For the country as a whole, there is an equally important question that must be answered: Are we producing the graduates we need to meet our country’s needs?
If the country is to successfully compete in the global economy, it must produce graduates in higher education who are at par, if not better, than our peer countries, particularly in areas of science and technology. Unfortunately, we have not been doing very well at all.
Based on the latest data available from CHED (year 2003), the Philippines had a total of 401,787 graduates in higher education (college and graduate degrees). Of this number, only 4,872 graduates were in the natural sciences (or only about 12 science graduates for every 1,000 university graduates!) and 53,487 in engineering and technology.
The combined total of natural science, engineering and technology graduates in 2003 accounted for less than 15 percent of all graduates. This pales in comparison with countries such as Singapore, Japan and China where science and engineering (S&E) graduates account for over 70 percent of university graduates.
However, even more indicative of the poor state of our S&E in higher education is the number of PhDs that the entire country produces: in 2003, there were only 12 PhDs in the natural sciences and six PhDs in engineering!
The focus of basic education is to teach basic values and to enable our students to read and write, add and multiply. A bachelor’s education is viewed as a requirement to get a job and earn a living. On the other hand, investment in MS and PhD is for global competitiveness. How can we expect to be globally competitive if we produce only 12 PhDs in science and six PhDs in engineering per year, while our Asian neighbors train them in the hundreds and even thousands?
Today, the Philippines is competing mainly through its comparative strengths in English and the export of labor and domestic helpers. But this cannot continue to be our long-term national aspiration. We must start to invest more in the training and productivity of our advanced human resources in science and engineering. Our pride in the Filipino’s abilidad can only take us so far; it is not a substitute for real abilities.
Certainly it cannot be said that the country has not invested in the training of PhDs in science and engineering. Indeed, there have been successful programs in the past, but they have not gone far enough, and they have not been sustained. I wish to point out some of the characteristics of these programs because they reveal our approach to advanced manpower development that must be changed. In order to put together an effective strategy of developing advanced human resources in science and engineering, we must do three things.
At the end of World War 2, our scholars were the American pensionados. During the 1960s and 70s, many of our PhDs were trained in the US, supported by the Ford Foundation and the Fulbright Program. European scholarships were offered by the British Council and Germany (DAAD).
There were modest attempts of the Philippine government to fund PhD programs overseas, but many scholars chose not to return after their studies, or returned briefly, only to leave again for greener pastures.
During the 1980s, the UP-Ateneo-La Salle PhD Consortium obtained assistance from Australia and Japan (JSPS and Monbusho). The Consortium pioneered the "sandwich" PhD program, wherein the students took most of their PhD courses and whenever possible, started their research locally. They then went to a carefully selected foreign laboratory for periods of six months up to two years to carry out their research. They then returned to the Philippines to complete their write-up and defend their dissertation. The sandwich PhD program enjoyed very good success as evidenced by high rates of completion and retention.
In 1992, the DOST spearheaded the Engineering and Science Education Project (ESEP), a World Bank-funded program which sought to upgrade our human resources and laboratories in universities. Unfortunately, this project ended in 1997 and has not been followed up.
Meanwhile, much of the equipment, which was obtained under ESEP, is deteriorating from inadequate maintenance or is approaching the end of useful life.
Today, the DOST and CHED continue to provide MS and PhD scholarships in S&E, but it is apparent from the data that a scholarship program alone is not enough. A much wider project must be put in place.
Because most of our advanced S&T manpower efforts have depended on foreign funding, programs have been sporadic and erratic. This also indicates that the development of advanced S&T human resources is not yet a key concern of government and so we do not have a policy for the development of such capabilities. However, in today’s highly scientific and technological world, such a policy for continuous support is what is urgently needed.
Advanced S&T human resources development today includes PhD training, and the development of a productive environment. We need to expand the scope of support that we provide our PhDs, especially in S&E where the provision of good laboratories and productive environment is important.
Because such a policy to develop science and technology for national development demands a big investment and a radical change in our educational objectives, it requires political will. At its core, it is a commitment to invest in excellence. Indeed, our investment in the development of our scientists and engineers reflects our national aspirations and the way we view our national destiny.