Tag Archives: 2023

Qwertyman No. 53: Too many laudes?

Posted on by
1

Qwertyman for August 7, 2023

LIKE MANY alumni and casual onlookers, I couldn’t help but be bothered by the announcement that more than half of this year’s graduating class of the University of the Philippines Diliman were finishing with Latin honors—2,243 out of 3,359 undergraduates, 305 of them summa cum laude, 1,196 magna cum laude, and 742 cum laude. Critics were quick to point out that it was a sure sign of grade hyperinflation, that UP had turned into a diploma mill, and that a UP education was no longer what it used to be.

Having taught in UP for almost 40 years, I disagree with the harshest of these conclusions—there are many external indicators to prove that UP graduates and UP as an institution are globally competitive and remain high above national averages in terms of professional certifications and such. 

But the surge in honor graduates is indeed so high that it leads many to worry if a summa today means the same thing it did ten years ago, when only 15 out of 4,365 graduates claimed that distinction. What happened in between? Did both UP students and their professors become so suddenly much better that they outperformed historical expectations? Can we back this up with scientific data, or at least with some reasonable conjectures?

My own guess—and that’s all it is, an educated guess—is that we’re seeing the outcome of an enforced leniency in grading during the pandemic, when the normal grading rules were stretched to be as accommodating as possible to the situation that our undergraduates found themselves in—under lockdown, taking classes on Zoom under highly variable conditions of connectivity, with little or no access to physical libraries and laboratories, with little social interaction face to face, and under the critical eye of hovering parents and siblings at home. 

During the pandemic, in UP (and perhaps in other universities and colleges as well), a “no-fail” policy was put into effect; no student could be given a failing grade, except in cases of intellectual dishonesty. The normal one-year period for resolving “Incomplete” grades was extended. Professors could not “drop” students for absences or lack of communication. Students could opt to have their grades “deferred.” University rules on scholastic delinquency and retention were suspended. And because universities worldwide had to shift abruptly to online teaching, resulting in many adjustment problems on both sides of the video camera, UP decided that numerical grades earned during this adjustment period would not be factored into the General Weighted Average (GWA), on which Latin honors are based. Note that under normal rules—which, to my knowledge, are mostly if not entirely now back in effect—any one of these infractions or deficiencies could have cost you your laude; their relaxation meant that the door was now open for many candidates who might have been disqualified on technical grounds. 

But then again, that’s just my personal explanation for this aberration (which statistically it is, if you’ve seen the charts). I don’t mean for any of this to diminish the pride, happiness, and sense of accomplishment that I saw on the faces of the graduates and their parents that waterlogged morning of July 30 when UP Diliman held abbreviated commencement exercises despite the weather. No speeches were made to put safety over ceremony, but then perhaps none were needed, as the swell of “UP Naming Mahal” rose defiantly over the rain. You could not walk up to any one of those honor graduates and tell him or her “You don’t deserve your medal,” because you had no idea what he or she went through during the pandemic to earn it. If the system failed, then let it be faulted, and let the post-mortem happen, but don’t take it out on the students who only did what they were supposed to do. 

Even as professor emeritus, I’m still teaching after retirement, and last semester I chose to teach Fiction Writing to a class of undergraduates, wanting to see for myself what our young people were thinking and also to give them the unusual experience of being taught by a grizzled old fellow. I was generally pleased with the level of talent and enthusiasm I encountered. As expected, two or three students stood out above the rest, many sat in the middle, and a few lagged behind, not for incompetence but for such other factors as attendance and class participation, both important in a writing workshop. Most did well enough, in my estimation, to earn at least the 1.75 that would have qualified them for honors. Was I part of the grade inflation? But if they did much worse than that, then they had no business being in UP. I didn’t give out any “1.0”s, but I didn’t flunk anyone, either. If anything, my chief complaint would be how alienated our young people are from their social and cultural environment beyond their cohort and from their history. They can write well, but they still have to learn and understand what truly matters.

As far as Latin honors are concerned, it might help to see what the financial website Investopedia has to say on it, adjusting for the fact that it’s US-based:

“While Latin honors can look good on a diploma, college transcript, or résumé, do they make any difference in real life? Two researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Pauline Khoo and Ben Ost, attempted to answer that question in a 2018 paper titled ‘The Effects of Graduating With Honors on Earnings.’

“’We find that obtaining honors provides an economic return in the labor market, but this benefit only persists for two years,’ they wrote. ‘By the third year after college, we see no effect of having received honors on wages, suggesting that firms may use the signal for new graduates, but they do not rely on the signal for determining the pay of more experienced workers.’ They also found that the economic benefit applied only to students who had graduated from selective schools.

“Critics of Latin honors are less concerned with their potential post-graduation benefits than the unintended effect they may have on students while they’re still in school. A 2011 editorial in Harvard University’s student newspaper, the Crimson, called for their abolition at the school.

“By rewarding students who achieve a minimum GPA across classes, the Latin honors system does more to discourage academic achievement than to encourage it. It encourages students to view classes outside of their concentration as a means to an end, the end being the highest possible grade, rather than an opportunity for intellectual exploration.”

Given our Pinoy penchant for titles and distinctions, I don’t see us getting rid of laudes anytime soon, but it may be time to find another and better way to recognize and reward student achievement beyond book learning.

(Photo from upd.edu.ph)

Qwertyman No. 25: Courtesy Ca. 2023

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, January 23, 2023

THIS TOPIC wouldn’t have occurred to me to write about if I hadn’t come across—in my meanderings online as a collector of antiquarian books and papers—a copy of a slim pamphlet published by the University of the Philippines Press in 1936, titled “Courtesy Appeals by the President’s Committee on Courtesy.” But as soon as I saw that title, I knew I had to get that pamphlet and reflect on the observance (most likely in the breach) of its prescriptions today.

To be honest, I never even heard of a “committee on courtesy” in UP. Neither, as a former student and professor, did I ever instinctively attach the word “courtesy” to UP, although I will not agree to any collective condemnation of “Iskos” and “Iskas” as boorish and uncultured. Granted, UP lore is rich with tales of what we’ll call youthful insolence toward their elders, in ways that would make even millennials cringe. (Who was that young poet who, in a writers’ workshop, supposedly stole a famous lady poet’s underwear—don’t ask me how—and strung it up a flagpole or hung it on a line, prompting her friend—another professor known for her fiery temper—to curse the laughing fellows: “I wish your mothers had aborted you!”) 

Meekness may not be one of a UP student’s strongest suits, because we teach them to assert themselves. But we also teach them to criticize or comment with style and intelligence, as when a young wit responded to a customary recitation of then President Carlos P. Romulo’s kilometric list of honorary degrees by saying, “Why, Mr. President, you have more degrees than a thermometer!” (In fairness to CPR, that fellow went on to an illustrious career accompanied by much—and some say self-generated—pomp and circumstance.)

Courtesy, of course, is not about sticking out but about staying in—behaving oneself for social acceptability and harmony, living up to someone else’s expectations by observing a strict code of do’s and don’ts. At least that’s how it was appreciated in the 1930s, when President Jorge Bocobo created the committee that came out with the prescriptions in the pamphlet. Although he served as one of UP’s most hardworking and effective presidents—someone who pushed UP students to go out and serve the masses—Bocobo was also known to be a rather prudish disciplinarian. He had been on the committee that censured Jose Garcia Villa for publishing his “obscene” and “ultramodernistic” poem “Song of Ripeness,” leading to Villa’s suspension and hastening his departure for more liberal America. He also cut down on the popular student dances that Rafael Palma allowed, and enforced the rule for student uniforms. When Guillermo Tolentino presented his design for the Oblation statue, Bocobo had one important comment: protect its modesty with a fig leaf, which was done. Not surprisingly, although again a bit too simply, he was called “the gloomy dean” by the editorialists of the time.

In 1936, when the pamphlet came out, Jorge Bocobo was almost midway through his presidency (1934-39). I learned that 8,000 copies were printed to be handed out to all students, and teachers were required to discuss its contents—all 20 pages of them—in class.

Some of its prescriptions are entirely understandable for the period:

“A young lady of social position does not go to a ball without a chaperon.”

“When a gentleman is introduced to a lady, he does not extend his hand first. It is the lady’s place to show whether she wants to shake hands or not.”

“When a lady leaves a gentleman to whom she has been introduced, she never says she is ‘glad to have met him’ or that she ‘hopes to see him again.’’

Some would be perfectly applicable today:

“Annoying the ladies by staring at them or making remarks about them as they pass cannot be countenanced.”

“Avoid being a bore by talking too much. Be a sympathetic listener.”

Some would be difficult to enforce:

“It would be nicer if gentlemen should remove their hats on entering a building.”

“Do not wear a tuxedo at daytime.”

“(Do not) thrust the individual knife into a butter dish or the individual fork into a pickle dish.”

“Bananas are peeled into a plate and taken with the fork.”

I was amused, as many of you would be, but these social commandments (yes, they were far more than “appeals,” and students and faculty were disciplined for disobeying them) invited me to wonder how we look at courtesy today or even think about it, let alone practice it. Thanks to the anonymity provided by the Internet and to a toxic political environment, rudeness if not obnoxiousness seem to have become the norm. It’s almost customary to assume that the other fellow is uninformed, hostile, stupid, or just plain wrong, and I have to confess to thinking this of many people I encounter for the first time, especially online. 

I’ve been on the receiving end of these assumptions as well. An expat American—a Trumper—once tried to convince me that I knew nothing about America, as did an expat Brit who lectured me about the monarchy like I’d never read a book (I could’ve lectured him back on Elizabethan revenge tragedy, but he could have been just a regular fellow who didn’t know anything about me, and why should he, so I desisted and let it slide).

Courtesy today clearly involves more than etiquette or protocol, more than observing antiquated codes of behavior requiring you to use this fork or that spoon. It’s more a matter of attitude toward other people, of assuming them worthy of respect and an intelligent and civil response (until they prove otherwise, as many inevitably do, especially in politics). 

Unfortunately we also too easily conflate courtesy with external manners, with opening doors for ladies (which I still do, although my wife Beng sometimes has to remind me there’s a door in front of us). On a higher order of behavior, aren’t profligacy and ostentation extreme forms of discourtesy to a people struggling to make ends meet? Do arrogance and impunity invite respect, or resentment and disdain?

What could a “Courtesy Appeals” for 2023 read like? “Do not waste the people’s hard-earned money” seems like a good place to start.

(Some factoids mentioned here come from an unpublished, unofficial history of UP. You can check them out against an official history published recently by the UP Press.)