Cassc Cstraw Stsmc Final Paper

UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences Student Council 2014-2015 Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

ST System Monitoring Committee Survey and Report on the ST System, 1

st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015

0

University of the Philippines Visayas

College of Arts and Sciences

Student Council

Committee on Students Rights and Welfare

ST System Monitoring Committee

Survey and Report on the ST System, 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015




1

Acknowledgement

The UPV CAS Student Council Committee on Students Rights and Welfare ST System Monitoring Committee are thankful to those helped and contribute to this effort to

produce a report, survey, and assessment of the ST System:

To the Office of Student Affairs, Student Loan Board, and Office of the Vice Chancellor

for Academic Affairs for approving our various requests for data.

To the UPV University Student Council for contacting the other College Student

Councils to participate in this survey.

To CM-SC, CFOS-SC, SOTECH-SC for the active participation by administering the

survey in their campuses.

To the UPV CAS SC STRAW volunteer corps who helped in the encoding of data and

for their time in doing tasks assigned to them.

To June Elle Tanedo for volunteering to be the Committees statistics point person and in-charge of statistical analysis.

To the students of CAS, CFOS, SOTECH, and CM for participating in the survey.

Most especially to the members of the UPV CAS SC who helped in brain storming in the

planning of this monitoring, in following up details, and supporting this committee.

Most especially also to students whose right to accessible education was deprived

because of policies that attempt to commercialize this essential right. To Kristel Tejada and

Rosanna Sanfuego and others, this is most especially dedicate to you. We will continue to assert

each students right to education and stand by the people to forward their genuine interests until

such time that the sad reality of students committing suicide because of the high cost of

education will never happen anymore.




2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................. 1

Table of contents .................................................................................................... 2

Abbreviations used ................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4

Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6

Methodology ........................................................................................................... 7

Scope ....................................................................................................................... 7

Population and sample size ..................................................................................... 7

Results and analysis ................................................................................................. 9

I. Consideration of all cases (with scholarship) .......................................... 9

II. Consideration of all cases (without scholarship) .................................... 13

III. Difficulty in applying for ST System .................................................... 16

IV. Difficulty on enrolment ......................................................................... 17

V. Enrolment on the specified date ............................................................. 17

VI. Application for student loan ................................................................... 18

VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment ........................ 19

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A: Per College Results .............................................................................. 24




3

Abbreviations

CAS College of Arts and Sciences

CAS SC College of Arts and Sciences Student Council

CFOS College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

CFOS SC College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Student Council

CM SC College of Management Student Council

FD Full Discount

FDS Full Discount with Stipend

ND No Discount

PD40 Partial Discount 40%



SOTECH School of Technology

SOTECH SC School of Technology Student Council

ST System or STS Socialized Tuition System

STFAP Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program

UPV University of the Philippines Visayas




4

Introduction

The Socialized Tuition System was implemented as an improved version of the STFAP

last First Semester of the current Academic Year 2014-2015. This new tuition policy assumes

that the problematic STFAP was improved through faster and easier application. STFAP was

widely criticized by the different sectors of the university as a burdensome policy for the

students because of the slow processing of bracket assignments and misbracketing. In response

to this dilemma, the UP Administration, despite the opposition of the student body, decided to

reform STFAP and thus made the Socialized Tuition System. Under ST System, the previous

14-page form of STFAP has become a 2-page online form. Assignment of brackets has become

faster under the ST System.

Despite of these praises and positive assessment of the ST System, after the first wave of

implementation of the ST System and the release of brackets, the hashtag #BracketAKaNa

became a nationwide trending common hashtag in the social media. This hashtag was used by

students who experienced misbracketing in the UP System in social media like Twitter and

Facebook. This manifested the discontentment and anger of the students nationwide in the

implementation of the improved STFAP.

Due to this, the CAS Student Council in its planning for the First Semester of Academic

Year 2014-2015 has decided, after an hour of discussion, to monitor the ST System through

conducting a survey to record the students experience and determine the pulse of the students.




5

Finally, when the motion to establishing a monitoring committee was approved by the body, the

Committee on Students Rights and Welfare was tasked to prepare the necessary plans like

making the survey forms, coordinating with the University Student Council and other College

Student Councils. Last September 2014, letters to Office of the Student Affairs, Vice Chancellor

for Academic Affairs, and Student Loan Board were sent to request for necessary data. By

October 2014, survey forms were released to the local college student councils through their

respective point persons: CAS SC, CFOS SC, SOTECH SC, CM SC. From September 2014 to

December 2014, the focus of the Monitoring Committee was on giving out survey forms to

students and by January 2015 the focus was already on the collection of the survey forms. By

February to March, the data were encoded and analyzed.

After several months of data gathering, with the help of the local College Student

Councils and our resident statistical analyst, this monitoring has come to its final analysis.

Survey forms from CM, CAS, CFOS, and SOTECH Student Councils were returned to the CAS

SC. The CAS SC Students Rights and Welfare Committee Volunteer Corps and our resident

student statistical analyst worked for days and weeks in the collation and encoding of the data.

The convening of the CAS SC ST System Monitoring Committee is a project based on

CAS SCs commitment to assert for each Iskolars ng Bayans right to accessible education. This

initiative of the CAS Student Council is a response to the memorandum of the Student Regent to

monitor the implementation of the ST System and at the same time to contribute to the overall

struggle of the students to junk the Socialized Tuition System.




6

The CAS SC with the other participant Student Councils in this survey are optimistic that

the UP Administration will open their ears to hear out the findings and analysis of this survey.

We also look forward to a partnership of the Student Councils and the Administration to work

for genuine students rights and welfare and the protection of each Filipino youths right to

education.

Objectives

1. To determine the bracket distribution of students under ST System and the previous

STFAP in the CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH;

2. To determine the number of students experienced bracket sliding up and down or

retained;

3. To determine how the students rate the difficulty of applying in ST System;

4. To determine how the students rate the difficulty in enrolment in the First Semester of

Academic Year 2014-2015.

6. To determine the reasons of students for not enrolling on time;

7. To determine the number of students enrolled on time or not;

8. To determine the number of students availed for student loan;

9. To determine how students perceive their bracket if this reflects their socioeconomic

background and;

10. To know the students sentiments about the ST System.




7

Methodology

Stratified sampling with proportional allocation, with margin of error of 6.5%, was

applied to this survey. Samples are taken such that each course from each academic organization

will have a representation in the final sample size. Intended sample size is 900 but is reduced to

844 due to non-responses. In the final calculation of bracket sliding, 1st year students and

students with scholarships are excluded from analysis since first year students have only STS as

their bracket and the presence of scholarship has significant effect on the bracket sliding. The

rest of the analysis on other variables utilizes the final sample size of 844.

Scope

The colleges surveyed in this Monitoring are the following: CAS, CM, CFOS, and

SOTECH. These colleges became part of this Monitoring because their Student Councils

willingly agreed to survey in their respective colleges.

Population and Sample size

A. Total Population by Colleges

1563 CAS

895 CM

297 FISH

317 SOTECH




8

B. By Academic Organizations

Table 1: Samples per organization

Academic Organization First year Upperclass

Elektrons 56 86

Redbolts 31 82

CM 90 150

Fish 41 106

Clovers 13 20

Sotech 56 81

Skimmers 8 24

C. By Colleges

CAS - 320

CM - 240

CFOS - 147

SOTECH 137

(*with Scholarship is excluded with our data final tables)




9

Results and Analysis

The data of the UPV CAS Student Council ST System Monitoring Committee show the

following results:

I. Consideration of ALL cases (with scholarship)1

Table 2: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (with scholarship)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

-4 (4 brackets

down) 1 .1 .2 .2

-3 (3 brackets

down) 3 .4 .6 .7

-2 (2 brackets

down) 18 2.1 3.3 4.1

-1 (1 bracket down 105 12.4 19.4 23.4

0 (retained) 291 34.5 53.7 77.1

1 (1 bracket up) 97 11.5 17.9 95.0

2 (2 brackets up) 19 2.3 3.5 98.5

3 (3 brackets up) 5 .6 .9 99.4

4 (4 brackets up) 2 .2 .4 99.8

5 (5 brackets up 1 .1 .2 100.0

Total 542 64.2 100.0

Missing System 302 35.8

Total 844 100.0

1 In order to look at the comparison between STFAP and STS, upperclassmen data only were considered on this

part because it is the upperclassmen, batches 2013 and below, that experienced the transition of STFAP to ST System.




10

In the number of 844 students surveyed coming from CAS, CFOS, CM, and SOTECH

(544 are upperclassmen and 300 of which are freshmen), the percentage of students experienced

bracket sliding were:

77.1 % maintained their original STFAP brackets or have experienced assignment

to lower brackets under ST System and;

22.9% experienced bracket slide up

Table 3: Recoded STFAP (with scholarship)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 (bracket A) 76 9.0 14.0 14.0

2(bracket B) 180 21.3 33.1 47.1

3(bracket C) 109 12.9 20.0 67.1

4(bracket D) 103 12.2 18.9 86.0

5(bracket E1) 59 7.0 10.8 96.9

6(bracket E2) 17 2.0 3.1 100.0

Total 544 64.5 100.0


Total 844 100.0

Table 4: Recoded ST System (with scholarship)


Valid

1(ND) 93 11.0 11.1 11.1

2(PD40) 209 24.8 25.0 36.1

3(PD60) 276 32.7 33.0 69.1

4(PD80) 185 21.9 22.1 91.2

5(FD) 58 6.9 6.9 98.1

6(FDS) 16 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 837 99.2 100.0

Missing System 7 .8

Total 844 100.0




11

In the previous STFAP, the bracket distribution is:

A 14%

B 33.1%

C 20%

D 18.9%

E1 10.8%

E2 3.1%

Under the ST System, the bracket distribution of the respondents surveyed were:

ND 11.1 %

PD40 25.0%

PD60 33.0%

PD80 22.1%

FD 6.9%

FDS 1.9%

Under the ST System, students are mostly concentrated under brackets PD40 and PD60,

the middle brackets, this also holds true with the previous STFAP that the concentration of

students are on the middle brackets (brackets B and C).

It may be noticed that the number of bracket A students under STFAP has decreased in

the new ST System. But there is a significant decrease on the number of students enjoying free

tuition brackets (E1 and E2, FD and FDS).




12

In the STFAP, 14% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST

this has decreased to 11.1%.

In the STFAP, 33.1% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition with

40% discount, under ST, this has decreased t0 25.0%.


60% discount, under ST this has increased to 33.0%.



In the STFAP, 10.8% students are enjoying free tuition but this has decreased to 6.9%

under ST System.

In the STFAP, 3.1% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST

System this has down to 1.9%.

It can be observed that the trend of the bracket distribution after the ST System was

implemented in the First Semester of the Academic Year 2014-2015 was:

There was a decrease in the number of students paying no-discount tuition under ST

System but there was also a significant decrease in the number of students enjoying free tuition




13

brackets. The bulk of the students were assigned into middle paying brackets (PD40, PD60,

PD80), especially under ST System, the number of students paying tuition with 60% discount

increased.

II. In consideration of cases of without scholarships (only upperclassmen data were considered in

order to see the comparison between STFAP and ST System)

Table 5: Table 1: Survey of students experienced bracket slid up and down or retained (without scholarship)


Valid

-3 (3 brackets down) 1 .2 .3 .3

-2 (2 brackets down) 11 1.7 2.8 3.1

-1 (1 bracket down) 65 10.3 16.7 19.8

0 (retained) 222 35.2 57.1 76.9

1 (1 bracket up) 73 11.6 18.8 95.6

2 (2 brackets up) 14 2.2 3.6 99.2

3 (3 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 99.5

4 (4 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 99.7

5 (5 brackets up) 1 .2 .3 100.0

Total 389 61.6 100.0


Total 631 100.0

76.9% - maintained their bracket and bracket slid down.

23.1% - experienced bracket slid up.




14

Table 6: Recoded STFAP (without scholarship)


Valid

1 (bracket A) 55 8.7 14.1 14.1

2 (bracket B) 158 25.0 40.4 54.5

3 (bracket C) 92 14.6 23.5 78.0

4 (bracket D) 61 9.7 15.6 93.6

5 (bracket E1) 16 2.5 4.1 97.7

6 (bracket E2) 9 1.4 2.3 100.0

Total 391 62.0 100.0


Total 631 100.0

Table 7: Recoded ST System (without scholarship)


Valid

1 (ND) 55 8.7 14.1 14.1

2 (PD40 158 25.0 40.4 54.5

3 (PD60) 92 14.6 23.5 78.0

4 (PD80) 61 9.7 15.6 93.6

5 (FD) 16 2.5 4.1 97.7

6 (FDS) 9 1.4 2.3 100.0

Total 391 62.0 100.0


Total 631 100.0




15

The bracket distribution of the respondents without scholarship:

Under STS:

ND 12.6%

PD40 29.8%

PD60 34.6%

PD80 17.1%

FD 4.1%

FDS 1.3%

Under STFAP:

A 14.1%

B 40.4%

C 23.5%

D 15.6%

E1 4.1%

E2 1.3%




16

III. Difficulty of applying in the ST System

Table 8: Difficulty of applying in ST SYSTEM


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 40 6.3 6.4 6.4

2 (Easy) 147 23.3 23.4 29.8

3 (Average) 336 53.2 53.6 83.4

4 (Difficult) 86 13.6 13.7 97.1

5 (Very difficult) 18 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

83.4% of the respondents have average to very easy application in the ST System while

16.4% have difficulty.




17

IV. Difficulty on enrolment

Table 9: Difficulty level of enrolment, 1st

semester AY 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 33 5.2 5.3 5.3

2 (Easy) 125 19.8 19.9 25.2

3 (Average) 274 43.4 43.7 68.9

4 (Difficult) 145 23.0 23.1 92.0

5 (Very difficult) 50 7.9 8.0 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, 31.1% have

difficulty.

V. Enrolment on the specified enrolment date

Table 10: Enrolment on the specified time


Percent

Valid

0 (No, not enrolled on time) 82 13.0 13.0 13.0

1 (Yes, enrolled on time) 546 86.5 86.8 99.8

2 (unanswered) 1 .2 .2 100.0

Total 629 99.7 100.0

Missing System 2 .3

Total 631 100.0

86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time.




18

The reasons for non-enrolment on time were as follows:

47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment (this include CRS

matters, subjects, and other related).

35.58% - Financial-related reasons.

15.38% - were other reasons for the delay of enrolment which includes travel and

personal choice.

1.92% - uncleared accountabilities.

VI. Availment of student loan

Table 11: Application for student loan


Valid

0 (No, did not apply for

loan) 455 72.1 77.4 77.4

1 (Yes, applied for

loan) 133 21.1 22.6 100.0

Total 588 93.2 100.0


Total 631 100.0

77.4% did not avail for student loan, 22.6% availed student loan.

While this may indicate that the number of students availed for student loan significantly

became lower under ST System, it is also necessary to look into the four-month break that may

give students the time to apply for summer jobs or their parents that were able to save money for

enrolment. This possible scenario is the limitation of this Monitoring.




19

VII. Reflection of students toward their bracket assignment

Table 12: Students perception of their assigned bracket


Percent

Valid

0 (No, bracket does not

reflect their actual

socioeconomic condition)

302 47.9 48.2 48.2

1 (Yes, bracket reflects

actual socioeconomic

condition)

325 51.5 51.8 100.0

Total 627 99.4 100.0

Missing System 4 .6

Total 631 100.0

51.8% agree that their bracket reflect their socioeconomic background while 48.2% does

not.

VIII. Students comments on the ST System

Students were asked of their sentiments regarding the ST System; out of the 844

respondents, only 429 students wrote their comments regarding ST System. We grouped these

sentiments into three numerical groups:

1 These sentiments are negative of the ST System, that students think that the

system is unfair, biased, does not reflect their true socioeconomic background and suggests the

junking of the system, and even pushes for flat rate tuition system and education as a right.




20

2 These students are also negative and point out the loopholes in the system and

proposed certain improvements and reform on the ST System.

3 Students who had neutral sentiments toward the system; they are neither

positive nor negative.

4 These students are approving towards the system and think that they do not

have problems regarding the system.

After the grouping, the results in percentage is:

1 55.48% of the respondents are negative towards ST System and thinks that it

is unfair, biased, does not reflect their actual situation, suggests the need to junk the system,

pushes for a flat rate tuition system, and education as a right.

2 24.94% of the respondents negative through pointing out the loopholes in the

system and proposes certain improvements and reform on the ST System.

3 3.03% of the respondents are neither positive nor negative of the system.

4 16.55% of the respondents are approving of the ST System.




21

Conclusion

After the numbers presented, we arrived at these conclusions:

1. The number of students paying for no-discount tuition under ST System has decreased,

the number, however, of students that are tuition-free (the E1 and E2 under STFAP and FD and

FDS under ST System) decreased. The bulk of the students were assigned in middle paying

brackets like PD60 and PD80. It can be argued then that, the decrease in ND or bracket A was a

result of students reassignment to lower brackets. And can be argued further that the decrease in

E1/E2 and FD/FDS was a result of bracket sliding up of the students after the ST System

implementation.

2. 83.4% of the students surveyed have average to very easy application in the ST System

while 16.4% have difficulty.

3. 68.9% of the respondents have average to little difficulty in enrolling, 31.1% have

difficulty

4. 86.7% enrolled on time, 13.3% were not able to enrol on time. In this 13.3% of

students who were not able to enrol on time, the reasons cited are:

47.12% - Enrolment processes that caused delays in enrolment (this include CRS

matters, subjects, and other related).

35.58% - Financial-related reasons.

15.38% - were other reasons for the delay of enrolment which includes travel and

personal choice.

1.92% - uncleared accountabilities




22

It is understandable that 47.12% of students were delayed on their enrolment because of

enrolment-related technicalities like courses enlistment, advisers signature and others as these

problems are the semestral dilemma of UP. But the figure 35.58% as the percentage of students

who had delayed enrolments because of financial related reasons is a significant figure. This only

means that despite of the Socialized Tuition and the promise of its accessibility, 35.58% of the

respondents have delayed enrolment because of financial aspect that includes: tuition, ST System

misbracketing, loan (as some of the reasons cited by the respondents).

5. After the implementation of ST System, there was a significant decrease in the number

of students applying for student loan in the 1st semester of A.Y. 2014-2015: 77.4% did not avail

for student loan, 22.6% availed student loan. However, one must need to consider the four-month

break that might have given ample time to the students and their parents to save for the

enrolment; this was not covered by the survey and thus constitutes as one of its limitations.

6. 51.8% agree that their bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background while

48.2% does not.

7. 55.48% of the respondents have a very negative reaction on the ST System. These

negative sentiments compose the majority of the students that think that ST System is unfair,

biased, and does not truly reflect their actual socioeconomic situation. This 55.48% of the

respondents even suggest that ST System should be junked and to implement a flat rate tuition

system for all and expressed that education is a right. While 24.94% maintains that ST System

has loopholes and there is a need to give it a time or to reform it. Only 16.55% are approving of

the ST System.

8. In the final conclusion, it may be true that ST System is faster in processing than the

STFAP because it is only a 2-page online form. But the first implementation of the policy was




23

widely criticized by the UP student body as it assigned wrongful brackets to people. Majority of

the students are aware that ST System is no different with the STFAP that brackets the right to

education. Also, majority of the students believe on the argument that ST System, or any similar

form of it, should be junked and that education be a right of everyone.




24

Appendix A

Per College Results

I. College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)

a. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System:

Table 13: Recoded STFAP


Percent

Valid

1 (bracket A) 17 6.6 10.3 10.3

2 (bracket B) 60 23.3 36.4 46.7

3 (bracket C) 42 16.3 25.5 72.1

4 (bracket D) 30 11.7 18.2 90.3

5 (bracket E1) 8 3.1 4.8 95.2

6 (bracket E2) 8 3.1 4.8 100.0

Total 165 64.2 100.0


Total 257 100.0

Table 14: Recoded ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (ND) 31 12.1 12.1 12.1

2 (PD40) 68 26.5 26.5 38.5

3 (PD60) 89 34.6 34.6 73.2

4 (PD80) 49 19.1 19.1 92.2

5 (FD) 17 6.6 6.6 98.8

6 (FDS) 3 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0




25

STFAP:

A 10.3%

B 36.4%

C 25.5%

D 18.2%

E1 4.8%

E2 4.8%

ST System:

ND 12.1%

PD40 26.5%

PD60 34.6%

PD80 19.1%

FD 6.6%

FDS 1.2%

In the STFAP, 10.3% of the respondents were assigned in the highest bracket; under ST

this has increased to 12.1%.


40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 26.5%.




26






under ST System.

In the STFAP, 4.8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST

System this has down to 1.2%.

b. Experience of bracket sliding

Table 15: Experience of bracket sliding


Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 7 2.7 4.2 4.2

-1 (1 bracket down) 29 11.3 17.6 21.8

0 (retained) 95 37.0 57.6 79.4

1 (1 bracket up) 27 10.5 16.4 95.8

2 (2 brackets up) 7 2.7 4.2 100.0

Total 165 64.2 100.0


Total 257 100.0

79.4% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 20.6% slid up.




27

c. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 16: Difficulty level in applying for ST System


Valid

1 (Very easy) 18 7.0 7.1 7.1

2 (Easy) 53 20.6 20.8 27.8

3 (Average) 137 53.3 53.7 81.6

4 (Difficult) 41 16.0 16.1 97.6

5 (Very difficult) 6 2.3 2.4 100.0

Total 255 99.2 100.0

Missing System 2 .8

Total 257 100.0

81.6% have average to easy application in the STS, 28.4% have experienced difficulty.

d. Difficulty level in enrolment

Table 17: Difficulty level in enrolment for the 1st

semester, A.Y. 2014-2015


Valid

1 (Very easy) 5 1.9 2.0 2.0

2 (Easy) 48 18.7 18.8 20.8

3 (Average) 117 45.5 45.9 66.7

4 (Difficult) 63 24.5 24.7 91.4

5 (Very difficult) 22 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 255 99.2 100.0

Missing System 2 .8

Total 257 100.0

66.7% have average to easy experience in enrolment, 33.3% have difficulty .




28

e. Enrolment on the specified date

Table 18: Enrolment on the specified date


Valid

0 (No, did not enrol in the

specified date) 39 15.2 15.2 15.2

1 (Yes, enrolee on the

specified date) 217 84.4 84.4 99.6

2 (unanswered) 1 .4 .4 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0

15.2% did not enrol on specified date, 84.4% enrolled on time

f. Application for student loan



Valid


student loan) 193 75.1 78.8 78.8

1 (Yes, applied for

student loan) 52 20.2 21.2 100.0

Total 245 95.3 100.0


Total 257 100.0

78.8% did not avail for student loan, 21.2% availed loan.




29

g. Students perception on their bracket

Table 20: Students perception on their bracket


Valid


reflect actual

socioeconomic

condition)

193 75.1 78.8 78.8



condition)

52 20.2 21.2 100.0

Total 245 95.3 100.0


Total 257 100.0

49.8% believe that it reflects their bracket, 50.2% believes that it doesnt reflect his/her true

bracket

II. College of Management (CM)

a. Students perception of their bracket assignment

Table 21: Students perception of their bracket


Valid

0 (No, bracket does not reflect

actual socioeconomic situation) 128 49.8 49.8 49.8

1 (Yes, bracket reflects actual

socioeconomic situation) 129 50.2 50.2 100.0

Total 257 100.0 100.0

50.7% think that their STS bracket truly reflect their socioeconomic background, 49.3% think

that it does not.




30

b. Bracketing under ST System and STFAP:

Table 22: Bracket distribution under STFAP


Valid

1 (bracket A) 24 11.9 19.2 19.2

2 (bracket B) 52 25.9 41.6 60.8

3 (bracket C) 27 13.4 21.6 82.4

4 (bracket D) 17 8.5 13.6 96.0

5 (bracket E1) 4 2.0 3.2 99.2

6 (bracket E2) 1 .5 .8 100.0

Total 125 62.2 100.0


Total 201 100.0

Table 23: Bracket distribution under ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (ND) 33 16.4 16.6 16.6

2 (PD40) 60 29.9 30.2 46.7

3 (PD60) 67 33.3 33.7 80.4

4 (PD80) 32 15.9 16.1 96.5

5 (FD) 3 1.5 1.5 98.0

6 (FDS) 4 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 199 99.0 100.0


Total 201 100.0




31

STFAP:

A 19.2%

B 41.6%

C 21.6%

D 13.6%

E1 3.2%

E2 - .8%

ST System:

ND 16.6%

PD40 30.2%

PD60 33.7%

PD80 16.1%

FD 1.5%

FDS 2.0%










32


80% discount, under ST this has increased 16.1%.


under ST System.

In the STFAP, .8% students were enjoying free tuition plus stipend but under the ST

System this has up to 2.0%.

c. Experience of bracket sliding

Table 24: Experience of bracket sliding


Percent

Valid

-3 (3 brackets down) 1 .5 .8 .8

-2 (2 brackets down) 1 .5 .8 1.6

-1 (1 bracket down) 24 11.9 19.4 21.0

0 (retained) 72 35.8 58.1 79.0

1 (1 bracket up) 23 11.4 18.5 97.6

2 (2 brackets up) 3 1.5 2.4 100.0

Total 124 61.7 100.0


Total 201 100.0

79% experienced maintained or slid down bracket, 21% slid up.




33

d. Difficulty level in applying for ST System

Table 25: Difficulty level in applying for ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 12 6.0 6.0 6.0

2 (Easy) 65 32.3 32.3 38.3

3 (Average) 99 49.3 49.3 87.6

4 (Difficult) 22 10.9 10.9 98.5

5 (Very difficult) 3 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

87.6% have experienced average to very easy application while 12.4% experienced

difficulty.

e. Difficulty level in enrolment

Table 26: Difficulty level in enrolment, 1st

semester A.Y. 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 14 7.0 7.0 7.0

2 (Easy) 45 22.4 22.4 29.4

3 (Average) 73 36.3 36.3 65.7

4 (Difficult) 50 24.9 24.9 90.5

5 (Very difficult) 19 9.5 9.5 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

65.7% have average to very easy experience in enrolment, 34.3% have difficulty.




34

f. Enrolment on the specified date



Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not enrol in the

specified date) 24 11.9 11.9 11.9

1 (Yes, enrolled in the

specified date) 177 88.1 88.1 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0

11.9% did not enrol on specified date, 88.1% enrolled on time.

g. Application for student loan



Percent

Valid


student loan) 153 76.1 78.9 78.9

1 (Yes, applied for student

loan) 41 20.4 21.1 100.0

Total 194 96.5 100.0


Total 201 100.0





35

III. College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (CFOS)

a. Students perception on the bracket assignment

Table 29: Students perception on their brackets


Percent

Valid


reflect actual socioeconomic

condition)

36 46.8 47.4 47.4



comdition)

40 51.9 52.6 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

47.4% believe that it reflects their bracket, 52.6% believes that it doesnt reflect his/her true

bracket

b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and ST System



Percent

Valid

1 (bracket A) 8 10.4 16.3 16.3

2 (bracket B) 23 29.9 46.9 63.3

3 (bracket C) 12 15.6 24.5 87.8

4 (bracket D) 5 6.5 10.2 98.0

5 (bracket E1 and E2) 1 1.3 2.0 100.0

Total 49 63.6 100.0


Total 77 100.0




36



Percent

Valid

1 (ND) 7 9.1 9.2 9.2

2 (PD40) 27 35.1 35.5 44.7

3 (PD60) 26 33.8 34.2 78.9

4 (PD80) 12 15.6 15.8 94.7

5 (FD) 3 3.9 3.9 98.7

6 (FDS) 1 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

STFAP:

A 16.3%

B 46.9%

C 24.5%

D 10.2%

E 2.0%

STS:

ND 9.2%

PD40 35.5%

PD60 34.2%

PD80 15.8%




37

FDS 5.2%










under ST System.




38

c. Experience of bracket sliding up and down or retain

Table 32: Experience of bracket sliding up, down, and retain


Percent

Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 1 1.3 2.1 2.1

-1 (1 bracket down) 6 7.8 12.5 14.6

0 (retain) 26 33.8 54.2 68.8

1 (1 bracket up) 11 14.3 22.9 91.7

2 (2 brackets up) 2 2.6 4.2 95.8

4 (4 brackets up) 1 1.3 2.1 97.9

5 (5 brackets up) 1 1.3 2.1 100.0

Total 48 62.3 100.0


Total 77 100.0


d. Level of difficulty in ST System application

Table 33: Level of difficulty in ST System application


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 3 3.9 3.9 3.9

2 (Easy) 15 19.5 19.5 23.4

3 (Average) 40 51.9 51.9 75.3

4 (Difficult) 13 16.9 16.9 92.2

5 (Very difficult) 6 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 77 100.0 100.0




39

75.3% have average to very easy application under ST System, 24.7% have difficulty.

e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment for 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

Table 34: Level of difficulty in the enrolment for the 1st

semester, 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 2 2.6 2.6 2.6

2 (Easy) 14 18.2 18.2 20.8

3 (Average) 39 50.6 50.6 71.4

4 (Difficult) 16 20.8 20.8 92.2

5 (Very difficult) 6 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 77 100.0 100.0

71.4% have ease in enrolment, 28.6% have difficulty in enrolment.




Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not enrol on the

specified date) 12 15.6 15.8 15.8

1 (Yes, enrolled on the

specified date) 64 83.1 84.2 100.0

Total 76 98.7 100.0


Total 77 100.0

15.8% did not enrol on specified date, 84.2% enrolled on time.




40




Percent

Valid


student loan) 52 67.5 73.2 73.2

1 (Yes, applied for student

loan) 19 24.7 26.8 100.0

Total 71 92.2 100.0


Total 77 100.0

73.2% did not avail student loan, 26.8% availed loan.

IV. SOTECH

a. Students perception on their bracket assignments

Table 37: Students perception on their bracket assignments


Percent

Valid

0 (No, it does not reflect the


situation)

39 40.6 41.9 41.9

1 (Yes, it reflects the actual

socioeconomic situation) 54 56.3 58.1 100.0

Total 93 96.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0




41

41.9% believe that ST System bracketing reflects their socioeconomic background, 58.1% does

not.

b. Bracket distribution under STFAP and STS:



Percent

Valid

1 (bracket A) 6 6.3 11.5 11.5

2 (bracket B) 23 24.0 44.2 55.8

3 (bracket C) 11 11.5 21.2 76.9

4 (bracket D) 9 9.4 17.3 94.2

5 (bracket E1 and E2) 3 3.1 5.8 100.0

Total 52 54.2 100.0


Total 96 100.0





42


Percent

Valid

1 (ND) 8 8.3 8.3 8.3

2 (PD40) 32 33.3 33.3 41.7

3 (PD60) 35 36.5 36.5 78.1

4 (PD80) 18 18.8 18.8 96.9

5 (FD/FDS) 3 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

STFAP:

A 11.5%

B 44.2%

C 21.2%

D 17.3%

E 5.8%

STS:

ND 8.3%

PD40 33.3%

PD60 36.5%

PD80 18.8%

FD/S 3.1%


this has increased to 8.3%.




43

In the STFAP, 44.42% of the respondents were assigned to the bracket paying tuition

with 40% discount, under ST, this has decreased to 33.3%.






under ST System.




44

c. Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.

Table 40: Experience of bracket slide up, down, and retain.


Percent

Valid

-2 (2 brackets down) 2 2.1 3.8 3.8

-1 (1 bracket down) 6 6.3 11.5 15.4

0 (retain) 29 30.2 55.8 71.2

1 (1 bracket up) 12 12.5 23.1 94.2

2 (2 brackets up) 2 2.1 3.8 98.1

3 (3 brackets up) 1 1.0 1.9 100.0

Total 52 54.2 100.0


Total 96 100.0


d. Level of difficulty in applying for ST System.

Table 41: Level of difficulty in applying for ST System


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 7 7.3 7.4 7.4

2 (Easy) 14 14.6 14.9 22.3

3 (Average) 60 62.5 63.8 86.2

4 (Difficult) 10 10.4 10.6 96.8

5 (Very difficult) 3 3.1 3.2 100.0

Total 94 97.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0

86.2% have average to very easy application in STS, 13.8% experienced difficulty.




45

e. Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1st semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

Table 42: Level of difficulty in the enrolment in the 1st

semester, A.Y. 2014-2015


Percent

Valid

1 (Very easy) 12 12.5 12.8 12.8

2 (Easy) 18 18.8 19.1 31.9

3 (Average) 45 46.9 47.9 79.8

4 (Difficult) 16 16.7 17.0 96.8

5 (Very difficult) 3 3.1 3.2 100.0

Total 94 97.9 100.0


Total 96 100.0

79.8% have average to vey easy in enrolment, 20.2% have difficulty.




Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not enrol on

time) 7 7.3 7.4 7.4

1 (Yes, enrolled on time) 88 91.7 92.6 100.0

Total 95 99.0 100.0


Total 96 100.0

7.4% did not enrol on specified date, 92.6% enrolled on time




46




Percent

Valid

0 (No, did not apply for student

loan) 57 59.4 73.1 73.1

1 (Yes, applied for student loan) 21 21.9 26.9 100.0

Total 78 81.3 100.0


Total 96 100.0





47

These results are verified by:

JUNE ELLE TANEDO

BS Statistics student and resident data analyst

JUDE M. MANGILOG

Councilor

Head, Committee on Students Rights and Welfare UPV CAS Student Council

RAOUL DANNIEL MANUEL

Chairperson UPV CAS Student Council

Cassc Cstraw Stsmc Final Paper

Documents

students rights

students of cas

upv university student

college student councils

office of student affairs

student loan board

sad reality of students

accessible education