Survey and Report on the ST System: 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

Survey and Report on the ST System

1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

Prepared by

University of the Philippines Visayas

College of Arts and Sciences

Student Council 2014-2015

Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

ST System Monitoring Committee

March 30, 2015

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015 Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

ST System Monitoring Committee Survey and Report on the ST System, 1

st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The UPV CAS Student Council Committee on Students Rights and Welfare ST System Monitoring Committee are thankful to those who helped and contributed to this effort to produce a report, survey, and assessment of the ST System:

To the Office of Student Affairs, Student Loan Board, and Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for approving our various requests for data.

To the UPV University Student Council for contacting the other College Student Councils to participate in this survey.

To CFOS SC, CM SC, and SOTECH SC for the active participation by administering the survey in their campuses.

To the UPV CAS SC STRAW volunteer corps who helped in the encoding of data and for

their time in doing tasks assigned to them.

To June Elle Tanedo for volunteering to be the Committees statistics point person and in-charge of statistical analysis.

To the students of CAS, CFOS, SOTECH, and CM for participating in the survey. Most especially to the members of the UPV CAS SC who helped in brainstorming during

the planning phase of this monitoring, in following up details, and in supporting this committee.

Most especially also to students whose right to accessible education was deprived because of policies that attempt to commercialize this essential right. To Kristel Tejada and Rosanna Sanfuego and others, this is most especially dedicated to you. We will continue to assert each students right to education and stand by the people to forward their genuine interests until such time that the sad reality of students committing suicide because of the high cost of education will never happen anymore.




2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................. 1

Table of Contents .................................................................................................... 2

Abbreviations Used ................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6

Methodology .......................................................................................................... 7

Scope ...................................................................................................................... 7

Population and Sample Size .................................................................................... 8

Results and analysis ................................................................................................ 10

I. Consideration of all cases (with scholarship) ........................................... 10

II. Consideration of all cases (without scholarship) .................................... 14

III. Difficulty in applying for ST System ....................................................... 16

IV. Difficulty on enrolment ......................................................................... 17

V. Enrolment on the specified date ............................................................ 17

VI. Application for student loan .................................................................. 18

VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment ..................... 19

VIII. Students comments on the ST System ..... 19

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A: Per College Results ............................................................................ 25

Appendix B: Upper class students survey form ..................................................... 46

Appendix C: Freshpersons survey form ................................................................. 48




3

ABBREVIATIONS USED

CAS College of Arts and Sciences

CAS SC College of Arts and Sciences Student Council

CFOS College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

CFOS SC College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Student Council

CM SC College of Management Student Council

FD Full Discount

FDS Full Discount with Stipend

ND No Discount

PD40 Partial Discount 40%



SOTECH School of Technology

SOTECH SC School of Technology Student Council

ST System or STS Socialized Tuition System

STFAP Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program

UPV University of the Philippines Visayas




4

INTRODUCTION

The Socialized Tuition System was implemented as an improved version of the STFAP

last First Semester of the current Academic Year 2014-2015. This new tuition policy assumes

that the problematic STFAP was improved through faster and easier application. STFAP was

widely criticized by the different sectors of the university as a burdensome policy for the

students because of the slow processing of bracket assignments and misbracketing. In response

to this dilemma, the UP Administration, despite the opposition of the student body, decided to

reform STFAP and thus made the Socialized Tuition (ST) System. Under ST System, the

previous 14-page form of STFAP has become a 2-page online form. Assignment of brackets has

become faster under the ST System.

Despite these praises and positive assessment of the ST System, after the first wave of

implementation of the ST System and the release of brackets, the hashtag #BracketAKaNa

became a nationwide trending hashtag in the social media. This hashtag was used by students

who experienced misbracketing in the UP System in social media like Twitter and Facebook.

This manifested the discontentment and anger of the students nationwide in the

implementation of the improved STFAP.

In this light, the CAS Student Council in its planning for the First Semester of Academic

Year 2014-2015 has decided, after an hour of discussion, to monitor the ST System by

conducting a survey to record the students experience and determine the pulse of the students.




5

Finally, when the motion to establish a monitoring committee was approved by the

body, the Committee on Students Rights and Welfare was tasked to prepare the necessary

plans like making the survey forms, coordinating with the University Student Council and other

College Student Councils. Last September 2014, letters to Office of the Student Affairs, Vice

Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and Student Loan Board were sent to request for necessary

data. By October 2014, survey forms were released to the local college student councils

through their respective point persons: CAS SC, CFOS SC, SOTECH SC, CM SC. From September

2014 to December 2014, the focus of the Monitoring Committee was on giving out survey

forms to students and by January 2015 the focus was already on the collection of the survey

forms. By February to March, the data were encoded and analyzed.

After several months of data gathering, with the help of the local College Student

Councils and our resident statistical analyst, this monitoring has come to its final analysis.

Survey forms from CM, CAS, CFOS, and SOTECH Student Councils were returned to the CAS SC.

The CAS SC Students Rights and Welfare Committee Volunteer Corps and our resident student

statistical analyst worked for days and weeks in the collation and encoding of the data.

The convening of the CAS SC ST System Monitoring Committee is a project based on CAS

SCs commitment to assert for each Iskolars ng Bayans right to accessible education. This

initiative of the CAS Student Council is a response to the memorandum of the Student Regent

to monitor the implementation of the ST System and at the same time to contribute to the

overall struggle of the students to junk the Socialized Tuition System.




6

The CAS SC with the other participant Student Councils in this survey are optimistic that

the UP Administration will open their ears to hear out the findings and analysis of this survey.

We also look forward to a partnership of the Student Councils and the Administration to work

for genuine students rights and welfare and the protection of each Filipino youths right to

education.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the bracket distribution of students under ST System and the previous STFAP in

the CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH;

2. To determine the number of students who experienced bracket sliding upward and

downward, or were retained in their previous bracket;

3. To gauge the difficulty of applying in ST System as experienced by the students;

4. To gauge the difficulty of students in enrolling for the First Semester of Academic Year 2014-

2015.

6. To determine the number of students who were able to enrol on their scheduled date;

7. To enumerate the reasons of students for not enrolling on time;

8. To determine the number of students who availed for student loan;

9. To find out if students perceive their bracket as reflective of their socioeconomic

background; and

10. To know the sentiments of students about the ST System.




7

METHODOLOGY

Stratified sampling with proportional allocation, with margin of error of 6.5%, was

applied to this survey. Samples are taken such that each course from each academic

organization will have a representation in the final sample size. Intended sample size is 900 but

is reduced to 844 due to non-responses. In the final calculation of bracket sliding, 1st year

students and students with scholarships are excluded from analysis since first year students

have only STS as their bracket and the presence of scholarship has significant effect on the

bracket sliding. The rest of the analysis on other variables utilizes the final sample size of 844.

SCOPE

The colleges surveyed in this Monitoring are the following: CAS, CM, CFOS, and SOTECH.

These colleges became part of this Monitoring because their Student Councils willingly agreed

to survey in their respective colleges.




8

POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE

A. Total Population by Colleges

CAS 1563

CM 895

CFOS 297

SOTECH 317

B. Breakdown by Academic Organization

Table 1: Samples per organization

Academic Organization First year students Upper class students

Elektrons 56 86

Redbolts 31 82

CM 90 150

Fisheries 41 106

Clovers 13 20

Sotech 56 81

Skimmers 8 24




9

C. Breakdown by College

CAS 320

CM 240

CFOS 147

SOTECH 137

(Students with scholarships were excluded from our data final tables)




10

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The data of the UPV CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee show the

following results:

I. Consideration of ALL cases (including students with scholarship)1

Table 2: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (with scholarship)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

-4 (4 brackets down) 1 .1 .2 .2

-3 (3 brackets down) 3 .4 .6 .7

-2 (2 brackets down) 18 2.1 3.3 4.1

-1 (1 bracket down 105 12.4 19.4 23.4

0 (retained) 291 34.5 53.7 77.1

1 (1 bracket up) 97 11.5 17.9 95.0

2 (2 brackets up) 19 2.3 3.5 98.5

3 (3 brackets up) 5 .6 .9 99.4

4 (4 brackets up) 2 .2 .4 99.8

5 (5 brackets up 1 .1 .2 100.0

Total 542 64.2 100.0

Missing System 302 35.8

Total 844 100.0

1 In order to look at the comparison between STFAP and STS, only data of upper class students were considered on

this part because it is the upper class students, batches 2013 and below, that experienced the transition of STFAP to ST System.




11

Out of the 844 surveyed students coming from CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH (544 are

upper class students and 300 of which are freshpersons), the breakdown of students as to

experience of bracket sliding is as follows:

77.1 % maintained their original STFAP brackets or have experienced assignment to

lower brackets under ST System; while 22.9% experienced bracket slide upward.

Table 3: Recoded STFAP (with scholarship)


Valid

1 (bracket A) 76 9.0 14.0 14.0

2(bracket B) 180 21.3 33.1 47.1

3(bracket C) 109 12.9 20.0 67.1

4(bracket D) 103 12.2 18.9 86.0

5(bracket E1) 59 7.0 10.8 96.9

6(bracket E2) 17 2.0 3.1 100.0

Total 544 64.5 100.0


Total 844 100.0

Table 4: Recoded ST System (with scholarship)


Valid

1(ND) 93 11.0 11.1 11.1

2(PD40) 209 24.8 25.0 36.1

3(PD60) 276 32.7 33.0 69.1

4(PD80) 185 21.9 22.1 91.2

5(FD) 58 6.9 6.9 98.1

6(FDS) 16 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 837 99.2 100.0

Missing System 7 .8

Total 844 100.0




12

In the previous STFAP, the bracket distribution is:

A 14%

B 33.1%

C 20%

D 18.9%

E1 10.8%

E2 3.1%

Under the ST System, the bracket distribution of the respondents surveyed is:

ND 11.1 %

PD40 25.0%

PD60 33.0%

PD80 22.1%

FD 6.9%

FDS 1.9%

Under the ST System, students are mostly concentrated under brackets PD40 and PD60,

the middle brackets. This also holds true with the previous STFAP that the concentration of

students is in the middle brackets (brackets B and C).




13

It can be noticed that the number of bracket A students under STFAP has decreased in

the new ST System. But there is a significant decrease on the number of students enjoying free

tuition brackets (E1 and E2, FD and FDS).

In the STFAP, 14% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST

this has decreased to 11.1%.

In the STFAP, 33.1% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition with

40% discount; under ST, this has decreased to 25.0%.


60% discount; under ST, this has increased to 33.0%.


80% discount; under ST, this has increased to 22.1%.

In the STFAP, 10.8% of students are enjoying free tuition, but this has decreased to 6.9%

under ST System. Also, 3.1% of students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend in STFAP, but

under the ST System this has down to 1.9%.

It can be observed that there is a trend in the bracket distribution after the ST System

was implemented in the First Semester of the Academic Year 2014-2015:

There was a decrease in the number of students paying no-discount tuition under ST

System but there was also a significant decrease in the number of students enjoying free tuition

brackets. The bulk of the students were assigned into middle paying brackets (PD40, PD60,




14

PD80), especially under ST System, the number of students paying tuition with 60% discount

increased.

II. In consideration of cases of students without scholarships only

(only data of upper class students were considered in order to compare STFAP and ST System)

Table 5: Table 1: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (without scholarship)


Valid

-3 (3 brackets down) 1 .2 .3 .3

-2 (2 brackets down) 11 1.7 2.8 3.1

-1 (1 bracket down) 65 10.3 16.7 19.8

0 (retained) 222 35.2 57.1 76.9

1 (1 bracket up) 73 11.6 18.8 95.6

2 (2 brackets up) 14 2.2 3.6 99.2

3 (3 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 99.5

4 (4 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 99.7

5 (5 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 100.0

Total 389 61.6 100.0


Total 631 100.0

76.9% - maintained their bracket or bracket slid down.

23.1% - experienced bracket slid up.




15

Table 6: Recoded STFAP (without scholarship)


Valid

1 (bracket A) 55 8.7 14.1 14.1

2 (bracket B) 158 25.0 40.4 54.5

3 (bracket C) 92 14.6 23.5 78.0

4 (bracket D) 61 9.7 15.6 93.6

5 (bracket E1) 16 2.5 4.1 97.7

6 (bracket E2) 9 1.4 2.3 100.0

Total 391 62.0 100.0


Total 631 100.0

Table 7: Recoded ST System (without scholarship)


Valid

1 (ND) 55 8.7 14.1 14.1

2 (PD40 158 25.0 40.4 54.5

3 (PD60) 92 14.6 23.5 78.0

4 (PD80) 61 9.7 15.6 93.6

5 (FD) 16 2.5 4.1 97.7

6 (FDS) 9 1.4 2.3 100.0

Total 391 62.0 100.0


Total 631 100.0

The bracket distribution of the respondents without scholarship:

Under STS:

ND 12.6%

PD40 29.8%

PD60 34.6%

PD80 17.1%

FD 4.1%

FDS 2.3%




16

Under STFAP:

A 14.1%

B 40.4%

C 23.5%

D 15.6%

E1 4.1%

E2 2.3%

III. Difficulty of applying in the ST System

Table 8: Difficulty of applying in ST SYSTEM

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 40 6.3 6.4 6.4

2 (Easy) 147 23.3 23.4 29.8

3 (Average) 336 53.2 53.6 83.4

4 (Difficult) 86 13.6 13.7 97.1

5 (Very difficult) 18 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

83.4% of the respondents said they had average to very easy application in the ST

System, while 16.4% expressed that they had difficulty applying for tuition discounts in ST.




17

IV. Difficulty on enrolment

Table 9: Difficulty level of enrolment, 1st

semester AY 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 33 5.2 5.3 5.3

2 (Easy) 125 19.8 19.9 25.2

3 (Average) 274 43.4 43.7 68.9

4 (Difficult) 145 23.0 23.1 92.0

5 (Very difficult) 50 7.9 8.0 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, while 31.1% have

difficulty.

V. Enrolment on the specified enrolment date

Table 10: Enrolment on the specified time


Percent

Valid

0 (No, not enrolled on time) 82 13.0 13.0 13.0

1 (Yes, enrolled on time) 546 86.5 86.8 99.8

2 (unanswered) 1 .2 .2 100.0

Total 629 99.7 100.0

Missing System 2 .3

Total 631 100.0

86.7% enrolled on time; 13.3% were not able to enrol on time.




18

The reasons for non-enrolment on time were as follows:

47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment, such as CRS

matters, subjects, etc

35.58% - Financial-related reasons

15.38% - Other reasons for the delay of enrolment, such as travel and personal

choice

1.92% - Uncleared accountabilities

VI. Availing of student loan

Table 11: Application for student loan


Valid

0 (No, did not apply for

loan) 455 72.1 77.4 77.4

1 (Yes, applied for loan) 133 21.1 22.6 100.0

Total 588 93.2 100.0


Total 631 100.0

77.4% did not avail of student loan, while 22.6% availed of student loan.

While this may indicate that the number of students availed for student loan

significantly became decreased under ST System, it is also necessary to look into the four-

month break that may give students the time to apply for summer jobs or their parents were

able to save money for enrolment. This possible scenario is the limitation of this Monitoring.




19

VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment

Table 12: Students perception of their assigned bracket


Percent

Valid

0 (No, bracket does not reflect

their actual socioeconomic

condition)

302 47.9 48.2 48.2

1 (Yes, bracket reflects actual

socioeconomic condition) 325 51.5 51.8 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

51.8% agree that their bracket reflects their socioeconomic background, while 48.2% of

respondents disagree.

VIII. Students comments on the ST System

Students were asked of their sentiments regarding the ST System; majority of the 844

respondents (429 of them) wrote their comments regarding ST System. We grouped these

sentiments into four numerical groups:




20

1 These sentiments are negative of the ST System: these students think that the

system is unfair, biased, and does not reflect their true socioeconomic background; they

suggest a flat rate tuition system, the junking of the system, and treating education as a right.

2 These students are also negative of ST, point out the loopholes in the system, and

propose certain improvements and reforms on the ST System.

3 These students have neutral sentiments toward the system; they are neither positive

nor negative.

4 These students are approving of the system and think that they do not have

problems with the ST system.

After the grouping, the results in percentage are as follows:

1 55.48% of the respondents are negative towards ST System.

2 24.94% of the respondents are negative by pointing out the loopholes in the system.

3 3.03% of the respondents are neither positive nor negative towards the system.

4 16.55% of the respondents are approving of the ST System.




21

CONCLUSIONS

After processing and analyzing the data, the Monitoring Committee has arrived at these

conclusions:

1.) The number of students paying for no-discount tuition under ST System has

decreased. The number, however, of students that are tuition-free (the E1 and E2 under STFAP

and FD and FDS under ST System) also decreased. The bulk of the students were assigned in

middle paying brackets like PD60 and PD80. It can be argued then that, the decrease in ND or

bracket A was a result of students being reassignment to lower brackets. It can be argued

further that the decrease in E1/E2 and FD/FDS was a result of students being bracket slided

upward after the ST System implementation.

2.) 83.4% of the students surveyed have average to very easy application in the ST

System, while 16.4% have difficulty.

3.) 68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, while 31.1%

have difficulty.




22

4.) 86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time. Of those students

who were not able to enrol on time, the reasons cited were:

47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment, including CRS

matters, subjects, and other related reasons

35.58% - Financial-related reasons.

15.38% - Other reasons for the delay of enrolment, including travel and

personal choice.

1.92% - Uncleared accountabilities

It is understandable that 47.12% of students were delayed on their enrolment because

of enrolment-related technicalities like courses enlistment, advisers signature and others as

these problems are the semestral dilemma of UP. But 35.58% which is the percentage of

students who had delayed enrolments because of financial related reasons is a significant

figure. This only means that despite the Socialized Tuition and its promise of easing the financial

burden of students, 35.58% of the respondents have delayed enrolment precisely because of

financial aspects which include tuition, ST System misbracketing, and loans (as cited by the

respondents).




23

5.) After the implementation of ST System, there was a significant decrease in the

number of students applying for student loan in the 1st semester of A.Y. 2014-2015: 77.4% did

not avail of student loan, while 22.6% availed of student loan. However, one must need to

consider the four-month break that might have given ample time to the students and their

parents to save for the enrolment.

6.) 51.8% agree that their bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background, while

48.2% of respondents do not consider their bracket to match their socioeconomic standing.

7.) 55.48% of the respondents have a very negative reaction on the ST System. These

negative sentiments compose the majority of the students who think that ST System is unfair,

biased, and does not truly reflect their actual socioeconomic situation. This number of

respondents even suggest that ST System should be junked and replaced by a flat rate tuition

system for all and expressed that education is a right. While 24.94% maintains that ST System

has loopholes and there is a need to give it a time or to reform it. Only 16.55% are approving of

the ST System.




24

8.) Finally, it may be true that ST System is faster in processing than the STFAP because

it is only a 2-page online form. But the first implementation of the policy was widely criticized

by the UP student body as it assigned the wrong brackets to students. Majority are aware that

ST System is no different from the STFAP that brackets the right to education. Also, majority of

the students believe in the argument that the ST System, or any similar form of it, should be

junked and that education is a right of everyone.




25

Appendix A

Per College Results

I. College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)

a. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System:

Table 13: Recoded STFAP


Valid

1 (bracket A) 17 6.6 10.3 10.3

2 (bracket B) 60 23.3 36.4 46.7

3 (bracket C) 42 16.3 25.5 72.1

4 (bracket D) 30 11.7 18.2 90.3

5 (bracket E1) 8 3.1 4.8 95.2

6 (bracket E2) 8 3.1 4.8 100.0

Total 165 64.2 100.0


Total 257 100.0

Table 14: Recoded ST System


Valid

1 (ND) 31 12.1 12.1 12.1

2 (PD40) 68 26.5 26.5 38.5

3 (PD60) 89 34.6 34.6 73.2

4 (PD80) 49 19.1 19.1 92.2

5 (FD) 17 6.6 6.6 98.8

6 (FDS) 3 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0




26

STFAP:

A 10.3%

B 36.4%

C 25.5%

D 18.2%

E1 4.8%

E2 4.8%

ST System:

ND 12.1%

PD40 26.5%

PD60 34.6%

PD80 19.1%

FD 6.6%

FDS 1.2%

In the STFAP, 10.3% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST

this has increased to 12.1%.


40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 26.5%.




27


60% discount, under ST this has increased to 34.6%.



In the STFAP, 4.8% students are enjoying free tuition but this has decreased to 6.6%

under ST System.

In the STFAP, 4.8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST

System this has down to 1.2%.

b. Experience of bracket sliding

Table 15: Experience of bracket sliding


Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 7 2.7 4.2 4.2

-1 (1 bracket down) 29 11.3 17.6 21.8

0 (retained) 95 37.0 57.6 79.4

1 (1 bracket up) 27 10.5 16.4 95.8

2 (2 brackets up) 7 2.7 4.2 100.0

Total 165 64.2 100.0


Total 257 100.0

79.4% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 20.6% slid up.




28

c. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 16: Difficulty level in applying for ST System


Valid

1 (Very easy) 18 7.0 7.1 7.1

2 (Easy) 53 20.6 20.8 27.8

3 (Average) 137 53.3 53.7 81.6

4 (Difficult) 41 16.0 16.1 97.6

5 (Very difficult) 6 2.3 2.4 100.0

Total 255 99.2 100.0

Missing System 2 .8

Total 257 100.0

81.6% have average to easy application in the STS, 28.4% have experienced difficulty.

d. Difficulty level in enrolment

Table 17: Difficulty level in enrolment for the 1st

semester, A.Y. 2014-2015


Valid

1 (Very easy) 5 1.9 2.0 2.0

2 (Easy) 48 18.7 18.8 20.8

3 (Average) 117 45.5 45.9 66.7

4 (Difficult) 63 24.5 24.7 91.4

5 (Very difficult) 22 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 255 99.2 100.0

Missing System 2 .8

Total 257 100.0

66.7% have average to easy experience in enrolment, 33.3% have difficulty.




29

e. Enrolment on the specified date

Table 18: Enrolment on the specified date


Valid

0 (No, did not enrol in the

specified date) 39 15.2 15.2 15.2

1 (Yes, enrolee on the

specified date) 217 84.4 84.4 99.6

2 (unanswered) 1 .4 .4 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0

15.2% did not enrol on specified date, 84.4% enrolled on time

f. Application for student loan



Valid


student loan) 193 75.1 78.8 78.8

1 (Yes, applied for student

loan) 52 20.2 21.2 100.0

Total 245 95.3 100.0


Total 257 100.0

78.8% did not avail for student loan, 21.2% availed loan.




30

g. Students perception on their bracket

Table 20: Students perception on their bracket


Valid

0 (No, bracket does not

reflect actual

socioeconomic condition)

193 75.1 78.8 78.8

1 (Yes, bracket reflects

actual socioeconomic

condition)

52 20.2 21.2 100.0

Total 245 95.3 100.0


Total 257 100.0

49.8% believe that it reflects their bracket, 50.2% believes that it doesnt reflect his/her true

bracket

II. College of Management (CM)

a. Students perception of their bracket assignment

Table 21: Students perception of their bracket


Valid


actual socioeconomic situation) 128 49.8 49.8 49.8


socioeconomic situation) 129 50.2 50.2 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0

50.7% think that their STS bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background, 49.3% think

that it does not.




31

b. Bracketing under ST System and STFAP:

Table 22: Bracket distribution under STFAP


Valid

1 (bracket A) 24 11.9 19.2 19.2

2 (bracket B) 52 25.9 41.6 60.8

3 (bracket C) 27 13.4 21.6 82.4

4 (bracket D) 17 8.5 13.6 96.0

5 (bracket E1) 4 2.0 3.2 99.2

6 (bracket E2) 1 .5 .8 100.0

Total 125 62.2 100.0


Total 201 100.0

Table 23: Bracket distribution under ST System


Valid

1 (ND) 33 16.4 16.6 16.6

2 (PD40) 60 29.9 30.2 46.7

3 (PD60) 67 33.3 33.7 80.4

4 (PD80) 32 15.9 16.1 96.5

5 (FD) 3 1.5 1.5 98.0

6 (FDS) 4 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 199 99.0 100.0


Total 201 100.0




32

STFAP:

A 19.2%

B 41.6%

C 21.6%

D 13.6%

E1 3.2%

E2 - .8%

ST System:

ND 16.6%

PD40 30.2%

PD60 33.7%

PD80 16.1%

FD 1.5%

FDS 2.0%








33




80% discount, under ST this has increased 16.1%.


under ST System.

In the STFAP, .8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST

System this has up to 2.0%.

c. Experience of bracket sliding

Table 24: Experience of bracket sliding


Percent

Valid

-3 (3 brackets down) 1 .5 .8 .8

-2 (2 brackets down) 1 .5 .8 1.6

-1 (1 bracket down) 24 11.9 19.4 21.0

0 (retained) 72 35.8 58.1 79.0

1 (1 bracket up) 23 11.4 18.5 97.6

2 (2 brackets up) 3 1.5 2.4 100.0

Total 124 61.7 100.0


Total 201 100.0

79% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 21% slid up.




34

d. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 25: Difficulty level in applying for ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 12 6.0 6.0 6.0

2 (Easy) 65 32.3 32.3 38.3

3 (Average) 99 49.3 49.3 87.6

4 (Difficult) 22 10.9 10.9 98.5

5 (Very difficult) 3 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

87.6% have experienced average to very easy application while 12.4% experienced difficulty.

e. Difficulty level in enrolment

Table 26: Difficulty level in enrolment, 1st

semester A.Y. 2014-2015


Valid

1 (Very easy) 14 7.0 7.0 7.0

2 (Easy) 45 22.4 22.4 29.4

3 (Average) 73 36.3 36.3 65.7

4 (Difficult) 50 24.9 24.9 90.5

5 (Very difficult) 19 9.5 9.5 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

65.7% have average to very easy experience in enrolment, 34.3% have difficulty.




35

f. Enrolment on the specified date



Valid

0 (No, did not enrol in the

specified date) 24 11.9 11.9 11.9

1 (Yes, enrolled in the specified

date) 177 88.1 88.1 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

11.9% did not enrol on specified date, 88.1% enrolled on time.

g. Application for student loan



Valid


student loan) 153 76.1 78.9 78.9

1 (Yes, applied for student

loan) 41 20.4 21.1 100.0

Total 194 96.5 100.0


Total 201 100.0





36

III. College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (CFOS)

a. Students perception on the bracket assignment

Table 29: Students perception on their brackets


Valid


actual socioeconomic

condition)

36 46.8 47.4 47.4


socioeconomic comdition) 40 51.9 52.6 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

47.4% believe that the bracket into which they were assigned reflects their socioeconomic

situation, while 52.6% believe that their bracket doesnt reflect their true condition.

b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System



Valid

1 (bracket A) 8 10.4 16.3 16.3

2 (bracket B) 23 29.9 46.9 63.3

3 (bracket C) 12 15.6 24.5 87.8

4 (bracket D) 5 6.5 10.2 98.0

5 (bracket E1 and E2) 1 1.3 2.0 100.0

Total 49 63.6 100.0


Total 77 100.0




37



Valid

1 (ND) 7 9.1 9.2 9.2

2 (PD40) 27 35.1 35.5 44.7

3 (PD60) 26 33.8 34.2 78.9

4 (PD80) 12 15.6 15.8 94.7

5 (FD) 3 3.9 3.9 98.7

6 (FDS) 1 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

STFAP:

A 16.3%

B 46.9%

C 24.5%

D 10.2%

E 2.0%

STS:

ND 9.2%

PD40 35.5%

PD60 34.2%

PD80 15.8%

FDS 5.2%






38








under ST System.

c. Experience of bracket sliding up and down or retain

Table 32: Experience of bracket sliding up, down, and retain


Percent

Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 1 1.3 2.1 2.1

-1 (1 bracket down) 6 7.8 12.5 14.6

0 (retain) 26 33.8 54.2 68.8

1 (1 bracket up) 11 14.3 22.9 91.7

2 (2 brackets up) 2 2.6 4.2 95.8

4 (4 brackets up) 1 1.3 2.1 97.9

5 (5 brackets up) 1 1.3 2.1 100.0

Total 48 62.3 100.0


Total 77 100.0





39

d. Level of difficulty in ST System application

Table 33: Level of difficulty in ST System application


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 3 3.9 3.9 3.9

2 (Easy) 15 19.5 19.5 23.4

3 (Average) 40 51.9 51.9 75.3

4 (Difficult) 13 16.9 16.9 92.2

5 (Very difficult) 6 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 77 100.0 100.0

75.3% have average to very easy application under ST System, 24.7% have difficulty.

e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment for 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

Table 34: Level of difficulty in the enrolment for the 1st

semester, 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 2 2.6 2.6 2.6

2 (Easy) 14 18.2 18.2 20.8

3 (Average) 39 50.6 50.6 71.4

4 (Difficult) 16 20.8 20.8 92.2

5 (Very difficult) 6 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 77 100.0 100.0

71.4% have ease in enrolment, 28.6% have difficulty in enrolment.




40




Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not enrol on the

specified date) 12 15.6 15.8 15.8

1 (Yes, enrolled on the specified

date) 64 83.1 84.2 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

15.8% did not enrol on specified date, 84.2% enrolled on time.




Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not apply for student

loan) 52 67.5 73.2 73.2

1 (Yes, applied for student loan) 19 24.7 26.8 100.0

Total 71 92.2 100.0


Total 77 100.0

73.2% did not avail student loan, 26.8% availed loan.




41

IV. School of Technology (SOTECH)

a. Students perception on their bracket assignments

Table 37: Students perception on their bracket assignments


Percent

Valid

0 (No, it does not reflect the

actual socioeconomic situation) 39 40.6 41.9 41.9

1 (Yes, it reflects the actual

socioeconomic situation) 54 56.3 58.1 100.0

Total 93 96.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0

41.9% believe that ST System bracketing reflects their socioeconomic background, 58.1% does

not.

b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and STS:



Valid

1 (bracket A) 6 6.3 11.5 11.5

2 (bracket B) 23 24.0 44.2 55.8

3 (bracket C) 11 11.5 21.2 76.9

4 (bracket D) 9 9.4 17.3 94.2

5 (bracket E1 and E2) 3 3.1 5.8 100.0

Total 52 54.2 100.0


Total 96 100.0




42



Valid

1 (ND) 8 8.3 8.3 8.3

2 (PD40) 32 33.3 33.3 41.7

3 (PD60) 35 36.5 36.5 78.1

4 (PD80) 18 18.8 18.8 96.9

5 (FD/FDS) 3 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

STFAP:

A 11.5%

B 44.2%

C 21.2%

D 17.3%

E 5.8%

STS:

ND 8.3%

PD40 33.3%

PD60 36.5%

PD80 18.8%

FD/S 3.1%




43


this has increased to 8.3%.

In the STFAP, 44.42% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition

with 40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 33.3%.






under ST System.

c. Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.

Table 40: Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.


Percent

Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 2 2.1 3.8 3.8

-1 (1 bracket down) 6 6.3 11.5 15.4

0 (retain) 29 30.2 55.8 71.2

1 (1 bracket up) 12 12.5 23.1 94.2

2 (2 brackets up) 2 2.1 3.8 98.1

3 (3 brackets up) 1 1.0 1.9 100.0

Total 52 54.2 100.0


Total 96 100.0





44

d. Level of difficulty in applying for ST System.

Table 41: Level of difficulty in applying for ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 7 7.3 7.4 7.4

2 (Easy) 14 14.6 14.9 22.3

3 (Average) 60 62.5 63.8 86.2

4 (Difficult) 10 10.4 10.6 96.8

5 (Very difficult) 3 3.1 3.2 100.0

Total 94 97.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0

86.2% have average to very easy application in STS, 13.8% experienced difficulty.

e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

Table 42: Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1st

semester, A.Y. 2014-2015


Valid

1 (Very easy) 12 12.5 12.8 12.8

2 (Easy) 18 18.8 19.1 31.9

3 (Average) 45 46.9 47.9 79.8

4 (Difficult) 16 16.7 17.0 96.8

5 (Very difficult) 3 3.1 3.2 100.0

Total 94 97.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0

79.8% have average to vey easy in enrolment, 20.2% have difficulty.




45




Valid

0 (No, did not enrol on

time) 7 7.3 7.4 7.4

1 (Yes, enrolled on time) 88 91.7 92.6 100.0

Total 95 99.0 100.0


Total 96 100.0

7.4% did not enrol on specified date, 92.6% enrolled on time




Valid

0 (No, did not apply for student loan) 57 59.4 73.1 73.1

1 (Yes, applied for student loan) 21 21.9 26.9 100.0

Total 78 81.3 100.0


Total 96 100.0





46

APPENDIX B

Upper class students Survey form

UPV CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee

2014-2015

Name (required): __________________________________ Student Number:__________________

Degree Program/Year Level: ______________________

Instructions: Please answer the following questions based on your actual experiences under the ST System. The information that will be gathered will be considered as highly confidential. Please answer each question and check the proper blanks. Objectives: 1. To gather student experiences under ST System and STFAP; 2. To research on the number of students experienced bracket slide and the number of students who applied for student loan; 3. To make comparative assessment on STFAP and ST System (years 2011-2014); 4. To determine the appeals process efficiency. PART I: FOR UPPERCLASS ONLY 1. What is your initial ST System bracket? ____________________ 2. What was your STFAP bracket last academic year? ____________________ 3. Did you apply for an appeal for lower bracket? ___ Yes ___ No If you answered Yes to the above question, was your appeal approved? ____________________ If your appeal was approved, what is your bracket now? ____________________ How long did you wait until your appeal was approved? ____________________weeks If you applied for an appeal and are yet to get the result (pending appeal), please state the submission date of the appeal. ____________________ 5. What are your previous bracket assignments?(write N/A if not applicable) Academic year: Bracket: 2013-2014 _________ 2012-2013 _________ 2011-2012 _________ 6. Do you have a scholarship? ___ Yes ___ No If Yes, please specify the scholarship/grant. _________________________




47

How much (in PhP) do you get from your scholarship every semester? ____________________________________ 7. Is your scholarship enough to sustain your daily living in UPV? ___ Yes ___ No 8. Did you apply for student loan in order to enrol for First Semester this Academic Year? ___ Yes ___ No PART II: 1. In your own perception, does your current bracket truly reflect your socioeconomic background (living condition)? ___ Yes ___ No If No, Why and what is your desired bracket? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PART III: 1. Please rate the level of difficulty you experienced under the ST System. ___ 1. Very Easy ___ 2. Easy ___ 3. Average ___ 4. Difficult ___ 5. Very difficult 2. Please rate the level of difficulty you experienced during the enrolment for First Semester this Academic Year. ___ 1. Very Easy ___ 2. Easy ___ 3. Average ___ 4. Difficult ___ 5. Very difficult 3. Have you enrolled during the specified date of enrolment for your batch? ___ Yes ___ No If No, please state the reason why. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. If you experienced difficulties in enrolment and ST System application, what offices helped you? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PART IV: 1. Comments or views about the ST System: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Comments or views about the CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________




48

APPENDIX C

Freshpersons Survey form

UPV CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee

2014-2015

Name (required): ___________________________________ Student Number:_______________________

Degree Program/Year Level: ______________________

Instructions: Please answer the following questions based on your actual experiences under the ST System. The information that will be gathered will be considered as highly confidential. Please answer each question and check the proper blanks. Objectives: 1. To gather student experiences under ST System and STFAP; 2. To research on the number of students experienced bracket slide and the number of students who applied for student loan; 3. To make comparative assessment on STFAP and ST System (years 2011-2014); 4. To determine the appeals process efficiency. PART I: FOR FRESHPERSONS ONLY 1. What is your initial ST System bracket? ____________________ 2. Did you apply for an appeal for lower bracket? ___ Yes ___ No If you answered Yes to the above question, was your appeal approved? ___ Yes ___ No If your appeal was approved, what is your bracket now? ____________________ How long did you wait for the appeal? _____ weeks If you applied for an appeal and are yet to get the result (pending appeal), please state the submission date of the appeal. ____________________ 3. Do you have a scholarship? ___ Yes ___ No If Yes, please specify the scholarship/grant. ____________________ How much (in PhP) do you get from your scholarship every semester? ___________________________ 4. Is your scholarship enough to sustain your daily living in UPV? ___ Yes ___ No




49

5. Did you apply for student loan in order to enrol for First Semester this Academic Year? ___ Yes ___ No PART II: 1. In your own perception, does your current bracket truly reflect your socioeconomic background (living condition)? ___ Yes ___ No If No, Why and what is your desired bracket? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PART III: 1. Please rate the level of difficulty you experienced under the ST System. ___ 1. Very Easy ___ 2. Easy ___ 3. Average ___ 4. Difficult ___ 5. Very difficult 2. Please rate the level of difficulty you experienced during the enrolment for First Semester this Academic Year. ___ 1. Very Easy ___ 2. Easy ___ 3. Average ___ 4. Difficult ___ 5. Very difficult 3. Have you enrolled during the specified date of enrolment for your batch? ___ Yes ___ No If No, please state the reason why. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. If you experienced difficulties in enrolment and ST System application, offices helped you? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PART IV: 1. Comments or views about the ST System: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Comments or views about the CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




50

These results are verified by:

JUNE ELLE TAEDO BS Statistics student Resident data analyst

JUDE M. MANGILOG Councilor Head, Committee on Students Rights and Welfare UPV CAS Student Council

RAOUL DANNIEL MANUEL Chairperson UPV CAS Student Council

Survey and Report on the ST System: 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

Documents

Transcript of Survey and Report on the ST System: 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015