The Crisis in Philippine Higher Education: A Comprehensive Analysis of Systemic Failures
The state of Philippine higher education represents a profound failure of institutional management and resource allocation that becomes more apparent with each passing year. While universities collect billions in student fees, the quality of education and services they provide often falls below what even modest businesses can offer with far fewer resources. This analysis examines the depth of this systemic failure and its impact on Philippine education.
The Scale of Financial Disconnect
The numbers reveal a striking mismanagement of resources in Philippine higher education. Let’s break it down. Each student at De La Salle University (DLSU) contributes ?81,710 per trimester. For many entry-level professionals, this is equivalent to four months' salary. Over three trimesters, a single student provides ?245,130 annually—an amount substantial enough to cover the down payment on a small condominium unit or fund a modest business startup.
With 18,821 undergraduate students, DLSU generates approximately a staggering ?4.61 billion annually in tuition revenue. To put this into perspective, this amount is comparable to the income of successful medium-sized corporations, the cost of constructing a modern 200-bed hospital, purchasing several hectares of prime commercial real estate, or establishing multiple high-tech research facilities.
The inefficiency becomes even more apparent when we compare these revenues to basic business operations. A modern, fully-equipped coffee shop requires a startup capital of ?2–3 million. This means the tuition fees from just one small class of 37 students (?3.02 million per trimester) could fully fund a coffee shop—a business capable of serving hundreds of customers daily with high-quality equipment and comfortable facilities.
A professional-grade computer workstation costs ?120,000, which is less than the combined fees of two students for a single trimester. Yet, computer laboratories are often equipped with outdated machines incapable of handling basic tasks. The fees from one laboratory class could fund an entire modern computer lab, but students instead work on systems that would be considered obsolete in most professional settings.
Similarly, a small private clinic, complete with diagnostic and treatment equipment, costs ?5–7 million to establish. This is less than the annual tuition paid by 30 students. With its current revenue, the university could establish six clinics every month, yet many campus facilities remain outdated or poorly maintained.
The disconnect becomes even more concerning when we consider the facility fees specifically charged to students. The development fee alone is ?2,100 per student per trimester, generating over ?118 million annually just for infrastructure improvements. Computer laboratory fees range from ?1,240 to ?4,010 per student per trimester, potentially generating another *?226 million annually specifically for technology resources. Despite these substantial fees, students often find themselves working with outdated equipment in poorly maintained facilities.
The scale of this financial disconnect reflects a fundamental failure in resource allocation and institutional priorities. While universities collect revenues that could support world-class facilities and cutting-edge technology, they often provide resources that wouldn’t meet basic professional standards. This isn’t just inefficient—it represents a significant disservice to students who invest substantial amounts in their education expecting modern, professional-quality resources to support their learning.
Small businesses with significantly smaller revenues manage to offer modern facilities and deliver efficient services. The fact that universities, despite their massive revenue streams, fail to match even these basic business standards suggests deep systemic problems in how educational institutions manage and allocate their resources.
The Reality of Campus Experience
The stark reality of educational institutions' technological inadequacy becomes evident through daily student experiences. Having studied across multiple prestigious universities - DLSU Dasmari?as, DLSU Laguna, FEU Alabang, and FEU Tech - I've observed these systemic issues firsthand, spanning different institutions and campuses.
The contrast with modern business operations is particularly telling. While companies routinely handle millions of concurrent transactions seamlessly, university systems regularly falter during predictable peak periods. Consider enrollment seasons, where students face crashed portals, unresponsive payment systems, and lost registration data. These aren't resource-constrained startups, but established institutions collecting billions in fees annually, yet failing to provide basic digital infrastructure.
The technology gap in computer laboratories presents an even more concerning picture. Standard setups typically feature machines that are 4-6 years old, with specifications that fall far short of industry requirements. This creates a significant disconnect between education and professional practice:
Modern Development Requirements vs. University Resources:
Virtual Machines and Containers: Contemporary development practices rely heavily on virtualization and containerization. Running tools like Docker, Kubernetes, or even basic virtual environments requires substantial RAM and processing power that most university computers lack.
IDE and Development Tools: Modern IDEs like Visual Studio, Android Studio, or game development environments demand significant system resources. Students often face frustrating delays or crashes when running these essential tools.
AI and Machine Learning Tools: With AI integration becoming standard in development, tools like TensorFlow or PyTorch require dedicated GPU resources - a far cry from the basic integrated graphics found in most laboratory computers.
Design and Media Arts Challenges:
3D Modeling and Rendering: Programs like Maya, 3ds Max, or Blender need powerful graphics capabilities and substantial RAM. Students often wait hours for renders that should take minutes.
Video Editing and Motion Graphics: Adobe Creative Suite applications strain even modern systems, yet students must work with outdated hardware that can barely handle basic operations.
Real-time Graphics and Game Development: Modern game engines like Unreal or Unity demand high-performance systems for effective development and testing.
The implications extend beyond mere inconvenience:
While institutions invest in impressive buildings and facilities, the core technological infrastructure essential for modern education often remains neglected. This misalignment between educational resources and industry requirements creates a significant skills gap that students must overcome after graduation, often at their own expense and time.
The solution requires more than just hardware upgrades. Institutions need to implement:
These systemic issues highlight why alternative learning paths, including self-directed learning and practical experience, often prove more effective in developing relevant skills for today's digital economy.
Administrative Inefficiency
The contrast between modern business operations and university administrative processes is mind-boggling. Consider that a bank can open a new account, verify your identity, and issue a debit card within hours. Companies like GCash or PayMaya can verify identities and process financial transactions instantly. Even government agencies have modernized - you can get NBI clearance within hours, and passport applications are processed systematically. Yet universities, despite their massive budgets and supposed academic excellence, seem trapped in administrative practices from the previous century.
The document processing situation perfectly illustrates this systemic failure. Imagine needing a simple course description - a standard document that has been issued thousands of times, exists in digital format, and requires only changing the student's name. In any modern business, this would be an automated process taking minutes at most. Yet universities routinely make students wait weeks or even a month for such basic documentation. This isn't just inefficiency - it's an institutional failure to implement even the most basic document management practices that small businesses handle routinely.
What makes this even more absurd is the scale of resources universities devote to administration. With ?1-1.2 billion spent annually on salaries and benefits, and top management alone costing ?3.7-4.6 million monthly, you would expect professional, efficient service. Instead, students encounter staff who often seem unfamiliar with their own procedures, require multiple follow-ups for simple requests, and sometimes provide inconsistent or incorrect information. The same course description that thousands of students have received before becomes a bureaucratic ordeal, with staff seemingly unable to access or process documents that should be readily available in their systems.
The enrollment process further demonstrates this dysfunction. Modern e-commerce sites can handle millions of simultaneous transactions seamlessly. Food delivery apps can coordinate thousands of orders in real-time. Yet university enrollment systems regularly crash during peak periods, force students through byzantine procedures, and often require physical visits to multiple offices to complete what should be simple digital transactions. A startup company with a fraction of a university's budget can build more reliable and user-friendly systems than institutions that have been operating for decades.
This inefficiency isn't just about convenience - it actively hinders student success. Time spent chasing documents, navigating administrative confusion, and dealing with system failures is time taken away from actual learning. Students miss classes waiting for signatures or documents, face added stress during already challenging academic periods, and sometimes even delay graduation due to administrative bottlenecks. All this while universities continue collecting substantial fees that could fund modern, efficient administrative systems.
The solution isn't complicated - it's the basic digital transformation that countless businesses have already implemented successfully. Document templates could be automated, verification processes digitized, and service delivery standardized. The technology and knowledge exist - what's lacking is institutional will to change entrenched inefficient practices. Until universities prioritize administrative modernization and hold themselves to the same standards of service that basic businesses achieve, students will continue paying premium fees for substandard administrative support that wouldn't be acceptable in any modern professional setting.
Infrastructure and Facility Failures
The facilities situation in Philippine universities represents a profound failure of resource management and institutional accountability. Consider the basic financial scale: universities collect specific fees designated for facilities and maintenance - energy fees (?1,160 per student per trimester), development fees (?2,100), and various laboratory fees ranging from ?1,240 to ?6,170. For DLSU's 18,821 students, this generates hundreds of millions of pesos annually specifically earmarked for facilities and infrastructure. Yet the daily student experience tells a different story.
Air conditioning systems in classrooms frequently malfunction or operate poorly, creating uncomfortable learning environments in the Philippine heat. This isn't a luxury - it's a basic necessity for effective learning in our climate. A modern commercial air conditioning system for a standard classroom costs around ?150,000-200,000, including installation. The energy fees from just one section of 40 students for one trimester could fund a new air conditioning unit, yet students regularly endure malfunctioning units semester after semester.
Internet connectivity, absolutely crucial for modern education, remains persistently problematic. Universities charge information and communication fees (?790 per student per trimester), yet provide internet service that would be unacceptable in many coffee shops. A high-end enterprise-grade WiFi system for a building, including industrial access points and proper bandwidth, costs around ?500,000-1 million. The ICT fees from just one department's worth of students could fund this, yet connectivity issues persist throughout entire campuses.
Laboratory facilities present perhaps the most egregious example of this disconnect. Students pay specific laboratory fees ranging from ?3,780 to ?6,170 per subject. For a computer laboratory with 40 students taking just one subject, this generates ?151,200 to ?246,800 per trimester - enough to replace multiple high-end workstations. Yet students often work on computers running outdated software, with failing components, and specifications that wouldn't meet minimal professional standards. The annual computer laboratory fees from all students could outfit multiple laboratories with state-of-the-art equipment, but instead, students struggle with machines that would be considered obsolete in many small businesses.
The scale of this mismanagement becomes clearer when comparing it to other infrastructure investments. A small hospital setup, including basic diagnostic equipment, patient rooms, and medical facilities, costs ?50-80 million. This entire facility could be funded by the annual fees from just 4,000 students - about 21% of DLSU's undergraduate population. One day's worth of total university revenue could fund the complete modernization of multiple classrooms or laboratories. Yet universities consistently cite budget constraints while collecting fees that could fund transformative infrastructure improvements.
The maintenance and repair situation further illustrates this systemic failure. Basic facility issues - broken chairs, malfunctioning projectors, leaking pipes - often persist for weeks or months. These aren't complex problems requiring special expertise or massive budgets. A new classroom projector costs ?30,000-50,000, a drop in the ocean compared to collected development fees. Professional-grade classroom furniture for an entire room might cost ?200,000. These are minimal investments for institutions collecting billions in fees, yet students regularly encounter broken or inadequate facilities.
This situation reflects more than just poor management - it represents a fundamental breach of the implicit contract between universities and students. Every fee collected for facilities and infrastructure represents a promise to provide adequate learning environments. When universities fail to deliver on these basic commitments while continuing to collect substantial fees, they aren't just being inefficient - they're failing their primary mission of supporting student learning. The fact that small businesses and startup companies can maintain better facilities with far fewer resources suggests that the problem lies not in funding limitations but in institutional priorities and accountability.
The solution requires more than just increased spending - it demands fundamental reform in how universities manage and allocate their resources. Clear accountability for facility fees, transparent reporting of infrastructure investments, and regular audits of facility conditions should be standard practice. Until universities begin treating facility maintenance with the same seriousness that small businesses do, students will continue paying premium fees for substandard learning environments that wouldn't meet basic commercial standards.
Academic Impact
The compensation structure in Philippine universities reveals a shocking devaluation of education professionals. Consider that a typical instructor, often holding a master's degree and years of experience, earns only ?35,000-45,000 monthly. This salary could be funded by just 8-10 students' trimestral fees, yet these professors teach hundreds of students each term. Even full professors, who have typically spent decades developing expertise and contributing to their fields, earn ?85,000-120,000 monthly - less than what two students pay in trimestral fees. This compensation level forces many qualified educators to either leave academia entirely or maintain multiple jobs, reducing their ability to focus on teaching and professional development.
The impact of this underinvestment extends far beyond salaries. Faculty members often lack basic resources that professionals in their fields take for granted. Software engineers in industry routinely work with development tools, cloud services, and hardware costing thousands of dollars monthly per employee. Yet university instructors teaching programming must often make do with outdated computers running older versions of development environments. This forces them to teach concepts using obsolete tools, creating an immediate gap between education and industry practice.
The same pattern repeats across disciplines. Design professors try to teach modern digital creation on computers that struggle with current software. Business faculty attempt to demonstrate contemporary analytics tools on systems that can barely handle basic spreadsheets. Science instructors work with laboratory equipment that might have been current a decade ago. This technological gap doesn't just limit teaching effectiveness - it fundamentally compromises educational quality.
The consequences for students are severe and long-lasting. Imagine a computer science graduate entering a workplace where cloud computing, containerization, and AI tools are standard, having primarily worked with older local development environments and outdated programming paradigms. Or consider a multimedia arts graduate facing professional design tools they've never used because their university labs couldn't run current versions. These students aren't just slightly behind - they're entering their careers with significant skill gaps that require extensive additional training to overcome.
This skills gap has immediate financial implications. While industry rapidly advances, universities often teach technology and techniques that are already outdated. Employers increasingly report that new graduates require substantial additional training before they can contribute effectively to projects. This training period often translates to lower starting salaries and missed career opportunities. A graduate might spend their first six months to a year just catching up to current industry practices, while their peers from better-equipped institutions can contribute immediately.
The problem compounds over time. Faculty members, struggling with outdated resources and inadequate compensation, have limited opportunities to stay current with industry developments. This creates a cycle where each generation of students falls further behind industry standards. Meanwhile, the rapid pace of technological change means that the gap between university education and industry requirements continues to widen.
The irony is that universities collect more than enough in fees to prevent this situation. The technology fees from a single computer science class could fund current development tools and cloud services for their professors. The laboratory fees from one term could outfit teaching spaces with industry-standard equipment. The total fees from just a small fraction of students could fund competitive faculty salaries that would attract and retain top educators.
This represents more than just an educational failing - it's a form of institutional malpractice. Universities promise to prepare students for professional success, charging substantial fees for this preparation. Yet by underinvesting in both faculty and resources, they're knowingly providing an education that falls short of current industry requirements. They're effectively setting their graduates up for initial career challenges while continuing to collect fees that could fund proper educational resources.
The solution requires a fundamental restructuring of how universities invest in their educational mission. Competitive faculty compensation, current technology resources, and ongoing professional development should be primary budget priorities, not afterthoughts. Until universities begin allocating their substantial fee income toward actual educational quality rather than administrative overhead and other non-academic expenses, they'll continue producing graduates who must struggle to bridge the gap between their education and industry requirements.
The Broader Crisis
The alarming college dropout rates in the Philippines reveal a complex crisis in higher education:
Dropout Statistics:
Economic Impact and Lost Investment:
Systemic Contributors to Dropout Rates:
Administrative Burdens:
领英推荐
Technology Access Disparities:
Hidden Costs:
Socioeconomic Implications:
Long-term Educational Impact:
Human Cost:
Required Systemic Changes:
Infrastructure Investment:
Administrative Reform:
Resource Allocation:
Policy Updates:
The current higher education model is unsustainable, placing significant burdens on students and families while failing to provide adequate support. As global competition intensifies and technology advances, maintaining outdated systems risks further increasing dropout rates. Fundamental reform is not just recommended—it is essential for the future of Philippine education.
Systemic Reform Needs
Let me elaborate on why the fundamental problem in Philippine universities goes far beyond simple funding issues, and requires a complete rethinking of institutional operations and priorities.
The contrast between modern business evolution and university stagnation reveals a devastating failure of institutional adaptation. Consider how businesses have transformed over the past decade: food delivery apps coordinate thousands of real-time transactions, digital banks process millions of daily operations seamlessly, and even small retail shops offer instant inventory tracking and efficient customer service. These companies continually evolve, adopting new technologies and refining processes to serve growing customer bases more effectively.
Yet universities, despite collecting billions in fees annually, seem frozen in operational patterns from decades past. Take enrollment as a stark example: while a small e-commerce startup can handle thousands of simultaneous transactions without issues, university enrollment systems regularly crash under predictable seasonal loads. These aren't surprise events - universities know exactly when enrollment periods occur, how many students they need to accommodate, and what resources they'll require. Still, year after year, students face the same system failures, long queues, and byzantine procedures that would bankrupt any modern business.
The administrative dysfunction runs even deeper. A basic startup company with a handful of employees can implement document management systems that process requests instantly. Modern businesses routinely handle customer service queries through efficient digital channels, maintaining clear communication and rapid response times. Yet universities, with hundreds of administrative staff and massive budgets, often can't manage basic document requests without weeks of delay and multiple office visits. The same institutions that teach business efficiency and modern management seem unable or unwilling to apply these principles to their own operations.
This operational failure extends to facility maintenance and technology management. Small businesses maintain their facilities proactively because they understand that functional infrastructure directly impacts their success. They update their technology regularly because staying current is essential for competitive operation. Yet universities, despite collecting specific fees for these exact purposes, operate reactive maintenance systems that leave problems unaddressed for months and allow technology to become obsolete. The same institutions that teach engineering and facility management seem incapable of maintaining their own infrastructure effectively.
The human cost of this institutional paralysis is severe and multifaceted. Students lose countless hours navigating inefficient processes that shouldn't exist in the modern era. They study in suboptimal conditions that directly impact their learning effectiveness. Their education suffers from using outdated tools and technologies that limit their professional preparation. Most critically, they pay premium fees for these substandard services, often taking on significant financial burdens or family sacrifices to afford an education that doesn't deliver on its basic promises.
This situation persists not because universities lack resources - they collect more than enough fees to fund world-class operations. It persists because of deeply entrenched institutional resistance to change, bureaucratic structures that prioritize process over outcomes, and a fundamental lack of accountability to the students they serve. While businesses must evolve or die in the competitive marketplace, universities continue operating inefficiently because their students have limited alternatives and little power to demand better service.
The solution requires more than surface-level changes or increased funding. It demands a complete reimagining of how universities operate, starting with the basic assumption that they should at least match the operational efficiency of modern businesses. This means implementing contemporary technology systems, streamlining administrative processes, maintaining facilities proactively, and most importantly, developing an institutional culture that values efficiency and effectiveness.
Universities must start measuring their operational performance against modern business standards rather than other educational institutions. When a small startup can process documents more efficiently than a university's entire administrative department, that's not just a technological gap - it's a fundamental failure of institutional purpose. When a local coffee shop maintains better facilities than a university collecting billions in fees, that's not a resource problem - it's a management failure.
Until universities begin viewing their students as valued stakeholders deserving of efficient, effective service rather than captive participants in an outdated system, they will continue providing premium-priced mediocrity. The technology exists, the knowledge exists, and most certainly the funding exists to transform university operations into modern, efficient systems. What's lacking is the institutional will to fundamentally reform decades-old patterns of operation and truly serve the students who fund their existence.
Conclusion
The state of Philippine higher education represents a systemic failure that extends far beyond individual institutions or isolated inefficiencies. The stark disconnect between universities' massive financial resources and the substandard services they provide reveals a profound crisis in institutional management and accountability.
Consider the financial landscape: universities like DLSU collect billions in annual fees - ?4.61 billion from undergraduate students alone - yet fail to provide services and facilities that small businesses deliver with a fraction of these resources. While a ?2-3 million coffee shop can maintain modern equipment and efficient customer service, universities with thousand-fold larger budgets struggle with basic administrative tasks and facility maintenance.
The human impact is devastating. The 35.15% dropout rate in 2023-2024 represents thousands of shattered educational dreams and wasted family investments, with each dropout representing ?200,000-400,000 in annual family investment lost. Those who persist face outdated technology, inefficient administration, and deteriorating facilities - all while paying premium fees that could fund world-class educational resources.
This crisis particularly exacerbates socioeconomic mobility challenges. Wealthy students can compensate for institutional shortcomings with personal resources, while those from modest backgrounds face compounded obstacles. Every system crash during enrollment, every outdated computer in laboratories, and every administrative delay disproportionately impacts students who can least afford additional barriers to their education.
The path forward requires fundamental reform across critical dimensions:
Most critically, this reform demands a complete shift in institutional perspective. Universities must transition from bureaucratic entities to student-centered service providers accountable for delivering high-quality education. Until Philippine universities undergo this fundamental transformation, they will continue collecting premium fees while delivering substandard education, perpetuating a cycle of institutional failure that undermines national development and individual opportunity.
The moment for incremental changes has definitively passed. The gap between university capabilities and basic business standards continues to widen, with students bearing the financial and educational costs of institutional inertia. Only through comprehensive reform that genuinely prioritizes student success over administrative convenience can Philippine higher education begin to deliver on its essential promise of transformative education and socioeconomic advancement.
Note on Cost Estimates
The operational costs presented here are conservative estimates based on current market prices for equipment, facilities, and services. However, the core argument about resource allocation becomes even more compelling when we consider that even if we multiplied these estimates tenfold—imagining the highest possible costs for everything—the total would still represent only a fraction of the university's ?4.61 billion annual revenue. For instance, even if we assumed operating two hospital facilities would cost ?1.6 billion annually (ten times our current estimate), this would still consume only about 35% of the university's annual revenue, leaving billions unaccounted for. This demonstrates that even with the most generous allowances for operational costs, the fundamental disconnect between revenue and infrastructure investment remains stark.
A Note on Data Transparency and Scope
The choice to focus on De La Salle University's data was not arbitrary, but a strategic decision driven by accessibility and representative potential. DLSU, as a prominent private institution, offers a rare window into the inner financial and operational mechanics of Philippine higher education. However, this analysis should be understood as a starting point rather than a definitive indictment of the entire system.
The scholarship landscape presents an entirely separate and complex dimension of educational funding that deserves its own comprehensive investigation. Tracking scholarship distribution, understanding the criteria for allocation, and analyzing the impact of these financial support mechanisms would require a nuanced, multi-institutional study that extends far beyond the current scope of this research.
By highlighting DLSU's data, the intention is not to single out one institution, but to illuminate a systemic pattern that likely exists across the Philippine educational landscape. The accessible nature of this information serves as a provocative case study, inviting further scrutiny and demanding greater transparency from other universities.
Researchers and policymakers should view this analysis as a call to action—to conduct broader, more comprehensive studies that can definitively map the intricate financial and operational challenges facing higher education in the Philippines.
Limitations and Future Research
The goal is not to condemn, but to catalyze meaningful dialogue and systemic transformation.
Author's Note
Hey, I'm Kyoblade - some of you may know me as Joel Jr. Laudato. I've recently been getting into fights because I'm a dropout and I had strong opinions against the education system. I wrote this because I wanted to stand up for the little guys, and the future. I may be working as a Fullstack Developer, but it doesn't mean I forgot my roots.
Context and Personal Reflection
My journey through the Philippine educational system wasn't a traditional one. As a dropout who has since established myself in the tech industry, I've witnessed firsthand the stark disconnect between academic institutions and real-world professional requirements. This document isn't just an academic critique - it's a personal mission to shed light on systemic issues that harm students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The research and analysis presented here stem from lived experiences and extensive observations across multiple universities. Each statistic represents real students - their struggles, their potential, and the opportunities stolen by institutional inefficiency. My work as a Fullstack Developer has only reinforced my conviction that our educational system is fundamentally broken.
To the students reading this: Your potential is not defined by institutional failures. To the educators and administrators: This is a call to meaningful, transformative change. And to my fellow dropouts and survivors of this system: Your resilience is your greatest asset.
This document is more than a critique - it's a roadmap for reimagining education as a genuine pathway to opportunity and empowerment.
- Kyoblade (Joel Jr. Laudato)
REFERENCES:
Bautista, M. L. S., & Bautista, L. R. (2020). International student mobility in Philippine higher education: The case of De La Salle University. Journal of International Students, 10(2), 126-143.
Bernardo, A. B. I., & Mendoza, R. J. (2009). Transformation and reform in Philippine private higher education. International Higher Education, 58(1), 19-20.
De La Salle University. (2023). University catalog 2023-2024. DLSU Press.
De La Salle University. (n.d.). Quick facts and figures. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/inside/
De La Salle University. (n.d.). View fees table. https://enroll.dlsu.edu.ph/dlsu/view_fees_table
Lahoz, W. S., & Cruz, F. T. (2022). Research productivity and impact of Philippine private universities: A case study of De La Salle University. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 312-326.
Lee, B. A. (2018). Private higher education in the Philippines: Historical growth and current landscape. Journal of International Education, 24(2), 45-67.
Morales, M. P. E. (2021). Science education reform in the Philippines: The case of De La Salle University. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(1), 33-52.
Orbeta, A. C., & Paqueo, V. B. (2017). Who benefits and loses from an untargeted tuition subsidy for students in SUCs? Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series, 2017-03.
Santos, G. M., & Reyes, P. B. (2021). Student exchange programs in Southeast Asian universities: A comparative analysis. ASEAN Journal of Education, 7(1), 78-95.
Tan, E. A. (2019). Financing higher education in the Philippines: Current trends and future directions. Philippine Review of Economics, 56(1&2), 154-183.
Teehankee, B. (2019). Management research at De La Salle University: Building a research culture. Journal of Management Research, 11(3), 1-15.
Torres, R. C., & Santos, R. G. (2020). Engineering education in the Philippines: The De La Salle University experience. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(1), 216-228.