Should we reduce or abolish the General Education (GE) program?

EDUKAMPYON

- POPOY DE VERA

The General Education or GE program that every university student must complete has become the favorite whipping boy of politicians confronted by the perceived failures of higher education institutions to produce the graduates needed by the country.

It seems impossible to reach a consensus on whether the GE program should be retained or abolished.

Many view it as an additional and unnecessary burden that students must overcome to complete their undergraduate degrees. Politicians assert that it is an added financial burden for families. Companies complain that graduates are not work-ready and demand that more hours be given to internships and on-the-job training.

However, UNESCO has emphasized that 21st-century skills, including critical thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration and digital literacy, are essential to prepare individuals for a complex and interconnected world.

Several proposals have pushed for a further reduction in the number of GE subjects.

Two bills—Senate Bill No. 51 (Gatchalian) and House Bill No. 2134 (Lagbas)—go further by reducing university education to three years by requiring the completion of all GE subjects in senior high school.

These proposed bills should now trigger a serious national debate about the rationale of having a GE program, the expected competencies of our university graduates and the need to re-examine the merits of putting GE subjects in senior high school.

Where did this "General Education" concept come from? How should GE reform happen in the Philippines?