~ .-.··~~=::~:•.~.. .---.-· ~~-. CI~~J~_!.~_.__. ~~n_~!_()_Q_C?_r:!..·!~!~~Io...-.. but.Typology of HEls: Final I ~eport.~_~.3 (continued) Baccalaureate Colleges --RegTo n··--Hig-her-Ed ucatfo-nTnstltutTo-il...L~f?_~~~~_I. .._ . .!_~s:_~!:Ii~_g_C?!. P.. -- suC--·· _ . .!~9._ _. .!11.!:l_~. .~-~--- r{~J~W~~~t~GFBaF6ilj8Yil!/lIte. -- - -..-...-·... .--------.....lt: 5 Sorsoqon state ·CoOe9...?!E_e_~ 0) . Associate's Colleges The Carnegie and 2000 defines.--.___....--._ .-.-7..---.~!?_gy... Barotac Viejo. ---- .. -...~ ustrJ~! T e~~..__ '.~q~~~..--··--·---··-····----··-·Typ·e-··-.-. Lemery Polytechnic oll ~g_~!._I.._.-.~ .. _9_Q~rlota __ ?__ _ ~ 9J!Y-_g_()~g~ 6 ____ .!iY_§~~_ __ __ ..§~L_ SUC ______ _..id .J~_9~J!.... Roxas Memorial College of Arts _ .··.

g. the schools listed institutions are those that are listed as or extensive in the various subcategories separate institution in the CHED MIS database. Five of the 9 were Community College). during the period studied." Following the prescription of specialized award a majority of degrees in of the Carnegie 2000. "These institutions offer degrees ranging According from tile bachelor's to the doctorate. none of which were private HEls." This group includes degrees represented institutions less than where. Camarines Sur and four were Fuzeko Poty'ecbn!c College. page 35 degrees. Olongapo private City Colleges. HEls (e. One of the institutions and Mandaue).4 Table 2. bachelor's awards.g.. in this cuteqory The complete is called universities list of Associate's (University of Cebu-Lapulapu Colleges is shown in Table 2. NSUC's (e.. Antique Para-Medical Institute}. that is. of all undergraduate 10 percent There were nine HEls in this category. specialized .4 Specialized Institutions to the Carnegie 2000. and typically a single field.Typology of HEls: Final Report.

pnarrracv." subcategory: Virgen only Mi\agrosa University Foundation and VMUlnstitute of Medical Foundation. pharmacy. such as dentistry. then proceed-to Sample. Riverside awaro most or tnetr degrees in such fields as chiropractic.~ge' 35 cerroueee ot a larger :HElwere nct mctuoec m ff-ns Iist. All the HElsin added for the Phiflppine Table 2.' and Sultan subcatepory: College Kudarat Educaflonallnstiiu!ion .Typ-:. \tlJe first 'list the subcategories 'We subcategories .-ere all taken irom Theological 'TheSE clergy" institutions seminaries and other -spec'ialized instructions faith-related institutions of the primarily offer religious or train members There was only one HEI in the entire sample that fitted this subcategory' Maryhill School ot Tteciopy Medical schools their professional health profession Again.5 For thefotl6wing Carnegie 2000. Two HEls fall under this or podiatry. theymctuoe programs. and medical centers: in medicine. the quoted defmincns ". "These institutions award most of other degrees In some instances. Other separate health profession schoois: "These institutions norstnc..Report. these subcategories are listed in subcategories. one HElin the sample fitted this or nursing..lo_gy of'HEls: Final .defined ln tbe Carnegie 2000.

(e.. Congress and two were NCSUC's (e. Philippine La Salle Normal Teachers areas of five of the HEls in this category were named universities De Normal University..g. Bataan State College.. and Cebu . University-Dasmarifias. Tomas Oppus Catanduanes State College). "These institutions award most of or graduate degrees in technical fields of study.Even more interesting was tile fact that two HEls in this College subcategory specialization: Philippines are named in ways that indicate very different Institute Business.e. AMA Computer College. six public Polytechnic HEls (e. Muntinlupa Polytechnic College) Interestingly. Teachers graduate colleges: "These institutions award most of their bachelor's fields . Bataan Pclytechnlc These were the City State State College. Mapua Institute of Technology).. of Science Marine and Technology. Zamboanga College).Typology of HEls: Final Report.g. College) or degrees in education or education-related Twelve (9) SUCS HEls in the sample were Teachers Colleges.q. Southern Technology.. University). These were mostly Normal College. . Three were private HEls (e. Manuel S. and Aquatic School and of Marikina Agriculture. and six private HEls (e. page 37 Schools their bachelor's of engineering and technology.. West Visayas State University.g." An A total of 12 HEls in the sample were grouped under this subcategory equal number of public and private HEls fell under this category. Enverga University Foundation.. (i.g.

5 . page 38 Table 2.Typology of HEIs: Final Report.

§S!Jnstitution~ ucatio'nTi1stitution ..5 (continued) _£~E!!g.. ---4 ~-..-- --- .eunan N~~ional.Typology Of HEls: Final Report. s~~J~~{~E1~i~i~~~~jili~~~Zit~1{ Jose Rizal State Memorial College ..__T9_1S>~..ARMM Technology UpTAgricultural schooT:::_-p'~oVincialTechnical Institute of~NSOC-- -8-- ~SllS!> 2 ~--··4-·-Cavrte State uniVersity --" ---------. page 39 Table 2.~~~_g_... Dipolog. Kati.~L.~g!Js::~~al SchooD -"-~s(jc--' .. (Zamboanga del Norte Agricultural College.. ··{~~~he-tollege--"··----··--'~-----·--· Outrlno ta e --··-----~·-~--sut-~_ -9---- _(YJ~~~~I~.. Siocon.

fit the criteria for these subcategories. or some of such fields." Schools of art. and design: "These institutions award most of their bachelor's combination or graduate degrees in art.Typology of HEls:'Final Report." SC/lOo/s of law: "These institutions . music. none oflhe schools in the sample and management: "These institutions award most of or graduate degrees in technical fields of study. page 40 The Carnegie 2000 has other subcategories of specialized schools and these are listed in the next sections. music. SC/l00/S of business their bachelor's However. design. architecture." award most of their degrees in law.

(e. of specialized we identified.g. Bulacan State University. there were four other subapecializatlona institutions below. the HEls was These dual- the fact that a good number of HEls were dual-specialty specialty schools offered almost all their degrees in two areas. These institutions field of maritime sfudles. National which were state-funded Agicultural Slate College. These institutions award most of their degrees in and agriculture-related fields.. wulch are quite . A very interesting discovery in the process of categorizing schools. Central luzon Negros State College F. Agricultural two were NCSUC's Fortunato School). page 41 Consistent with the . Aviation of aviation: Aerospace Schools. all of Six were SUC's (e. University and Air link Maritime Schools. private HEI: Visayan award most of their degrees in the Two schools were placed Academy and one under this category -.g. and institutions. Halili Natlona' of Agriculture).Typology of HEls: Final Report. institutions. We define and discuss these Agricultural agriculture SChools. These institutions award most of the degrees in tile field Indiana Two private HEls were found to fit in this subcategory: International Aviation School.one sue: Zamboanga Slate Maritime College of Marine Sciences and Technology.· Eight such HEls were identified.Carnegie definition..

These institutions sue grant most of their in this and in flsuertes. Educa/ion-Fisheries degrees category.g. We list the dual-specialization toltows. grant most of their and in business-related Three such HEls were all were sue's. and thus. related technology and all were sue's There were State three HEls identified College afTechnalogy) (e. . Quirino Stale grouped in this subcategory. and non-agriculture in this category. all of which were sue's College) and including two which are named universities and Leyte State University). Aurora Educalion-Agricufture degrees in education Sclloo/s.g. These institutions fields. of their Agriculturedegrees agriculture Technology Schools. These institutions fields. These schools offer most fields. we could not say that the school schools as has a dominant specialization..Typology cifHEls: Final Report. page 42 remotely related (or totally unrelated) to each other. The graduates of these two areas are almost equal. grant most of their and in agriculture-related There were six schools (e. again. in education Scnoots. in education Schools.. Only one was placed . (Cavlte State University Education-Business degrees identified.

Typology of HEIs. most Only one of their degrees in the maritime field and in customs private HEI was identified this category. Final Report. gran'. page 43 Educafiof1-0fiice Admirllstration Schools.g. Hadji Butu School of Arts and Trades). grani" most Only one and technology-related private HEI was identified in this category The Carnegie 2000 also identified a category Universities. Tribal Colleges sample. grant most of their decrees Only one private HElwas Maniime--Customs Administration Schools. Schools.. only one sue was Education-Technology degrees included College) in education Schools. sue's (e. 'Four public HEls were in this subcategory. These institutions administration. Again. These institutions and in hospitality field.. orfice Administration-Technology of their degrees in office administration Schools. These institutions fields. These institutions grant most of their and in technology-related two were fields. placed in this category. but this category was not applicable called. These institutions grant mast of their degrees in education andin office administration. and to the Philippine . Davee del Norte State and two were NCSUC's (e.q. Health-Hospitality in a health related-field grouped in this category.

12 ".00 2.00 18.27 ~ Associate's Colleges 23 21 125 4.06% of private committed to research and education at the doctoral level.100 SpeciaTi"Zed Institutions Dual Specialized Institutions I TOTAL Note NCSUC's that 34.99% of the private HEls in the sample actually call "universities" of institutions across th"e broad categories. even as 25.40 16. Note further HEls are that less than 4. page 44 Discussion Table 2.00 41 42. the baccalaureate colleges.6 Distribution Category of Public and Private HEls Accordinq to Carne ie 2002 Public Private % % Doctoral/Research 4.43 4.e9% of are graduating students mostly in one or two fields only.80 32 Universities Baccalaureate Colleges 45 36.Typology of HEls: Final Report.9% of the publicly funded HEls sue's and 35.40% of publicly funded themselves HEls and 32. among the specialized If one notes the distribution there seems to be some face validity to the differentiation institutions.ls across the Table 2.6 describes the distribution different categories of the Carnegie 2000 of public and private HE.06 Universities Master's College & 26 20.12 14.0% of public HEls and less than 2.80 100 97 14 4. and the master's and doctoral colleges .

7. HEls which are labelled "university" range of offering to students (across disciplines presumably For example.we colleges" data indicate that they graduate students in a narrow range 01'fields. and institutions that provide very basic professional fields. What reveals is that in some cases. between the supposed mission and scope of an HEI's function and its actual behavior or performance. Moreover. we also see schools that are labeled to have but actually provide educational programs and types of specializations students in an entirely different focus. institutions disciplines training credible Indeed. offer degrees in a wide range of fields. of enrollees and/or graduates the and doctoral a bigger and master's from the programs. For example. there is a clear discrepancy. the baccalaureate have larger enrollment figures compared to the specialized the viability of the broad categorization institutions.TypologyofHEls: Final Report. noted several cases of "universities" in name. but "baccalaureate or "specialized institutions" in behavior and performance. we noted cases . This viability of the categorization is in one or two specialized especially as it is based on actual accounting of number of programs As shown in have larger to the colleges and number Table 2. there are because they offer a diverse and levels). one hand. Following certain graduate the same trend. it is hard to argue against the distinction made between training in a wider range of that provide broader and more advanced on the. baccalaureate generaliy number of program offerings compared and specialized institutions. institutions generally enrollments. but they actually grant degrees There are a'so HEls that only in one or two fields of specialization. but these might be just on paper as their graduation Thus. page 45 and universities.

is reason to suspect in this paper. and other activity. but it "behaves" that behaves was of a college. the differentiation between the doctoral/research on the on the one hand. Althougll the data are not indicated not always credible. or a "college Of agriculture" college. The most amusing case business.Typology of HEls: Final Report. and the master's colleges and universities.is there For example. Indeed. t'iere is scheme within the some concern about the viability of the specific categorization broad categories. (This was because the teaching functions the designers of indicators of research Carnegie 2000 wanted to emphasize of HE!s rather than . universities. that some of the HEls classified more actively involved under master's in research than colleges and universities are actually some of the doctorallresearch deviation University research universities. scheme based their categorization only on the type of program direct and did not consider data on research funding. 2000 classification offerings. marine and aquatic school of technology" which was for all intents and purposes a teachers college Although there is general face validity with the broad categories. other. page 46 where the school is clearly labeled as "college of aeronautics" like a liberal arts-baccalaureate like a general-baccalaureate 'agriculture. the rather large standard of the figures on publications \I shown productivity in Table for the HEls listed in Doctoral/Research that there is a large diversity in 2.7 suggests within the group seems to be related to the fact that what differentiates and the master's colleges/universities degree graduates from the the The problem doctoral/research relative Carnegie proportion universities is simply the The of doctoral institution.

Typologyof HEls: Final Report. for the hiring maintenance of the faculty for doctoral programs. of doctoral is using the range as the not very offerings graduates probably institution's to research in the Philippine We could also raise similar concerns master's colleges and the baccalaureate broad categories graduates about the difference between the these two colleges. . the members with doctoral of doctoral indicator appropriate degree of the degrees is actually still quite low. insignificant. of these programs counterparts. institutions If one looks at the faculty profile of proportion of faculty the doctoral and master's in Table 2. 47 the research functions. environment the existence of the programs that guide the design and maintenance It seems safe to say that in the Philippine there is a low. The For and is closely correlated to the intensity of research activity would be valid if other more basic assumptions if there are strict research-related requirements are maintained.sun capture differences in research activity across institutions education assumption example. higher educatlor.could. of doctoral degree if not non-existent correlation between activity and programs and the research productivity doctoral program faculty programs We hear of many faculty members teaching in doctoral was their own doctoral dissertation. An even more basic consideration credential of the graduate faculty. What differentiates is the ratio of the master's degree programs relative to the baccalaureate and the number of Again. and the number commitment setting.page. Thus.7. which was is the whose only research never published academic in a reputable journal.) The classification scheme. if we assume that the intensity of doctoral in the HE1. and if there are active research of the same doctoral programs.

page 48 the differentiation makes sense if certain assumptions related to the research activity and productivity However.one looks at the faculty profile of master's and in Table 2. there is a colleges that did not offer any programs in the traditional . that might not be viable in the Philippine context. Carnegie 2000 also puts a lot of emphasis between.Typology of HEls: Final Report. members of the master's programs' faculty members are satisfied. if the presumption is that master's colleges are more committed to research and scholarship presumption The disciplines compared tc baccalaureate colleges. significant proportion It is worth noting that in the Philippine of HEls that were baccalaureate liberal arts disciplines.baccalaureate The emphasis on -the liberal arts and differentiates or not.7. boundaries It further assumes clearly defined These in many and functional dividing the liberal arts and oiher disciplines. one would note that there is no marked of graduate degree holders among tho faculty of in the proportion these institutions. to find master's programs where the faculty thesis and have no it is not uncommon have not done research beyond their master's viable research program. if . colleges that emphasize liberal arts education privileged on liberal arts seems to aswme a status of the liberal arts disciplines. that are no longer widely maintained are very traditional assumptions scholarly communities. baccalaureate difference institutions Again. Thus. sample.

f!I ~. ~. ~ ~ nH ~mj Ii!j j j j ~. ~~~~.. ~ ~ ~ " ~ jit ... ~~21 ~~ H~ Hn . i1 iiij j j 1111 f I J . s ~ ~ ~ • ~ " ~ .

there Despite incoherence in the choice of specializations. to have developed The to respond to very specific. incoherence courses. possible small sectors of the market also tend to be those thai are relatively inexpensive to maintain. . . agriculture. technical/professional education apparent (which most of the combinations field or trade (e. incentives. most fascinating However. programs that might be appropriate be different for the doctoral performance indicators and master's uke research Similarly.at was and this related interesting to the existence of dual-specialization was the apparent combination about these institutions The. technology) to maintain). The HEls seemed is eomethinq entrepreneurial programs programs in these combinations.g. in the dual specialization. schools would definitely and universities.There was interesting observation related lathe specialization institutions. it the· Carnegie provides very 2000 seems concrete to be a viablefor particular. WI-. has to be the hospjta])~1 and seem to involve one and the health combination. specifications among institutions that have a very epeclflc academic/professional focus in its program offerings from those that have a wider range (in breadth and depth) of program offerings. specialized colleges and impact. differentiating broadest In application.. Summary In its instrument. valuable The broad differentiation among such institutions is as it provides policy makers and scholars of higher education schools in terms of their possible operations a useful guide for grouping example.For for the types of support. ls a relatively cheap program fisheries.

and direct indicators. page 51 productivity.research and higher scholarship. if one considers In parncular. of externally-funded in reputable journals the number of publications and presses. it might be better to and focus on more authentic direct projects contracts. scrutinized to specialized school and community extension programs might be more and universities of educational educational in the doctoral institutions. the finer differences the Carnegie 2000 might not be as applicable made in the between proposed categories. However. intensively compared publications. among . and and master's colleges Scholars and researchers environments.Typology of HEls: Final Report. other aspects of the higher process mqhtaleo do well to differentiate HEls in terms of the broad categories provided by the Carnegie 2000. and the distinctions specified doctoral/research universities master's colleges and universities colleges and also between master's colleges in the Philippine setting: between and baccalaureate This is because degree the might not be appropriate related to the assumptions offerings correlation graduate progra.n and the research activity and productivity of the HEls is not a tenable in the Philippine higher education environment institutions in terms of their assumption If we wish to develop criteria for differentiating degree of commitment to . indicators would Some of these authentic and completed research be the number the number of on-going research grants and of the faculty. culture. others.

That is. working The statistical procedure based on whether the data meet the set used in this study reverses the process by with data from the HEls and then deriving groups based on a systematic of similarities and differences among the HEls in the sample.Typology of HEls: Final Report. of the HEls functions. typical clessitrcatton for including HEls under set of criteria of empirical indicators Data from each HEI is then considered and the aaalqnroent of the HEI to a specific stoup is determined criteria.. way of grouping Note that all classification chapter) in the preceding are based on empirical presumed schemes specific to be dimensions specify groups. The comparison next section provides a brief overview on tile statistical procedure . classification The develop differences hierarchical In particular. page 52 Chapter 3: Results Typology An Empirically-Derived The purpose of this sub-study higher education institutions is to determine how a sample of Philippine (HEls) could be classified based on an empiricallya statistical procedure was used to derive a based sorting of HEls. procedure called This statis-tical procedure was used in order to have the l-Els according to specific data about the schemes (e. the Carneqie 2000 indicators of what ale a more systematic HEls used operations.g. system for the sample of public and private HEls specific objective of undertaking that this classification on actual process similarities is to and a classification of HEls is based among the HEls in the sample using a statistical cluster analysis.

Typology of HEls: Final Report. where is step or fusion in the cluster is illustrated by a joining of the tree. there are N . we can fuse or join more and more cases. However. For the present hierarchical cluster analysis each HEI in the sample is a case. The analysis begins recognizing that each HEI is a unique case and cluster based on the combination of a wide variety of quantifiable or measurable characteristics. analysis is a statistical procedure for identifying relatively homogenous clusters within a sample of items or cases based on measurable or quantitative characteristics of the different cases. we will find that two or more of the cases become very similar and can thus be groups in one cluster. Thus. This clustering pror. The procedure can be better understood by describing the process in concrete terms with reference to the present study. until all cases are grouped in one large cluster. . This task is exactly analogous to the Hierarchical cluster aim of the present study which is to develop taxonomies. for N cases. I. The analysis begins with each case as one cluster then sequentially combines the clusters.1 clustering steps or fusions. page 53 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis In many areas of study.ess is represented as a tree (or a dendrogram).' we continue with this process. researchers face the problem of how to organize observed data into meaningful structures. and in doing so. if we do not consider some of these characteristics. the analysis reduced the number of at each step until only one cluster is left.

page 54 In the plot of this clustering. . In the case of the present study. by considerinq what Indeed. if there are clear structures or groupings within the sample of I-lEis. In the analysis conducted in the present study.Typology of HEls: Final Report. the challenge in hierarchical cluster analysis is to find interpretations or bases for the clustering after the clustering is cluster characteristics the cluster was found to be siynificantly different from the cases in most of the other clusters. it was possible to identify what made a different from the other clusters. When there is a clear structure in terms of clusters of objects that are similar to each other. the interpretation was aided by conducted multivariate comparison of means of the various quantitative characteristics particular of the I-lEis. Thus. Therefore. for each link in the plot. these structures or groupings would be indicated as a linked set of branches in the tree. the distance between the links or fusions of clusters is indicated. Thus. we can identify the distance at which the different cases were linked together in a new single cluster. meaningful completed. we could identify taxonomic groupings of HEls based on their similarity data. Note that the grouping of the HEls in hierarchical cluster analysis is not determined by pre-defined theoretical considerations about how the HEls should be grouped. this structure is reflected in the hierarchical tree plot as distinct branches.

9. 10. 19. 35.page 55 Method For each of the HEls in the sample described following 45 variables in Chapter 1. 30. 20. 18. 15 16. 3 4. 22. 33. 11 12. 8. 34. Year of establishment Number of doctoral degree programs Number of master's degree programs Number of post-baccalaureate/certificate programs Number of bachelor's degree programs Number of associate degree programs Total number of degree programs Percentage of doctoral degree programs out of iolal Percentage of master's degree programs out of total Percentage of post-baccalaureate degree programs out of total Percentage of bachelor's degree programs out of total Percentage of associate degree programs out of total Number of enrollees in doctoral degree programs Number of enrollees in master's degree programs Number of enrollees in post-baccalaureate/certificate proqrams Number of enrollees in bachelor's degree programs Number of enrollees in associate degree programs Total number enrollees in all degree programs Percentage of enrollees in doctoral degree programs out ot totat Percentage of enrollees in master's degree programs out of total Percentage of enrollees in post-baccalaureate degree programs out of total Percentage of enrollees in bachelor's degree programs out of total Percentage of enrollees in associate degree programs out of total Number of graduates in doctoral degree programs Number of graduates in master's degree programs Number of graduates in post-baccalaureate/certificate programs Number of graduates in bachelor's degree programs Number of graduates in associate degree programs Total number graduates in all L1egree programs Percentage of graduates in doctoral degree programs out of total Percentage of graduates in master's degree programs out of total Percentage of graduates in post-baccalaureate degree programs QuI of total Percentage of graduates in bache.lor's degree programs out of total Percentage of graduates in associate degree programs out of total Number of full time faculty members with doctoral degree as highest degree . 17. 31 32. 23 24 25 26. 5. 27. 14. 21. 13. the data on the were encoded and entered in a database for use in the cluster analysis: 1 2. 6 7. 28.Typology of HE Is: Final Report. 29.

the following national research journals were considered: Social Science Journals • Philippine Journal of Counseling Psychology . Number of full time faculty members with master's degree as highest degree 37 N.e. databases were considered: Proquest: Social Science.j CHED IMS private or state). Percentage of full time faculty members with doctoral degree as highest degree 40 Percentage of full time faculty members with master's degree as highest degree 41. Percentage of full time faculty members with bachelors degree as highest degree 42. Number of publications in selected national journals 44 Ratio of international publications in terms of total number of faculty members 45. rage 56 36. General Science/Applied ?cience and Technology.. [Note: In addition to the 45 variables several other information on the HEls were included such as Region. electronic following For items 42 and 44. analyeia. an extensive databases electronic for abstracted refereed in several The publications. the data for one schoolyear search scholarly was done was considered.Typology of HEls: Final Report. Ratio of national publications in terms of total number of faculty members used in the 'hierarchical cluster analysis.umber of full time faculty members with bachelors degree as highest degree 38. Academic Research Library. type (i. Total number of full time faculty members 39. Number of publications in selected international journals 43. etc. For variables 1 to 41 were derived from the extant 2 to 41. but these were not included in the statistical Data for variables database. Education Complete (which covers 3004 refereed journals) Science Direct (which covers 200 refereed journals) PsycArticles (which covers 49 refereed journals) The search was limited to the publications from 1998 to present. For items 43 and 45.

internally funded research projects).g. Although the search of journal publications it cannot purport to be comprehensive.Typology of HEls: Final Report. Kimika: Journal of the Philippine Chemical Society Philippine Engineering Journal . on Note that the variables considered scope of functions faculty). Philippine Journal of Science Humanities Journals .. faculty members in national and international research conferences. was quite extensive. graduate the level of educational programs). Philippine Journal of Engineering Education .. research papers presented etc). the indicators we used for research (With more time. of CHED and there was not enough time to gather However.. would also include verified set of indicators funded reports externally research projects completed. page 57 Philippine Philippine Philippine Philippine Philippine Joumat of Linguistics Journal of Psychology Political Science Journal Review of Economics Sociological Review Science and Technology Journals . . the of internally and by and validate productivity ideal are very reliable and valid.Bulawan: Journal of Philippine Arts and Culture . as an institution. . We wanted programs emphasis and undergraduate of the faculty. however.... Pfloscplya Publications from 1998 to the present were considered. the profile of the faculty. give a picture of the HEls maturity and of the programs (relative (number. albeit rather strict. the breadth enrollment. such information was not and externally available in extant databases this information. number of research projects on-going and completed. and research to use more indicators for research productivity productivity (e.

This more careful review of the plot suggests that three HEls were truly distinct and could not be clustered with any other group of HEls. which would help in meaningfully and differentiating the cluster groupings The Results The hierarchical cluster analysis indicated 24 clusters. planned cases. of the 45 variables. of variance Means were computed for each cluster means were compared using a each Then the Multivariate variables Analysis with each of the 45 variables as dependent and the cluster groupings as independent variable. the Tukey-test the significantly of means was used to identify cluster means. post hoc analysis could not be undertaken with clusters with one or two these cases were more carefully scrutinized to identify the distance among tile cases. 1R of these clusters one case. for post hoc pairwise comparison different conducted means to After the MANOVA. The other cases were grouped into four clusters. Moreover. for cluster analysis procedure was used to classify the 223 After the clusters were identified. were that comprised less than four cases. however. .Typology of HEls: Final Report. These unique cases and the other clusters are described in greater detail in the next sections. of This the among the various provide more procedure was detailed description characteristics interpreting of the HEls in each cluster. thus the total number of clusters in the final tally is 12· with an additional three unique cases. 12 of which had only as the It is not ideal to have clusters with very few cases. page 58 The hierarchical HEls.

and Polytechnic were among . page 59 The Unique Cases The HElsthat the University could not be clustered with any other group of HEls are: System (UP). For example. to the total second highest ratio of doctoral and master's number of programs. the UP had the most number and biggest program offerings. graduata and In many of the variables. De La Salle University-Manila of the Philippines (PUP)_ These three HEls of the of the Philippines University (DLSU).Typology of HEIs: Final Report. It is also the most productive in terms of research publications. DLSU was second highest undergraduate programs program offerings. the highest number of Although the data about the faculty of UP high proportion of for all levels of programs. the highest ratio of doctoral and master's programs relative to the total program offerings. it is safe to say that UP has a relatively doctoral and master's degree holders among its teaching staff. number and widest range of public-ations. the highest number of enrollment for graduate graduate programs and for all programs combined. and second highest relative . were incomplete. especially international DLSU ranked second to the UP.the last to be clustered Philippines being the most "different" inlhe sequence. with the University among all the institutions Compared range of degree to the other clusters.

The PUP has In The PUP seems to be quite distinct from the UP and DLSU the bulk and breadth of the UP.Typology of HE Is: Final Report.d other HEls. of the breadth of their program offerings. the PUP's program to the UP (and the undergraduate offerings DLSU). the UP is at a clear because of the bulk and breadth of the UP's operations. although quite sizeable are still much less and largely at the undergraduate level. each other. has the second and the highest number of local publications among the journals surveyed The UP and DLSU seem to be different from most of the other 'institutions because education. graduate education seems to be given a at DLSU. enrollment is the highest among the HEls in the sample. compared However. DLSU's total although quite large is much smaller compared to UP ar. highest number of international publications. and the higher are still quite different advantage. particularly level of research productivity. Because the data on the UP faculty are incomplete. percentage the present database indicates that DLSU has the highest It also of doctoral and master's degree holders among in its faculty. which contributed to DLSU having the highest percentage of graduate enrollment relative to total enrollment. their emphasis on graduate the higher proportion of doctoral and master's degree holders among But the two institutions the faculty. particular. but because of its relatively relatively stronger emphasis smaller size. page 60 enrollment enrollment and graduates at the graduate level. but with many important differences. and total enrollment and total number of graduates is a close second to . graduates and the highest percentage of master's and doctoral relative to the total number of graduates. However. from In most cases.

as indicated by the database. the other cases were clustered in this section . the PUP faculty members. with a very low percentage degree of doctoral deg-ree holders and just a moderate number of master's in the teaching staff. The characteristics sections.p<1ge 61 the UP.Typology of HE Is: Final Report.owinq The profiles for each clusters are summarized in Table 3. another critical difference between PUP and the other two unique cases that they have very few graduate degree holders among their faculty. Other than the three unique cases into four clusters which among the largest enrollments in the previous are described section. of the other clusters are discussed in the fol. It is PUP are understated. Finally. but it seems that is. Most of the HEls in these 16 clusters were large and extensive HEls with in the country. but these numbers are overwhelmingly possible that the tacu'ty. have holders produced no research publications.2. <iboutthe at the undergraduate level. and the lis t of HEls in each cluster is shown in the subsequent tables Other Extensive Higher Education Institutions 16 clusters that included only one to four Recall that there were originally cases. that their total enrollment . The common variable among these four clusters is levels were among the largest in the sample..

~.~.2~.~~i .[.~.i~ ... .H ii~~il~iii~ii~~~i~~i ~ ~ i~~ ii~ I ~~~~ i !~t jm ~ .2~~2.~2. $1 ~ ] !l .

the HEls in this cluster have moderately master's level (average of 21.Table 3. higher percentage of programs at the of program offerings. The two HEls in this cluster have only a moderate But compared to the other extensive universities. and higher numbers of .:3 Extensive number HEI - 1.78% of total enrollment).

Extensive HEI . with about 12. However. at qraduato . degree holders (on the average 16. and a moderately holders. master's degrees). The HE Is in this cluster also have a large enrollment 3 numbers. The four clusters under the general terms of the percentage of programs category of extensive level (higher HEls vary in in 1 and 2). and some although low levels of research outputs. The HEls have a relatively large and 28. The HEls in this cluster are quite similar in pr afila to Extensive those in the previous cluster. degrees small faculty.32% of full time faculty. are also quite high. page 64 enrollment number and graduates at the master's level. and some research publications.17% with doctorates. . almost but these are almost entirely levels. and who have not produced any research publications..33%). having master's degrees.As with other extensive of graduates HEls the enrollment and the number master's level. The three in the data base.... HEI . and and associate level.86% with that the cases have large faculties. but with no research publications Extensive average HE! . .Typology of HEls: Final Report. and 27% number of faculty (but with only 6% doctoral degree master's degree holders).4.2.· at the bachelor's and "associa-e with none at the graduate have a relatively These HEls offer a moderate very few of whom number of programs. have doctoral (only 3. even at the doctoral What differentiates this cluster with the other extensive HE Is is and relatively high proportion and of graduate 35.88% having doctorates. in comparison. have higher than HEls in this cluster although number of program offerings. most are still in the bachelor's is very high. these HEls have a wider range of program large offerings (mostly at the bachelor's level).

number ot taculty (more ill 1 and in 2). page 65 percentage of graduate enrollment (higher in 1). and slight differences productivity.Typology of HEls: Final Report. Graduate-Capable The because education enrollment. . volume of-graduate by the range of graduate and proportion of graduate degree holders among the faculty. HEls clusters seem to be different stronger from the other clusters next four the HEls have a relatively as indicated focus and capability for araduate offerings. percentage research of graduate degree holders (highest in 2).

--3--.!!.~.. ~arauen) -'soc-- (oavao~~._.9:I!!. Oulag. sue =--'·[~_-=-=:1xceum 6 Panay State Polytechnic College (Capiz. _ SUC -6 _~-~ -~ -"-'-7" Central ~QK&~1~~~~!1~~_~.._ "'_. Cape Institute of "!~.'. ----tf._.E!~'£~~)__". Sigma College of Science & Technology.s... Polotan Visayas Polytechnic coneue (8a. Table 3.... -. Dumaguete.. Lasarn.---D~~~~J~~~t~~~feo/H~~~p~~ ·-'-?e~~~i~~PU't~~ChnQjOgY-(facIC._ .~~~f~~~~~~~~~ --rivate P -----·SUC'---a'rmac..4 uca."". ...." __...L~~i'§!~~I~~~ 2 Cagayan State University (Tuguegarao.=--=~ ~ _. ~Z~t~f[-~~~~..._ ._.~!~~hjiiJYerSi[y --_'"'·-·-~·~~~~~_=~~=-===·~_cof"Bafang~C_~=-----=-----=~.Typologyof HEIs: Final Report.:=::::~:...}:~*h~. _DJ_~ SUC West vteeves State University (Calinog Agricultural & Industrial College. Pilar'-Sapian. Aparr! Lalla.P.2~lnstitutions(co~ n Institution rage 66 _ Type ..t!!:1_<?I_£gy.~~u=~Miihini~'''-''''-P~\O~:~ .ban:-Tani'luan·.=. . Lamounac Institute of Science & Technology.Tapaz.

. Ley.. Santa Fe.--_ ..~ I U· . .-... . __A __~ __ ...=:==~===~=}}~vc!f~= 4. ' '--'...I}.---- Fisheries & Forestry. .g~ __ g Ce~LJ..Q~~.·---·----·-·F)·rlvate· -.- Guiuan..g ~~..' ..._..-.~·:~·~-~. Northern Panay Teachers College.. Salcedo) Ley.. -·-· . .::·=·. ...·~·=:=.sitl Foundation _.~·~=.' :<:~f" .--... . Eastern §.~~_:glfi_:·. " _-_ -.--... San Agustin....~ Arts & Trades of ::r~os) .._.._~~I!~g..-~ --.I. ---_... ... _._-_---..ClLt)n_i\/..... Sta._ .: •.Typology of HEls: Final Report. -.vy_estern Aklan Polytechnic College) Carlo C.--. SUC SUC Private.~~~..' Pama-ntasan ng Lungsod ng Makati Mount'clinProvince Siate Polytechnic ieg[~~~~~~~6:1~~a~~ :~.~~~~~g-~!L~:Q~~QI~i~p...-..·...rrn._·W~~...- ..e.--_ .~nlversity Sill il1l9.!!..~~?_f'l} __ _ . those in a relatively at the graduate level .t~. . .-._-_ .4 Grad ~ate-~ap......-. page 67 Table 3. ~~:==~=~·~=~~.... SUC Private SUC suc - . ._. Bacofod:Negro's Occidental School of Fisheries) .. ..-.. Maria) Aq'u'lnas-uriiverslty-" . .--_ ..·~:_·~~:=. Aklan State University (Aklan National College of Fisheries.able T.~ .stitution~~~nti~ed) __ :/..-..Q~l!~g..._t0c:!~~.... ~. C~~~..• .N~-gi~~=¢~~H~_g~~·:· . 3 __ __ ..~ l~~~~i!y...?~...g<2U~ge_~. San Andres..·~~~~:. Tandag) Lianga.--....Q~_y~!..Q__.~E~~_~_!Ja~g~~._ __ . ~<:ltLJ__r~U3~~g.. Gov...t~..__....._. .~~!~~Jior1_.Ci § 4 Romblon State College (Calatrava: 5 5 6 ..... ___. NSUC . __ .-~£~~ua!1:f_l!U~!~-!:I~/---::.-. .~.~orl1l~.~._I]!~.._-_ Private .-.n_U.!.--.. -..l!1er_§9~~_~1~'!.. !"J<J....Private __ .-. Private SUC _". San Miguel...!ReQ_~~~ ...=~~-=-~~~_~:==:·~::==-:~ __ -·-"E"T--.. Mount rJSUC Private __ . .t!~!.- 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 11 12 NCR NCR NCR CAR CARAGA CARAGA .ly~!:.... .~o_(~~II~. __ . SUC '--'-SUC'" ......r1_9. ... Roxas Memorial _~ol!~g.....-. College (Bontoc.. sUt---" ·Camarine's--Norte·St'ate"Co(lege·-(Cojjege·o{Ag·rlcu·itu-re-a·ncj' . ·.. ..e~!_A.---- ------Type -- ____ . - GI ildll(l/c-CapaLJlo this cluster have I-IEI high Like other proportion graduate-capable of programs HEls.. __ .l:1@ ...··-·-·---·---sUc----· RClmbio'n"Coiieg'elo(-'''--''--''---'- sUe._ . ..--.. .-. _ __ . Data.' _ ...--._ruversity 2 St P I U· -.~!~ ..r!~_~_!_rad~s. San Fernando..~no. Hilado Memorial State Co'ilege(Alljis. Banga._...-... Tagbina._".~. - .._ .. .~rn..-._ Hi~~~~du~_~!~n_!0.. Alfonso 'b~Tari Memorial College Notre Dameo(O'adian'gas Colleqe CotahatoCity' StEite -polytechnic College Mani'ici 'CentraT University' . -_...__9. ' C~ 1~!ra n... ~e~. -_ --_-_ .~r. . --. SUC Private SUC Private...-. .. __ ...t.··._-_.._ _.. . _.'=:: ~ -._ SUC .•..ty Saint Joseph College TiburcioTancTnco'fv1e'IT1Oriallnstitute of Science & Technology Centrai'Mindanao'university .... ~adiar1) Urios College ..!:._ _ . -.~tate College (Can-avid..Private -Priv'3te SUC Private -----._. r1_g~~~_. ...---.ers!. .!!y -.......§9.cr.. Surigao'de'l Sur Polytechnic State College (Cagwait.

4. Like the preceding of programs cluster.05% of Graduate-Capable HEI . at the master's and doctoral levels.13% 13. and research outputs.30% are master's programs).43% of programs at doctoral level. range master's moderate degrees. around 13." For is comparatively .93% of programs at graduate at master's level).21 % at master's level). although not in high quantities. this cluster HEI . 21. and another 32. Compared to the preceding and much higher enrollment cluster. Like the previous two. and those in this cluster have produced much percentage 32. in number. in general. and another 33. However. although the of graduate degree holders is roughly equal (11. this cluster has HEls with a larger number faculty members.62% with master's fewer research publications. These institutions have produced research publications. However. clusters.75% members with doctorates. Grnduate-Crpable clusters. but it has a number of enrollment and graduates numbers.ent numbers. the HEls in this cluster are in the middle of the previous two in terms of enrollrr.96% have master's degrees. 19. high proportion of graduate 17. faculty size. this cluster level Graduate-Capable includes (4. this cluster programs (5. Like the two preceding features programs HEls with moderately are doctorates. degrees). relatively high proportion at qraduate of programs at doctoral level. Compared weaker to the other qraouate-capable in "graduate capability. the full of program offerings are just and ·the faculty size is also moderate. page 68 (4.41 % of faculty have doctorates.27% higher HEls with HEI -2.49% of total enrollment).17% with doctorates.Typology of HEls: Final Report. a and with substantial about level of enrollment of faculty level (4.3.

number of faculty.46(Yo with master's degrees.49% of total enrollment).32%· are master's programs). graduate enrollment. and the enrollment for these programs is small. small enrollment numbers. proportion of graduate enrollment in smaller (only 4. 38. and research But they are all similar in the proportion of graduate degrees relative to total. What differentiates the four graduate-capable clusters is the relative size of total enrollment.39% with doctorates.07% have doctorates. Small-Scale HEI . and small faculty size. rage 69 example. and proportion of graduate degree holders is lower (8. compared to the other three greduatecapable clusters. 13. the graduate enrollment is smaller in proportion (3. publications. The HEls in this cluster offer very few programs. their produce a small nurrber of research publications.42% of programs are doctorates. the average number of research publications of HEls in this cluster is slightly higher. amung the four clusters there is some variation in degree of smallness and in the proportion of qr adi. and 35. most of which are at the undergraduate level. . However. and in the proportion of qraduate degree holders in the faculty.1. The number of full time faculty members is also small. but a relatively high proportion of whom are graduate degree holders (10.ate degree holders among the faculty. However. Small-Scale Higher Education Institutions The last four clusters comprise HEls that are relative smaII in scale of operations: few programs.Typology of HEls: Final Report. faculty size is smaller.51 have master's degrees). No research publications were recorded for all four clusters.

g!:!.Typology of HEls: Final Report.~~_b_~9J_~!_f.. Re~\.tJ()r:-~!U!S. -- . __ ..'nTJosei..._·.~.Q9.Colleg'e-' .-.~9~~~_§1_9~~~~ijJ~~§~~L~.-o(··· ·--_··-·-SUC---· ____ .o_()_~~n_gl~y__E>_~~~e.·-------····-SUC---· - _. -- _.~.~_g~Jl~g~ .._ _.e:pjnes .!ec~l]i...pe- Table 3.-_ g~iJ~Q~ _ .--. ~~_Y...-..c:()I_()d __ .ii'iil-stitute'o(fechnoiogY .~~..---._L.~!~~f. Un'ive-rsTty'c.gE.£_~ly!~_~~_Q_i~ __ _ College S'JG _____31?a.::=_ .!!Jc:..§l_~~_~)__. e.._I_n_~~!..._ .. _ _ .C: College (Mercedes) Courd'e~.. _ . _.. Tario Lim _ .-· : .-.__~_I3f:.:=.E_~~n9..-. .!_i!. __._..~ V' -.~~~9.Li9_r:'.~b. ~.__ .ln~. School of Agriculture & Agriculture-Based Technology...--. .. 6 6 7 7 8 10 -_-.I~I1]J?()Q_.-.....5 Small-Scale Higher Education Institutions :=:=:~.. ..~.~~=:~~~~~~~~=~=== ·sUe-siJe- __ .~~R~~.=~=~=:::~~.QJ5~.··-. ~Xji..'--"-"'-'-'-" "-'-"'-" ..---1----_··--·OiVine Wo-r(rColieg-eofL"a-~'~g'--'-'-"'-'----'-: .'!_.?I._.~g!9.2 __ N _~~y._....'-'-"-Small-Sca/e HE(~~-·-··-·-·--··· .l_g()llege.:()11~9~ ___ ~ gl3 ' g.0_Tecb. _ _(~C!!9.._c. NCR San Beda College ----··CAR-'ifugao-Si'ate'-College-ClfAgrlcuiture&'Forestry (Ifugao College of Arts and Trades. . ---____ .. Negros--$~~t~_gg_lI.a. 1!()~lo_§.... _ .. 12 NCR ..-...r:t.l:l.~__. ._ .gjl~uTtl.J:~~i1oI9~ Calabanga) 5 Partido State University (Ca-rarrloari:-·Goii.g()._:. AyiaJon Schoo] .5 Camarines Sur State AgriculturarcCijiege·(B"fcolinstitu·te.~.()li~g ____ ..~_~ce ?~<!.giiiaf"Cjn·ive-rsity· •.~_.~ji!L~IlliiJ~~i~I[i~Et~:~£~iii.~..-.~~§!~_e_c.---...~ ....._...(ge~~u:L?leLJIC3Pu Ma~_daue and Sa'rTlar-State Polytech._rr:1p()r:l._..!iuag University .ut~ . .9.!1i.._ _ .~9_Y.-_NSUC Private Private SUC SUC Private SUC Private Private Private Private NSUC SUC NSUC Private SUC Private Private Private .~i=::·~~~:~.._ 6_ . ~..t!..·:·-·······-~~~":t~al~~!i~:fI~:..raTcoifege.!1C?L()gy._ _ _C\.. _§_~i.. Institute of Management & Information Technology...-----------.... "'.~f?9_9i~l.I!~.-. .-~~~..P~~JJ.11"!~LJ~!Ei9.-......9.-. SUC SUC Private SUC 8UC '.._9_~~_~~~tituteTechnology .E3. _ ._IjJJlherEducation Institution . Potia) ~~-.L __ __ __.g_g1~g~_ .l?_ ~..~9__n. janiiat·ul-P~.-.~'?t. Air Liri'k International. --_ .6:9~._.t--!~~o~~LI~§lE~~_~_.. .I~gy g .... _ _ _..-Ca·g·ono-Y~-·S·ag-ii(iY~··-···-----·SUC .~_()_h!:!_I?:...~L~~_~~rJe.-----r7.. -5-' . __.~~==.-.gA. _____ 6 ._ .. 8.9!~~~y_~_~_!_~t~. .g~_ . ..IE:l~b..l~ppi~e·~1~·lslamia. _··-··PrTvat"e __ ..-..!~~~.... _____~_ ___ . _...---··------·-·-·--Private·-· ...." .! !~~b.. " CARAGA Northern Mindanao State Institute of Science & Technology --t-ARAGA..~-~~~ ~~fe~t-~-I~:eaf§-~~~~TofFISh-erjeS&-Fisheries'~BaSe(r--·-sTTc---Technology. .-'Sa.-····-·---NSUC· -. 6 Polytechnic State College of Antique (Sibalom.. '" TC!~lacCollege of Agriculture' --.-of -..==~._..~~~((~gaEP~ia-~~§:~~f-~Io...SUC -..9y. _ __ ..... _P. ._.I....~~~e~.' .}:·".eg~-()f Agriculture Genaro'Goni Memor~a.} .g~!~g~ ~ . -'Virgen-MiTag'ro's'ii-LJnive-rsiy oundation & VMU Institute of F Medical Foundation Lagur'-a__ ~C~~~I_t:le~Snd Arts a Bag-a-City.?_c::~g_t:l .UJo~y..~gLl_~.!sh_eri~_s. _ _ _ ._..II~g~ .--..__ 4.i[~g·i~-... .~_..-.. Leyte) . =~=~g~~~ __ ~"f 4 --.. .-... paqe 70 .

5 .Typology of HEls: Final Report. page 71 Table 3.

Typology of HEls: Final Report. rage 72 .

almost all of which are at the numbers. This cluster also has HEls with very few program numbers. enrollment the of graduates.61% with master's). only 5. The HEls in this cluster offer very few programs.29%.30% with doctorates. proportion undergraduate number level.4. Small-Scale HE! . however. but Tolal enrollment is relatively small. 30. almost all of which are at the small level.t of faculty members. and 27. 22. total graduate enrollment at 3. page 73 Smal/-Scale HEI.2. .90% of these are master's programs.46% doctoral degree holders. enrollment undergraduate holders among The faculty numbers and the proportion of doctoraldecree are both slightly higher than the previous cluster the faculty (7.3.71 % with master's degrees). The total number of faculty members is also quite low.Typology of HEls: Final Report. This is the smallest of the small clusters The HEls in this cluster have the teast number of program offerings. The HEls number also have the srnallet. wttn 16.93% have doctorates.91 % have master's degrees Small-Scale offerings and HEI . of graduate degree holders is about the same (7.

59 Private % 1.s in the distribution extensive institutions shown in Table 3. ~age 74 Discussion Distribution of HEls The hierarchical pyramid of sorts cluster of HEls indicate suggest that there is an inverted of HEls. and more of the small-scale Table 3.I--nz- .49 3.40 . The analysis was highly dependent on the data quality.14 13.Typology of HEls: Final Report. HOWBver. We can only assume that the data in the databases of the GHED are complete and accurate.6.84 100 -- ~. This distribution .59 1 . There are fewer of the larger institutions.14 7._\ 0.49 13.03 I-- -.--~ 9 10 9 17 17 4 24 25 126 7.79 2.22 13.05 19.90 100 Discussion The first observation relates to some limitation in the statistical analysis.40 28.~~:~~:~::~-~~~--+-~~-+--~ ~~a!l-SCale -1 ~tll-SCale 4 7 13 29 97 7.38 1.6 Distribution Category of HEls Accordina to Hierarchical Clusters Publici -Funded # % 2 1. in Graduate-ca Small-Scale able 13 1::1.94 7.17 19.

which was included in the . it seems obvious that there is underreporting it seems to me that of the Philippines.lJage 75 some cases. and therefore inaccurate. In particular.e. It is likely that the inclusion of even a few new variables would result to changes in the clustering. the strictness of the indicators does not capture the attempts of institutions to begin building their research capabilities and activities. "objective" research journals). On the one hand. although it is hard to anticipate to what degree these changes would differ from the present clustering the characterization . the Maryhill School of Theology and the in cluster labeled Small-Scale HEI .4 Social Institute were included These two highly specialized institutions seem so different from the other entries type institutions. and it is always possible to include a wider set of variables.Typology of-HEls: Final Report. Another in the cluster most of which are community-college example. .. and the values considered.as noted earlier. where means A close examination of the without consideration clusters members Asian of variation within the cluster. Second. For example. of data. among others was incomplete. is the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU). 'he cata cn facultymemberSof University institutions like the University University of San Polytechnic of the Philippines. publications On the other hand.of the clusters depended on a post hoc Fourth. would indicate that some HEls seem to be quite different from other of the cluster. Carlos. the indicators productivlty used in used are me-most as we included only in reputable and verifiable: indicators of research activities that led to concrete outputs (i. assessment of the different variables. Third. the analysis worked on a fixed set of variables. the indicators' of research productivity the study are quite strict.

page 76 cluster graduate research labeled Graduate-Capable HEI "":1: The AqMU of graduate has a higher ratio of holders. and the graduation data were note was that the number of full time faculty members was a'so nat associated with number of programs and enrollment size. were not always correlated There were numbers were not proportionate to the range of program offerings. the cluster analysis revealed certain of dimensions that need to be considered context. these dimensions seem to be useful in differentiating HEls in the Philippines. Another range of master's degree programs low. it seems that it is important to consider Clearly. the HElsdustered However.higher publications proportion degree than all the other cases in the cluster. but the enrollment were even lower. Interestingly. .Typology of HEls: Final Report. hierarchical cluster analysis still found a good fit for the ADMU and the others HEls in the cluster. This was particularly have a wide numbers interesting true at the graduate level. Some systematically institutions had disproportionately small numbers of faculty members relative to A'though the range of program Offerings and/or the number of students enrolled. in developing a typology HEls in the Philippine For one. These important limitations notwithstanding. around similar two variables enrollment numbers of program offerings and enrollment. there are nuances associated with the bulk and breadth of institutions as a mater classification dimension. these cases where the the "bulk" and "breadth" of operations of the HEls. and more the programs. were many extensive institutions offered.

considering variables like weaker data on graduate-related variables. and there are those who have almost no gr~duate degree program offerings and very few faculty members with doctorates. range of graduate programs. but have relatively good range of graduate program offerings. ratio of graduate enrollment. page 77 However. enrollment in graduate programs. and that we cannot base the clustering on obvious singular variables.ical variables for differentiation HEls in the °hilippine context. there are those who have a higher number and proportion of graduate degree programs and higher ratio of coctoral degree holders among the faculty. and proportion of doctoral degree holders in the faculty. These differences seem to relate to the HEls capability to maintain graduate level programs (Le. proportion of faculty members with graduate degrees). Thus. among the HEls with wide-ranging program offerings and large enrollment sizes. The hierarchical cluster analysis clearly indicates that the distances among the cases within the cluster were derived from multiple tndicators taken together (this would explain the apparent anomalous cluster noted earlier). The cluster labeled "small-scale" are much smaller and also nave Thus. The The clusters labeled "graduate- capable" are relatively smaller (but still viable) in size. instead of in C1 linear manner. there were also important differences among progrums of similar bulk and breadth. The final interesting observation is how these various critical variables might need to be considered simultaneously or in parallel. .. range and proportion 'of graduate programs. same is true with the less-"bulky" institutions.Typology of HEls: Final Report. and proportion of doctoral degree and master's degree holders among the faculty are also cri.

Typology of. Considering these variables in a typology of HEls in the Philippines is important as these variables relate to considerations of efficiency. thus exacerbating the problems of inefficiency. for example. a wider range of programs can be thought of as good as this will provide a wider range of . (b) "breadth" or the range and level of program offerings. and graduate degree holders among the faculty. and quality of inputs of the HEls. access. size of faculty. On the one hand. page 78 Summary The hierarchical cluster analysis was a "theoretically" blind approach to classifying variables Philippine HEls. province. graduate enrollment. The breadth of programs offered is also important to consider in assessinq the viability and impact of the HEI in the community. The bulk and breadth of publicly funded HEls. and region. that differentiate The clusters revealed that there are important HEls in the Philippines: (a) "bulk" or volume of enrollment. number of graduates. province. HEls: Final Report. and (c) graduate-education-related variables such as range and proportion of graduate programs. or region at large. Small and narrow HEls are likely to be expensive and inefficient to run as the scale is unlikely to support the basic overhead costs of running a higher education program. but this is a more complicated proposition. Such small and narrow HEls are also not likely to have a significant impact on the community. are important to consider. It is worth noting that most of the small-scale institutions also have very weak inouts in terms of faculty profile.

there a: e also efficiency considerations with HEls with a wide range of offerings. there is no guarantee that the range of programs is relevant and strategic in so far as the development of the community. This argument assumes that certain minimum requirements for curricular and instructional variables are satisfied before an institution is allowed to offer graduate level programs. scholarship programs. we do see those institutions that are generally perceived to be highperforming are those institutions that also have fairly well developed graduate programs. The range of graduate-related variables are important to consider in light of the CHEO's developmental goals. particularly if the enrollment is not proportionate to the range of programs. the HEls with stronger capabilities at the graduate education level might be those that the CHEO taps for programs intended to improve the quality and capability of the larger population of HEls. graduate education programs. particularly if the number and quality of faculty resources are not adequate for the range of program offerings. In concrete terms. There are also quality considerations. But these graduate-related variables are not only significant in so far as higher or advanced levels of training is concerned. Moreover. these HEls might be selected for implementation of in-service training programs. page 79 opportunities for the students in the locale. these variables may be correlated with the quality of instructional inputs in the academic programs in general. Indeed. province. research and other development programs. In particular. Although this assumption might be rejected by some . . or region is concerned. However.Typology of HEls: Final Report.

. The next step should involve drawing classification scheme with other from the indications of the empirically based existing schemes in the process of developing the most useful typology for Philippine HEls. the statistical analysis revealed dimensions that ought to be considered in developing a more authentic taxonomic scheme for Philippine HEls. paqe 80 The hierarchical cluster analysis revealed a viable and potentially useful way of classifying Philippine HEls. But more important.Typology of HEls: Final Report.

Typology of HEls: Final Report. (b) whether the range encompasses the traditional liberal arts disciplines. of Philippine and to ap!=-Iy this higher education of the two to taxonomy HEls used in the two previous attempts objective of undertaking this classification process is to of the The specific develop Carnegie a classification of HE[s that puts together the best features derived 2000 classification system and the empirically classification system developed using the hierarchical cluster analysis Lessons from the Carnegie 2000 system is The most important feature of the Carnegie 2000 classification the emphasis given on (a) the range of programs offered by the HEI.. best teetures. proposed institutions we describe a proposed taxonomy which derives from the previously the same applied sample taxonomies. programs. of students into the higher levels of are also more intensively The presumption is that these institutions . between institutions education and and the (c) the range and extent of graduate educational The Carnegie classification that are primarily institutions made clear differentiation concerned with baccalaureate or undergraduate that have a strong emphasis on graduate education . The latter group were ranked higher in the classification as these institutions fulfill a of institutions more valued function which is the education scholarship. rage 81 Chapter A Proposed 4 Typology In this chapter.

in the undergraduate in the HEls that have a -full range of degree programs natural and physical social sciences) sciences. in the research functions highest categories are labelled of higher education "doctoral/research institutions.ettber "intensive" or "extensive" depending on the range of program offerings they have. On the other hand. the humanities.' Hence. or liberal institutions were differentiated colleges covered as either on the artsbaccalaureate and professions depe tdinq range and nature of disciplines programs traditional philosophy.liberal arts" category. the undergraduate specialized. page 82 involved. Those that have a wide range of degree program offerings." Implicit in the use of these classification of the importance of several characteristics features is the acknolwedgement of HEls. For example. and mathematics." programs Finally. the graduate level described in the precedirig paragraph were classified as betnc. "baccalaureate undergraduate or degrees. First among these is the .Typology of HEls: Final Report.e. the Those institutions of offering that have a substantial at the " doctoral graduate component but do nO.1 fuller range a level were categorized as "master's colleges/universities. those institutions or profession that offer most of their degree among the "specialized in one discipline are grouped institutions. are liberal arts fields (i. under the grouped college . general. but which do not include a significant liberal arts disciplines are classified as "baccalaureate range of the traditional college _ general. The Carnegie 2000 also considered the range of disciplines for which the HEI offers institutions academic or degree programs. universities.

to value is specialization. page 83 importance of "breadth" ·of programs. which in the requirements to characteristics refer primarily of the graduate programs offered by the HEI Lessons from the Hierarchical Cluster Analysis cluster There are important analysis. arts orientation is given much prominence.Typology of HEls: Final Report. (d) the range of program offerings. that the Carnegie 2000 presumes that a HEI that engages a fuller range of disciplines mission extent. in this emphasis valuing for the traditional view of higher learning as being grounded in the range of the liberal arts and sciences. indicate the actual The hierarchical dimensions that differentiate cluster analysis revealed several important dimensions: (a) the size of enrollment of the HEls. (b) the size of the HEls faculty. (c) the h~ghest degree of the 'i'aculty. the classification have an important systems seems role to play in I. the Carnegie 2000 clearly assumes that graduate feature of higher education for the highest is an important distinguishing evident institutions levels of the education This is particularly taxonomy. should be distinguished from thosediscipllnes in its educational that do so to a lesser The second feature that the Carnegie 2000 seems to value is the liberal In the discussion and details of the classification Implicit system. to imply that specialized range of HEls. (e) the proportion of graduate programs in the . The third feature that the Carnegie 2000 seems is not viewed as the It seems that "specialization" lower end of the "breadth" continuum. It seems. the liberal is the arts tradition. education institutions Instead. particularly lessons to be learned from the hierarchical as the results of this statistical analysis HEls in the Philippine context.he full level Finally.

the finer distinctions associated among the clusters seem to be associated the proportion of graduate with graduate education: the ratio of graduate enrollment. the main consideration was to In making the final proposed develop policy a typology that was going to be useful to CHED and higher education makers.most obvious result of the enrollment statistical analysis is that the of faculty and (f) the proportion graduate enrollment out of the total enrollment The institutions members that have large student and large numbers do not cluster with most of the other institutions. the cluster analysis also indicated that within clusters of institutions of the same bulk. but there are qualitative HEls differ in the degree to degren programs the Philippine which they emphasize on graduate eoucafon and in their faculty credentials. however. first . page 84 range of offerings. HEls were' also varied in terms of the range of program offerings they offer Finally. operations. HEls. These dimensions seem to indicate the "bulk" of the institutions and we do see a very wide range of diversity in the bulk of operations of HEls across the country One would think· that the range of program offerings would be correlated with the bulk of the HE!. in the academic The Proposed Classification Sclleme typology. In particular. particularly in efforts towards developing HEls and rationalizing . with variables offerings. it is not just bulk with advanced and breadth dimensions that seemed to different as well. and the proportion of faculty members degrees (master's & doctoral degrees). Philippine Thus.Typologyof HEls: Final Report. numbers.

. considered important 1. graduate level training) -hat is needed to improve the the higher education of such profile of most HEls. dimensions derived from With this main consideration the two earlier taxonomies in mind.e. efforts to rationalize in the country should take into consideration the distribution . Thus it is important to distinguish those thai will merely do the "regular" higher education These HEls capabilities educational faculty system of functions will also play in Important role in improving the resources and developed HEls as they can provide the continuing less programs (i. the relative emphasis given to graduate level education 2. one important factor to in the universe HEls in the Philippines is the capability of institutions to over higher education programs beyond the baccalaureate. the bulk and breadth of educational 3 capability and productivity programs and services of the faculty Level of higher education programs. Philippines Given that higher education in the comes to close to a "mass" higher education age group participating system (with around 30% to 40% of the college education consider in some form of higher in one of the over 1. As such.400 HEls in the country).paqe 85 the Philippines the following' higher education system. Institutions that can offer master's and doctoral degrees will have a special role to play in intensifying the human resource the population development and high-end capability efforts in HEls and in these institutions from at large.Typology of HEls: Final Report.

forces that impose themselves include market preferences demands on the operations for graduates of HEls. program with a large number of programs and huge enrollment. Conversely. variations in program re. institutions that breadth to attract a broad student clientele. page 66 institutions across regions and provinces. Generally to in policies affecting academic programs and other policies. an HEI with a good ratio of fatuity to .Typology of HEls: Final Report. such an HEI might have show greater internal efficiency However. Some levels of equilibrium among the numbers of programs. offer a wider range of programs are more likely to have more flexibility in dealing with external external changing changes speaking. the breadth of programs needs to be matched qualified by a healthy student enrollment and a prcportronal number of full time faculty members . of other HEls that do not provide graduate degree programs Bulk consider and breadth of programs and services. how a but with a very need to be established ensure the viability of the HE!. to attain this internal efficiency. in programs. for example. and in relation to the distribution.this is the bulk. One of the factors to in assessing the viability of HEls is whether the programs have enough Generally speaking.ated costs. students. an HEI with 100 many faculty members services a few students enrolled in a few programs is nollikely to viable in the long run. Similarly. and faculty to It would be hard to imagine. an HEI with a broader range of programs will have more elbowroom and transitory schemes to survive these external pressures allow compensatory Also generally in its operations speakinq. small faculty size can sustam its programs. These forces student of certain programs.

we can rationalize the distribution institutions allocation across geographic sectors in a way that also rationalizes of financial resources.. rage 67 programs the three will still have problems if the enrollment numbers is too small. as the HEls program and expand. HEls need to maintain a minimum set of requirements services education.e. or as the programs aim to provide higher or graduate levels of the requirements the main indicator for the faculty also need to be raised. purposes. the research productivity For present is the highest of the faculty However. the results of the cluster analysis indicate that there is not much research going on anyway in the overwhelming productivity research majority of Philippine to differentiate variable HEls and thus research However. earned by the faculty. the bulk and breadth of programs of an institution can be used as one of the basic parameters for allocating fluancial resources (i. degree for its faculty. in considering the dimensions of of the merging. bulk and breadth of programs and services. dimensions of range of programs. with the view of Thus. members of an HEI should also be a good indicator of faculty quality. Efforts consideration reducing. HEls the that is not a useful variable productivity can most HEls. MOOE and other budgetary items) for sues Capability and productivity of the faculty. Thus. However. number of faculty. or closing the latter.Typology of HEls:Final Report. Moreover. to rationalize the distribution the higher education system should take into of viable and non-viable institutions. of faculty capability or qualification Ideally. be a useful for dlfferer\ilating . and number of student enrollment are all limiting factors in the HEls internal efficiency.

Thus.highereducation. and also for developing within each category and across categories . additional financial resources be allocated to institutions provided that 'propose or maintain a wider range of programs. as some differences can be marked among For the goal of rationalizing. page 88 emphasize institutions graduate . Basically. The Proposed Taxonomy The' design categories of the proposed taxonomy involves defining two broad and then defining finer categories within these two broad categories.Typology of HEls. it is the faculty that will realize and sustain such programs. as far as faculty profile is concerned. they meet certain requirements After all. used as indicators more expensive) the indicators of faculty capability and productivity could be of the institution's Functions of higher among others. Final Report. such as graduate education. could be used as an indicator for determining geographic programs faculty. sectors and even across the proftle of the faculty across the viability of institutions areas. efforts to rationalize the distribution number of qualified faculty to sustain the programs of the HEI Moreover. program sufficient academlc are viable only if they.have numbers of qualified fill! time of HEls should reckon with the Thus. information that should be HEI"s The finer categories useful in rationalizing serve to provide more nuanced HEls within each category. might research.education at this level. extension. capability to engage in the higher end (and education.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful