Our commercialized idea of education
In recent years, Philippine higher education has been grappling with transformative policy shifts, some controversial, some promising. Among the most contentious debates today is the proposed removal of three fundamental General Education (GE) courses—Art Appreciation, The Contemporary World, and Ethics—from the college curriculum. These courses were designed to provide Filipino college students a well-rounded education that goes beyond their chosen specializations. Yet, current proposals and discussions suggest they may be excised, justified largely by the argument that these subjects overlap with content taught in Senior High School (SHS) under the K-12 program.
At first glance, this may seem like a reasonable administrative adjustment, aimed at easing curricular burdens and aligning the education system across levels. But a deeper sociological inquiry reveals that this is far from a simple matter of efficiency or redundancy. Instead, the potential removal of these courses exposes deep fissures in the Philippine educational philosophy, the commodification of knowledge, and the sociopolitical implications of how a nation educates its youth.
General Education courses are not mere academic fillers. They are designed to develop the intellectual, ethical, and cultural capacities of students, equipping them with the tools to engage thoughtfully and critically with the world. The goal is to ensure that college graduates are not only skilled in their fields but also possess cultural literacy, ethical grounding, and a global perspective.
Art Appreciation fosters aesthetic sensibility and cultural empathy, reminding students of the rich diversity of Filipino and global artistic traditions. The Contemporary World situates students in the complex realities of globalization, examining the political, economic, and social forces that shape modern life. Ethics challenges students to wrestle with moral dilemmas, question value systems, and develop a framework for responsible citizenship.
Removing these courses is not simply about trimming academic units; it threatens the holistic formation of students. It risks producing graduates who may be technically competent but lacking in critical consciousness, cultural awareness, and moral reasoning—essential qualities for navigating the challenges of contemporary Filipino society and the world.
While proponents of the removal often argue that these courses are “redundant,” this argument misunderstands the distinct roles of basic and higher education. Basic education is primarily about foundational knowledge and skills that introduce students to essential concepts and prepares them for further learning. Higher education, on the other hand, is about depth, complexity, and critical engagement. Hence, the removal of the three courses ignores pedagogical depth and undermines the very essence of higher education as a site for intellectual maturation.
In the post-Marcos neoliberal period, education has increasingly been framed as a means to produce a labor force attuned to global market demands. The K-12 reform itself was partly justified by aligning Philippine education with global standards, enhancing employability, and facilitating overseas migration. While these goals have practical merits, they also reflect a narrow economistic conception of education.
The possible removal of Art Appreciation, The Contemporary World, and Ethics thus signals a deeper trend: the shrinking space for critical, cultural, and ethical education in favor of a technical, market-driven curriculum. It echoes the commodification of education—where knowledge is a product, students are consumers, and employability is the ultimate metric of success.
But curriculum changes rarely affect all students equally. Those from elite institutions or private universities may still access equivalent courses or enriched learning environments. However, students in state universities, community colleges, and marginalized areas depend heavily on formal curricular offerings for exposure to critical thought and cultural capital.
Reducing or removing these courses disproportionately impacts lower-income students, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. It is yet another mechanism by which education reproduces social stratification: limiting opportunities for critical education to the privileged while narrowing the horizons of the majority.
Instead of removing these courses, the government and educational institutions should invest in enhancing them, ensuring that Art Appreciation, The Contemporary World, and Ethics are taught with relevance, depth, and inclusivity.
We must challenge the notion that education is merely a pipeline to employment. It is, and must remain, a vital space for nurturing thoughtful, compassionate, and engaged citizens. The survival of a vibrant Philippine democracy and society depends on it.
—————-
Prince Kennex R. Aldama is a sociologist and Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines Los Baños. He was also president of the Philippine Sociological Society.
