When evidence won’t matter in academic calendar shift

Note: This article was written more than a year ago, at the peak of the heated debate over the planned academic calendar shift in the University of the Philippines [UP]. It was written to debunk the arguments proffered by the opposing side, citing evidence-based grounds. We won the case! 

Already in the second year after the shift, there is silence on the ground. There are benefits evident in the decision to change the academic calendar. The dire predictions of detractors did not materialize. The UP community seems to enjoy the new school schedule!  

The article talks strongly about 'EVIDENCE' and 'EVIDENCE-BASED practice', matters that are important and hotly discussed in EVALUATION -- that is why this re-post.

----   ----  -----

       I have been advocating the shifting of the academic calendar long before it became a hot issue. I’m glad the change seems more likely to happen this time. Rational thinking and logical reasoning are what made me favor this shift and not so much due to what people call ‘evidence-based grounds’. Based on this idea, it may appear that my stand is flimsy, untenable.

          I don’t believe so.

         In reality, proponents and detractors of calendar shift are in equal footing when it comes to not having evidence, i.e., if it were to be measured from what true evidence-based practice means. But while the detractors strongly demand evidence, they are forgetting that it behooves upon them to show theirs - because they are the ones who fault the calendar shift. ‘Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’–“the burden of proof is upon the one who lays charges”. Demanding concrete evidence from someone being charged while not having one of its own is not fair at all. It rests upon those who accuse the calendar shift of being stupid to show how stupid really this planned change is. But as what the on-going events show, given are nothing but charges, or at best, misleading claims that are not evidence-based at all, and more of conjectural pieces.

          To me, the undue emphasis on showing evidence-based proofs first before a calendar shift smacks of double standard, if not hypocrisy. Let me illustrate why. Is it not that in UP, we have this habit of changing curriculums as regularly as we change our clothes at day’s end? Why do we always change our curriculums when in fact we do not have sufficient evidence to show that the old ones are inept and do not work? Equally, we have no evidence-based guarantees that the new ones will do better, have we?

[The establishment of new programs or courses and the rescinding of the old ones also are of the same nature - part of strategic academic governance but mostly done based on intuition and gut feeling]

            Yes, we do change and revise our curriculums while there is no empirical evidence, even studies at all, that shows the old ones are broke! And we do revise them even if our replacements are not evidence-based just the same!

            But come on, make a simple survey. More probably we will find that those who are prominently against the academic calendar shift are in some way or another the ones who engaged in curriculum revisions in the University. It makes weird then why they are the first ‘to cry wolf’ for evidence in the calendar shift. Of course some will say, “calendar shift is different from curriculum change”. Oh yeah -that’s based on selective brain twist!

            Let us admit -our everyday experience shows that many of our actions do not really need to be evidence-based all the time. We normally do things without getting evidence first. For instance, have we ever empirically established that 'love' makes a difference in society and that it causes the society to progress? No, we haven’t –we can go to Google, spend the whole day searching, and we might fail getting an empirical evidence to support that notion.

            Come to think further -why does a person take a bath when in fact it has not been empirically established that bathing contributes to ones’ well being? It may lead to good health, yes, but note that well-being is not just health alone. So taking cue from detractors’ argument, one might as well not take a bath anymore!

            In the same line of argument, why do we, architects and designers, continue to vie for our design solutions when in fact we always don’t have empirical basis or evidence in claiming that our design piece will perform as planned? There is simply no empirical way of showing that our buildings will be successful [and therefore be beneficial- in accordance with the objectives set at the beginning of the design]. With that absence, shall we stop building anymore or refrain from innovating ideas because after all, we do not establish, evidence-based-wise, that they will work? If being evidence-based alone will be the measure of our reason for practice, then our profession maybe the first to fold up!

            Yes, most arguments for calendar shift are not empirical but rational. That is understandable and very normal. Any act devoid of rationality is essentially useless, regardless of how empirical or scientific that one can be. Just the same, the business of governance and management cannot be solely evidence-based. It excels through a combination of intuition, skills, judgment, and many other facets of human competence shaped by our ‘educated’ past - that includes lessons learned from previous actions showing evidence of performance or failure.

            Calendar shift is one act of governance and part of strategic decision-making role of a duly constituted body that is mandated to manage for the UP community’s progress. It is an ‘act of building’ and a move which cannot rest solely on evidence-based reasons. It cannot just be a rigid, purely empirical undertaking. The university cannot, in every step, conduct evidence-based studies first to justify every act, otherwise, the whole system and its affairs will rot.

            Even science itself is not at all empirical. I like the way an author argued that “science itself rests on premises that are not science at all, in the sense that they are grounded in beliefs than on actual experience [or fact]”. This can be illustrated by, for instance, a respected paleontologist, who, upon finding an ancient molar, may infer that the beast was three-eyed and flew with one wing. His theory, hinged upon a strong empirical research, boosted by his Scopus ‘pedigree’ and sterling academic reputation, can therefore be considered evidence-based, as it were. But where is the experience of actually seeing that beast with a glistening molar visible to the scientist as it takes off the air?

            As can be argued, more often, being rational takes precedence over being empirical. It emphasizes that not all aspects of living need to be evidence-based in every move. That’s what bathing and love show. Clearly, there is this inherent element in our character that makes us long for change. We have an innate urge that constantly whispers to our ears “Change is good”. In fact, we may even rebel at the idea that someone should ask us why we are changing our curriculums. That is because we feel that change is needed and if we don’t do so we will appear out-of-date. Where is evidence-based practice there now? 

            Well of course, apparently, academic calendars and curriculums shall not be changed like diapers, which are tossed regularly, soiled or not. But admittedly, we do not have to go to lengths of evidence to feel that they do get ‘wet’ at times.

 Evidence from Dean Noel de Dios of UPSE

            Mareng Winnie [Solita Monsod] was full of praise for Dean De Dios’ evidence-based discourse disfavoring the academic calendar shift. [https://opinion.inquirer.net/71582/does-the-academic-calendar-matter] Why not? The arguments presented by him were impressive, at least algorithmically. Through econometrics, he was able to present ‘empirically’ derived inferences which are seen as very ‘evidence-based’! It is now offered as the most solid of evidence that the detractors wield to sway the pros and the undecided on the issue of calendar shift. But how evidence-based is it really? Let’s do some thinking.

            Using regression, De Dios showed that academic calendar has a weak correlation with some important variables that matter in school. He identified, among others, that the consistent predictors of [international] faculty’ choice are; faculty/student, papers/faculty, and international students -academic calendar is never significant. Impressive, particularly to people who are awed when seeing numbers! But being impressive is not a cover to hide what is being obvious.

            Econometrics, though appearing rigorous and empirical, is not a cure-all tool to solving or interpreting economic problems, much more, social problems. Regression, applied in econometrics, is only one among many items in a big tool box which is available for research to model a social or economic phenomenon. It may help us understand problems but it is not a surefire device to lead to solution. Like other tools it has its limitations, especially if the process applied is made skewed. A hammer, for instance, being very limited, will perform no better than a spoon when it comes to cutting a log!

            Further, correlation is not causation. Regression uses a quantitative procedure that shows how numerical values establish strong linkage or correlation between or among variables. But the identified relation does not exactly pinpoint cause and effect. It only implies. The problem is, if inference is drawn from a ‘tortured’ data, it stretches the ‘truth’ and can result to a use of quantities that misleads. “Numbers lie and liars use numbers”. Inferences from regression analysis do not constitute a gospel truth that the calendar shift is detrimental to the society -just because of it not being a strong factor in student’s choice of school.  

            To illustrate, I can establish a link between the ‘increase of pirates around the Somalian waters’ with the ‘incidence of global warming’ and may find out that the two are strongly correlated. Shall I use this link to vigorously claim that spikes in piracy at the Somalian seas increase global warming? If I can, it would be possible for me as well to assert that my wife’s choice of shoes increases the likelihood of myself getting late for work every day. Weird!

            Even some economists dismiss the merits of econometrics. De Dios and Monsod know this fact. [If we can only ask the olden Austrian economists, they might tell more...] Its value is as weighty as when I say, based on my case study analysis, that the calendar shift will not shortchange the society and may even lead to its progress.     

 Culture and Climate Cards

            Some people opposing the calendar shift resort to playing the culture and climate cards. Well, that strategy may work. Certainly, culture and climate issues carry heavy emotional quotients. Playing these cards well can bulls-eye on public emotion and, having strong appeal, generate a feeling that will make the public appear like being oppressed. Because in effect, if the claims were true, the change of the academic calendar will make the public suffer and end up being a big loser. That would sway huge public opinion favorable to the opposing side. But look closer. Is it true? Is it supported by evidence? The answer is a BIG NO. This strategy may even be more alarmist in essence than of being loyal to a worthy cause.

            ‘If we turn our backs to our culture we will end up a ruined lot’, one claim tends to imply. Does changing the academic calendar really equate to turning our backs to our climate and to our culture -and the action would destroy us? That is gross! Question: Does changing one’s toilet time constitute a disregard for one’s family values? It does not, although it may disrupt a family trip!

            If majority of kids are in school when fiestas are being held, it does not amount to harassing our culture, because in the first place, fiestas are not what is all in our culture. And besides, what town [or even city] in the country does not usually observe local school holiday during significant fiestas held in its place? Just like changing personal schedules, a calendar shift may have its trade offs, both advantages and disadvantages, but certainly, it would not amount to ruining ones’ whole life nor an entire culture.

            Would classes held in summer time result to more energy use, particularly when hot climate prevails? It appears so, but not exactly. Using time motion study, we might see some real scores. Definitely, we cannot refute the fact that more people mean more energy required for mechanical ventilation if aircon units [ACU] are in use [and therefore more expenses and more carbon footprints]. But it is also a fact that if only one or two persons, instead of many, uses one ACU, it would mean more ACUs operating simultaneously given a large number of people. That is exactly the case when kids are out of school and far dispersed when not in classes [they could actually make power expenses in a household to balloon and therefore, what could have been saved in school is squandered at home!] The greater possibility is that when kids are in classes during summer, there is more likelihood that a better use of energy is in place because the right number of kids using a proportionate number of school ACUs constitutes sensible use. After all, which universities or schools do not hold summer classes? More probably in the present situation, ACUs, when in use, may have been working with few less students in the room. And so, making summer classes become ‘regular’ would optimize energy use better!

 When evidence is not evidence

          In the battle for winning minds evidence is definitely crucial. That is why it is always invoked. But the rush to claiming stronger grounds more often results to its misuse. That is seen in the case of ‘evidence-based’ becoming a byword in the present controversy. [We could only hope that this concept will not suffer the same fate with that of ‘sustainability’, which has become more popular than it is useful.]

          Clear and convincing proof commands higher degree of believability. In the proposal to shift the academic calendar, each side accuses the other of being flimsy and untenable. But the real thing is: there is no solid evidence-based proof yet to safely say that the change in academic calendar will be disastrous; the reverse is also true –a change does not guarantee benefits. So it puts everyone in a bind.

          Not in my case. I advocate shift and my reasons are clear. I would rather err on the side of change than be caught in a stale state over the issue of evidence, which is not there -both ways. How could evidence matter if it does not exist? So I prefer being rational and logical. Changing the calendar may not lead us to progress, yes, but just the same, sticking to the old maybe one causing us not to. Who knows?

          Lastly, there is a saying, “most innovations are failures, but the ultimate failure is failing to innovate”. Is this idea flimsy or tenable? ... I do not need evidence.

000--00--000