EXAM - AFFIRMATIVE

After hearing the first and second speakers of the affirmative, it is clearly obvious that the
imposition of mandatory qualifying exams as per the motion is not only necessary but also
beneficial. There is no better way, than a test, to assess a potential enrollee’s mental facility that
is needed to evaluate if the student is ready to take on higher education.
Now, I am going to reinforce and further solidify our stance by presenting the practicability of
this motion. First, is the financial implications. Second, is our constitutional mandate. And last,
but definitely not the least, the values that will be ingrained into the young minds of our
incoming freshmen.

Please, allow me to elaborate. Without the qualifying exam as a filter, there will be no limit to the
number of enrollees that an educational institution will take which will lead to catastrophic
financial implications. According to the Department of Budget and Management, P45.8 B was
allocated to the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Program that handles free tuition.
P45.8 B! It is the same budget allocated to the DPWH’s program to create bridges. Now, let’s put
a pin on it for a moment and let’s take a look at another fact. The enrollment rate of college
students has increased from 32 to 41 percent according to CHED Chairman Popoy de Vera on
September 18 just this year. If the increase in the college enrollment consistently moves up then
it would mean that at some point the number of college enrollees would be doubled. Therefore,
the budget would also be doubled. We would need another P45.8 B. Where in the universe’s
hand are we going to get that? Should we not build bridges anymore just to patch out this
discrepancy considering that the numbers will only grow exponentially over time? This will derail
the financial balance of the Philippines and if not managed correctly, we will succumb to
economic instability. So, it is necessarily practicable to impose this motion’s qualifying exams
because it will not drill a hole into the national treasury, instead, it will help the state to properly
utilize its education budget.

On to my next point. Our constitutional mandate. According to the 1987 Philippine constitution
article 14 section 5 subsection 3: Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of
study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. This
means that the constitution, with all its inherent power, acknowledges that potential enrollees
must be subjected to academic requirements for admission so long as it is fair, reasonable and
equitable which exams are. This proves, with the constitution as my witness, that qualifying
exams are practicable and not subjecting potential enrollees to such requirements is
unconstitutional.

And the last pillar of my approach is that we should never disregard the values that we instill into
the minds of the younger generations. If we do not impose this motion’s qualifying exams, which
we all know is the best method to determine who gets in or not, then, we are tarnishing the
students’ values right from the very beginning. If students can enroll for free in any institution
they want without any qualifying exams, then the students will not see their acceptance to said
institution as a result of their hard work and research from the Journal of Public Economics in
2021 indicates that this will encourage students to devalue the significance of higher education,
defaulting on their studies and taking the learning process without due seriousness. Thus, the
students will not view higher education as an essential investment in their professional progress
which may jeopardize the entire system of higher education.

And as a final note, if there is no qualifying exams then there will be no enrollment restrictions.
As mentioned by the first affirmative speaker, qualifying exams is mandatory to give equal access
to all incoming freshmen. You may say that we could still take steps to limit the number of
enrollees, but how? By height? By age? By face value? Maybe. But let me give you something to
think about. What about the brilliant and deserving ones who will not make the cut? How are we
going to determine the ones who can enroll and the ones who cannot? What is the best course of
action to identify the enrollees who would make the most out of an academic scholarship? We all
know how simple the answer is. So again, I would like to re-establish that the only way to solve
all of these motion-related problems is to impose a mandatory qualifying exams to incoming
college students to avail of free tuition. Thank you!
NEGATIVE - EXAM

After hearing the first and second speakers of the negative, it is clearly obvious that the
imposition of mandatory qualifying exams as per the motion is both not necessary and not
beneficial. There are better ways, than a test, to assess a potential enrollee’s mental facility that
is needed to evaluate if the student is deserving to avail of free tuition.

Now, I am going to reinforce and further solidify our stance by presenting the non-practicability
of this motion. I will deliver 3 blows to the affirmative’s position to show that the stance they are
standing on is fragile. First, is our constitutional mandate, second, is the financial implications,
and third, the better alternatives to qualifying exams as defined by the first negative speaker in
relation to academic requirements.

Please, allow me to elaborate that imposition of this motion will infringe on an existing law. As
mentioned by the 2nd negative speaker, there is a law to protect the mental health of our people,
especially in the education sector, and that is the Mental Health Act, which will be ran over if we
impose this policy. According to the Concordia University of Irvine, California, students who take
qualifying exams are affected by 10 factors, some of them are panic, inadequate diet, lack of
sleep, and excessive anxiety, all of these, intimately connected to the mental health of our
students. Furthermore, as discussed by the 2nd speaker, qualifying exams are discriminatory to
inadequate students due to the inherent inequality of education standards of secondary
institutions. Considering that qualifying exams can cause discrimination, this will brew mental
health issues to those affected students. Correspondingly, Section 3, subsection F, of our Mental
Health Act, states that mental health should be promoted in educational institutions. Therefore,
subjecting our incoming college students to qualifying exams is legally impracticable. Not to
mention the financial implications if we impose such policy.

Which brings me to my next point. It ca be used as a ground for corruption. As made mention by
the 2nd negative speaker, through the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Program or
RA 10931, which is one of the main arguments of the affirmative side, institutions can exercise
their academic freedom in administering qualifying exams. Moreover, institutions are mandated
by RA 10931 to create a mechanism to enable students with the financial capacity to pay for their
education. Since the mechanism within this act was not properly defined, institutions, can do
whatever they want. This is just a fancy way of saying that this program is going to be used as an
avenue for corruption. Institutions, through their mechanisms, can limit the number of
enrollment slots, decrease the passing rate of paying students, and increase the passing rate of
students availing free tuition, thus, letting the paying students take most if not all of the
enrollment slots set by the institution. What happens then, to the marginalized sectors? Once a
student from a poor family graduates and becomes a professional, that person would then be
able to support not only his family, but also the state, through contributions. Which will be
hindered by the imposition of this policy when there are better alternatives we can focus on.

Which leads me to my final argument. Better alternatives, as emphasized by the 1 st negative

speaker traditional exams are not ideal. Especially because not every student are the same and
therefore, they shouldn’t be exposed to the same standardized tests. According to Dr. Robert
Sternberg at Cornell University, standardized tests do not assess “creative skills, practical skills, or
wisdom-based ethical skills.” Which are usually the skills needed to become successful later on in
life. Instead of the mandatory standardized tests, why not use presentations, practical display of
one’s skills, speech, and such. If we can come up with standardized tests in the first place, then
we can also come up with alternatives.
As a closing remark, imposition of mandatory qualifying exams for all incoming college students
to avail free tuition, has been reduced by this house as unnecessary, non-beneficial, and most
specially, not practicable. We can all agree that the younger generations are our future but how
will they ever prove their worth if we subject them to hindrances that will not utilize their
potentials. Ladies and gentlemen, your honors, let us give the kids a chance. Let them pave their
own way into our society. Thank you!

REBUTTAL:

A – the declaration of policy needs to be qualified. That is why there are sections following the
declaration. Sec 4, students – free tuition – PROVIDED - exam
N – the source cited is contradictory. The declaration said that the right to education is
inalienable, meaning it is absolute. And if it is absolute, it cannot be qualified. But it proceeded to
qualify itself, therefore, the argument used is invalid.