Juggling of personal duties and work responsibilities is of no joke, yet, amidst the clear struggle of the university’s fundamental stakeholders, the misery continued as in the call for a quality education, the opted solution is lifting the academic easing. Though some do not see any problem with it, many contest as a cry for a justified reasoning along with empathic approach. What was asked was safe return to school, not a hell sem policy.
One would think that the students would be given the assurance that their academic responsibilities would be made easier to carry amid the pandemic. It is also a common expectation that students would be given the space to breathe now that the economy is recovering, though families are struggling to adjust back into the normal way of living. Interestingly enough, the opposite happened—students are being expected to study as if there is no other responsibilities and struggles pulling them in every direction, prompting them to choose between committing to academic timelines as the other way around would result to a low grade, or worse, a glaring 5.00 in their SIS accounts.
On April 1, 2022, PUP Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA) issued Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 2022 otherwise known as the “Amendment to Easing of Academic Requirement and Grading System due to Pandemic Limitations”. Under this amendment, quizzes, recitations, examinations, thesis defense, and attendance have been made a requirement for those under the online mode of delivery. The pre-pandemic grading system was once again implemented, and synchronous sessions were increased from six (6) to nine (9) sessions for the entire semester. The no fail policy was also recalled, and now failing marks can be given to the students who will not be able to meet their subject requirements.
A hell policy, indeed. It is as if the university is forcing all of the students into a set-up not all of them could afford to adhere to, turning their college journey into an abyss of difficulties.
A fact that is often missed is that students are not only students in this study-at-home setup. At home, a student is also a brother or a sister, a child of their parents, a head of the family or even an employee. They cannot be expected to study all day, nor can they be expected to devote their attention to their books or online classes at an expected time because one way or another, one of their other responsibilities will come calling.
With the growing frustration among students, this issue was immediately addressed in the emergency consultation led by Rise for Education - PUP. Student leaders from every student organization in the university have expressed their concerns regarding the memorandum. The rising cases of students who inquire and filed for Leave of Absence (LOA) were also raised, which is a clear indication that the memorandum does not help the students the way it was supposed to. They also discussed various problems faced by students in the online class such as abrupt loss of internet connection, work, house chores, technology, and their socio-economic status.
The university is expected to take into account those scenarios and problems in this pandemic setting, that is why the PUP Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA) released the Memorandum Order No. 6, Series of 2021 last May 8, 2021, with the subject “Easing of Academic Requirements and Grading System Due to Pandemic Limitations”. The memorandum was meant to help the students to carry their academic responsibilities better, while also juggling their other duties.
For a fleeting moment, it did help the students. They were able to adjust to the online setting, and they have learned how to incorporate their academic life at home easier. One of those instances are those students that were able to work part-time or full-time without worrying about missing their classes or being called in class recitations while working. However, the academic ease turned into academic unease following the amendment to the memorandum leaving the students trying to adjust their living conditions in the college requirements that they are being expected to cooperate into.
In hindsight, the amendment was dropped with the expectation from the university that the students have fully adjusted to the pandemic situation and online academic setting. The pandemic has been running for more than 2 years, and the online classes have been implemented for almost the same period. It might be concluded that the administration is hoping that the students can now perform in their classes as if they are already studying face-to-face.
This might be possible for some students, but we cannot deny that not everybody are fortunate enough to have the means to adjust and perform the way the university expected them to. There are those who are still adjusting to online classes, who need to work to support their families, whose internet connections are unstable, and who simply cannot follow the pace their peers are going because of different economic conditions.
It may be countered that there is the correspondence mode of learning for those students with the aforementioned issues. However, the correspondence mode of learning also has drawbacks that are not preferred by students. These include the late delivery of the modules, the assessments that are not enough to sharpen the students’ knowledge on the subject, the insufficient contents of some learning materials, and most importantly, answering modules and exams are simply not enough to provide the knowledge shared by professors in the online classes.
Still, the university should have considered its constituents’ inputs before deciding on this course of action. Maybe then, students would not have been so surprised by such a policy that seemed to bear no good news for them.
In the future, major implementations should be decided with all stakeholders. Student leaders, as the colleges’ representatives, should be given ample time to give their opinions about memorandums such as one that changes the grading system or the amendments of academic requirements. While the management strives to give students the best quality of education, sometimes their opinions alone are not sufficient. In considering the needs of everyone, the most appropriate solution comes from the voice of those severely affected.
Comments