|
ONE of
the main reasons why we can’t seem to make a dent on
joblessness, according to Socioeconomic Planning
Secretary Romulo Neri, is that “many students are taking
courses that will not land them jobs needed by
industries.”
He added
that students who are entering college “should no longer
take courses in political science, education and law
since there is already a significant surplus” in these
fields. Industries supposedly need more graduates in
engineering, mining and information technology.
We can’t
help but agree. If we want this country to move a lot
faster, we need a critical mass of engineers,
mathematicians, software developers, physicists, and
other fields in the sciences like biotechnology. These
courses are the ones that really bring in the money and
progress, as shown by countries that invested heavily in
uplifting their school systems capability in mathematics
and the sciences. We are talking here of places like
Israel, Taiwan, China, Vietnam and India.
But if
indeed these courses do give high economic returns for
graduates, why is it that only a few students are taking
up these subjects? There are several reasons.
First is
that there is probably no market signal for students to
take these courses, essentially because parents and
students are not really aware of economic opportunities
in these disciplines. If this is true, one reason is
that there is no labor-market information system that
could help students in making career decisions.
In the
United States, the government provides this kind of
information by releasing a regular 10-year forecast on
potential labor demand vis-à-vis different careers in
almost all areas of specialization from teachers,
engineers, journalists and doctors. The report, updated
each year and posted on the Internet, even provides
estimates of the annual income that graduates would get
if they take a certain discipline.
Why
couldn’t we do the same? In the Philippine context, the
government could do it in collaboration with the private
sector. Most business organizations in the country are
members of chambers of commerce and associations.
Managers and HR officers in these companies could
expedite this job-market information system by regularly
submitting their staff requirements from which their
organizations could collate, analyze and disseminate
through media.
Second
is that some schools are probably not providing the
right sets of skills to students. Many schools providing
tertiary education are privately owned whose profit
imperative may come in the way of providing quality
education.
There
essentially is nothing wrong with a tertiary educational
system dominated by the private sector. The United
States has that kind of system and all the world is
flocking to American shores to study. It works there
because students and their parents have access to
information regarding the quality of educational
services being offered by schools through a ranking
system that economically penalizes those that don’t have
the right faculty, facilities and the learning
environment.
We
should have the same system in the Philippines. If
schools and universities here are ranked based on
quality of services provided by course or disciplines by
university, parents would only enroll their children
where they could get quality education in return for
their hard-earned money. That way, schools and
universities would have the economic incentive to
provide the best facilities, qualified faculty members
and the best learning environment for students.
Quality
schools, of course, would have the tendency to charge
high tuition, but this concern could be addressed
partially through competition by opening foreign direct
investments in schools and universities. Besides, who
says quality education is cheap?
Financing education is really a major problem in the
Philippines. Many private universities want to invest in
laboratories and faculty development. Yet they can only
do that through expensive tuition, an option that is
constrained by low purchasing power.
The only
way to address this is by setting up some kind of a
student loan program where students could pay the State
later once they are able. Australia has that kind of
system and Britain is learning from it. We could
probably have the same here.
The
private sector could probably help. If society looks at
education as an “investment” with very high rates of
return, why are banks not giving education loans to
students who want to study “profitable” courses like
engineering and the sciences? In
India
for instance, banks lend money to engineering students
and MBA students, knowing that these kids would soon
earn huge sums once they start working in high-tech
industries in Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi and Hyderabad.
The
third factor: there are simply fewer people who can
endure the rigors of science and engineering courses. If
this is true, then the problem goes back to the poor
quality of basic education. The solution, therefore, is
reforming the elementary-schools system.
One
possible solution is by strengthening subjects that
really matter: mathematics, science, English and
Filipino with laboratories on said subjects. Longer
school hours can be assigned to these subjects so the
students could have more time to learn new science or
math concepts.
At the
same time, there is an urgent need to train teachers in
science, math and English. It is common knowledge that
for lack of science and math teachers, many current
teachers in these subjects had backgrounds in social
studies, or even physical education. The government
should also send these teachers to scholarships for
higher learning.
Reforming the elementary-school system would take some
time. But we can also take a few shortcuts by investing
in science high schools. The local government units and
the national government could do this through a
counterparting arrangement. With more science high
schools in cities and the big municipalities, we could
probably increase the number of students who will
eventually take science courses.
Definitely, the government will have to strengthen
higher education as well. This can be done by
streamlining state colleges and universities—for
instance, by closing some of them and consolidating
others to focus on science and technology and leaving
the teaching of social sciences to private universities.
The Indians are doing this through their seven
institutes of technologies and research institutions
where only the cream of the crop is taken as students.
That explains their strength in the sciences,
engineering and information technology. |
