Cost of Degree Programs in the University of the Philippines

The paper is part of a larger study on normative financing, an alternative scheme to the ad hoc and highly politicised budget allocation process for state universities and colleges (SUC) currently in use. Normative financing requires, among other data, per student cost benchmarks or norms for major program categories by which to set the budget for each SUC. The norms will be derived from cost analyses of programs categorized by field, degree level and quality. The paper estimated the cost of completing each of 33 selected degree programs in the University of the Philippines' four major campuses. They include the fields that each campus specializes in such as electrical engineering in Diliman, agriculture and veterinary medicine in Los Baños, medicine and nursing in Manila and fisheries in Visayas. It applied the curriculum-based methodology developed by the DLSU–Posadas–Nuqui Researchers. All undergraduate degree programs in the country contain general education courses offered outside the department in which a student majors. Program cost therefore includes the cost of courses taken in one's department and in other departments. Direct cost of instruction is delineated from indirect cost. Direct cost consists of compensation to faculty assigned to teaching plus supplies and other materials used for instruction. Indirect cost includes administrative cost and various student services. It is noted that in UP, administrative cost is incurred in each layer of its organization - the UP system, the campus and the college. Program cost varies substantially, ranging from P99,000 to P775,000. The variation couldbe explained by variation in the curricular content, teaching technique and utilization rate. The 7-year medical program expectedly costs more than most other programs; the laboratory-based programs in natural sciences and engineering cost more than the book-based social sciences. Nevertheless, utilization rate appears to be the most significant determinant of program cost. Indirect costs absorb a larger share of program cost than direct costs. The paper proceeded to compare program costs in UP with those in the 6 universities studied by the DLSU researchers. For each field, the cost differed between universities apparently because of variation in quality and utilization rate. Indirect cost was also substantial in the other universities. The paper suggests possibilities for trade-offs of indirect cost for direct cost as a means of improving quality. Finally the paper recommended the adoption of UP's statistical system which provides an adequate basis for cost estimation and analysis.