When grad schools meet the bar

A graduate school can have impressive faculty credentials, thick manuals, and shelves of neatly arranged documents. Everything may look fine on paper. But one question matters more than all those folders: Are students really learning what their degrees promise?

That question has been on my mind lately.

This year, I have had the privilege of serving as one of CHED’s Regional Quality Assessment Team (RQAT) evaluators in Western Visayas. I have visited quite a number of universities and colleges alongside fellow educators whose experience, wisdom, kindness, and humility have made the work itself a learning experience.

I cannot discuss the findings, conversations, or evaluations of individual institutions. Those are confidential, and rightly so. Neither am I speaking for CHED or our team. What I can share is a growing appreciation of how seriously graduate education standards are being examined, and why that matters.

The process is tedious. There are documents to examine, qualifications to verify, policies to compare with actual practices, and records that need careful checking. It takes time from both the evaluators and the schools being evaluated. But the work is necessary. When a program falls short of the required standards and cannot remedy its deficiencies, it should not be allowed to continue operating as though everything were fine. Otherwise, we shortchange not only its graduate students but also the people they will eventually teach, supervise, and serve.

Last year, I wrote “Diploma Mills Rising!” after reading the concerns raised by the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II). The question then was uncomfortable: Are we producing more master’s and doctoral graduates without necessarily producing better teachers, researchers, and professionals?

Some graduate students, understandably, pursue advanced degrees mainly for promotion, salary advancement, or professional ranking. There is nothing wrong with wanting to move up. Teachers have bills to pay and families to support, too. But when the diploma becomes more important than the learning, the temptation to find the quickest and easiest route grows. Diploma mills thrive on precisely that demand. Preventing such shortcuts, while protecting legitimate graduate education, is an important reason CHED’s quality assurance work matters.

Under CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, series of 2019, graduate schools are expected to meet standards that go well beyond offering advanced courses. There are requirements for qualified doctoral faculty, academic leadership, research productivity, thesis supervision, libraries, research ethics, and continuous program improvement. Master’s and doctoral programs must demonstrate learning outcomes aligned with Levels 7 and 8, respectively, of the Philippine Qualifications Framework.

In simpler terms, a graduate school cannot merely teach more difficult subjects and call it advanced education. Students must learn to think independently, question evidence, apply advanced knowledge, and, where their programs require it, conduct and defend credible research.

I have taught high school, college, master’s, and doctoral students. Never elementary school, though. I have always felt that good elementary teachers possess a special kind of patience and skill that I probably do not have. I know my limits.

My appreciation of quality assurance also goes back to my years at Ateneo de Iloilo. I had my share of painstakingly preparing documents for accreditation and later serving on accreditation teams of PAASCU and PEAC. We also had biennial benchmarking and best-practice exchanges with our sister Ignatian schools in the country. Through Ateneo and later ISUFST, I also joined benchmarking visits across six Asian countries.

Those experiences did not give me all the answers. If anything, they showed me how much there is to learn from schools that approach familiar problems differently. They also helped me appreciate the larger educational system behind what happens in individual classrooms. A good policy means little without people, resources, and leadership capable of making it work.

Graduate teaching has its own demands. A student who can memorize theories but cannot explain, challenge, or apply them still has much to learn. And a doctorate, however impressive the title sounds, should represent genuine scholarship and the capacity to produce meaningful innovations, rather than simply another framed certificate.

But maintaining these standards is expensive.

I think especially of private colleges and universities that continue offering graduate programs despite limited enrollment and tight budgets. Some even subsidize faculty salaries, research, libraries, facilities, and student support because they see graduate education as part of their mission or apostolate. They could probably earn more elsewhere, but they choose to keep serving.

I see that commitment. And I wonder whether our policies sufficiently recognize it.

State universities generally have the advantage of government support, although their resources are far from unlimited. Public subsidies can help them attract and keep qualified faculty, maintain research facilities, and offer compensation that smaller private institutions may struggle to match.

Yet both are expected to meet demanding standards.

The standards should not be lowered. But perhaps there is room to help institutions reach them. Shared research facilities, stronger library consortia, faculty development assistance, and carefully regulated academic partnerships could make a difference. Helping a school improve is not the same as excusing poor performance.

I believe most school administrators and professors are genuinely trying to do their best. Many work with limited resources, demanding schedules, and students who are themselves juggling jobs, families, and graduate studies.

Still, we cannot pretend that every institution operates with the same intentions. Some may see graduate education primarily as a source of income. When tuition matters more than learning, and academic requirements become negotiable, the diploma begins to lose its meaning.

Worse, the consequences do not end at graduation.

A poorly prepared master’s or doctoral graduate may eventually become a teacher, supervisor, researcher, or government official. Think of a teacher who earns an advanced degree but returns to the same classroom without having learned much that could improve instruction. The teacher may receive a promotion, but what about the children? They are the ones who ultimately depend on the quality of that graduate education.

This is what I appreciate about CHED’s RQAT visits. Beyond checking compliance, they give graduate schools a chance to recognize their strengths, confront shortcomings, and improve.

Schools willing to listen and learn have much to gain. But those that remain unable to meet minimum standards should face appropriate CHED action, including discontinuance of noncompliant programs when warranted. Students who enrolled in good faith deserve protection and assistance.

And when records are deliberately manipulated, deficiencies concealed, or accomplishments fabricated, the problem becomes more serious. A school might appear compliant for a while, but its graduates and the public eventually carry the cost.

I am grateful to CHED and ISUFST for allowing me to take part in this work. I also appreciate the openness and professionalism of the institutions that have welcomed our teams. There is much to learn from educators who are willing to examine their own practices.

Perhaps that is what I value most about the experience. Quality assurance is not merely regulation. Done fairly, it helps schools improve while protecting students and the public from substandard education.

That brings me back to those impressive faculty lists, thick manuals, and carefully labeled folders. They matter, of course. But years after an evaluation team has left, the real evidence will be found in the classrooms graduates teach, the research they produce, the decisions they make, and the people they serve.

A diploma can be framed. Competence has to be demonstrated.

***

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 that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.