open .pdf file

UP Diliman as a Learning Commons*
Maria Serena I. Diokno, Professor of History

A ‘learning commons’ usually refers to physical and cyber facilities that are accessible to all the students. Now stretch this definition and imagine the entire UP Diliman, not just its computers, laboratories and libraries, but all of Diliman, as one huge learning commons where members of the community congregate, share ideas, and interact with one another. The learning commons is a wellspring of knowledge. Its space for differences of thought and perspective is limitless; it makes room for even the oddest idea, allowing it to stand the test of analysis and intellectual rigor and to grow or die out as a result. Some of us might find this difficult to imagine, given our changed landscape, constraints on our resources, the migration of faculty, and so on. One could argue, too, that today there are learning commons outside the university: in some homes, in certain workplaces, in oasis-like pockets of the country struggling to develop. Indeed this century will witness the emergence of even more creative, more flexible learning commons and in the most unexpected places. Our purpose is clear: to continually regenerate our university as a learning commons ahead of (ideally), or at least in step with, developments in learning and research in every discipline and field we offer.

Falling Value of Higher Education

There are obstacles, however, that stand in our way. One is the growing tendency among developing countries and global institutions (see UN Millenium Development Goals), including donors and lenders (such as the World Bank), to emphasize basic education at the expense of higher learning. Using rate-of-return analysis, they find that higher education provides lower private returns than primary schooling and costs more. Closer to home, many universities in Southeast Asia have been under tremendous pressure to ‘corporatize’ as states reduce their higher education budgets. And each year before Congress, UP seeks a larger share of a more or less static higher education budget. In the developing world, it seems, the value of higher education is declining, ironically when revolutions in knowledge are taking place.

We can ignore this framework and continue as we are, or battle against it. I propose the latter. As the Task Force on Higher Education in Developing Countries asserts, “Higher education is no longer a luxury; it is essential to future national social and economic development.” I propose we set the terms of our institutional life in a larger context especially since government has now officially admitted the dire conditions of basic education in the country. Let us put on our agenda two fundamental questions we will seek to answer, and offer our answers to the nation at large and the many publics we serve: first, what is the minimum level of scientific (‘scientific’ here broadly defined) and technological capacity needed for our country to develop in this century in this world; and second, what are the all important intangibles (attitudes and values, informal ways of doing things and approaching problems) we need to learn, unlearn or relearn in order to achieve and surpass this level? Our learning commons does not operate in a vacuum and no institution, not even those managing the Philippine education sector, has yet considered these questions in the context of our present situation in the 21st century world. It is no longer enough to profess UP’s commitment to excellence and service. We must be clear about the level and types of capacity our country needs before we, together, create the appropriate strategies in our own learning commons and consider raising the notch over time.

In addition to the many activities lined up for the celebration of our hundredth year, I propose we add this. The study will require the collaboration of all our disciplines. It will take more than a year and can take place alongside the exciting celebrations that have been planned. I would like to see UP Diliman inaugurate the centenary of our institution with an insightful, coherent contribution to the national development agenda in the way we know best—by pooling our intellectual resources—for deliberation by our constituents, educators at all levels, policy and lawmakers, alumni, industry, and most of all, by the unnamed public whose support for us remains solid and strong.

It is not only the nation that will gain by our effort. So will we. The study could lead to a 21st century framework for our own mission as a national institution of higher learning, a framework within which policies that reflect our purpose, such as student admission, can be reviewed.

Shared Governance

            Another stumbling block to our collective imaginary of the all-Diliman learning commons sometimes comes from our decision-making rules, processes and structures, both formal and informal (unwritten). Governance is crucial to the kind of education we offer and the ways in which we solve our problems and relate with each other as a community. Good governance (the term is overused but no other comes to mind) is a necessary condition of academic quality although it is by no means the only one. I believe that running the university is a shared responsibility. Our concerns are vast and cut across boundaries; no single individual can solve them all.

            We often describe the academe as a collegial decision-making body yet, let us be honest, some of our attitudes and practices undermine collegiality. Early on in my academic career I experienced first-hand the naked meaning of power and turf in a department that was, and thankfully no longer is, painfully divided. My colleagues and I are still paying the price for decades of divisiveness but we have learned and, best of all, we are changing. All of us have the power to alter the informal arrangements that so rule our lives, if we are self-conscious about them and desire to change. Narrow mindedness and turf have no place in the Diliman learning commons I have in mind.

            My proposal, then, is a plea rather than a solution. It is a call for self-awareness of the attitudes, unwritten rules, sub-cultures and so-called traditions, and institutionalized proclivities we wish to retain and discard. From the recruitment of staff to the selection of administrators, from bidding to procurement practices, in the approach to problems and the search for solutions, these informal arrangements come into play. Let us enrich the learning commons in the second century of our institution’s life by creating new, informal modalities that support rather than derail the creation and sharing of knowledge. I find no comfort railing against practices in government and the private sector that are unacceptable or questionable, while remaining silent, unknowing or (worse) helpless about similar practices in our own backyard, albeit on a smaller scale.

            At the same time, our centenary is also an opportune time to review and overhaul, if need be, rules and formal practices that nurture bureaucratic rather than innovative thinking. Sometimes we make life harder for ourselves when there are simpler and quicker ways, while complying with basic government requirements. The bureaucrat though clothed in academic robe is still a bureaucrat and does not belong to the learning commons.

Differentiated Governance

            Even as the responsibility for governance of the university is shared, it must be differentiated. This differentiation rests on the particular type of expertise required in full cognizance, at all times, of stakeholders. For this reason, admission, academic programs and standards, tenure and all other academic matters naturally belong to the purview of the faculty, while students have a role in aspects in which they can competently provide suggestions (e.g. student activities and services, feedback on the quality of teaching, infrastructure resources), and welfare issues top the list of concerns of support staff. Oftentimes, however, the lines are blurred because nearly everyone in the UP community has a stake in something. There is a twin solution to prevent a tragedy of the learning commons: an open mind and dialogue.

Four years ago I wrote:

            Democratic consultation is a mechanism attached to the notion of the university as an academic community…. But I think the term, democratic consultation, promises more than can actually ever be delivered by even the most magnanimous of officials. In one sense, democratic consultation is an oxymoron: what the adjective giveth, the noun taketh away. While we draw a distinction between consultation and decision, one being a means to the other, our efforts often fall flat because consultation is commonly viewed as an exercise of democracy in the sense of a polity (majority rule), rather than in the sense of a community of thinking scholars. Democratic consultation can never please everyone yet consult we continue to do, if only to assert our nature as a community with shared goals.

In trying to please our many constituents, we are faced with a whole range of decision-making binaries: between the academic and the pragmatic or politically acceptable, between standards of scholarship and humanitarian considerations, between firm leadership and congeniality, and so on. Submitted to a vote, it is easy to see which might win. But in the learning commons I wish Diliman to become, the only authority that counts does not come from one’s position or title but from the reasoned, informed understanding and analysis of any given problem or issue. Such authority, I concede, does not always win votes. Again quoting from my earlier paper:

If collegiality is eventually expressed in terms of the majority vote, the assumption is that the vote was arrived at through open, reasoned discussion. It is the intelligent discussion that confers value upon the decision made by the majority and not the other way around as in a polity.

In the learning commons, informed review is practiced at every level; the better the review on the ground, the less the chance of ‘intervention’ from the top. We can devise functional equivalents of peer review at all levels: in the classroom, at the department and college, and even in administrative offices. In the latter, for example, peer reviews can lead to comparisons of work systems and procedures so that the best emerge as models. The exercise will certainly be more meaningful than accomplishing the standard employee appraisal form! The idea is to create venues whereby informed reviews become part of our everyday life, dislodging old practices that have not worked (or are successful in a perverse way).

Attracting and Keeping the Best

            But our toughest challenge is to retain our best staff. Some eighty plus years ago the American Governor-General emphasized the need to select teaching staff of UP “solely for ability and standing. This in turn means high-salaried men [and women].” The logic of valuing talent still holds true today, though we are under greater pressure than ever because our salary scales are simply not competitive. The result has been the outright loss of faculty (more acute in some fields than others), and the Task Force on Higher Education in Developing Countries warns us about new forms of brain drain (such as the ‘camp follower phenomenon’ ) that do not entail actual emigration by faculty and research staff.

I wish I could say the problem that has dogged us nearly all our institutional life is immediately soluble. But we all know it is not. Freedom from the Salary Standardization Law under the UP Charter bills offers the first and necessary step, although here again our financial resources are not inexhaustible and there are competing demands on our pool of funds.

It seems to me the best track, for now at any rate, is to work on non-wage benefits (such as differentiated COLA by region) and the intangibles that drive us away (like senseless bureaucratic requirements and delays), as well as to strengthen our academic environment. This might seem like weak solace to some but it is one that I think will help us retain good staff, which is our primary intention. Notwithstanding the competition (a fact of academic life), regional and international research funds have become increasingly available in the last decade. My own involvement with SEASREP (Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program) and Sephis, a South-South academic exchange program funded by the Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation, shows this to be so.

What strikes me each time I think about our pay scale is that despite it (and the myriad problems we face or have yet to address), despite the temptation to move elsewhere at five times our salary, we are still here. We have remained. Why?

For faculty and researchers, I would like to believe it is because we truly like our job: we enjoy teaching and the challenge of learning. The young keep us on our toes and make sure our minds do not lose their sheen. We have good and bad lecture days but the good ones, they make us float on air. There are papers we have published that we wish we had not, but those we are proud of have a special place in our mental or private libraries.

For our support staff, I would like to believe it is because we know we are needed, that day-to-day operations depend on how seriously we do our job. We see students grow, leave the university and return as adults and we are confident that somehow, even in the littlest of ways, we had a role in shaping their future.

And why do students vie for UP Diliman? Employment opportunities are greater if they graduate here, true. But over and beyond providing the degree that leads them to a job, our learning commons is also their school of life. Our students meet all sorts of classmates (and faculty!) amid an atmosphere that is never dull. In UP we can turn even a disaster into a learning experience.

All these, and the freedom that is indispensable to academic life, make up the essence of the all-Diliman learning commons. Our task is to expand the commons, improve it constantly, and make it endure.