Needed restraint on profit schools.pdf

Media

Part of Panorama

extracted text: ■ Complaints have been aired against higher tui tion fees of Private Universities when these are said to be highly profitable to their owners. NEEDED RESTRAINT ON PROFIT SCHOOLS A lot has been written about private schools raising their tuition fees. To begin with we must say that it would be a great mistake to lump all private schools un der one category. We must distinguish between the schools that are non-stock and non-profit from those that declare fat dividends and whose main reason for being is profits. When we were Secretary of Education we were never strict in so far as the rion-stock and non profit schools are concerned. Thepe schools are doing the country a great service, and if they were to cease opera tion it would be no exagge ration to say that our entire educational system — parti cularly on the secondary and collegiate level — would suf fer a blow from which they would never recover. These institutions need all the help they can from the adminis tration. It is unfair to accuse them of profiteering. Yet this is exactly what is hap pening today. Instead of acknowledging the great ser vice that they are doing for the cause of education, they are being branded as pro fiteers. The Admin is tration should get tough with the schools that have been estab lished for profits. They should pass a law to limit the dividends of these insti tutions. It is very difficult to establish an educational institution for profit, and still maintain standards, al though we must admit that some universities have suc ceeded in doing both fairly well. The best example is the University of the .East But this is not an easy task. Why? Because what makes a good educational institu tion and what makes a good business are two entirely op posite factors. It is the large per capita investment per student that is the founda tion of a good college and 16 Panorama university. Investments in a good faculty and educational facilities. A good business, on the other hand, is where you invest little and derive a large profit. The only way to classify private schools is to separate the profit ones from the non profit ones. The non-profit schools should be given a free hand — so long as they follow the rules and regula tions that the government should clamp down on. The University of the Phil ippines, for instance, spends P2,200 a year per student. This is double the tuition of the Ateneo and La Salle, which is only Pl, 100 per an num. The Department of Education is always talking about standards. Yet, it ob viously expects these institute$ of higher learning to maintain ' their high stand ards of excellence at half of what it cost the U.P. If we want to have a high standard of education, we must be willing and ready to pay the price for it. It is the job the Department of Education to educate the public on the facts of the high cost of education. We maintain that it is unfair to accuse non-profit schools of profiteering. These schools should be helped — not con demned. As for the commer cial schools, it is about time that steps were taken so that they would be things of the past. Education costs money. This week’s issue of Time is about the spiralling cost of education. What is true in the United States is also true here. There is no such thing as a bargain basement when it comes to education. If the non-profit schools find it ne cessary to raise their tuition in order to maintain their standards, they should be allowed to do so. The De partment of Education should concern itself with standards — not fees. Clamp down on profit schools, and help the non-profit ones. That should be the policy. — Alejandro R. Roces, Manila Chronicle, June 27, 1967 September 1967 • 17
Rights