DR. LIZ Oligario, a dear colleague from my days with the TechFactors National TekGuru program, recently shared a study entitled “On the ‘income advantage’ in course choices and admissions: Evidence from the University of the Philippines”, which struck a nerve.
Published in the International Journal of Educational Development, it lays out a harsh truth: even in public universities like the University of the Philippines, long seen as a “People’s University”, education often fails to break down socioeconomic barriers.
The research by Sarah Lynne Daway-Ducanes, Elena Pernia, and Vincent Jerald Ramos highlights how students from wealthier families dominate admissions, leveraging advantages that poorer students can only dream of.
For years, we have been told that education is the ultimate equalizer, but this study reveals how far reality strays from that ideal. Wealthier students come equipped with resources — private tutors, exclusive prep schools, unlimited connectivity, and review centers — that give them a head start in competitive admissions.
Meanwhile, many promising but disadvantaged students are held back, not for lack of potential, but because systemic inequities have stacked the odds against them long before they even reach the admissions gate.
Consider the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017, celebrated for making state university education tuition-free. On paper, it is a step toward democratizing higher education. However, in practice, the law disproportionately benefits students who are already better positioned — those from middle- and upper-class families – with the academic preparation to seize these opportunities by getting higher scores in admission and aptitude tests and interviews.
For poorer students who struggle to finish high school with competitive credentials, the dream of state college remains a dream.
This inequality starts early. Many low-income students face overcrowded classrooms and scarce resources in underfunded public schools, leaving them unprepared for tough college entrance exams. In contrast, their wealthier counterparts, often enrolled in private and special science schools, have smaller classes, better facilities, and experienced teachers.
The gap is already a chasm by the time they sit for college exams. It is not just a matter of ambition; it is a system that consistently privileges the haves over the have-nots.
Even within state universities, course selection reveals further disparities. Students from affluent families are more likely to secure spots in lucrative programs like engineering, law, and medicine. Meanwhile, those from poorer backgrounds often end up in less competitive courses with fewer economic opportunities.
It is a cycle: wealthier students study for high-paying careers, while others settle for degrees reinforcing existing inequalities. For many, the choice of degree — or lack thereof — is dictated not by passion or aptitude but by circumstance. (To be continued)/PN
