Two schools in one man

Now, let me get this straight: I am proud of my UP education, and I am a

loyal UP alumnus. I display a figurine of the Oblation in my office at
DLSU, and a UP jacket is prominently shown hanging on the backrest of
my office chair.
I do not sing the Alma Mater song of DLSU during commencement
exercises, not even during the time that I was Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts when I was seated on stage. I feel it is just improper. I am not
an Alumnus of La Salle, and to sing its Alma Mater song is an infringement
of the right of those who labored so hard to have a legitimate claim to
such status and, more importantly, it would betray my own Alma Mater.
UP Naming Mahal will always be in my mind.
This whole UP and others mentality is simply childish to me. Being an
adherent of critical theory, I find this discourse of treating other schools,
including La Salle, as just an other of UP as contrary to the progressive
nature of the politics which UP has long stood for. It is the state university
for the people, after all.
I find it incoherent and inauthentic for people to adhere to the metaphor
of the Iskolar ng Bayan when, in the same breath, they subsist on an
arrogant and exclusionary discourse of elitism of an exulted self (i.e. UP)
and its demeaned others (i.e. all the rest of the Universities and
schools) that effectively tears that Bayan asunder and sets its Iskolars
as elites above the rest.
My inquisitors almost always assume that, since I am now working in La
Salle, my decision to let my children study there is to simply take
advantage of the tuition-waiver privileges I enjoy for them.
To accept this is simply to admit wrongly that such is a no-choice
scenario juxtaposing a mercenary attitude on my part. It is almost like the
same logic behind what others would assume as the reason why I left UP

and moved to La Salle; which is to take advantage of the higher salary

package.
The undertone is that money compensates for the sacrifice in quality.
These assumptions are far from the truth.
A mercenary decision?
My leaving UP and moving to La Salle is a long story. Something which I
would not rather disclose in public, even if it is well-known to my friends
and colleagues, and those in the know would readily affirm that the
reason was far from monetary.
While our decision to let our children study at CSB and DLSU was, indeed,
to take advantage of the opportunity which is now available to me, it was
a rare privilege to send my children to study at schools that are equally as
competent, and evidently with better facilities, and for which I could not
have afforded with a UP salary and even with my DLSU salary, if I will
pay the full tuition fee.
Hence, it was a privileged choice and not a mercenary decision.
Indeed, there are differences between UP and La Salle, but these
differences are not to be casted as polarities where quality is possessed
by one and not by the other. What I found out is that, whatever
differences they have, these are just different manifestations of quality.
One may be better in one aspect, but the other may have an edge in
another.
For example: the relative density of faculty of PhDs in UP who are mostly
UP alumni is matched by a more diverse one for La Salle, where alumni
from different universities converge to learn from each other.
The perception of a superior faculty in UP is matched by a perception of a
superior infrastructure and facilities for La Salle. And since these are just
perceptions, the fact is that each one is trying to catch up with the other

in terms of correcting the perceived handicap to become better. La Salle

continually and actively beefs up its faculty ranks, and UP tries to address
the challenges of improving its infrastructure and facilities despite limited
funds provided by the state.
And, of course, while La Salle may have a champion basketball team, UP
has always shone at cheer dance competitions. But, recently, the National
University (NU) has provided a strong challenge to both and even
dethroned UP as Champion in the latter. Perhaps this is as a reminder to
both UP and La Salle?
It's true, not only in sports, but even in academics, that the talent in
human capital needs to be matched by a well-oiled funding machinery,
which Henry Sy provided for NU in its athletics program.
It is in this context now that I will address one major difference between
UP and La Salle both of which I had the pleasure of experiencing that
the former has a semestral system, while the latter is in a trimestral
mode.

Time in classroom vs money

One semester in UP requires students to attend classes for 16 weeks. This
entails shorter class periods, but longer term breaks and also a longer
summer session for those who opt to take such.
One trimester in La Salle has 14 weeks, that already includes one-week of
exams. The result is longer class periods and shorter term breaks (only a
week in some cases) and also a shorter summer session (only about two
to three weeks).
In terms of degree completion, the semestral system would require four
years of eight semesters before a student can graduate, while a trimestral
system would normally require three years of nine semesters.

At the outset, it is fairly settled that the pedagogical legitimacy of a

trimestral system is no longer an issue, considering that DLSU has been
allowed by CHED to adopt such a system. The presumption here is that
any questions about the minimum requirements for learning that a
graduate would possess have already been addressed, and the associated
minimum standards would have been effectively complied with by the
trimestral system.
One of the objective measures to make a distinction would simply be the
financial side, with those students in the trimestral system having to pay
more miscellaneous fees with nine semesters of enrolment compared to
only eight for the semestral system.
However, this is outweighed by the fact that students in the trimestral
system are expected to have a shorter stay in college, thereby having
less overhead for their parents, and are expected to earn earlier
assuming they are employed after graduation.
On the part of Administration, the trimestral system presumably yields
higher revenues given a fixed time. Consider: for one academic year,
students get to pay their fees only twice in the semestral system, while
the school gets to collect student fees three times for the same duration
in the case of the trimestral system. This may be better for enabling the
university to have more revenues to invest, not only in faculty and staff
salaries, but also in infrastructures and facilities.
The length of the term (longer for a semestral system) and of breaks
(shorter for a trimestral) may prove advantageous to students and faculty
in the semestral system, not only in terms of the spacing of learning but
also in the rest time provided in between classes and terms.
However, what I found out in my personal experience is this: this is all
relative to the student and the teacher. I am somewhat of an Apersonality, and I am on a high if I am on the go, so the trimestral system
fits me well.

On the matter of the time allocated for actual classroom interactions,

indeed it is true that the semestral system provides a longer time.
However, at the tertiary level, pedagogical strategies now enhanced by
more recent learning technologies such as the internet have provided
virtual alternatives to face-to-face instruction seen in on-line teaching.
Learning activities may not necessarily be designed as purely inside the
classroom.
Innovate or die like dinosaurs
Thus, the bottom-line is that whatever difference semestral and trimestral
systems have, this will now all depend on the learner and the enabler of
that learning to take advantage of and adapt to. I personally miss the
slower pace of the semestral system of UP, but I am now very
comfortable with the trimestral system of La Salle.
Having a shorter academic duration has challenged me to innovate. I see
that such innovations are enabling my students to learn what they have
to learn in order for them to finish their courses, and eventually their
degrees.
So, enough of this which is better? debate.
In the end, it may even become irrelevant and be taken over by events
when the K-12 graduates will enter college in 2016. It is possible that the
additional two years in basic education may now simply motivate all
higher learning institutions to consider shifting to trimestral mode. By
then the batch of students will now be more mature, at 19 years old, to
handle integrative and independent learning approaches. And more
attractive to parents who had to spend more for basic education, their
financial burdens can be eased off by shortening college to three years
instead of four, which the trimestral system enables.
In the end beyond the debate of which system is better, or which school
is superior it is no longer an issue of a pissing contest based on what
one has over the other, but whether one is capable and willing to

innovate; to be attuned to the demands and the opportunities of the

times.
A university that rests its bragging rights on its reputation, or its current
superiority, but is not willing to innovate and is hounded by institutional
inertia, often emanating from the myths of tradition or of a false sense of
dominance and invincibility, may in the end suffer the fate of dinosaurs.
- See more at:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/345551/opinion/trimester-vssemester-and-comparing-universities-a-fallacy#sthash.Ssc02ptF.dpuf