3-year college: Reform or economic retreat?
Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian recently proposed reducing college education in the Philippines from four years to three. It reflects an anti-intellectual, anti-labor, anti-student, and predatory policy proposal; devalues the time and depth needed for meaningful learning; disregards the labor implications, especially for already overworked and underpaid college faculty; and shortchanges students’ holistic development and preparedness for real-world challenges. It is also predatory because it risks keeping the masses ignorant and easier to manipulate.
Worse, the proposal moves us backward. It disregards the importance of aligning with global academic standards and weakens our competitiveness in a globalized world. In many developed countries as well as leading labor-exporting nations, such as China, India, and Mexico, college education remains at four years. If we cut ours to three, we not only weaken the quality of learning but also risk producing graduates who may be seen as less qualified on the international stage.
This proposal might be rooted not in educational reform but in economic strain. Since the passage of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (Republic Act No. 10931), college education in state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs) has been tuition-free. While this act is a milestone in making education more accessible, it also means the government shoulders much of the financial cost of tertiary education—from infrastructure, faculty salaries, administrative costs, to student subsidies.
Is the push to shorten college education partly a response to the financial burden the state is quietly struggling with? Could this be a cost-cutting mechanism disguised as reform?
Official statements and public discussions around these education proposals do not explicitly mention budget constraints. However, I believe financial pressure is one of the main drivers behind this initiative. If this is the case, we’re no longer merely talking about curriculum reform; we’re confronting a systemic economic issue, in which the government escapes its financial responsibility. The state appears to be leaning toward minimizing time and cost instead of expanding its capacity to provide meaningful and quality education.
In this context, it’s important to situate the current landscape within broader trends in public education spending. Saguin’s (2022) study, “The Politics of De-Privatization: Philippine Higher Education in Transition,” observed that Philippine higher education has entered a phase of de-privatization, a shift toward expanding the role and funding of public institutions brought by RA 10931. From 2011 to 2019, the budget for SUCs grew at an average annual rate of 16 percent, matching the growth in basic education spending. Contrary to assumptions of resource trade-offs, there were no evident political compromises between funding basic and higher education. Yet despite this expansion, higher education still only accounted for 8 to 12 percent of the total education budget during that period.
This shows that even though public spending on higher education has increased, it still takes up only a small part of the overall education budget. So, the proposal to shorten college may not be about improving education. It could be a way to cut costs quietly, without openly admitting that the government is stepping back from its commitment to provide quality college education.
Instead of expanding our educational investments to improve quality, research, and labor readiness, we’re scaling back time in school. Instead of addressing issues such as a shortage of teachers, improving faculty benefits and incentives, classroom shortages, and developing student welfare, this proposal risks lowering the quality of education by forcing it into a shorter time.
However, we must also recognize the challenges de-privatization has brought to our SUCs and LUCs. The shift to free tuition and public expansion also came with overcrowded classrooms, stretched faculty workloads, underfunded infrastructure, and administrative strain. These issues remain unresolved, and cutting years in college won’t fix them.
Let me be clear, I support the strengthening of our SUCs and LUCs. I am not against public spending for higher education or its increase. These public institutions are instrumental in providing access to college for students who cannot afford private education. What I am against is using cost-cutting as a reason to compromise the quality and depth of that education.
If our economy cannot sustain four years of college for our citizens, the solution shouldn’t be to water down higher education but to reassess our national priorities and rethink how we value and fund education as a public good. Otherwise, we risk not just a shorter college journey but a less prepared generation of graduates.
—————-
Kurt Zeus L. Dizon is an assistant professor at Saint Louis University, Baguio City.
