LUCS on unequal ground

By Herman M. Lagon

There is a quiet truth in Philippine higher education that rarely finds its way into graduation speeches or glossy brochures: where you study still shapes how far you can go. Not because of ability. Not because of effort. But because of something far less visible—who funds your school, and how much they can afford. In one place, that means a working lab. In another, it means making do without one.

Local Universities and Colleges, or LUCs, sit right at that intersection of promise and limitation. They were built with good intentions—to bring college closer to communities that cannot easily send their children to cities. In many towns, the LUC is not just a school; it is the only door available. But as the EDCOM II reports make clear, not all doors open the same way.

Across the country, there are about 112 State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and roughly 121 LUCs—a near balance in number, but not in capacity. The difference becomes clearer when one looks at how they are funded. While SUCs are backed by national appropriations, LUCs rely heavily on LGU income—making equity dependent on geography rather than merit.

A glance at the numbers already tells the story. A first-income-class municipality can have up to 68 times more Special Education Fund than a sixth-class one. That gap is not abstract. It shows up in real terms—labs that exist or do not, libraries that grow or stand still. In one place, repairs happen in days. In another, they wait for months.

The same disparity extends to salaries. Faculty compensation in LUCs is tied to the income class of the local government. Two instructors with the same qualifications—same degree, same workload—can receive very different pay. One gets the full rate. Another receives roughly 70 percent, simply because the municipality cannot afford more. Funding and compensation are not separate issues; they are two sides of the same constraint. What appears to be administrative policy is, in reality, structural inequality.

Still, these campuses do not collapse under the weight of their limitations. You see teachers who stay, students who persist, and classes that continue even when projectors fail or internet signals disappear. I once sat in on a class where the instructor used printed screenshots instead of a live presentation because the Wi-Fi had been down for days. The discussion remained lively. Learning still happened. But there is a limit to how long people can compensate for what the system does not provide.

Conversations with colleagues in Passi City College and Iloilo City Community College confirm this pattern. They are not speaking from theory. They see the gaps daily—in facilities, in support, in how far resources can stretch. They do not dispute the EDCOM II findings; they recognize them. The reports, in many ways, simply give language to what they have long been navigating.

That realization deepened after a phone call that stretched longer than expected. Educational leader Prof. Eddie Nuque of DLSU’s Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance (JRIG) laid out the patterns from a broader system-level perspective—not to push for quick conclusions, but to sharpen understanding.

Program offerings reveal another layer of the imbalance. Most institutions, whether LUCs or SUCs, cluster around teacher education and business administration. These are the programs schools can offer with fewer demands. But engineering, health, agriculture, and technology—fields that need labs and sustained investment—are still mostly handled by SUCs. A single nursing or engineering lab can already run into millions, before a single class even begins.

The issue is not imagination, but capacity. Building a program like engineering means facilities, compliance, and ongoing costs. For smaller LGUs, even routine needs can strain the budget. What gets offered is shaped by what can be sustained. As a result, LUCs are quietly steered toward programs they can sustain, while other critical fields remain underserved. This helps explain why shortages persist in areas like engineering, health care, and technical work, even as graduates in other fields continue to grow.

These choices are not independent decisions—they follow the limits of local funding. A coastal town may need fisheries expertise, or an agricultural area may benefit from agronomy, but the ability to offer such programs depends on what local resources can carry. What emerges is not neglect, but limitation.

At a broader level, coordination remains a challenge. EDCOM II notes that higher education institutions often operate in silos, without a consistent national direction. The outcome is predictable: duplicated programs in some fields and shortages in others. It is not a failure of intent. It is a system still learning how to align itself.

Governance adds another layer. LUCs vary widely in institutional capacity and financial stability. Some are well-supported and stable. Others operate with minimal staff and uncertain funding. The term “LUC” suggests a single category, but in practice, it reflects a wide spectrum shaped by the LGUs that sustain them.

Access to higher education has expanded, largely through free tuition policies. That part worked. But access alone does not guarantee success. Support systems across LUCs remain uneven. Some students find pathways forward; others struggle to stay enrolled. The gap is no longer just about entry—it is about what happens after.

Seen from a distance, the issue appears financial. And funding does matter. But direction matters as well. SUCs often move with clearer alignment to national priorities. LUCs move with the immediate needs of their communities. That flexibility is valuable, but it also stretches their capacity.

The goal, then, is not to reshape LUCs into smaller versions of SUCs. It is to support them where they are. An LUC in a fishing town can lead in coastal work. One in an agricultural area can anchor community-based learning. These are not limitations; they are grounded strengths. What is needed is support that recognizes context—not a one-size-fits-all expectation.

Reforms are being discussed—stronger governance, better alignment, improved oversight. These matter. But beyond policy, there remains the human dimension: the instructor who stays despite lower pay, the student who chooses the nearest school because distance costs more than tuition, the administrator working within a budget that rarely stretches enough.

In one conversation, a colleague from a small LUC said, “We do not lack ambition. We just negotiate with reality more often.” That line captures the quiet truth of these institutions. They are not asking to be everything. They are asking to be enough—for their students and their communities.

Perhaps that is where the conversation should settle. Not on whether LUCs can match SUCs in scale, but on whether the system can allow each to do what it is best positioned to do. Support does not always mean equalizing everything. Sometimes it means ensuring that no school is forced to choose between relevance and survival.

Because access without capacity is not opportunity—it is illusion.

The issue is no longer whether students can enter the system. It is whether the system they enter can carry them forward.

If higher education is meant to open doors, then it cannot depend on where those doors happen to be built.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.