Socio-Economic Impacts of Selected Technological Educational Institutions in Metro Manila: Towards a Public Service Delivery Model

ABSTRACT

Title : Socio – Economic Impacts of Selected Technological
Educational Institutions in Metro Manila: Towards a Public Service Delivery Model

Researcher : Ronan S. Estoque

Adviser : Dr. Moises S. Garcia

Program : Doctor in Public Administration


This study aimed at determining the “Socio-Economic Impacts of Selected Technological Educational Institutions in Metro Manila: Towards a Public Service Delivery Model”.
Specifically, this dissertation sought to answer the following questions:

1. What are the profiles of the technological educational institutions according to:
1.1 Population
1.2 Number of campus
1.3 Year of existence
1.4 Courses offered
1.5 Number of Faculty
2. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in the following dimensions:
2.1 Age
2.2 Sex
2.3 Civil Status
2.4 Occupation
2.5 Educational level
2.6 Monthly family income level
2.7 Religious affiliation
2.8 Length of stay in the barangay
3. How do the respondents agree on the social impacts of the technological educational institutions according to:
3.1 Social approval
3.2 Safety
3.3 Social status/standing
3.4 Social Identification
3.5 Social Dependency
4. How do the respondents agree on the economic impacts of the technological educational institutions according to:
4.1 Economic influence
4.2 Economic growth
4.3 Economic perspective
4.4 Economic standing
4.5 Property/business values
5. What social conflicts in the community were brought about by the existence of these technological educational institutions?
6. What are the other suggestions and recommendations of the respondents to strengthen the socio-economic impacts of technological educational institutions in your barangay?
7. Based on the findings of the study, what public sector delivery model can the researcher propose to improve education services provided by technological educational institutions?

Findings
The findings are summarized as follows:
1. Profiles of the technological educational institutions according to:
1.1 Population
There are six (6) technological educational institutions that were covered by this endeavor namely: Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT), Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), Technological University of the Philippines (TUP), Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) and Rizal Technological University (RTU).
The biggest technological educational institution based on the population of students is Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) with 52, 064 students. This is followed by Rizal Technological University (RTU) with 25, 243 students. Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) follows with 16, 381 students. This is closely followed by Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) with 15, 428 students. Technological University of the Philippines reflected a student population of 14, 011. The least number of students in terms of student population is Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) reflecting 13, 861 students.
1.2 Number of campus
Polytechnic University of the Philippines have the most number of campuses with fourteen (14) campuses (namely, PUP-Manila, PUP-Bataan, PUP-Taguig, PUP-Sta. Maria, PUP-Commonwealth, PUP-Lopez, PUP-Lopez, PUP-Mulanay, PUP-Unisan, PUP-San Pedro, PUP-Santa Rosa, PUP-Santo Tomas, PUP-Maragondon, PUP-Ragay and PUP-Lepanto). This is followed by Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) with four campuses (i.e. TUP-Taguig, TUP-Cavite, TUP-Visayas and TUP-Manila). Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) has three campuses (i.e. MIT-Intramuros, MIT-Makati and MIT-Laguna).
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) has two campuses (i.e. TIP-Manila and TIP-Quezon City). Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) follow this with two campuses (i.e. EARIST-Main and EARIST-Cavite). Rizal Technological University (RTU) only has one campus and that is located in Mandaluyong City.
1.3 Years of existence
Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) is the oldest institution founded in 1901. This is closely followed by Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), which was founded in 1904. Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) was founded in 1925.
Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) was founded in 1946. Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), which was founded in 1962, follows this. Rizal Technological University was founded in 1969.

2. Demographic profile of the respondents in the following dimensions:
2.1 Age
Out of 613 respondents, the dominant age bracket belongs to 21-30 years old with 45.7% respondents. This is followed by the 26.6% entry for the 31-40 years old age bracket. The 41-50 years old bracket has a 17.6% figure while the 51-60 years old category has a 6.5% entry. The least percentage of category belongs to the age bracket of 61 years old and over with 3.6%.
2.2 Sex
Females dominated the number of respondents with 311 entries or 50.73% while the males had a 49.27% or 302 entry.
2.3 Civil Status
Respondents who were single show a 47.15% figure or 289 entries. Married respondents were tallied at 266 or 43.39%. There were 34 respondents or 5.54% figure for the category of separated. Widowed respondents were 24 or 3.91%.
2.4 Occupation
178 or 29.03% of the respondents were employed by private enterprises. The government employed 8.16% or 50 respondents. 28.55% or 175 were classified as self-employed. 34.25% of the respondents were students, unemployed or retired individuals.
2.5 Position
Out of 613 respondents, 427 respondents or 69.66% belongs to the category of rank and file. Respondents who own their business were tallied at 140 or 22.84%. The category of supervisors got a 37 or 6.03% tabulation. Managers got a figure of 9 or 1.47%.
2.6 Educational Level
Respondents who were bachelor’s degree holder were tallied at 336 or 54.81%. High school graduates were tallied at 218 or 35.56%. 7.01% or 43 respondents were tallied below the high school level.
2.7 Monthly Family Income
There were five (5) categories for this income level; 15,000 and below, 15,001to 30,000, 30,001-45,000, 45,001-60,000, and 60,001 and above. This is dominated by 15,000 and below income level with 56.44% or 346 entries. This is followed by the category of 15,001-30,000 income level with 99 or 16.15%. The 30,001-45,000-income category got an entry of 96 or 15.66% figure. The 45,001-60,000-income level reflected an entry of 46 or 7.5%. The least number of entry belongs to the income category of 60,001 and above with 26 entry or 4.24%.
2.8 Religion
The entry for Roman Catholics got 444 figure or 72.43%. This is followed by Christians with 56 or 9.14% figure and then followed by Iglesia ni Cristo with 21 or 3.43%. The Muslim category showed 13 respondents or 2.12%. The least number of respondents according to religion belongs to Protestants who got a score of 11 or 1.79%.
2.9 Length of Stay in the Barangay
Respondents who were already staying over 10 years in the barangay were tallied at 251 or 40.96%. Respondents who were categorized over 5-10 years got a score of 119 or 19.41%. The category of over 2-5 years reflected a tally of 103 or 16.80%. The category of 1 year and below was tabulated at 77 respondents or 12.60%. The category of 1-2years was tallied at 63 or 10.23%.

3. Agreement on the social impacts of the technological educational institutions according to:
3.1 Social Approval
There were seven social approval indicators that were rated by the respondents and these were: “The institution is commendable because of its educational service”, “The institution provides educational opportunity for the community”, “The barangay regularly receives help/support from the institution through its community outreach program”, “I have a good opinion of the institution because of its useful outreach programs”, “The institution is prestigious because of its excellent delivery of instruction”, “The institution gives community outreach program to the barangay” and “It is easy to seek financial assistance from the institution’s administration”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows “The institution provides educational opportunity for the community” with a composite mean score of 2.13. The statement “The institution is commendable because of its educational services” with a composite mean score of 2.12 follows this. The third ranked premise is “The institution is prestigious because of its excellent delivery of instruction” with a composite mean score of 1.96. The fourth ranked statement is “The institution gives community outreach program to the barangay” with a composite mean score of 1.91. Two statements with a composite mean score of 1.85 follows this, and these are “The barangay regularly receives help/support from the institution through its community outreach programs” and “I have a good opinion of the institution because of its useful outreach programs”. The seventh ranked composite mean score of 1.81 belongs to the premise “It is easy to seek financial assistance from the institution’s administration”.
It must be noted that EARIST reflected two social indicator statements that were classified as “disagree”. These statements are “The barangay regularly receives help/support from the institution through its community outreach program” with a weighted mean of 1.60 and “It is easy to seek financial assistance from the institution’s administration” with a weighted mean of 1.52. As far as EARIST respondents are concerned, they do not regularly receive community outreach program coming from the subject institutions and that it is difficult to seek financial assistance from the EARIST administration.
The overall composite mean score is 1.95 and it falls under the verbal interpretation of “agree”. Indicating that despite the scores from EARIST, majority of the respondents agrees on the social impact of technological educational institutions in terms of social approval.
3.2 Safety
There were six safety indicators that were rated by the respondents and there were: “The community is safer with the institution’s security guard around”, “The presence of the institution around its community gives a sense of security”, “The institution helps in securing the community”, “The institution promotes safety”, “People are safe near the institution because of the security it provides” and “There is safety because of well-lighted campus”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “There is safety because of well – lighted campus” with a composite mean of 1.95 - 1st, “The presence of the institution around its community gives a sense of security” with a composite mean of 1.95 – 2nd. Two safety statements were tied with a composite mean of 1.88 and these are “The community is safer with the institution’s security guard around” and “The institution promotes safety”. Two statements were tied next for the least composite mean of 1.86 and these are “The institution helps in securing the community” and “People are safe near the institution because of the security it provide”.
The overall composite mean of 1.90 falls under the verbal interpretation of agrees. Majority of the respondents agrees on the social impact of technological educational institution in terms of safety.


3.3 Social Status/Standing
There were nine social status/standing indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “The institution gives superior instruction”, “The institution gives high quality instruction based on board examination performance”, “The institution is a top ranking school due to its high standard of teaching”, “The institution is a superior technological educational institution because of quality instruction”, “The institution is an important part of the community”, “Students are proud of studying at their institution”, “People are proud to be associated with the institution”, and “People want to be associated with the institution”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “The institution is an important part of the community” with a composite mean score of 2.11 - 1st, “Students are proud of studying at their institution” with a composite mean score of 2.08 – 2nd, “People are proud to be associated with the institution” with a composite mean score of 2.04 – 3rd, “The institution gives superior instruction” with a composite mean of 2.03 – 4th, “The institution is a superior technological educational institution because of quality instruction” with a composite mean of 2.02 – 5th, “The institution is a top ranking school due to its high standard of teaching” with a composite mean of 2.00 – 6th, “The institution gives high quality instruction based on board examination performance” with a composite mean of 1.99 – 7th, “It is an honor to be associated with the institution” with a composite mean of 1.97 – 8th, and “People want to be associated with the institution” with a composite mean of 1.94 – 9th.
It must be noted that there were three “highly agree” and one “disagree” social status/standing indicators that were reflected. The “highly agree” indicators were all from TUP; “The institution is a top ranking school due to its high standard of teaching” – 2.39, “The institution is an important part of the community” – 2.34, and “Students are proud of studying at their institution” – 2.38. The “disagree” verbal interpretation was reflected from EARIST under the statement “The institution is a top ranking school due to its high standard of teaching. Respondents from TUP have a remarkable regard for the social standing of the said institution for its quality teaching – and as such are rated as fundamental element of the community. Respondents from EARIST do not agree that the said institution renders a high quality of teaching.
The overall composite mean score of 2.02 has a verbal interpretation of “agree”, this denotes that majority of the respondents agrees on the social impact of the technological educational institutions in terms of social status/standing.
3.4 Social Identification
There were five social identification indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “Students from the institution are easily identified because of their behavior”, “Students from the institution are easily identified because of the wearing of ID’s”, “Students are known by the respondents personally”, “Students from the institutions wear their uniforms”, and “Students from the institution do not wear their uniforms”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “Students from the institution wear their uniforms” with a composite mean of 2.20 – 1st, “Students are known by the respondents personally” with a composite mean of 2.14 – 2nd, “Students from the institution are easily identified because of the wearing of ID’s” with a composite mean of 1.95 – 3rd, “Students from the institution are easily identified because of their behavior “ with a composite mean of 1.91 – 4th, and “Students from the institution do not wear their uniforms” with a composite mean of 1.80 – 5th.
The statement “Students from the institution wear their uniforms” reflected three subject institutions that have a verbal interpretation of “highly agree” and these are TIP – 2.34, RTU – 2.40, and EARIST – 2.38.
The overall composite mean of 2.00 is given the verbal interpretation of “agree” in terms of extent of agreement on the social impacts of the technological educational institutions in social identification.
3.5 Social Dependency
There were eight social dependency indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “The institution is dependable whenever there is a calamity”, “The institution provides an alternative livelihood program”, “The institution helps by providing additional financial assistance”, “The institution helps the residents of the nearby community”, “The institution helps the community by giving free and useful seminar”, “It is difficult to seek financial help from the institution”, “The community is a better place because of the institution”, “The institution cares for the barangay by building a learning community”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “The community is a better place because of the institution” with a composite mean of 2.02 – 1st, “The institution cares for the barangay by building a learning community” with a composite mean of 2.00 – 2nd, “The institution helps the residents of the nearby community” with a composite mean of 1.92 – 3rd, “The institution provides an alternative livelihood program” with a composite mean of 1.91 – 4th. Three statement were tied with a composite mean of 1.89 and these are “The institution is dependable whenever there is a calamity”, “The institution helps by providing additional financial assistance”, and “The institution helps the community by giving free and useful seminar”. The premise “It is difficult to seek financial assistance from the institution” was with a composite mean of 1.88 – 8th.
The overall composite mean of 1.93 falls under the verbal interpretation of “agree” indicating the extent of agreement of the respondents in terms of social dependency.

4. How do the respondents agree on the economic impacts of the technological educational institutions according to:
4.1 Economic Influence
There were seven economic influence indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “The institution is influential by providing direct jobs to the community”, “The institution contributes to the development of the barangay by giving business opportunities”, “The institution improves the economic condition of the community”, “The institution helps the barangay economically”, “The institution is a credible institution by consistently providing livelihood programs”, “The institution influences the community through educational livelihood programs”, and “The institution has no influence over us, they extend no help”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “The institution helps the barangay economically” with a composite mean of 2.07 – 1st, “The institution contributes to the development of the barangay by giving business opportunities” with a composite mean of 2.02 – 2nd. “The institution improves the economic condition of the community” with a composite mean of 2.00 – 3rd, “The institution is a credible institution by consistently providing livelihood programs” with a composite mean of 1.98 – 4th, “The institution influences the community through educational livelihood programs” with a composite mean of 1.96 – 5th, “The institution is influential by providing direct jobs to the community” with a composite mean of 1.93 – 6th, and “The institution has no influence over us, they extend no help” with a composite mean of 1.76.
The overall composite means of 1.96 with a verbal interpretation of “agree” shows that majority of the respondents concur with the economic influence indicators. Based on the individual tally of subject technological educational institutions – TIP, PUP and TUP reflected a remarkable mean score for the extent of agreement on the economic impacts of technological educational institutions in terms of economic influence.
4.2 Economic Growth
There were seven economic influence indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “The institution contributes to the economic development of the community”, “There is an economic growth in the community because of the institution”, “There is some business in the barangay because of the subject technological educational institution”, “The institution provides some jobs to the community”, “The institution is a source of a steady income by providing numerous livelihood opportunities”, “I get by because the institution provides business opportunities”, and “I am not deprived of material things because the institution gives opportunities”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “There is some business in the barangay because of the subject technological educational institution” with a composite mean of 2.06 – 1st, “The institution is a source of a steady income by providing numerous livelihood opportunities” with a composite mean of 2.02 – 2nd, two economic influence indicators were tied with a composite mean of 2.01 – “The institution provides some jobs to the community” and “I get by because the institution provides business opportunities”, “There is an economic growth in the community because of the institution” with a composite mean of 1.95 – 5th, “The institution contributes to the economic development of the community” with a composite mean of 1.93 – 6th, and “I am not deprived of material things because the institution gives opportunities” with a composite mean of 1.90.
Respondents are universally in agreement that subject institutions are steady sources of income, that businesses are in existence because of the subject institutions nearby and that there is economic growth in the community brought about by the presence of learning institutions.
The overall composite mean is 1.98 with a verbal interpretation of “agree”. This denotes that majority of the respondents concurs with the economic impacts of the subject technological educational institutions in terms of economic growth.
4.3 Economic Perspective
There were four economic perspective indicators that were rated by the respondents and these were: “Respondents are economically independent because the institution developed their employable skills”, “Respondents are able to survive the present economic difficulty because the institution contributes to the general welfare of society”, “Economic difficulties seem bearable because the institution provides business opportunities” and “Economic difficulties are easier to cope with the institution providing livelihood seminars to the barangay”.
The ranking of composite mean for each economic perspective indicator is as follows: “Economic difficulties are easier to cope with the institution providing livelihood seminars to the barangay” with a composite mean of 2.00 – 1st, “Economic difficulties seem bearable because the institution provides business opportunities” with a composite mean of 1.98 – 2nd, “Respondents are able to survive the present economic difficulty because the institution contributes to the general welfare of society” with a composite mean of 1.95 and “Respondents are economically independent because the institution developed their employable skills” with a composite mean of 1.92.
Majority of the respondents views the subject technological educational institutions positively. Economic difficulties are easier to cope with and even easier to hurdle due to the presence of subject technological educational institutions.
The overall composite mean of 1.96 with a verbal interpretation of “agree” shows the extent of agreement on the economic impacts of the subject technological educational institutions in terms of economic perspective.
4.4 Economic Standing
There were eight economic standing indicators that were rated by respondents and there were: “There are more business opportunities with the institution nearby”, “The incomes of the respondents are dependent on the students of the institutions”, “Respondent’s income is dependent on the institutions employee”, “There is some prosperity brought by the institution”, “The institution gives job, helping the economic development of the barangay”, “The institution is a factor in national development”, “Businesses exist because of the institution”, and “There is no economic difficulty because of the institution”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “There is some prosperity brought by the institution” with a composite mean of 2.04 – 1st, two statement were tied with a composite mean of 2.02, “There are more business opportunities with the institution nearby” and “The institution gives job, helping the economic development of the barangay”. The premise “Businesses exist because of the institution” reflected a composite mean of 2.01 – 4th, “The institution is a factor in national development” with a composite mean of 1.99 – 5th, “The income of the respondents are dependent on the students of the institution” with a composite mean of 1.98 – 6th, “Respondent’s income is dependent on the institutions employees” with a composite mean of 1.94 – 7th, and “There is no economic difficulty because of the institution” with a composite mean of 1.93 – 8th.
Respondents are one with the opinion that there is some prosperity in the community because of the subject technological educational institutions and that business opportunities are thriving principally because of these institutions.
The overall composite mean of 1.99 with the verbal interpretation of “agree” shows that respondent concurs with the economic impact of technological educational institutions in terms of economic standing.
4.5 Property / Business Values
There were eight indicators that were rated by respondents and these were: “Respondent’s livelihood is dependent on the institution”, “Respondent’s business is booming because of its nearness to the institution”, “The value of properties is higher because of the institution”, “Respondent’s business is earning because of the institution”, “Respondent’s business is affected by its nearness with the institution”, “Respondent’s are in business because of the institution nearby”, and “Respondent’s livelihood is thriving because of the institution”.
The ranking of composite mean for each indicator is as follows: “The values of respondent’s properties are higher because of its nearness with the institution” with a composite mean of 2.02 – 1st, “Respondent’s business is earning because of the institution” with a composite mean of 2.00 – 2nd, “The value of properties are higher because of the institution” and “Respondent’s are in business because of the institution nearby” are tied with a composite mean of 1.99, “Respondent’s business are booming because of its nearness to the institution” with a composite mean of 1.97 – 5th, “Respondent’s business is affected by its nearness with the institution” with a composite mean of 1.96 – 6th, “Respondent’s livelihood is thriving because of the institution” with a composite mean of 1.93 – 7th, and “Respondent’s livelihood is dependent on the institution” with a composite mean of 1.90.
These responses validate the impression empirically that subject technological educational institutions contribute to the appreciation of property values, earnings of disparate businesses, and thriving business ventures.
The overall composite mean of 1.97 with a verbal interpretation of “agree” shows that majority of the respondents concurs with the economic impact of the subject technological educational institutions in terms of property/business values.

5. What social conflicts in the community were brought about by the existence of these technological educational institutions?
There were ten social conflicts that were enumerated by these endeavor and these are: business related conflicts/competition, fighting/student brawl, overcrowding, littering, noise, fraternity related intimidation, sanitation, traffic congestion, waste disposal and criminality.
The ranking of mean score for each social conflict are follows: business related conflicts/competition, with a mean score of 8.55 – 1st, littering, with a mean score of 8.29 – 2nd, fighting/student brawl, with a mean score of 6.72 – 3rd, criminality, with a mean score of 6.65 – 4th, overcrowding, with a mean score of 5.78 – 5th, fraternity related intimidation, with a mean score of 5.07 – 6th, sanitation, with a mean score of 4.82 – 7th, traffic congestion, with a mean score of 4.73 – 8th, noise, with a mean score of 4.63 – 9th, and waste disposal, with a mean score of 4.58 – 10th.
According to the respondents, the top three social conflicts that concern them are business related conflicts/competition, littering, and fighting or student brawls. This is followed by criminality, overcrowding, and fraternity related intimidations.
The least concerns of the respondents are sanitation, traffic congestion, noise and waste disposal.

6. What are the other suggestions and recommendations of the respondents to strengthen the socio-economic impacts of technological educational institutions in your barangay?
There were nine possible suggestions and recommendations that were solicited from the respondents and these are: focus and improve on teaching, focus and improve on research, focus and improve on extension services, improve the quality of programs/courses being offered, promote quality education, employability of graduates, responsiveness of technological education programs to labor – market demand, focus on nationalism and patriotism of the students and graduates and ensure that education is accessible to all.
The ranking of mean scores for each suggestion and recommendations are as follows: focus and improve on research, with a mean score of 6.04 – 1st, focus and improve on extension services, with a mean score of 5.78 – 2nd, focus on nationalism and patriotism of the students and graduates, with a mean score of 5.25 – 3rd, focus and improve on teaching, with a mean score of 5.21 – 4th, employability of graduates, with a mean score of 5.06 – 5th, improve on the quality of programs/courses being offered, 4.92 – 6th, Responsiveness of technological education programs to labor – market demands, with a mean score of 4.82 – 7th, ensure that education is accessible to all, with a mean score of 4.65 – 8th, and promote quality education, with a mean score of 4.02 – 9th.
The top three suggestions and recommendations of the respondents are: focus and improve on research, focus and improve on extension services and focus on nationalism and patriotism of the students and graduates. This is followed by Focus and improves on teaching, employability of graduates and improve on the quality of programs/courses being offered.
7. Based on the findings of the study, what public service delivery model can the researcher propose to improve education services provided by technological educational institutions?
The 1987 Philippine Constitution offered some platform that could be used as a benchmark for a public sector delivery model. Article XIV, Section 1 states that “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all”. Section 3 of the said article further defined a public service delivery model by stating “ Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the underprivileged;”
Article XIV, Section 10 said that “Science technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country’s productive systems and national life”.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7722 (known as the Higher Education Act of 1994), subject technological educational institutions should undertake the following tasks: promote quality education, advance learning and research, enrich historical and cultural heritage, develop professionals ready for international competition, ensure that education is accessible to all, ensure and protect academic freedom, development of effective leadership education of high-level professionals.
Section 2 of RA 7722 in its Declaration of Policy states that “The State shall protect, foster and promote the right of all citizens to affordable quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to ensure that education shall be accessible to all. The State shall likewise ensure and protect academic freedom and shall promote its exercise and observance for the continuing intellectual growth, the advancement of learning and research, the development of responsible and effective leadership, the education of high-level and middle-level professionals, and the enrichment of out historical and cultural heritage.
Conclusions
1. The bigger the number of students, the bigger the socio-economic impacts. A numerous campuses connotes more beneficiaries of socio-economic indicators as enumerated by this endeavor. The older the subject technological educational institution, the more expectations are asked of the technological educational institution.
2. Majority of the respondents belongs to the 21-30 years old age bracket, most of them were females and single, most of them belong to the rank and file category and are bachelor’s degree holder, majority of them have a monthly income of 15,000 and below. Most of their religion is Roman Catholic with majority of them staying over 10 years in the barangay. In order to have better socio-economic impacts in the community, more seminars and livelihood programs must be specifically tailored targeting these demographics.
3. Respondents generally “agree” on the social impacts of subject technological educational institutions according to; social approval, safety, social status/standing, social identification and social dependency.
4. Respondents generally “agree” on the economic impacts of subject technological educational institutions according to; economic influence, economic growth, economic perspective, economic standing, and property/business values.
5. There were ten social conflicts that were enumerated by these endeavor and these are: business related conflicts/competition, fighting/student brawl, overcrowding, littering, noise, fraternity related intimidation, sanitation, traffic congestion, waste disposal and criminality.
The top three concerns of the respondents were business related conflicts/competition, littering, and fighting/student brawl.
6. There were nine suggestions and recommendations that were enumerated and these are: focus and improve on teaching, focus and improve on research, focus and improve on extension services, improve the quality of program/courses being offered, promote quality education, employability of graduates, responsiveness of technological educations programs to labor – market demand, focus on nationalism and patriotism of the students and graduates and ensure that education is accessible to all.
Majority of the respondents were concerned with the focus and improvement of research, focus and improvement of extension services and focus on nationalism and patriotism of the students and graduates.
7. Subject technological educational institutions should make concrete action plans in promoting quality education, in advancing learning and research, in enriching historical and cultural heritage, in developing professionals ready for international competition, in ensuring that education is accessible to all, in ensuring and protecting academic freedom, in developing effective leadership and in educating high-level professionals.

Recommendations
1. Subject technological educational institutions must be conscious of their socio-economic impacts in the surrounding community. Other than the present endeavors, a more systematic process must be set up to improve the socio-economic status of the surrounding community.
2. Livelihood programs must be tailor-made for the potential beneficiaries. There must be a match for the program and the recipients of the program.
3. Subject technological educational institutions must do more in terms of social impacts in their community.
4. Subject technological educational institutions must do more in terms of economic impacts in their community.
5. A systematic program of action must be formulated in minimizing business related conflicts, a regular clean-up drive must be done every week (for the surrounding community) and fraternities must be encouraged to seek recognition with the office of student affairs.
6. Subject technological educational institutions must focus on research and must have the findings of these researches felt by the surrounding community. The research that is being conducted by subject technological educational institutions must attract the attention of the surrounding barangay, if possible, a consultation with the barangay be made so as to enable them to chart their own economic development.
7. In general, the difficulty and the dilemma of the Philippine government is not on the creation and crafting of laws but on the execution and implementations of laws. Subject technological educational institutions must be decisive and bold when it comes to the pursuit of academic imperatives and more so, when it comes to public service.

Maverick

It is surprising to note that up to this date, there is a family that goes by the surname Maverick. Nowadays, the term maverick connotes an individual who does not conform to the norms. The term connotes a politician who strayed from the policies and instruction of a political party. This definition was even expanded to non-conformity to the established mores and tradition.

Historically, the term was derived from an actual person, American lawyer Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803 – 1870). He is a signatory to the Texas Declaration of Independence and a former mayor of San Antonio (1839).

The evolution of the use of his name started when in the course of settling a debt, he accepted a herd of cattle instead of cash. These cattle roamed freely, unbranded, and over time - all unbranded animals were tagged as “mavericks”.
Eventually, the term was applied to unbranded cattle or livestock. In time, the term was also used in describing politicians who do not subscribe to the opinion of the majority, a person who exhibits independence and is not appreciated by the majority.

Republican candidates Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are always projecting themselves as “mavericks” or to put it bluntly, politicians who do not subscribe to the dictates of their party.

And since Senator Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden are projecting themselves as candidates of change, the battle lines are drawn between “rebels” (for the Republican) and “change” (for the Democrats) and all against the status quo. The status quo of course is the present occupant of Whitehouse in the person of President George Bush.

Between the two philosophical packaging of candidates, the candidacy of change of Senator Barack Obama is more favored to prevail. Barring any military episode (a terrorist attack or a military adventurism somewhere in the globe) that would favor Senator McCain, calling the next presidency as the era of Barack Obama is fair and more accurate in the realm of US politics.

This would mean a shift in American policy from waging war as opposed to diplomatic solutions in advancing its disparate and varied interest. A definite exit from the military adventure of Iraq and Afghanistan – to diplomacy and intrinsic attention to parochial concerns.

Reference:
1. 2003 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia

Large Hadron Collider

In the 1990’s, there was an aborted experiment under the name Super Conducting Super Collider, essentially it was a particle accelerator where the cost of making a working model is around 1 Billion US Dollars.

To cut a long story short, nothing happened out of that attempt because the US Administration at that time withdrew the funding for some political reasons and that is that. Somewhere in Nevada, there is a 30 mile radius tunnel that is just a useless hole.

This year, another project was also put in place, and this time around it is called “Large Hadron Collider”. This is now based in Geneva, with the same concept and with the same purpose.
To prove the empirical existence of Higgs particle and to re-create the first Big-bang explosion which created matter and started everything.

The Higgs particle is also known as the “god’s particle” since with the empirical proof that such exist, theoretical physics could now chase the very manipulation of matter, which in turn could open a lot of possibilities. This could even produce the Unified Field Theory (or Theory of Everything) which eluded Albert Einstein.

The particle accelerator could also finally settle empirically the creation of the universe. The Big-bang theory might even become a fact after this generation.

Surprisingly, there are a number of people opposed to this scientific endeavor. Some even went to court to stop the experiment legally. They contend that such an undertaing might produce the anti-matter, the very opposite of matter, and it might serve as a catalyst for the destruction of everything.

The flipside of their contention is that such experiment might accidentally create a mini-blackhole which in turn will destroy this planet and the solar system as we know it.
All the world ending scenarios were thrown out of the court and the project was given a green light to proceed.

About a month ago, the Large Hadron Collider powered up, and fired particles approximating the speed of light clockwise and counter-clockwise. Unfortunately, a part of the system broke down, and reading from their press releases, it would take another month just to repair the particle accelerator.

There are so many possibilities and so many answers to explore and chase. Now why would anyone prevent such a historical undertaking?

The following questions hopefully will be answered by the experiments that will be conducted using the particle accelerator.

1. What is mass? What is the origin of mass? Why do some particles weight the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present there are no standard answers to these basic queries.

2. What is the 96% of the universe made off? Everything is collectively known and called as matter and that is just the 4% of the what we know. The remaining percentage is still unknown. This is what the physicist called the “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Investigating their existence and relationships with matter is one of the greatest riddle of science and cosmology.

3. Why is there no more anti-matter? Theoritically, after the Big-bang, there was a battle for supremacy, a battle between matter and anti-matter. Nature however favored matter, hence there is no more anti-matter or is there?

4. What was matter like during the first seconds of the universe? This is where the Higgs particle or God’s particle comes in. Which is which?

5. Do extra dimensions exist? Is there another plane that we are not aware of. Whatever biases one have, concrete answers to this basic questions need some scientific answers. Einstein hinted that this, unfortunately, he died before investigating the subject.

Suddenly, the world as we know it, is not the same anymore. Science as we know it will never be the same again. We will have to re-write everything and unlearn a lot of pre-conceived notions.

Reference:
1. www.public.web.cern.ch