After 16 years, the General Education program of the University of the Philippines will be given new vigor through the implementation of the Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) in the coming academic year 2002-2003.

          Under the RGEP framework, three more units would be added to the present 42 units of GE subjects needed to be taken by UP students. These GE courses are spread over three domains -- Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences and Philosophy, and Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Students will now be free to choose 15 units worth of subjects from each of the three clusters.

          With a vote of 248-105, the Diliman University Council (UC) members approved the proposal last December. RGEP will definitely apply to incoming freshmen in June. Old students, meanwhile, will be given the option to shift to the new GE program, provided they take an additional three units to their Natural Sciences and Mathematics domain.

          Heated debates regarding the proposal have arisen ever since UP President Nemenzo reconstituted the General Education Council last July 2000. The administration claims that general education is "supposed to acquaint students with the diversity of knowledge and expose them to various was of appreciating reality so they may think for themselves and form intelligent positions without being told by professors." A rigid GE curriculum goes against the philosophy of liberal education, Nemenzo asserts. Anti-RGEP advocates, however, believe that RGEP embraces a "free market paradigm" because it allows "market (student) forces" to dictate the demand for the courses. They see it is a part of the commercialization happening in UP. Also, it takes away the primary responsibility of the university which is to promote nationalism that upholds the interests of the marginalized sectors of society.

          One of the main arguments against RGEP is it did not undergo democratic review and consultation. According to UP General Education Movement (UP-GEM), discussions took place in 1991 and 1995 but they were only confined to faculty members. There was a lack of student participation, not because student organizations did not voice their views about it and appealed for more dialogues with the UC, but because the administration deliberately ceased hearing their petitions. UP GEM asserted that the admin failed to get the real consensus about the issue, instead the kind of consultation they formulated was an approach slanted towards the campaign for the proposal's approval.

          Hence, many students were, and still are, indecisive about RGEP. As observed by student activist organizations, the overall attitude among undergraduates is indifference, because they feel they need not be concerned about it since they are already, or almost, done with their GE subjects. And student activists believe that if the administration would still fall short in providing adequate explanation about the specifics of its forthcoming implementation, students will continue to be unaware and unconcerned with the imminent consequences of RGEP.

          Pro-RGEP advocates insist if the GE program were to inspire students to learn, students would be more likely to respond eagerly to courses they choose rather than those they have no interest in but must take. But the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND-UP) argues that in this context, RGEP will be favorable only for the students' personal interests and the element of social consciousness will soon fade away. Given the freedom, the students may choose subjects based not on nationalism, but on the high grades they could obtain by taking "easy" subjects. They may go for subjects that have fewer requirements and enroll in courses taught by popular professors. UP GEM further says that RGEP has an inherent problem in its pedagogy. The requisite 6 units of Philippine studies can come "from any of the clusters." This reinforces what the group calls "false equivalencies" among GE subjects. Thus, if it is implemented, it is possible for a student to finish a GE program without taking any History, Filipino, Philippine Literature or Mathematics subjects.

          The wholistic formation aimed by the general education program may be reduced to a mere popularity contest, a "survival of the fittest" challenge among courses that would appeal to students. More classes will be in danger of being dissolved because of the possible imbalance among enrollees due to wide variety of subjects. And through time, "unpopular" courses will be removed from the GE curriculum. RGEP would also lead to competition not only among departments and colleges, but also among teachers themselves. They would be forced to look "popular" in the eyes of the students so as to ensure that the subjects they teach will remain and be broadened in the curriculum. They will opt to choose a specialization that is popular, and not necessarily what is greatly needed for the country's development. And with the removal of unpopular courses, there will also be a consequent dismissal of teachers from these departments.

          According to a provision in the RGEP, the practice of having fresh graduates teaching GE subjects will be limited. Senior faculty will be given priority in teaching GE courses. Nemenzo asserts that the junior faculty lack experience and understanding of the philosophy of General Education. The administration then would prevent giving teaching opportunities to the university's own graduates, who may possess the patience to teach basic skills to the students.

          UP GEM also fears that RGEP can create a hindrance to the youth who passed UPCAT to enter the university only because they are below the cut-off level in math and/or English proficiencies. They need to undergo and pass the Summer Bridge Program (SBP) - which could mean added fees to be shouldered by them - otherwise, they forfeit their chance to receive UP education.

          Contrary to the contention of the administration that those who are anti-RGEP are "anti-student empowerment," those who oppose this proposal believe that the GE program is definitely in need of curricular reform. But they insist that if the administration is firm in pursuing a program patterned after American universities like Portland State University and New Mexico State University, a framework that is now abandoned by these state universities, it may be ignoring the real necessity for the state university to develop its own core curriculum which entails consideration of the needs of the country. Addressing the bigger problems of the university first such as budget cuts and increases in basic fees might be also put aside, instead of giving long-delayed attention to these problems.

          The revitalization of the existing GE program will not be a peril for the "tatak UP," which takes pride in providing students with progressive thinking, if the subjects and the teachers are clearly in favor of the advancement of the country, and the students are responsive and mindful enough of the welfare of the marginalized sectors of society, as claimed by anti-RGEP supporters. But as it appears to have an implicit agenda of influencing students to take on the values of the government and multinational companies instead of the Filipino masses, RGEP poses a threat to the UP education.