Skip to content

The Evils of Public Education; Why UP and All Public SUCs Must be Privatized?

July 26, 2010

The existence of public SUCs is the very reason why tuition fees in private schools increase. This is because the government holds a legal monopoly on the education sector and is competing with private schools, colleges, and universities. Indeed, public education destroys the free-market competition among private SUCs.

I am very much disappointed by how ignorant and stupid some of my critics are. Before I posted my controversial blog entitled To All UP Students: Education is NOT a Right, I was expecting a rational, purposeful, sane debate. But it seems that I have yet to see a good critic. I have friends from UP and most of whom understand what I’m trying to point out. The purpose of my blog is not to ridicule the leftist students and their liberal and leftist professors who continue to call on the government to increase the country’s education subsidy. My underlying goal is to present what’s wrong with the state education system and to introduce the most moral and most practical alternative: a private enterprise in education. I believe in freedom in education, not right to education.

Who am I to contradict the will, the wishes, the desires of the so-called collective of intelligent ones? This must be the hilarious argument of some young collectivist or trained to be statist “iskolar ng bayan.” Who am I to say that education is a right when it is firmly guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that every individual has the right to education? I believe this is the popular argument of these young souls. Mediocrity is what I call that kind of so cheap, so collectivized mentality. As one philosopher said, mediocrity does not mean an average intelligence; it means an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters. I say the basis of my argument is reality and the Law of Identity. As I’ve clearly stated in my previous blogs, the so good-sounding phrases- “the right to education”, “the right to subsidized education”, “the right to accessible education”- are in contravention of reality and of the Law of Identity, including the Law of Causality. How can the framers of the Philippine Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be wrong? I say this anti-reality species of right is simply a nineteenth century invention by the liberals and the politically correct intellectuals, and this is bringing this country to complete collectivism and disaster.

Yes, I’m for the complete abolition of the University of the Philippines and all state schools, colleges, and universities (SUC). However I don’t believe that privatization of all public SCUs is the first reform. I truly understand why most of my very passionate critics continue to insist that education is a right. It is very clear: they are ignorant of the proper, real concept of rights. They think they have a right to everything or anything. Perhaps they think that rights is like a bumper sticker or a humanitarian slogan that anyone can use for his/her own benefit. Or perhaps they think that this abstraction- “rights”- is divorced from reality. Yes, it’s the Law of Identity which they ignore or try to negate.

Rights are positive, indispensable conditions to man’s existence. They primarily pertain to a right of action, not a right to something. For instance, property rights pertain to a right to action. Property rights guarantee that you own the title to your property, and that you are entitled to its fruits or any other benefits that might accrue from the use of such a property. I don’t think this is difficult to understand.

Education, like all others, is a commodity. Like health care or a light bulb, education is a product that people might need or might not need. It is subject to the law of supply and demand. The so absurd phrases “right to education”, “right to accessible education or “right to quality education” are just some of the most disgusting perversion of the concept of rights. They are a by-product of the nineteenth century rise of socialism or collectivism that infected the whole of Europe and the United States.

Liberalism, which has been hijacked by the socialists for their own convenient use and propaganda, is a cancer that is eating at the core of our politically correct society. It is this decease that is destroying the minds of our young people through the teachings of some leftist college professors. Yes, the so-called “right to education” is a nineteenth century invention that was affirmed by our politically correct 1987 Constitution and the United Nations, which has been long infiltrated by intellectual liberals and mediocre socialists. Rights are not a product of divine law or congressional law. They are indispensable conditions to our survival on earth.

In our country, nobody is prevented from enrolling himself to any educational institution. Nobody is depriving anyone from obtaining a college degree. Why? This is because we have the right to our own actions and choices. Thus, rights are personal or private conditions that must not be left to the discretion of anyone, not even to the public or the government. What the liberals and the socialists try to implement with their demand for “right to free and/or subsidized education” is that they are trying to surrender some of our precious private rights to the state or the government. They want the government to decide for us- to tell us what to do- and to confiscate a portion of our earnings in the name of common good or greater good.

When somebody told me: “How about the poor people? Don’t they have any right to education?” I say the question is invalid. It is a good example of context dropping. Context-dropping is defined as one of the chief psychological tools of evasion. The questioner is merely looking at one element, forgetting the fact that rights pertain to a right of action. The so-called poor people have the right to send themselves to any school in the country, but they don’t have any right to ask for government protection or subsidy. So what will happen to the poor? They have to rely on private charity. One of the most noble doctrines we imbibed from the American Constitution is the “equality under the law” or the “equal protection clause.” This means that nobody or no group of people has an exclusive claim to anything and ask the government to provide them their needs.

The only proper role of the government is the protection of individual rights. Since the government is not a productive agency, as it is the most dependent entity on earth, it should not be in the business of redistributing wealth. In my earlier blog entitled Legalized Political Balkanization: Why the Philippines is Doomed to Failure, I stated the following:

In a free society run by rational statesmen, the only standard of value is the individual. No one has the right to corner or collect government favors and no one must be deprived of his right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. If one group takes government favors, such an act is tantamount to the deprivation of the rights of other groups. It is not proper for a government to distribute largesse or goods to privileged groups just because they have the number, or to minority groups just because they are discriminated, weak or ignored.

Just imagine if these sectoral groups and parties in Congress regularly vied for government favors and blessings. While their actions are paved with good intentions, most of them failed to realize the evil of their altruistic scheme. Those favors must necessarily come from a particular source of wealth— the taxpayers. The more favors, subsidies, welfare state programs and altruistic projects these party-list groups and political parties lobby, the higher the amount of taxes the taxpayers will pay. Worse, if the taxpayers’ money is not enough to cover these welfare state programs of elected lobbyists, the government will certainly be obliged to borrow money from foreign creditors at high interests.

Again, a government is created for the protection of individual rights and not for the distribution of favors and wealth. Every individual has the capacity to live, survive and improve his/her economic status in life, and it is not the main function of a state to provide for the basic needs of those who are unable to work. This is to say that the power and authority of a government must be limited by law. And the only economic system that is consistent with this ideal is capitalism.

Public education is evil not merely because it increases the amount of taxes that the productive people contribute to the government, but also because it is an antithesis of learning or educational innovation, of better research, and of quality education as a whole. The existence of public SUCs is the very reason why tuition fees in private schools increase. This is because the government holds a legal monopoly on the education sector and is competing with private schools, colleges, and universities. Indeed, public education destroys the free-market competition among private SUCs. This is why this blogsite advocates for the privatization of all public schools, although I don’t believe this endeavor is the first reform.

With this I’d like to republish a great, educational blog posted on Freedom Rings blogsite. This blog entitled Education Beyond the Bounds of Bureaucracy discusses why education is not a one-size-fits-all commodity and points out the usual fallacies being adduced by the liberals and socialists to justify public education.

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society that is coming, where everyone will be interdependent. Independent, self-reliant people will be a counterproductive anachronism in the collectivist society of the future.” — John Dewey, 19th century Socialist party member and educational philosopher whose ideas are still studied by teachers today.

Education is not a one-size-fits-all product. Every single child is unique, with his own particular talents, interests, strengths, and weaknesses. It is well-recognized for example that different children have different methods by which they learn the most efficiently. Some are kinesthetic learners, learning much more quickly and easily in an environment in which they can practice what they are being taught hands-on. Others are auditory learners, learning much more quickly and easily through class discussion and reading aloud. Still yet others are visual learners, learning much more quickly and easily when they can see what it is they are trying to learn either in writing or on video or in visual charts and graphs. But the State education camps do not–indeed, can not–accomodate each child’s unique pace and style of learning. Children of all methods and speeds of learning are stuffed into one room, forced to learn at the method and speed of the lowest-common-demoninator in the class. The quickest are deprived of the opportunity to excel, and the slowest are deprived of the attention they need.

Some children, although they do excel in one or more areas (say, math and science), have absolutely no interest whatsoever in some other area (say, history). In the State education camps, however, they are not allowed to proceed in the areas that interest them; instead, they are forced to continue memorizing dry facts (the dates of various events; the abbreviations of various chemicals) in those subjects in which they have no interest. What benefit does a future journalist gain from being forced to memorize the periodic table of elements? What benefit does a future engineer gain from being forced to write an essay on To Kill a Mockingbird? What benefit does a future mechanic gain from any of it? And what benefit does society gain from being compelled to spend thousands of dollars subsidizing this?

In the State-education camps, children of all temperaments are forced into the same classes together; and thus, bullying is an experience shared by everyone who has been forced through the system. Nonathletic and overweight students are forced into the same gym classes as the more athletic ones; and for many children, it is no exaggeration to say that these are the worst years of their lives–some become so overwhelmed that they end up committing suicide or carrying weapons to school. The State’s education camps thus breed violence and hatred among a large number of children, and provide many of them with the setting for the most miserable years of their lives. Just last week (April of 2009), for instance, bullying led an eleven-year-old to suicide. GLSEN reported that this was at least the fourth suicide linked to bullying already this year.

“Is it not ironic that in a planned society of controlled workers given compulsory assignments, where religious expression is suppressed, the press controlled, and all media of communication censored, where a puppet government is encouraged but denied any real authority, where great attention is given to efficiency and character reports, and attendance at cultural assemblies is mandatory, where it is avowed that all will be administered to each according to his needs and performance required from each according to his abilities, and where those who flee are tracked down, returned, and punished for trying to escape–in other words, in the typical American high school–that we attempt to teach ‘the democratic system’?” – Royce Van Norman

In a society that has risen to untold levels of prosperity thanks entirely to one single economic factor–a consistently increasing specialization in the division of its labor–how does it make any sense to force each unique child through the exact same educational mold, indifferent to that child’s interests, talents, pace and method of learning? Shouldn’t the greatest degree of specialization be encouraged as early as possible, for the benefit of both the student and society as a whole? Shouldn’t each student be allowed to develop as far as he possibly can in his own subjects of interest–even at the detriment of subjects in which he has no interest? Shouldn’t each student be allowed to learn in his own particular way, and at his own particular speed? Wouldn’t society as a whole benefit as much as the individual student from a system which allowed the student to flourish in his own peculiar talents and interests, at his own distinct pace and in his own preferred method?

In an educational model imposed from the top-down by a faceless federal bureaucracy in the style of a Soviet monopoly, a one-size-fits-all education is indeed the only possible option. But imagine the prospects of a system where dozens or more schools, each free to set their own curriculum and offer any combination of classes they chose, competed in order to attract the attendance of students. Some schools would focus on english, literature, and journalism. Others would concentrate on science and mathematics. Still others might offer training in various trades–one might offer training in computer-repair skills and programming; another might offer training in such trades as welding and carpentry. Free to openly compete with each other to try to attract customers, and recognizing that their very existence depended entirely on the continued voluntary support of those customers, schools would be on a constant search for any and every innovation that could increase the satisfaction of parents and/or students. One obvious consequence of such a system would be that students who made no effort to learn, or disrupted class for other students, would not be tolerated for a moment–no school would want to lose the business of several students just because they tolerated a single disruptive one; and so, any report of bullying would be taken seriously and punished severely. Bullying and harassment would no longer be routine experiences that most children would have to suffer through.

A few hypothetical innovations that private enterprise schools might employ: students could be separated into separate classes based on their preferred learning method, whether visual or auditory. Visually-oriented students might learn the day’s lesson with graphs, charts, and written notes; auditory-oriented students with a lecture, and recorded audio instead of notes. Schools would likely put an end to the practice of grouping all children by age, opting to group them instead by their proficiency as well as their characteristic style and pace of learning. Some schools might remove sports from their curriculum in order to put more emphasis on education; others would retain them and use sporting events as an additional source of funding. While some schools might continue offering their education for nine-months out of the year, with two months out for summer and another month out between Christmas and other holidays, others could simultaneously offer their education year-round, offering three-week breaks every nine and thereby spreading its breaks more evenly throughout the year instead of concentrating them all during the summer. There would no longer be a debate over which of these systems should be imposed on the entire educational system from the bureaucracy down. Any other system or program demanded by a justifiably large number of customers would inevitably be offered by some entrepreneur seeing the opportunity to establish a new market or niche–and everyone would be free to make his own decision as to which system or set of programs he would prefer.

Likewise, there would no longer be any debate over such things as whether prayer should be allowed, or whether intelligent design or evolution should be offered. Each school would be free to set its own policy, and each student would be free to patronize the school of his choice. In regards to the allowance of prayer, each school would be free to either allow all religious expression, disallow expression of any religion, or even officially endorse a particular religious denomination and only take in students of that particular religion or lack thereof. Religious students who wished to get their education alongside fellow students of the same religion would be free to do so, and nonreligious students who wished to get their education as far away from religion as possible would be free to do so as well.

Given the freedom to innovatively compete, schools would find creative solutions to these problems that a federal bureaucracy never would have dreamed of. In response to the evolution-creation debate, one possible innovation might be to allow ninth and tenth graders to choose between an evolution or intelligent design class, and then bring both groups together in the eleventh and twelth grades for debate classes in which each group would try to defend its own position from the other. In such a hypothetical system, each student would understand both evolutionary and creationist ideas more thoroughly from both sides. But innovations such as these are never even discussed in regards to the public schools, much less implemented–and they never will be, because state-education camps don’t face a single one of the economic incentives that are so fundamental to the operation of a voluntarily financed, private enterprise school.

Of course, in all likelihood schools as a routine would publish statistics on the post-graduate successes of its students, in order to attract students through statistical demonstration of its proficiency in preparing individuals for sucessful careers. I personally find it unlikely that creationism would long be taught within such a system, because the number of people willing to voluntarily purchase creationist courses would drop rather significantly if and when statistics found graduates of creationist classes having little or no success in scientific fields. Individuals actually seeking a successful career in science would gravitate towards the courses whose graduates had the highest success rates; and programs teaching evolution would, in my humble opinion, fill this role rather quickly. Regardless, this issue would remain open for free market enterprise to decide. Besides, even if creationism is in fact wrong, the minds of devout religious creationists are unlikely to be changed by using the State to force those individuals into classes teaching evolution. Respect for individual choice and tolerance of opposing viewpoints are more important than shoving a particular viewpoint down people’s throats—particularly when the minds being thus forced aren’t planning on changing any time soon anyway. Individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness—and if that involves the voluntary purchase and attendance of courses on creationism, then so be it.

A state-education camp that is assured of subsidies and state teachers who are assured of being paid whether children are learning and parents are satisfied or not has no incentive whatsoever to improve its quality, cut its own wastes, please parents–or hell, even to teach children. The Supreme Court has ruled that the public schools that people are forced to subsidize through taxes in fact have “no duty to educate individual children.” Compare this to private schools like Sylva Learning Center that give a refundable promise to teach in two months what the public schools can’t teach in ten–for half the price.

Of course, some percentage of the children forced through the state system have no desire or intention whatsoever to learn anything–and yet society is forced to pay approximately $10,000 in taxes to drag them through the system anyway, so that they can accomplish absolutely nothing apart from making life more difficult for teachers and lessening the quality of education and amount of attention on all the other children in the system who are actually trying to make an effort. These children still end up dropping out of school and getting a job in manual labor despite their mandated “education.” This process is counter-productive in every conceivable way—it wastes taxpayer money; it wastes teacher’s time; it wastes the time of the rebellious and uncooperative children; and it lessens the level of individual attention (and, therefore, quality of education) for all the children in the system actually making an effort to learn. In a private enterprise system, it would be no loss that such children would not be forced through the system at taxpayer expense for twelve entire years—and it would be clear to those children that, education or none, their future is entirely in their own hands. Thus, every child attending a given class in a private enterprise system would have strong incentive to make the best effort he possibly could to learn and not be disruptive; and the school in question would have strong direct incentives to punish and prevent such practices as bullying, drug dealing, and harassment. That every single one of these incentives is absent from the state-education camps is surely accountable for the omnipresence in these camps of drug dealing and harassment. Society as a whole will be better off when those who actually want to learn are able to get the best and most personal education possible, while those who don’t and aren’t willing to make an effort aren’t forced with thousands of taxpayer dollars to pollute the entire system for everyone.

Children would not be the only group to benefit from a private enterprise in education. Teachers, in fact, would benefit greatly as well. One of the greatest reasons teachers’ wages are so low is because the massive waste allowed by the absence of profit-and-loss incentives in the public system has to be spread out across all of the state’s employees, thus lowering wages for all teachers all across the board. The first economic incentive a private enterprise school would face would be to lower its costs by cutting any wasteful or unnecessary expenditure. These lowered costs of operation would then be passed on to teachers, as schools competed to hire the most efficient staff possible by attempting to offer the best teachers higher wages than their competitors. Teachers with high success rates and good reports from ex-students would be more valued, and as such the school at which they were employeed would offer them the high wage justified by their proficiency. Teachers with low success rates and poor reports from ex-students would soon be let go or fired. Thus, free market schools would select and rewards its teachers for merit just as every other sector in the free market selects rewards its employees for merit. The profit-and-loss system would give schools the incentive to fire bad teachers, offer raises to better ones in order to prevent competing schools from attracting them with the offer of a higher salary, and cut wasteful spending wherever possible. This would also thus provide teachers with a direct incentive to teach as efficiently as possible and try to make their lessons interesting enough to keep their students’ attention; in other words, to ensure the success of their students in whatever way possible. Hence, the first effect of free enterprise in education would be to raise teachers’ wages across the board, as wasteful spending was cut and schools competed with each other for the best teachers; and the second effect would be for teachers’ wages to increase or decrease in direct proportion to their actual success in teaching, providing teachers with an actual incentive to increase their proficiency and give special attention and focus to each individual student. That every single one of these incentives is absent from the state-education camps is surely accountable for the overwhelming failure of these camps to educate American children in even such basic skills as reading and elementary arithmetic.

Now to provide an answers to a few simple objections.

1. “There are parents out there who just don’t care. They do not care if their kid gets an education; they do not care if their kids skip school. Some parent would rather them stay at home, stay in the yard, or work.”

First off, in a system in which parents actually had to purchase their child’s education (directly, instead of indirectly through taxation), parents would most definitely care if their children were skipping the education that they were having to pay for. Second, most parents plan to rely at least to some degree on their children to take care of them in old age. Third, not many parents enjoy the prospect of keeping their children “up” unnecessarily. Thus, only if a parent didn’t want his children to be able to leave home and become self-sufficient, didn’t plan on relying on them at all in old age, and planned on keeping them up at home himself for an indefinite period of time would he not want them to get an education that would lend itself to a successful career. Only if all these motives are found to fail might there be a need for negligence laws against failing to provide one’s children with an adequate education, and a free enterprise educational system would have room for such laws just as there already are negligence laws against failing to provide one’s child with sufficient food, water, and clothing, in the absence of government-operated, mandatory restaurants and clothing stores. Regardless, such laws may actually prove unnecessary. In early-eighteen-hundreds America, for instance, before public education had even been introduced, private educational attendance in Boston was recorded at 96% by a committee organized to study the issue.

This country was far more literate before education became a state province than it is today. In fact, if education had remained private, any proposal to turn it over to the state would shock all lovers of freedom. But now, Americans [have become] inured to the intellectual serfdom of state education. —Joseph Sobran

2. “In a private enterprise system, only the rich would be able to afford education.”

Even right now, with the limited market that private schools receive, the majority of them cost less than the public schools. It is crucial to realize that the state schools are not free; they are simply funded through taxation instead of voluntary payment. It costs $10,000 to send a single child through public high school. Private high schools, by comparison, average between $5,000 and $7,000 for a better education over the same period of time. And if private enterprise schools replaced the public schools, their greatly expanded market would provide them with a financial incentive to offer their services even cheaper. Is it better business to sell a service for $10,000 and attract 150 customers, or to sell that same service for $4,000 and attract 500? In this example, the school in question would increase its total income by half a million dollars by cutting its tuition by more than half. And in a free enterprise system, private schools would most likely operate on an even greater economy of scale than this, and would thus quickly lower prices even below these hypothetical rates. Here is a link to one of many studies demonstrating that the actual price of public schools is twice that of the average private school, and approximately equal to even the most elitist, expensive private schools in existence.

Chris Cardiff, of the National Center for Independent Education, has calculated that if every single one of the 16 million poor and lower-middle-class children in America were provided with a $1500 scholarship to a private school, the cost would come to $24 billion. This is less than 8% of what is currently spent on public schooling nationwide. Even on top of a tax burden surpassing 40%, Americans already donate more than $216 billion dollars to charity each year–and an additional $37 billion is raised in addition to this in private donations to higher education. Raising the mere $24 billion needed for the education of the poor in higher-quality private schools would be no problem at all, especially once Americans received the $316 billion dollar tax cut that would accompany the abolishment of government-operated schooling. The business community itself, because it benefits from the existence of a market of well-educated workers, would be likely to donate to schools that taught students skills that made them into valuable workers. Many businesses already have to spend a great deal in order to educate their workers themselves; so, in a private enterprise system, these resources would simply be redirected to the private sector. What about children in isolated, rural areas? A full education from kindergarten through college is already available through correspondence, video, and the Internet; and if this avenue was proven useful, like anything else proven useful in the free market, it would expand. All of these factors and more would increase the ability of poor and/or rurally isolated students to get an affordable, high-quality education.

“Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, and not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to innovation and growth.” — Thomas B Sticht, president and senior scientist, Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc; Oct 23, 1989

Beyond the fact that private schools would offer affordable and effective education to a wide market, it must also be recognized that every citizen does not actually need an entire high school education. Manual labor is an economic necessity, and there is little justification for forcing every single manual laborer through twelve years of the same science and history classes, with taxes appropriated from other citizens. As a final example: in New York, an entirely private and completely free education was offered to students by a group of teachers working in an abandoned store under the name, “Harlem Prep.” These teachers offered their curriculum to the poor black students that the state system had failed and discarded as hopeless. After four years of Harlem Prep’s program, over ninety percent of these poor students, who had previously been rejected by the public school system, went on to receive a college diploma and then hold successful careers. How did the public school system respond to this? By shutting Harlem Prep down.

3. “But we’ve always had public schools!”

Not so. Mr. Matthew J. Brouillette, President of the Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and former Director of Education Policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, writes: “From the outset of the first settlements in the New World, Americans founded and successfully maintained a de-centralized network of schools, up through [the late eighteen hundreds]. Early America was arguably the freest civil society that has ever existed. This freedom extended to education, which meant that parents were responsible for, and had complete control of, their children’s schooling. There were no accrediting agencies, no regulatory boards, and no teacher certification requirements. Parents could choose whatever kind of school or education they wanted for their children, and no one was forced to pay for education they did not use or approve of.”

National compulsory attendance laws for public schools were not established in America until the late eighteen hundreds. The Commissioner of Education who passed these laws—William Tory Harris—had this to say about his accomplishment, in 1908: “The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places . . . Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening . . . The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role. Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident, but the result of substantial education—which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.” Harris, in these quotes, clearly expressed his pride at the fact that the public education system was succeeding in its goals of stifling private initiative and independent thought, turning its students into “automata.”

This article so far has contained only a small amount of speculation on something for which there are literally an infinitude of possibilities. In reality, a fully free market in education, subject to the same innovative forces that gave society such things as electricity, cell phones, the ipod, and laptop computers, would develop innovations far more creative and effective than I could ever try to imagine or speculate about in a simple short essay. “It’s time to admit,” Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers writes, “that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve: it more resembles the communist economy than our own.”

54 Comments leave one →
  1. July 26, 2010 3:38


    I’m just getting started with my new blog. Would you want to exchange links on our blog-rolls?

    BTW – I’m up to about 100 visitors per day.

  2. July 28, 2010 3:38

    Interesting argument, but you cite a lot of American examples. It may be better to have present more data which is local or Filipino, so that you can better prop up your argument here. If you think privatization of education works, you can defend to

    • February 14, 2011 3:38

      @froivinber – You’re great in punning words, huh! I think… you are the “Father of Public Education Sociology”, Congrats! You lured dozens of minds into your bogus blog, thus making the argument rational.
      I definitely disagree with your statements the ‘education is not a right, but a responsibility’, because we all deserve to be educated. I respect your colonial mentality because its your right to believe in every ideological justifications applied to you.

      PS – Your blog will be inaccurate if would would not cite right. There are citation styles/forms to be followed or else you will commit plagiarism.

      • February 14, 2011 3:38

        I agree with you. Citation is an obligation for every writing purposes.

        Take note: Not every ‘UPians’ are UPCAT passers. There are varsity players, Transferees from other universities, Graduate students, Talent test passers, and other. Just to clear that UP is all about passing UPCAT.

      • February 14, 2011 3:38

        …is NOT about passing UPCAT* (Atenean, 2010)

      • February 14, 2011 3:38

        You ignorant statist said: “‘education is not a right, but a responsibility’, because we all deserve to be educated. I respect your colonial mentality because its your right to believe in every ideological justifications applied to you.”

        MY ANSWER:

        That’s pure lunacy and idiocy. You have the right to go to school so long as you can pay for it. You “right to education” means the government- or the taxpayers, to be very specific- has to provide you education. If it’s colonial mentality (which I doubt), yours is sick mentality. Read my related blogs to further educate yourself.

        Further, I didn’t say that education is not a right, but a responsibility’. I said education is NOT a right because it is a good or a commodity like anything else.

        Let me tell you the truth about this mantra of “right to education.”

        1. The concept of “right to education” as advanced by the progressives and leftists postulates that the government must finance, provide the education of everybody, particularly the poor.

        2. We all have the right to go to school so long as we pay for our school fees because education, like any commodity, is a good with commercial value. Its being very important to man’s life doesn’t give it a special category in the hierarchy of good. Your right to life means you are free to act in the furtherance of your life by having a livelihood of your own choice or by trading goods with others without violating the latter’s rights. Your right to life, therefore, does not mean the government or your neighbor has to feed you. Your right to liberty means you have the right to be left alone and freedom from government interference. Your right to property means you have the right to the fruits, effects and proceeds of your property. You have the right to sell, lease, or even destroy your property. Thus, rights simply means freedom of action in a social context. It is not created or provided for by the state. It is merely recognized and respected by the state. Your “right to education” means some people must contribute to the common good in order for you to be educated.

        3. The right to education you are talking about, IGNORANT STATIST, means the government is justified to initiate the use of force and violate or limit the rights (particularly property rights) of others in order for you and your like-minded people to obtain free or subsidized education. Now, your STUPID MARXIST UP President, Alfredo Pascual, recently proposed, in his vision statement, to tax the people and raise corporate income tax in order to finance his statist vision. READ: .

        4. Your right to education means you want to be PARASITES!

  3. UPian 2007 permalink
    July 28, 2010 3:38

    Quoting different thinkers won’t make you look intelligent, it won’t even give you a decent grade from my socsci30 class. Try to open up to the real REALITY, not the REALITY those western thinkers are trying to point out to you.

    I admit that I did not read you entire blog entry, I didn’t feel the need to do so. The title itself is nonsense and preposterous. YOU SERIOUSLY NEED A REALITY CHECK. Privatizing our educational system won’t be for the good of our country and people, your simply increasing the burden of the masses.

    And based from your other blog entries, you are saying that the productive people, those in white collared jobs, are the one’s deserving to send their children to school. Shame on you! People earning a minimum wage salary deserves it better, you MORON! They work harder yet they can’t even afford to pay for a semester’s tuition fee in a private university who doesn’t even pay their taxes!

    • bogz permalink
      October 16, 2012 3:38

      “And based from your other blog entries, you are saying that the productive people, those in white collared jobs, are the one’s deserving to send their children to school. ”

      You simply missed the point and chose a wrong verb. The “deserving” part should be scrap and replace with “responsibility”.

      “They work harder yet they can’t even afford to pay for a semester’s tuition fee in a private university who doesn’t even pay their taxes!”

      That’s why the privatization of SUCs will help these workers on their education. It will create competition on education and that will decreased the tuition fee of the private SUCs to gained more market share than the others.

  4. UPian permalink
    July 28, 2010 3:38

    your blog isn’t even worth my time but still i pity you so i read it.
    first of all, why do you keep on comparing education with things with significances not parallel with the importance of education? and why are you comparing american things with filipino stuffs? FILIPINOS are not AMERICANS. deal with it.

    and just because you are not a UPian, do you have to always put them (the UPians) down? do you even have to bash them at all times? then what are UPians to you? Just a bunch of mediocres and rallyists? please give justice to what they are fighting for. you do not know what it is like to be a UPian, you do not know the tragics that a UPian is facing.

    if you do not want to support us. then fine. but just deal with it. that’s what we are fighting for. stay away from it then.

    • July 28, 2010 3:38

      “your blog isn’t even worth my time but still i pity you so i read it.”

      Nagpapatawa ka ba or you’re simply stupid?

      “first of all, why do you keep on comparing education with things with significances not parallel with the importance of education?”

      — I don’t speak in behalf of Vincenton but try to read his other blogs to educate yourself. Saka, nakakahilo grammar mo, pre. lol! Sensiya na, bobo ka kasi. Don’t you get it? Education is a commodity. Hindi porke importante na ang education, dapat maging free na siya and a right of everybody. Read the original blog Kakahiya ka! Pinapatunayan mo lang na stupid ka.

      “Why are you comparing american things with filipino stuffs? FILIPINOS are not AMERICANS. deal with it.”

      — The blogger is not comparing. He’s simply laying down the the principles involved in this issue. It’s principles, stupid! Palibhasa kasi UP ka kaya wala kang alam.

      “and just because you are not a UPian, do you have to always put them (the UPians) down?

      — That’s not the point. Bopols lang at stupid ang hindi maka-gets sa point ng blogger. He’s attacking public education and the main issue in his blog is purely philosophical. Gets? That’s why he laid down the basic principles first. Bobo talaga!

      “FILIPINOS are not AMERICANS. deal with it.”

      — Another sign of stupidity.

      “Just a bunch of mediocres and rallyists? please give justice to what they are fighting for. you do not know what it is like to be a UPian, you do not know the tragics that a UPian is facing.”

      — And what do you think you’re doing? You’re being a PARASITE! You’re asking the government to provide you your needs! Who will pay for your subsidy? Is this NOT AN ACT OF INJUSTICE? If you want free education, ask your leftist alumni to donate a portion of their loot or earning to your!!!

      “if you do not want to support us. then fine. but just deal with it. that’s what we are fighting for. stay away from it then.”

      — NO, we do not want to support your call for slavery. You’re not fighting for your rights, you’re all fighting for slavery and injustice. Clear?

      • another UPian. permalink
        July 28, 2010 3:38

        “– And what do you think you’re doing? You’re being a PARASITE! You’re asking the government to provide you your needs! Who will pay for your subsidy? Is this NOT AN ACT OF INJUSTICE? If you want free education, ask your leftist alumni to donate a portion of their loot or earning to your!!!”

        ang cool mo naman kuya. 🙂
        what we are fighting for is not your so-called ‘act of injustice’.
        ginagawa namin to para sa lahat ng studyante na nasa pampublikong paaralan. tsk. I pity you. you shouldn’t have tried contradicting a UP student, kasi para mo nading kinontradict sarili mo. Mas kawawa pa nga kami kesa sa mga nagpapagod na mga estudyante sa normal college. Our tuition fee inreased tri-fold and not all of us can actually afford it. Naghihikahos ang iba sa amin na talagang magpaka talino para maka avail ng free tuition, akala mo ba lahat ng UP student ay mapera? asa ka!

        we are not asking the government our needs, we are asking for what should be done : ang bigyan ng mas malaking subsidy ang edukasyon at hindi militarisasyon o kung ano pa. magsama kayo ni blog writer. you don’t really know how it is like to be a UP student. nasa isang credible school ka nga ng gobyerno, pero you will never ever feel the presence of that god-damned government.

      • UP is love permalink
        August 1, 2010 3:38

        before saying anything contradicting the opinions of others, please do try to understand what they are stating first. I bet you are studying in a private University and i pity you for the lack of education your expensive tuition brings you.

        We are not asking the government to ‘steal from Pedro to benefit Juan’. We are not asking the tax payers to double their taxes so we could study for ‘free’. What we are asking is for the government to INCREASE the subsidy on public education instead of imparting large fractions of the tax payer’s money to non-sense things such as the military or to their own pockets. Get it?

        Ikaw ata Bobo eh.

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        August 11, 2010 3:38

        You’re the one who wrote the 10 things about students from UP right? What’s your real name? 🙂 Coward to reveal it? Stay afraid, if not, be careful, I’ll find you 🙂

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        August 11, 2010 3:38

        that’s for you Libertarian. 🙂 be careful!

    • bogz permalink
      October 16, 2012 3:38

      ” FILIPINOS are not AMERICANS”

      what’s your point? Filipinos and Americans are both human beings.

  5. another UPian. permalink
    July 28, 2010 3:38

    I must congratulate you my friend. you have definitely started a war against all biased UP students, and I must say that you have posted justifiable arguments that these biased students would never understand unless they open up their minds for the truth. But you, are also biased, dahil naging one sided din kasi ung sinulat mo, (malamang lahat ng blog mo) kahit totoo ung iba, you should’ve tried putting yourself sa sapatos ng isang aktibistang UPian, hindi naman kasi siguro dadadak yun unless napag-isipan na mabuti, pangalan din naman kasi ng mahal naming unibersidad ang nakataya, hindi lang ung mukha niya.

    I must say na maliban dito, wala pa akong ibang nababasa na contradiction at pag-alma sa paghingi ng pagtaas ng subsidy ng mga estudyanteng nagpoprotesta para sa “right to education”. Great, talagang nailagay mo na ang pangalan mo sa susunod na kakatayin ng mga NPA naming mga kapatid.

    Madami talaga sa amin ang magagalit, pero hindi lang naman kaming mga “isko at iska” eh, but also all students from SUC’s na pinapatamaan mo din. Teh, ayos tong pinasok mo. 🙂 not a stupid move, pero mawawala din ang isyu na to, ang ending, ma oover power ka lang ng sankatutak na nanggagalaiti na estudyanteng pagmumumurahin ka sa comments, facebook, sa twitter.. etc. You did say what you think is right, but It’ll never get to where you wanted it to be. Tandaan, madaming taga-UP sa senado. At kung intended talaga ito sa SUC’s, sana, ginawa mo na lang straight to the point at tagalog lahat ng criticisms and arguments mo, para naging mas comprehensible, kasi baka pati mga nanay, lolo, kapatid at pinsan nila eh maintriga din sa mga sinulat mo.

    I am just wondering why you have based so much from a foreign example? I know that these are the most “obvious” examples, but you should have something else cited in filipino context. If you would have wanted to piss all of us UP students off, you should tried more harder because some of us are really applauding you for this courageousness you have exhibited.

    “children, although they do excel in one or more areas (say, math and science), have absolutely no interest whatsoever in some other area (say, history). In the State education camps, however, they are not allowed to proceed in the areas that interest them; instead, they are forced to continue memorizing dry facts (the dates of various events; the abbreviations of various chemicals) in those subjects in which they have no interest. What benefit does a future journalist gain from being forced to memorize the periodic table of elements? What benefit does a future engineer gain from being forced to write an essay on To Kill a Mockingbird? What benefit does a future mechanic gain from any of it? And what benefit does society gain from being compelled to spend thousands of dollars subsidizing this?”

    -kalokohan. parang sinabi mo nadin na wag na tong pag-aralan sa high school at elementary. The benefit gained here is knowledge too, knowledge of things they can never learn again when they step out of school. Mahirap nang puro pang engineering lang ang alam mo. Hindi naman kasi lahat ng skill na related sa pinag-aaralan mo, magagamit mo sa pang-araw araw diba? pati sa conversations. It is stupid enough to say that one cannot benefit from these. Ikaw? what does society gain from what you have learned? hindi din naman lahat, nakikinabang sa napag-aralan mo lalo na kung gagamitin mo lang sa mga postmo na kakaunti din lang ang nakakabasa at nakakaintindi.

  6. dickbalbon permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    Kuya, galit na galit ka sa mga aktibista?
    Eh hindi ba form of activism ang ginagawa mo?
    Sige lang. Magsulat ka lang ng magsulat, wala namang makikinig sa’yo.
    Sinasayang mo lang oras mo.
    Laitin mo ang UP hanga’t gusto mo, but one thing remains. Sa 101 years ng UP, maraming produkto, maganda man o masama ay napakinabangan nating lahat. Lahat ng bagay, gaano man kalaki ay may bahid naming mga Taga-UP. Tandaan mo yan kuya.
    Pakabait ka ha? Baka bukas tamaan ka ng kidlat. :))

  7. CJ Castillo (05-75456) permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    Dear Author,

    Review your BASIC economics.

  8. July 29, 2010 3:38

    Great read.

    I agree that there are definitely horrible flaws in the public education system. I being a product of one (primary to tertiary education).

    But here is where I think you’re wrong: UP may be the closest thing to liberal education in this country. It’s a very peculiar situation; seeing a state university go against the state. Instead of the state-loving droids the government expects (based on your model), UP produced radicals and free-thinkers. It’s wierd, and I can’t quiet figure out the reason of this anomaly. But wait it isn’t just UP, PUP is also becoming more and more radical. The rest of public education can go to hell, but UP and PUP seem untouchable by the government that funds them. They can’t tell UP what to teach or how to teach it. The best they tried so far was stifle funding in research and salaries, which is what the leftist and your so called collectivists want to fight.

    Local private schools on the other hand are the opposite to liberal thinking. The private enterprise caring about profit will create courses based on current job trends. 1980s we have commerce, 90s we have computer, 2000s we have nursing. These ‘institutes of learning’ are the ones creating the controlled, mindless workers. I won’t be surprised if they start offering courses for call center agents.

    UP would have closed down Malikhaing Pagsulat sa Filipino seeing that it only had a handful of enrollees. Or Fine Arts since art isn’t appreciated in this country.

    I guess what the other commenters failed to articulate is this: the unique economic, cultural, and political situation in the Philippines doesn’t fit any of the education models you described.

    As a UP grad myself, I feel ashamed (and partly amused) at the way people from my school argue. Parang mga comments lang sa youtube.

    • July 29, 2010 3:38

      “But wait it isn’t just UP, PUP is also becoming more and more radical.”

      — I’ve written about the radicalization of students at PUP before.

      UP is now being radicalized and the left would like to turn it into a neo-Liberal terrain, as what Satur Ocampo said in his speech in 2008 at UP. Yes, I agree that the University of the Philippines houses many of our brightest young students in the country. This is why it is important to expose the kind of evil that is penetrating this top public institution of learning. If there’s one institution that must be the main target of leftist indoctrination, it should be the University of the Philippines due to the following reasons:

      * Prestige
      * Population
      * The level of intelligence of its students
      * The potentials of its graduates
      * The size of government funding
      * Position in the country’s intellectual hub
      * Many possibilities for socialist/liberal strategies
      * Influence

      This is why it is very important to audit UP, intellectually and ideologically. However, it should be the responsibility of those who believe in free-market capitalism to wrestle with the propagators of liberalism and socialism at UP and other state universities in the country. It should be their responsibility to give proper education to their students, meaning by teaching a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality.

      • July 29, 2010 3:38

        – “This is why it is important to expose the kind of evil”

        What evil is there on having to think for your own? You may think that this is the school’s fault to begin with. Maybe instead say, “liberated minds with no sense of accountability or pro-activeness.”

        – “It should be their responsibility to give proper education to their students, meaning by teaching a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality.”

        What kind of “equip” do you have in mind? a waiting list of Jobs opened for them to take? or the realization that you won’t find a job after you graduate whether you came from a public or a private school. No school can really equip a student against the harsh reality in life instead it is the environment that shapes the mind of a person. How they are brought up and how one looks at life itself.

        I came from UP but never indulge myself in any kind of revolt or any of my professors told me to do so. As one of my professor engraved into my life, “work smart and not hard.” and this is about how I go about with my work and life as well.

      • July 29, 2010 3:38

        “What evil is there on having to think for your own? You may think that this is the school’s fault to begin with. Maybe instead say, “liberated minds with no sense of accountability or pro-activeness.”

        The dominant ideological culture at UP and other state universities is leftism or leftist activism. The battle between good and evil is the battle of ideas. This is how Soviet Russia and Maoist China were won by the communists. Ideas are more powerful than a cabal of fully armed men. And if we try to disregard the power of ideas, then we only have ourselves as our first victims. The best generator or propagator of ideas are schools and universities. A university is where the minds of young people are shaped or misshaped. Indoctrination is a very gradual, piecemeal process. It’s effect can be seen after several years or even decades. The best indoctrination process is what they call “ideological subversion,” which is a “legitimate, overt and open process” designed to distort reality and brainwash people’s mind. Check my blog entry:

        This is what this former KGB and Russian defector said:
        “They they basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extert that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions inthe interest of defending themselves, their family, ther community and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and has divided into four basic stages. The first one being demoralization, which takes 15 to 20 years. Why that many number of years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy. Expose to the ideology of your enemy. In other words Marxism/Leninism ideology being punted into the soft heads of at least three generations, without being challenged or contra-balanced by the basic values of Americanism.”

        I say these liberal ideas- the right to education, the right to welfare, the right to health care, etc.- are simply part of ideological subversion for they destroy man’s cognitive processes. They destroy man’s use of reason. The result of this mentality is collectivism, which means we must live for others and that we must offer our lives to the greater society.

        In the United States, the Islamic propagandists and the Jihadis target American universities. Why? Because they see potential graduates and intellectuals. They see a new breed of intelligentsia that would suit their political agenda. This process is also what is being done by American leftists. That’s why David Horowitz (please google), a former radical leftists himself, asserted that the radicalization process is being done in many universities in the US.

        The same thing is happening in the country. That’s why Satur Ocampo would like to turn UP into a neo-liberal terrain, which means he wants UP to be the nucleus or center of leftist ideology in the country because of its prestige, influence, etc.

        “What kind of “equip” do you have in mind? a waiting list of Jobs opened for them to take? or the realization that you won’t find a job after you graduate whether you came from a public or a private school. No school can really equip a student against the harsh reality in life instead it is the environment that shapes the mind of a person. How they are brought up and how one looks at life itself.”

        What we need is free-market education. This is the only way to help the poor. When I said “equip”, I meant professors who know how to defend the ideals of free-market capitalism, individualism, and sense of independence. Lots of people I know who understand what I’m talking about got their knowledge from reading the proper books and in dealing with the right people.

      • July 29, 2010 3:38

        Isn’t that what education is about? To equip man against “the evils of the world”. And nothing, for me, is more evil than the suppression of ideas for financial gain.

        I agree there are radicals in these universities, but there is non anywhere else. It would be a tragedy if the students stop to learn about socialism because the private schools don’t teach it anymore.

        “It should be the responsibility of those who believe in free-market capitalism to wrestle with the propagators of liberalism and socialism at UP and other state universities in the country”

        — super agree! and there are already professors (although unpopular, but definitely interesting ones) who are doing just that. The activists might hate to admit it but the numbers of radical student leftists are dwindling. Is this bad? Nope, it’s freedom of education! The students are learning what they want to learn (and apparently it is less socialism nowadays). I don’t see this happening to private schools where the curriculum rests on a few individuals whose main goal is financial profit.

        UP is the only university who values freedom of education (free as in “libre” not “gratis”). And damn the government if they stop supporting educational freedom! (I’ve never been to other SUCs though, so I can’t speak for them.)

        BTW, do you teach? Do you lecture or something. I want to attend one if you do.

    • August 1, 2010 3:38


      i think the reason for that anomaly (ie UP as stateU but vs the State) can be found in your comment having an unpopular professor and/or students as well. it’s called academic freedom. for some strange reason, the 1935 consti let and only let state Us enjoy academic freedom. then the 1973 and 86 constis let all higher learning institutions enjoy academic freedom, its a double edge sword though, those that can easily be manipulated might be radicalized to supply that faux enemy that the State can fight against, including intellectuals that can be falsely accused of being radical subversives by those regimes.

      the other edge is what comes along with academic freedom, critical thinking which state Us like UP might have enjoyed since 1935 as per its consti, which means pretty much, not being spoonfed, not just relying, depending and believing in classroom discussions, but also by observing realities outside. and hopefully not easily swayed or mindcontrolled into some ideologies as dogma

      its also helps that UP is secular which at the same time have religious freedom
      the anomaly i might consider is instead of serving the State, it might actually be serving the people, not as involuntary servitude though, which is altruism at its worst

      i just found out recently that US higher learning institutions dont keep their alumni as their faculty, but instead prefer those coming from other ivy leagues or U/Cs compared to UP which kept them in-house, maybe that is another factor for the anomaly

      i have no idea if private UCs enjoy academic freedom but a might be good discussion is how the altruistic principle of Ateneo or any other Jesuits institutions as in Men for Others, affect the perspective and attitude of its students, Ayn Rand would probably be curious as well =)

  9. Bobo mo naman permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:38

    Eto lang masasabi ko.

    Bobo at nagfi-“feeling” ang gumawa ng blog na ito. I so regret spending 5 minutes of my life seeing such stupidity.

    Masaya siguro yung blogger ngayon kasi napapansin ang blog nya. Kulang lang siguro sa pansin sa totoong buhay yan kaya nagpapapansin dito sa net. bwahaha!

  10. Bobo mo naman permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:38


    I wont even try to open a debate with the blogger. I can have a more intelligent debate with a chimpanzee. Sa lahat ng nakikipagdebate sa kanya. Good luck na lang sa inyo. Mahirap pumatol sa bobo. ^^

  11. diehardfroivinberfan permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    I totally agree with you.
    We are indeed a threat to this country and most especially to your life.

    It is inevitable that the leaders of this country are from UP.
    If you hate UP so much that you cannot stand it existence and domination,
    you are free to leave this country. But we will be happy to have you here. 🙂

    • Martin D. permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      Nakakalungkot na ganito ka-cheap, ka-walang kuwenta ang mga argument ng mga batang ito na taga-UP.

      Based on what I read on the comment section, most commenters, whom I think from UP, cannot argue properly without bashing or showing their being uneducated.

      Umayos kayo. Kasi pabigat kayong lahat sa taong bayan. Puro na lang “di nakapasa sa UPCAT” ang banat niyo wala namang maayos na pinagsasabi. Yung iba malili-mali pa ang grammar. Marami namang commenters na akala mo kung sinong magsabi ng bobo or magmura eh balu-baluktot naman ang kanilang mga pinagsasabi at walang kuwenta ang kanilang mga pinupunto.

      Tama. Nagsasayang lang tayo ng pera sa mga mayayabang na ipokritong mga taga-state U. ABOLISH UP!

      • 1styranotherISKA permalink
        October 7, 2012 3:38

        Kuya. Bad yan. Hindi naman po lahat mayayabang. 🙂

  12. lou permalink
    August 16, 2010 3:38

    I think I disagree with this. I think Plato’s concept of public education particularly in elementary is a really nice way to preserve a society – that is kung matutupad ng maayos…

    As for your opinion regarding “The Seeds of Evil: How Communism Infiltrates Public Universities?” I don’t think communism is bad per se, naging masama na lang siguro because of propaganda, anyway, everything is a matter of propaganda, marketing, advertising, however, you may want to call it – mind conditioning lang…

    I’m from PUP, though, radical kung sa radical ang tingin ng iba, outrsiders will not really understand… you have to take something in context to real get the essence of it… the problem with the news is that they take something out of context and sensationalize it, kaya ganun… tuition fee increase is not the issue but the percentage of the increase, plus hindi man lang na explain kasi why it was for…

    But in the age of propaganda, it’s not about the point, it’s how you get the point across…

    • August 16, 2010 3:38

      Please see my COMMENT here.

      • lou permalink
        August 18, 2010 3:38

        reply posted…

  13. October 6, 2010 3:38

    your link regarding the study on the actual price of public schools was done in the American setting……..why don’t you suggest a study similar to it in the Philippines? siguruhin mo na yung mga “studies” na ilalagay mo sa blog mo ay akma sa lipunang Pilipino……kinain na talaga ng mga bulate ang balintataw mo………waa ka na sa tamang pag-iisip!

  14. your right!,,,,,,,, NAATTTT! permalink
    October 6, 2010 3:38

    i do intend to admit ad hominem here,
    hi guys.
    hi vicenton some1.

    ok lang yan. pagpa2loy mo.
    with all of your logical arguments that you claim, still,
    no1, not even 1 of us would even bother to believe on what you say.
    you have your principle we have ours. if you’re too much brainwashed of your own ideals.please, stop forcing, stop claiming, that just because you have this profound arguments ul have us swayed.

    nkktmad ka ng awayin. hayaan mo nalang kaming mga UPIAN. please? get a life, living with your principle, and stop bullshiting others with your blog.
    hindi kita pinapapahinto dahil na-iintimidate kami sa mga pinagsasabi mo pero this sort of argumentative blog you have is offensive at all instances, na modify lang ng ganitong format pero puru black propaganda lang alam mo e.

    tutal kapitalista naman pag-iisip mo, magtrabaho ka nalang o mamumuhunan sa kung anuman. itigil mo na to.
    o baka nman kase dito ka kumikita. cge2.

    may paper pako. para ka lang commercial na puru estetika, perpetuating false ideologies though.

  15. Frances Custodio permalink
    April 22, 2011 3:38

    I must admit this is one of the most scathing critiques of the public education system I have encountered so far. It is obvious that UP has something to learn from the corporate world, at least in terms of efficiency – for one, there is no guarantee that Student Evaluation of Teacher (SET) results will influence the job security of any professor, especially a tenured one. Secondly, the educational paradigm of the Philippines tends towards generalized education, which does not tend to maximize potential as opposed to specialist education.

    As the blogger mentioned, the roots of this problem lie in the orientation of pre-tertiary educational levels (say, high school level). Of course there are arguments that are pro-generalist and pro-specialist. What the current DepEd curriculum recommendations do not allow for is actually choice. As an individual, I have the right to choose whether or not I want to generalize or specialize. Imbuing early or late years of high school with some degree of selection – let’s say a math/engineering track, a science track, a liberal arts/social sciences track and so on, or the option to take basic courses in all areas, is absent from our pre-tertiary public education. This does not encourage the utilization of potential in our students, in fact it leaves many at a loss as to what to do once they reach college. I have asked many students if they were absolutely sure or confident if their chosen course was what they were passionate about or imagined themselves doing the rest of their lives, and the response was unconvincing.

    If there is anything I must say about the ongoing rhetoric of some UP groups regarding the reduction of the UP budget, it is that there tends to be a bias TOWARDS UP. This is understandable because collectives tend to pursue what they believe is in their own interest, but it is surprising that the campaign tends to leave out the glaring deficiencies in basic education. If one must be altruistic, then shouldn’t the campaign address education as a whole instead of just demanding for SUC (tertiary education) boons? Or even just financial assitance for UP? In a way, this pro-UP stance to the detriment of the mention of other educational sectors or universities (manifested by some left-leaning radicals) actually supports the idea that people are naturally self-interested and can resort to using a cloak of altruism to pursue their goals, which is a contradiction.

    A political party in the university once delivered a formulaic campaign speech in a class, and they reported that there was a smaller percentage of UPCAT passers in 2010 who decided to go to UP than in the previous years. They mentioned that this was because of the tuition fee increase. When I asked them if they had data as to whether it was indeed financial considerations (and not preferred choice of another university) that was the basis of the potential students’ non-enrollment, the party representatives admitted that they did not in fact have any such data. Their rhetoric obscured a thorough investigation into the matter.

    I have a hypothetical scenario, however, if there is not at least a vestige of state control over educational content. Let us assume that the state protects the rights of the individual. Supposing most people in State X are fundamentalists of a violent-leaning religious ideology. If the state left control of educational institutions into private hands, then private entities would naturally make religious, non-functional schools (and the existence of these religious schools has also been cited as a reason to why educational attainment and capacity is stunted in certain areas in the Middle East). Since the curriculum design is left into the hands of private entities, and the fundamentalist parents believe that they are pursuing what makes them and their children happy, wouldn’t this type of freedom actually unsettle the idea that ‘if I pursue my rational self-interest’, then ‘everyone will prosper?’ I can only see that if several self-interested individuals acting under the laws of a specific fundamentalist culture cannot in fact adjust to the needs and demands of modern-day societies without some sort of institutional intervention (or even funding of alternative modes of education) to developing a certain standard of learning.

  16. July 17, 2011 3:38

    there are several contentions with your arguments. if you will assess clearly what is going on in the Philippine Society, then you will see what those critics of the government see. i even have problems with your evidences because you are not battling it in the context of the Philippines. you are using foreign evidences. at the same time, you cannot generalize something. in this case, i see that you are quite unwary of the context. the american context will not be applicable to the philippine context. i have to agree that there are similarities but the differences are still several. focus on the differences. at the same time, your arguments, at some level, are inconsistent. need to privatize then not the first step? what are you trying to achieve here anyway? i assume you are barking at the wrong tree. you even provide misleading arguments about learning capacities and all. do you really know how UP education works? please be aware of the facts applicable to the Philippines. not on the facts that are not relevant to contribute to the betterment of the Philippines.

    • July 17, 2011 3:38

      Pure statist hogwash and gibberish. Check the related articles in this link… This is not the only anti-public education (or anti-UP) blog I’ve ever written. I’ve written more than ten articles on this topic, FYI.

      Try these search terms: UP, public education, rights, capitalism, economy.

  17. December 9, 2011 3:38

    Haha. Ano yun, kapag hindi na naniwala sa’yo bobo na? Dogmatiko!

  18. 1styranotherISKA permalink
    October 7, 2012 3:38

    Ito lang po ang masasabi ko. 🙂
    Have your opinions but do not be opinionated.

  19. kagbalete permalink
    October 19, 2012 3:38

    The internet… the final bastion of fools….. whoever wrote this is an idiot….

    • October 19, 2012 3:38

      LOL. It’s because you can’t offer any form of refutation. Keep being a brainwashed social ‘palamunin’, comrade.

  20. iknowyou permalink
    December 8, 2015 3:38

    wow! good read, good point..nice to know what you’re doing vince..i certainly agree with your point that education is not a right and i also believe in freedom of education..the constitutional provision that some of your critics are quoting mislead them to believe that it is a right…like you, I too pity them..ill be rading the rest of your articles in a while..hindi ka pa rin nagbago parang mga commentaries mo pa rin sa weekly dawn..keep it up bro!


  1. To All UP Students: Education is NOT a Right! « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. The Moral Liberal
  3. Freedom in Education Versus Right to Education « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Separate State from Education! « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. State Policy Blog » Blog Archive » CF Blog Roundup
  7. Idiot’s Guide to My Anti-Public Education Argument « THE VINCENTON POST
  8. What “Iskolar ng Bayan” Means? « THE VINCENTON POST
  9. Further Comment on Public Education « THE VINCENTON POST
  10. Alfredo Pascual: The Man of Looters Persuasion « THE VINCENTON POST
  11. Alfredo Pascual: A Man of Looters Persuasion « THE VINCENTON POST
  12. Advocacy philanthropy and the leveraged buy-out of public schools — Part 2 | - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: