Talk:Higher education in the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Transferrred from Education in the Philippines as per talk page for that article. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Split content from Education in the Philippines on 8 January 2009 as per WP:SPLIT." Gubernatoria (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Article title[edit]

Okay, so the article was moved apparently to avoid POV biases. I'm fine with the intent, but now I think we have a title that doesn't really match the article. Perhaps JL should have consulted the talk page of the Education in the Philippines article before just choosing to move the contents of this page. I propose that we change this back to an article about the rankings, since the rankings can be discussed while avoiding a biased POV. The only reason we had to split the content from the main education in the Philippines article was because this section had gotten quite long. Rmcsamson (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. The title as it appears now is not descriptive of the content. Aclarado (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections by the end of the week, I propose that we move this back. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign government rankings[edit]

This is one of those contentious viewpoints leading me to separate this article from the main education in the Philippines article. The contents of this subarticle may be unpopular for some Filipino nationalists, but it is realistic and the source is a DepEd Memorandum. So it will be a little bit hard for people to deny the reality, hard hitting though it is on the Philippine education system. And since the Philippine education system has not changed at all in this essential aspect, the comment is just as relevant now as it was 30 years ago. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the section, and made some revisions. The first sentence clearly admits that foreign governments do not rank Philippine schools. But to save the section and to draw it more in line with the rest of the article, I've recast it as a section on recognition (which is the tenor of the subsequent paragraphs anyway), and sought to temper what might be points that need clarification or which might be construed as falling within a biased POV. I've also corrected some English spelling (using "z" instead of "s," for example). I am worried, though, that unless this actually becomes a discussion on rankings, this might be a section that will be better placed in the main education in the Philippines article. I'm sure that it can be properly defended if "Filipino nationalists" get too irate about it. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless substantial research has been conducted and can be cited to support any generalizations for this area, this entire section should actually be deleted. In its current form, outdated communications from ONE country discussing the requirements for ONE particular profession in that country does NOT merit an entire section on what foreign governments think about degrees earned from the Philippines. There are roughly 200 countries in the world. ONE country's position (favorable or not), and an old one at that, does NOT represent what foreign governments think of degrees from the Philippines. This section grossly FAILS Wikipedia's standards in providing adequate research to back up claims (which are very sweeping, in this case).AldrinHu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. It's superfluous to devote one section of this article on one country's old opinion of RP degrees. What's so special about Australia's treatment of degrees from the Philippines to warrant an entire section unto itself? They themselves said in their old memo that they had no unilateral practice on the handling of RP degrees - it was on a case-to-case basis and depended on many factors, including a particular Australian's state's education system. Reading the original posting, I've actually found a number of disturbing items: (1) Filipinos' pre-occupation with seeking foreigners' approval of what the Philippines does for its own people and purposes. In the articles about the higher education systems in the United States, Canada, Japan, or even the many impoverished nations in the world, do we see sections explaining how foreigners view their own countries' degrees? Why are Filipinos so hungry for the thumbs-up from foreigners? Why do Filipinos feel so insecure about their own degrees that despite the fact that Filipinos perform extremely well in graduate schools abroad and succeed in many other areas as well that the accomplishments never seem complete without some foreign country's approval? This is a cultural malaise that Filipinos need to get rid of! (2) It is obvious that there was inherent bias in the original writer's opinion of RP degrees. S/he felt that RP degrees were inferior, found one very old essay invariably supporting it, and created a whole section on foreign recognition of RP degrees as if that was how the entire world viewed RP degrees! How sweeping, indeed. The paradox is that if one were to do even just some cursory research on the topic, that search will yield results to the contrary. The majority of graduate schools in the U.S., Japan, Canada, and Mexico, for instance, just to name a few, require only a bachelor's degree from the Philippines to enter their graduate schools - a clear testament to the fact that the country's bachelor's degrees are considered equivalent to theirs. Moreover, if RP degrees were so "inferior" that school rankings within the Philippines do not matter at all, per the original writer's claim, then why do Philippine universities consistenly land in world and regional rankings of top universities? The premise for the creation of that original section seems malicious at best. I've deleted it.Arch23 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

Now that we have a section on foreign government recognition, I think we can move the page to a new one, titled "Higher education in the Philippines." After that, we can begin importing the entries on accreditation, etc. from the mother article on Education in the Philippines to this article, and leave a shorter summary in the mother article. If no one disagrees, I propose that we make the move by the end of this week. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

If somebody could take a good picture of the main building of the Commission on Higher Education, I think that would be a good addition to this article. Aclarado (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 QS Asian University Rankings - International Student Review[edit]

To my fellow editors, here are two sets of 2009 rankings made by QS which may be of interest to you. It shows more Philippine schools in the list. In one table based on International Student Review, here are the results. In another table based on International Faculty Review, these are the results. It can be contentious, but again it can also be interesting. Perhaps you could take a look. If there are no objections in the next 7 days, I'll included it in the article. Aclarado (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I inserted the foregoing ranking tables in the International Rankings section. Aclarado (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

International rankings[edit]

I've just added information on the 2010 QS Asian University Rankings, as well as some more views on the rankings. I'd just like to point out that the international rankings part of this article is becoming rather cumbersome to work with. Perhaps someone can come up with a better way of presenting the data on the rankings, perhaps in tabular form, rather than having to inundate readers with long paragraphs.Rmcsamson (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories, instead of articles[edit]

An editor has insisted on listing categories under "see also" instead of articles. Most likely for the understandable reason that articles are not yet available (not yet written). Okay. But if an article were written on "Philippine Educators," it could only include those who were known outside of the Philippines. This is true of the other categories, as well, but just harder to prove that lack of knowledge is true for them. That is, a Filipino professor might be chancellor of some university system, perhaps qualifying him for an article. He may not be known outside of the country, which would mean, he would not be listed in an article "Notable Educators from the Philippines." An alternative is (I suppose) to write the article and see!

I obviously do not care for categories as "see alsos." But this rm is consistent with existing standards. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

International rankings (continued!)[edit]

An editor has tagged this section with:

This section's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (October 2013)

  • Some of it seems promotional. Recruiters are ranked!!

This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (October 2013)

  • It's true that other articles on similar topics don't have this detail. Is that necessarily wrong?

This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, there are various rankings mentioned here which have yielded different results.

  • But that is true of (for example) the US, as well. Harvard may be #1 on one list, #6 on another. Sometimes different standards are used. And do we really want to know those? :)

What is the point of this section really?. (October 2013)

  • My GUESS is that someone wanted to show the world that the Philippines had decent schools that were regionally accredited. Just because it is a third world country, didn't mean that it didn't have a "decent" education system. That may not be proven by the data furnished.

This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (October 2013)

  • Does seem long. I don't know where to start. Getting down to specifics here.

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2013)

  • That sort of statement needs individual sentence tagging, which, if the entire section is deleted, we won't need! :)

This section contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (October 2013)

  • Also kind of needs specifics. Some of it doubtless could be less WP:BOOSTER. Kind of have to do that as we go, assuming the section stays.

As you can see, I "sort of" favor keeping it. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just realized that local rankings not germane and rm them. This article must contain material germane to outside of the Philippines, though method of ranking may be germane, since some (most?) countries don't do that. Student7 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Higher education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Higher education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)