THW allow people to take licensure exams without a college degree Opposition Good afternoon.

On the motion that this house would allow people to take licensure exams without a college degree, the Opposition would like to argue on the negative. As the leader of the opposition, I would like to begin my discussion of the topic by presenting my rebuttals to the previous speakers arguments. (allot only 2 minutes for this.) Possible arguments from the government: 1.) Setting of the parameters. (For example, hindi nagset ng parameters yung Prime Minister) REBUTTAL: Because the Prime Minister failed to set the parameters, it is my task as the leader of the opposition to set the scope of this deliberation so as to provide a more organized flow of discussion. The opposition sets the motion of this debate to include only high school graduates in the term people and for licensure exams, we mean those exams facilitated and conducted by the Professional Regulatory Commission. 2.) Exclusivity of licensure exams discriminate against the marginalized sectors: REBUTTAL: The government contends that the exclusivity of licensure exams discriminate against the marginalized sectors, particularly those that do not afford a college education. We, on the opposition side, on the other hand, believe that this is not the case. Easy access to licensure exams will not solve the issue of poverty and unemployment but would rather aggravate the situation. I will expound on this when I present my arguments. 3.) Licensure exams will increase human capital. (Or they may say, Licensure exams will increase employment rates.) REBUTTAL: The government may be of the opinion that access to licensure exams will increase employment rates, but the opposition strongly believes that such contention presents a slippery slope. It should be noted that these exams do no ensure the admittance of the examinees into the professional world. These are standardized tests that would gauge (pronounciation: GAYJ) a persons skill and ability, which may still be underdeveloped in someone who has yet to obtain a college degree. Low employment rates are not due to the lack of licensed professionals but the lack of business proprietors that do the hiring. Therefore, the government cannot say that allowing high school graduates to take licensure exams would increase employment rates especially since these high school graduates, as compared to college graduates, may have lesser chances of passing the exam. I will further expound on this when I present my arguments as to why the motion presented by the government is not the best solution. Now on to my arguments. (at most 4 minutes) 1.) First, the opposition believes that the purpose of licensure exams is to ensure the quality of the labor force. Status quo: (Research ilang percent ang nagatake ng licensure exams and ilang percent lang ang makapasa. Check PRC site) _% of Filipinos take licensure exams and only _% of this population pass the exams. It just goes to show that licensure exams are not simple. They do not assess general knowledge but rather specific information pertinent to the exam given. It is the responsibility of the Professional Regulatory Commission to guarantee that licensed professionals have the skill and the knowledge to

perform their jobs. This is initially made certain by the different licensure exams that provide for standardized tests that require analysis and a good grasp of the subject matter. Yes, the K to 12 program already imposed on private and public school systems provides for 2 years of Senior High School wherein different tracks are afforded the student. However, this is all that it entails: a transition. The two years in Senior high school is not enough training when measured up to the 4 years of college. Compared to the 2 years of subpar specialization in Senior High School, a college degree is the better, if not the only, yardstick that would attest to the fact that the examinee was honed into becoming a potential expert in his chosen field. 2.) Second, a license to practice a certain profession is not just a privilege. It entails certain responsibilities that help promote adherence to public policy. By allowing admittance of persons not equipped with the knowledge that only a college education can develop, various professions welcome the risk of producing substandard employees. This will create an unstable working environment especially since a licensure exam may not include all the tests that would assess the skill and expertise that a professional must possess. Passing the exam does not prove adequate knowledge as regards a particular field, in the same manner that failing it does not prove that the examinee is inadequate in that particular field. Circumstances personal to the examinee may cause him to either pass or fail, regardless of the fact that he has a college degree. Assuming that a high school graduate was given the luxury to take the licensure exam and by luck he passes, this fact does not guarantee good performance on his part when placed in the real world. Passing the exam merely gives a person the authority to practice a profession, but the certainty that a person would put such profession to good use is not an assurance secured by the exams. This is why licensure exams should be treated with such high regard. Not everyone should be given the privilege simply because not everyone can take the responsibility. Public health, safety, and security require that the people who handle our everyday affairs are wellequipped with the knowledge and resources to cater to our problems. We may find comfort in the fact that our work force will be filled with busy bodies, but time and time again, we say that quality is better than quantity. This leads me to my last argument.. 3.) The solution for the government is not to open the licensure exams to everyone but to rather provide for a good college education for the younger generation. The Professional Regulatory Commission spends millions of pesos to conduct and facilitate the admission of professionals into the labor force. By negating the requirement of a college degree, the government would just waste time and government resources on people who have yet to be trained before being tested. The opposition therefore proposes that instead of opening the licensure exams to everyone, the government should instead give high school graduates better assistance in acquiring college plans and scholarships or even increase the annual budget for tuition fee subsidies. This way, the only burden placed upon the PRC is to toughen up the exams in lieu of the qualified examinees. The rest is placed upon the shoulders of the aspiring professional who, in the first place, should work hard to earn the privilege of serving his countrymen. Finally, to recap, the oppositions stand is not to allow people without a college degree to take the licensure exams to ensure quality control in the labor force and promote public health, safety, and security. The solution therefore is not to create more professionals through admission in licensure exams but rather ensure a good college education for those who aspire to contribute to society. Thank you.