# data[].attributes.body
In my judgement, free tertiary education is completely pro-poor, and it should be advocated more. In the Asian culture, education is one of the primary sources of opportunities, and we value  it to our lives. We are already a Third World country, and one of the things that could definitely create a great significance to the Philippines is education. Education is the answer to most things, it paves the way for a smarter and more unified society in which can solve numerous societal issues. With all these advantages, it is personally ironic when we, as Filipinos, adore the concept of high education, and yet we don't do anything to make it more accessible. If we all take a stand and think more critically, it shouldn't be viewed as social inequality at all, when it can serve us in the future for the better.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the fact that free education is being provided to the poor, they are not getting proper education. it is almost as if they are just doing it for namesake.

# data[].attributes.body
At first glance, Free Tertiary Education is pro-poor. It completely dismisses the requirement of having to pay for tuition fees, which greatly helps the poor. Although as the thought comes deeper, you realize that the Republic Act may just worsen the social inequality in the country. As the rule applies to all, it means that there isn't money taken from the rich as well which we can infer that, they just keep earning more and have one less thing to put their money in. As a result of this, the social classes are still present because other than that, elements are still the same outside school. The needs are still present, and the wants too. Money is still spent similarly outside the perspective of tuition. That then means that it the same value of money is kept by the rich, and that does not help the status of social inequality in the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Free tertiary education may only seem like a band-aid solution to the problem of inaccessible education due to poverty but there are some people in the sector of society that don't pursue tertiary education at all. In the long term however measures such as these should be able to stabilize the social inequality in the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite free tertiary education being aimed to help the poor, the execution of its benefits have been less than ideal.

# data[].attributes.body
Free tertiary tuition would be the ideal solution; it offers free access to government supported opportunities for the impoverished and those who cannot afford private education. Another significant factor people tend to oversee is the value of private education in comparison to public education. People assume that those in private schools have better education, while for the most part is true, they seem to forget that most of these private schools still follow the same education system.

Free tertiary education is definitely pro-poor, but the executions of these privileges have been suboptimal, offering little incentive for poor people to stop working and spend their limited time and resources to education.

The aforementioned issue doesn’t worsen the social inequality in the Philippines but instead highlights how little the government knows about the situation. If they really want to solve social inequality, I suggest they direct their attention towards understanding the issue from an inside perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that although it may seem unfair or unjust that people are given these sort of benefits but it is unjust that the upper class people are given benefits like being able to afford a lot of stuff that many people are not able to afford.

# data[].attributes.body
Although free tertiary education is deemed to be pro-poor, I believe that it has its own fair share of disadvantages. I recognize that its main objective is to provide an education to students who do not have enough money to pay for schooling. However, by the way it is applied, it is also able to worsen the social injustice in the Philippines.

# data[].attributes.body
Though free tertiary education is universally deemed to be "pro-poor," I don't think this will ever be the case especially considering the country we live in where everything comes with a price especially if it's something most people would invest thousands on. I think the Republic Act 10931 worsens the social inequality in the Philippines by allowing for this to be open and available to those who are financially stable as well therefore when both social classes are handed these, the gap that divides them becomes more apparent and then this law which is supposed to cater to those who need it most is then rendered ineffective. There's also a Socialized Tuition System (STS) followed where even if you do qualify as a student that they can grant this to, you're still required to pay the necessary fees that you could afford based on what you've mentioned on your application form.

# data[].attributes.body
The free tertiary education will worsen the social inequality in the Philippines. This Republic Act was implemented in 2017 with the budget of at least PhP 40 Billion Pesos as budget (https://unifast.gov.ph/uniqtea.php). This excludes the funding from other government sectors. This act was supposed to be implemented in the academic year 2018-2019. With that said, we should have been able to see some significant action about this act, but there was no recollection or news that hit major headlines about it. Except one (https://opinion.inquirer.net/112307/free-tuition-fake-news). Almost a year later this news article came out and announced that Free Education was fake news and quote, "For CHEd, this is a “win-win” situation, as the private higher education institutions — which have long treated education as a business — will continue to line their pockets with profit." With that, I believe that this system is pro-poor as its implementation did not even reach the bare minimum of its mission. We also see that private institutions will "continue to line their pockets with profit," which proves the point that this system can not be properly be implemented in in the Philippines as of the moment.

# data[].attributes.body
While the concept of universal access to tertiary education is geared to be pro-poor, we can not say that it is an act that if fully pro-poor as it benefits that rich more than it does the marginalized. The difference between granting free tuition for all and developing a socialized system of tuition poses the question of equity or equality? These acts and systems were created in order to support those who are unable to afford education. However, the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017 is not ideal given the current state of society.

Society is controlled by the chains of capitalism which has resulted in the gap between the rich and the poor. With this said, simply granting free tuition for all does not contribute much to resolving these inequalities as the rich would only get richer while the poor continue to work to advance further only to be held back by the nature of capitalism. With this said, I believe that Universal Tertiary Education is a measure that is not yet applicable for our current state. Before we achieve equality, we must first employ equity. This is where the Socialized Tuition System comes in. Through fair, just, and unbiased analysis, aspiring students will be given tuition according to the capability to pay based on their family backgrounds. Through this, financial aid will be given and concentrated on those who need it more. This system will aid in closing and narrowing the gap that exists between the poor, and once this gap is resolved, only then can a system of Universal Access can be employed, but as of right now, free tuition for all will only benefit the rich more than it will benefit the poor.

# data[].attributes.body
I assume that both are capable of helping people. Financial support will be provided to them and both serve the purpose of supporting the poor who can not pay for schooling. The main goal of the Socialized Tuition System was to support students in need to study in schools. In other colleges or universities, the Quality Tertiary Education Act offers free tuition and regulates the fees. Since it seeks to support and serve the disadvantaged, it should be pro-poor. It is able to assist, but by the way it is applied or how it is attempted to be done, it is also able to exacerbate the social injustice in the Philippines. It also depends on the way it is looked at, which may alter and make it worse.

# data[].attributes.body
While on the surface free tertiary education appears to be a good idea, the way it is implemented has some flaws within it and, ultimately, has an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages. While it is a good concept and is the government's attempt at appearing "pro-poor", there is no such thing as free in our world. There will always be the need for something to fund a "free" thing. Another disadvantage would be that there will undoubtedly be people who would take advantage of this free education. Even if the family has the means to pay for their child/s education, they might not do so since there is the offer of free education for others. So, on the surface, it may seem "pro-poor", but there are just too many things that can or will go wrong with it while it is being handled by our incapable society.

# data[].attributes.body
As much as current social movements and issues want us to believe in equality among all people around the world, the sad reality is that we are a long ways to go from the ideal world wherein all are equal. The past still haunts many in their constant effort of escaping a cycle of poverty and discrimination. This is the exact reason why I believe free tertiary education will only worsen social inequality in our country. It would allow the patterns we live in now to flourish, supporting the growing wealth of the rich while barely helping the poor. Socialized tuition, as compared to free tuition, is much more realistic as it takes into account the inequality among students and levels the playing field. While tertiary education is a bandage that covers up reality, socialized tuition is a solution that would help us achieve what we perceive as an ideal world.

# data[].attributes.body
Of course, free tertiary education has the advantage of helping the poor. Unfortunately, there are some disadvantages, too. Just because tertiary education is declared as free, does not mean it is 100% free. For example are the entrance exams. Universities have to pick who is most eligible in being admitted. Another would be who is able to pay tuition. The students who studied in private schools are most likely to do so. In the end, there is no such thing as universal tertiary education. Despite this, we should think of solutions so that no student is forcibly left behind.

# data[].attributes.body
While the free tertiary education may seem pro-poor this does not cover up the student loan  which leads to the student being in-debt after he/she graduates from the said school. While the free tertiary education does not cover the miscellaneous and other school fees that the student still needs to provide for him/herself. This will only lead the more privileged to use the system as a cushion their expenses for their education.

While, the socialized tuition system caters more to the underprivileged as it gives them a discount on the tuition based on the paying capacity of the parents of the student and overall gives the student to attain a higher education

# data[].attributes.body
Free tertiary education upon first glance, can be anticipated as “pro-poor.” Although upon further examination, I believe that this is not the case. A study conducted by Orbeta and Paqueo (2017) states that 17% of public HEI students (4 out of 10) are part of the richer class, while on the other hand only 12% came from the poorer class. From this, we can assume that free tertiary education allows rich students to lay hold of free education despite being capable of paying for their education. This shows the inequality that is brought upon by free tertiary education. Overall, richer students are more likely attain tertiary education than poorer students as they are given easier access to resources in basic education. To conclude, I believe that free tertiary education creates a big gap between social classes despite the intentions of it being "pro-poor."

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the concept of free Tertiary education is pro-poor, and made with the best intentions, but is ultimately flawed in both social inequality AND functionality due to its placement.

I think that all education up until the point of readiness to enter the workforce to be free. In other words, I think primary, secondary, and partially tertiary education should be free, and only things such as Masters' degrees and courses to further improve an already-established proficiency should be paid for.

In benevolent intention, government programs are designed to help students receive loans to pay their tuition fees, but this subsequently means that we send people into the workforce already in-debt, and this furthers a social divide with those who were able to pay their tuitions from the start.

In order to cure this social inequality, we must practice what I can only describe as a "civic delayed gratification", in which the government gives free education to the citizens until they are able to enter the workforce, and the expenses are paid back to the government in the form of the money and economic circulation (see: GDP). This way, everyone is given free and equal opportunity, no matter socio-economic climate or conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
Education is a basic human right, and as of 2017, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the Republic Act No. 10931 The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act. This law provides financial support to those who are in need because it aims to make education inclusive in state universities and colleges, local universities and colleges and state-run technical institutions. With this, I believe this law can be pro-poor in a sense that it allows students from all financial backgrounds to finish their education and hopefully have a chance in having a stable income from their degrees. This however has something in return, in this case not everyone is guaranteed to need the financial aid, and some more people can use of it. But at the end of the day, the right of education will be served to our citizens and the future generation.

# data[].attributes.body
Education was and always will be important to any society and I do think that the free tertiary education system would be able to aid in the nation's troubles of lack of educated individuals and most likely the employment rate. However, to be able to implement this it would have an effect on the financial and economic health of the country as well. In the situation of the free tertiary education, there seems to be a push and pull of the economic growth, not promising any sort of stability in the sense of the country's economy. But this plan is more functional in terms of the education of the masses, who are not all within the class who could usually afford tertiary education.

As for the Socialized Tuition Systerm (STS), it also seems affective and fitting for the country in theory, however there are certain parts of implementation or future implementation that could become a handicap to the country and the student's as well.

In my opinion, between the two, free tertiary education seems to be best suited for the country, it's people, and other facets bellow each.

# data[].attributes.body
The Republic Act of 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017 promotes universal access to quality tertiary education within the country. Meanwhile, the Socialized Tuition System of the University of the Philippines is where students can receive financial support from the National Government, knowing that the full tuition is lower than the full cost of education within the University of the Philippines. By learning about these two, I do believe that free tertiary is pro-poor. It gives those people hope knowing that despite their financial situation, they can still have access to tertiary education and complete their studies. This is also helpful in shaping the future of our country as these diplomas give people access to more opportunities in the future. But as I dwell more into the topic, I believe that the process of determining who get financial aid may cause some social inequality in the Philippines. It somewhat creates a contradictory between the two given because as much as everyone has the right to have accessible education according to RA 10931, the STS has qualifications and requirements to be met by the student applying. Weighing out who is more deserving of these financial aid would be difficult and could affect the future of many individuals, as well as the country. 

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, free tertiary education is considered pro-poor because its main goal is to give students with low financial gain an education. The Socialized Tuition System (STS) was created to provide the student with a tuition discount based on the paying capacity of the parents. Meaning that the institution would observe the income and as well as the socio-economic characteristics of the household. Republic Act 10931 or other known as The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act was created for free education. This act looks over state or local universities and colleges in the Philippines.

# data[].attributes.body
Acquiring an academic degree is seen as opening doors to the success of an individual in the Philippines. However, not many Filipinos have the means to achieve this due to poverty.

While both the Socialized Tuition System and RA 10931 are designed to cater to the needs of financially disadvantaged students, I believe that only one system between the two truly achieves this.

Republic Act 10931, otherwise known as the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017, helps promote universal access to quality tertiary education by providing free tuition and other school fees in state universities and colleges. Though it may seem like a viable solution at first glance, it is not entirely pro-poor as it provides the rich with an even greater advantage, which then greatly increases the division between the social classes will only remain the same.

On the other hand, the University of the Philippines enacted the Socialized Tuition System, wherein students are classified based on their annual income and their capacity to pay for their tuition. It assesses the financial situation of the student before giving them aid.

I personally am in favor of the Socialized Tuition System since prioritizes individuals who are at a disadvantage thereby bridging the gap social inequality has caused in the Philippines. It gives an opportunity for our underprivileged countrymen to receive the same quality of education as those who are privileged by providing them financial assistance.

# data[].attributes.body
Free tertiary education is a good idea on paper. As with most great ideas, execution is the most vital component to its success. Free education, when given appropriate care and funding, can serve to further a nation's development. As it is indicative of its quality of life, its government's priorities, and educational attainment. On the other side of the spectrum however, free education but at the cost of insufficient funding and management, will only serve to further class divide, and social inequality. As it propagates the superiority in paid tuition as opposed to free education.

# data[].attributes.body
The abolition of tuition fees reduces the monetary constraints people face when deciding whether to go to university or not, these constraints typically only exist for the working class and the lower middle class. I do believe that this should be the end-goal but should only be implemented once the wealth gap narrows. This law is inherently pro-poor but the timing of it makes the law practically obsolete.
I agree that more workers and lower middle class students go off to university increases the capacity of the workers to benefit from education and to have a more educated leadership. And because of this, there'll likely be less income-inequality in the long term if the assumption that more low-income students will be able to apply. In recent news, there have been reports that our country generally isn't doing well in primary education. This is likely due to public schools, especially in rural areas, not receiving much funds; thus, the quality of education drops and the students lag behind compared to their privileged peers. If this were to continue, the low-income students applying to these tertiary schools would be outnumbered by their richer counterparts. Primary and secondary education must be prioritized as well so regardless of background, each student has a fair chance of getting accepted in a college or university that will provide plenty of opportunities for them.

To reiterate, the wealth gap must narrow to achieve true equity. The STS system, though an equitable system, is good for lessening inequality by benefitting the less fortunate. This is opposed to the free tuition law, which equally benefits both rich and poor. In fact, when my mother was in UP, the STS system was once called STFAP. Instead of the government providing financial aid, the richer students would indirectly pay for her tuition. This evidence may be purely anecdotal but she was able to go up the socioeconomic ladder and eventually provide a better future for me. Without UP's system, my mother probably wouldn't have been this successful in life and I'd probably not be attending this school.

Like my mother's story, so many other families could benefit from the STS system and perhaps if the wealth gaps narrows, the barriers that give the rich an unfair advantage wouldn't be so concerning. Once these barriers are removed, then free tuition for all would finally achieve its desired purpose: to give every Filipino citizen the right to education.

# data[].attributes.body
The Free tuition of all, as the name suggests is applicable to all Filipino enrollees despite the social class of his or her current situation whether in the lower, middle or upper class and it is mandated in the tertiary education in college. It involves miscellaneous fees and other fees. However, the university itself will assess the student with certain criteria’s if this law is applicable to them. The reason for this implementation is the low statistical value of students proceeding in taking the tertiary education due to various reasons, yet the common cause is poverty. With this in mind, the law is primarily intended for the development of having a better lifestyle experienced towards poor or in another term, the advocation of pro-poor. I do appreciate the intention, yet favoring of this law by myself happens only if the certain points I thought of has been clarified and answered.

1)      What if majority of the students in the university are from the upper class and capable of paying tuition fee, will it be considered fair despite the law stating it is for all students?

2)      How many schools have complied with this law?

3)      In the article itself, 11 billion pesos were handed out in supporting the students. The money is huge and may sustain the educational needs of the mass majority of the students. The question is, what is the estimate number of students supported by it, especially from the lower class?

4)      Imagine a situation that majority of the students are in the upper class while few are in the lower class. If the university provides it to all of the lower class, while only few are selected from the upper class there might be a chance of having conflict among the upper-class students.

5)      What is the success rate in the implementation of this law?

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that both systems aim to cater to the needs of the poor in different ways, and they each have their respective pros and cons. Free Tertiary education is somewhat pro-poor, because it requires no tuition fees, which will be a big help to those in need that want to get an eduction in order to improve their quality of life. Although, this provides the rich with an even greater advantage, greatly increasing the division between the rich and the poor. Before we achieve true equality, we must level the playing field; that is why I believe that the Socialized Tuition system is preferable. This would prioritize students that come from low-income families and give them an opportunity to receive the same quality of education as the rich, which is exactly what needs to be done to bridge the gap between the classes.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Socialized Tuition System and the Free Tuition for All are both beneficial and hold good effects to the people covered by it, but I think that the STS is more pro-poor than the Free tertiary education. If you think of it, the STS is better in terms that it is fair on both sides, it's more on equity. Those who can afford to pay for their tuition can do as is, and the poor can be taken care of and be given financial aid, they're given more attention to. The free tertiary education on the other hand, would be beneficial for the poor who want to study but are unable to pay for schooling, but can put the rich at an advantage, a bigger advantage which can further widen the gap between the two. Another thing to consider is the state of our nation, we are a third world country and quality resources for education is a bit scarce and not every school has the access to important facilities they may need provide that quality education. For STS, almost all sides can benefit from it, the rich gets to study, the school receives money to further improve the education they provide and pay their teachers, and those who are qualified for the system can get the education they need and deserve.

# data[].attributes.body
Education, in the Philippines, has been seen as a luxury to those who can afford it or a tool to those who are intelligent enough to deserve it. Moreover, only 1.1 million students are taking up tertiary education. That's only about 1/4 of the age range of students who could be in college. The only reason this is the case is due to the affordability of tertiary education. It is well known to be costly, and with numerous Filipinos suffering from poverty or are low-income, most families would find that a high school diploma is enough. Upon reading the differences, pros and cons, and the goals of both STS and the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education, I realized that RA 10931's goals are pro-poor. When you think about it, free education for all entails that more people can be encouraged to attend college, which is an education that allows for better job opportunities. This, then, would also secure a future to students in a sense that they will be motivated to achieve their dreams. Not only does it help promote stability in one's future, but it also allows the economic prosperity of the state to improve given that more people are qualified for professional work.  While its goals are pro-poor, the execution of this does not exactly improve on the economic condition of the less privileged. Free education for all allows both the rich and the poor to receive the same education. However, it does not look into the appropriate needs of the student to truly be financially stable outside of receiving that education. Moreover, it does not , in any way, aim to promote economic stability among citizens given that it broadly touches on the economic equality, or equity, of all.  The STS system, on the other hand, allows for a rigorous assessment and more focused study of how the finance of education for a student should be managed.  Aside from that, the question of how the budget of the country on education will be managed can be seen as a con and show that it is not necessarily pro-poor. Taken from the corruption issues of the country which deprive those who are in poverty and less privileged to get the necessary, the reality of how the government runs the country can come in the way of truly fulfilling the purpose and goals of the act. For example, the PhilHealth issue which should be looking into providing aid to all citizens in the cost of health, has been found to be corrupt. It would not be a shock that other departments are doing the same thing, which means that while the goals are good, the execution given the reality of the country, is not pro-poor. Overall, I think that the act's goals and vision are pro-poor, but its execution is still questionable and vague as it barely touches on the economic stability of the student based on what they really need.

# data[].attributes.body
It depends on how it is implemented. because even those students who are well off, can take advantage of free tertiary education which should only be for the poor or less privileged in life. The problem is usually in the implementation of such a program. we lack the sophisticated system to monitor the haves and the have nots. This will be a big burden on our fragile economy. It will worsen the social inequality that the country is experiencing right now. The University of the Philippines system is a good case in point. Those who qualify based on the admission tests given are students from the private universities who can afford to go to expensive, good schools and only a small percentage of really outstanding students come from less privileged public schools.

# data[].attributes.body
The socialized tuition system of the University of the Philippines is a discount in fruition fee to support students with a limited paying capacity of their household, under the conditions that students must be a Filipino and their financial situation must be in need of financial assistance as determined. by the University, or in other words, the institution has all the rights to decide. On the other hand, RA 10931 (Republic Act 10931) otherwise known as the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education, provides access to free tuition to all students despite the different socioeconomic backgrounds of the students. Both of the programs are predominantly beneficial to students and associated with the Philippines constitution in Article XIV Section 1. The question occurs in whether these projects are pro-poor or will it just worsen the social inequality in the Philippines, in my opinion, the problem. is not just about the quality of higher education college students will get, but the root of all is that the basic education they get isn't preparing them to compete with other privileged individuals outside their community. In order to be given an opportunity to get a quality education does one need to prove their misfortune and financial background? only poor students would be supported ?. In my opinion, inequality is everywhere but, it's only about how much inequality one can accept, in this case, yes both ideas are good, but also neglect the root of inequality from poverty. How much money will the government need to spend on poor-students and choose not to improve the standard of the quality education students will get despite school reputation. I believe that the government should support all universities in terms of resources, materials, and researches equally to lessen the cost of tuition fees universities will require from students. If they really plan to support poor students with talent, they need to look at the bigger image. Also, will they be able to carry on these programs forever, or lessen the inequality supporting all universities, and opportunities for them after graduating.

# data[].attributes.body
The Socialized Tuition System (STS) program would look like a viable solution at first glance but upon further reading its contents, it seems like a “band-aid solution” since students with a higher family income would probably not see a dent in their wallets even with the tuition system, where if compared to a lower-income family they would have to find new ways to make ends meet for the tuition system. This would more likely lead to an even bigger divide in social inequality and would defeat the purpose for which it was made. RA 10931’s vision of free tertiary education would also be unclear to be considered pro poor since admissions policies in different colleges usually lean towards rich students who can afford tutors and review materials, which make it more likely for them to proceed to college compared to students who do not have access to these resources. If the government truly plans for this law to be pro-poor then they should also extend subsidies that can cover living and miscellaneous expenses for these students to study without having to cut corners.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of factors when it comes to answering this question. First of all, I believe that free tertiary education SHOULD be a thing - but sadly we are a third world country that cannot even afford to send young children to proper schools as materials needed are inaccessible in provincial and poor areas, and even our staff are underpaid. However while considering free tertiary education, the stigma of not going to College should also be removed. In first world countries, gap years and not going to College for a bachelor's degree is considered to be very normal - since they have a government that will ensure them a good life despite their education. Yet, there is a belief that not only does the Philippines has, but if you do not go to College, you will be considered a failure. As simple as providing better education on people's perspective of things, everything stated in this question shouldn't even be a problem at all. There are simply too many factors to even consider when it comes to the standing of how free tertiary education will affect the Filipino people - however with today's advancement more and more people will accept and will not discriminate if we educate as early as now.

# data[].attributes.body
A free tertiary education is a greater option than socialized tuition. According to REPUBLIC ACT No. 10931 Section 2. “It is hereby declared that quality education is an inalienable right of all Filipinos and it is the policy of the State to protect and promote the rights of all students to quality education at all levels. Therefore, the State shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” Hence, provides quality education not just for the underprivileged but for everyone as well. Creating an equal opportunity between the rich and the poor. Although, a socialized tuition may seem “pro-poor” it is not accessible to all. As it is only available to students who are the following:

1.     Be a Filipino;

2.     Be a bonafide undergraduate student. Except for students of Law and Medicine, the applicant must not have a bachelor’s degree. For new students, the applicant must have an admission slip;

3.     Never have been adjudged guilty of any offense that carries a penalty of more than 30 days suspension; and

4.     Be in need of financial assistance as determined by the University

According to the University of the Philippines, “The University reserves the right to determine whether the student deserves financial assistance, and the amount and form of assistance.” It is impossible for ALL poor students to have access to this privilege and be eligible with the said requirements. Thus, a quality education will be only limited to these applicants creating another gap between the poor. It is stated in the The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines – Article 14 Section 1. “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.” Meaning that the socialized tuition goes against our rights as a citizen and as a human to receive quality education.

# data[].attributes.body
The free tertiary education is pro-poor because it can let students from poor families to still attend their desired universities. In alignment with this, books, school supplies, food, transportation allowance should be covered. However, this could still worsen the social inequality in the Philippines because not all students admitted comes from poor families. A big percentage comes from middle class or rich families. Students that could afford to attend review centers for college entrance examinations have a better chance of being admitted to state universities and colleges. Though students that come from middle and upper-class families have an advantage in this, their tuition fees could still vary depending on their family income. This is why we could say that whether you come from a poor, middle, or rich family you could still experience social inequality.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Free tertiary education is pro-poor because students who doesn't have the right amount of money to go to school are given the opportunity to study by giving free scholarship and budgets in return for grades which shows that they give importance and prioritize these kind of students for their welfare. But contrary to that, social inequality worsens because of prioritization of some classes. While socialized tuition system creates and wides the gap between social classes. The amount of tuition is dependent on the requirements and standards the school offers making other students who doesn't have the money or skills to not qualify.

# data[].attributes.body
TIU, ARIANNA JILLIAN E. 12J
Both of the programs seem to have their own merits, as well as have their own specific benefits. However, in my own perspective, the Socialized Tuition System of the University of the Philippines would be much more effective as a pro-poor program. This undergoes an investigation of the household before the decision is made to properly assess if they are in need of financial assistance. It is heavily centered on the assessment of the paying capacity of the household to which a student belongs, which could be considered a way to refrain others from taking advantage of this. This assessment looks at the income as well as the socio-economic characteristics of the household. Not to mention, it also provides quality education in order to make sure the program indeed boosts their chances of a better livelihood due to the education that they are given.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the free tertiary education would worsen because in some cases the poor people use these benefits as leverage in availing such programs. They have the mindset of not striving to elevate their status in life just to be certified as one of the poorest.

# data[].attributes.body
Both give a chance for the lower classes to have a opportunity for an education. Students who are already studying in public school already dont have enough money more so when they go to college or universities. It will give the poor children the opportunity to get a college degree without having to get a scholarship or to be in debt. Seeing how not everyone gets paid a high amount and just get enough to bring their children to school this could them much because the tuition fee would be measured by their income which is good for them because the entire income wouldnt be eaten by the tuition of the school.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that free tertiary education is pro-poor because it benefits the people who are unprivileged in our society. With the Socialized Tuition System, students are given financial support from the government so they can enroll on a university that they would like.While RA 10931 is an act that promotes universal access to tertiary education by providing free education to state universities and colleges.

While we all see that there are a lot of advantages for this, there are also disadvantages we can see from this act. The Socialized Tuition System’s payment is based on the socio-economic status of the student and the income of the parents. This shows the inequality in a way. Yes, it is a good thing that the unprivileged get benefits and such, but if we think about the people who put their effort into earning their money, they don’t get the same recognition.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion Socialized Tuition and Free Tuition are giving the underprivileged education to them to students who aren't able to afford or pay the tuition for the school/university that they're applying to. Socialized Tuition system is created by the University of the Philippines according to their website, to help students to receive quality education that they deserve with its financial help from the government. Wherein these students receive discount for their income and assets. The Quality Tertiary Education is promoting universal access to quality tertiary education and what it does is it provides free tuition and other school fees in other state universities. The Socialized tuition is poor - pro than the free tuition, because it focusses the underprivelleged to be able to access quality education for the, but it also shows that it can show inequality in the Philippines since it only focuses to people who are in debt of money instead of people/students who deserves it by working hard and such but that's the way how I think, but I'm pretty sure that both sides has each pros and cons to it.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a question of equality versus equity. Shall we give the people who are already capable of affording this education the same privilege as those who can barely get by, or should we base it off how much the student needs it through an evaluation of their family’s income? I don’t necessarily believe that the first scenario, which is the case of the The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017, is anti-poor, but I can say it is pro-rich. This privilege is just another privilege well-off people can enjoy and take advantage of, as compared to the people whose needs are barely met and whose rights are oftentimes neglected. The sad reality is that education becomes a privilege that is granted rather than a right that is inherent to every human. Don’t get me wrong, Free Tertiary Education is beneficial in its own right as everyone is receiving an education, but I believe the tuition (based on the assessment of the socioeconomic conditions of the student) from the Socialized Tuition System can be allotted for improving the quality of education they are all receiving and perhaps even provide more slots or opportunities to accommodate more students who need an education. By letting the people who are financially stable or even comfortable save money from aid they didn’t need or ask for in the first place, the system essentially neglects all the other students who need all the help they can get, even if its just a percentage of financial assistance as they get through their schooling years. The rich will stay rich while the poor might even sink down deeper. Through a comprehensive and fair, non-corrupt system of assessing a students’ financial capability, maximum efficiency of the system can be achieved and more students will get the help they actually need and deserve, effectively reaching more students in the process.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally believe that both socialized tuition system and free tuition both serve the purpose of giving education to underprivileged students who aren’t able to afford to pay schools that have high tuition fees to access education. Socialized tuition system is created by the University of the Philippines (UP) to help students receive a quality education and with financial help from the government. These students can avail discounts depending on their household income and assets. While  the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act is basically “an act promoting universal access to quality tertiary education by providing free tuition and other school fees in State Universities and College

The Socialized tuition system is more poor-pro than the free tuition act, because it really goes to the students who are underpivellege to be able to access quality education. Although I also believe that this worsens the inequality in the Philippines, because either it is a private school or a public school both should be able to access quality education, and is not depending on the socio-economic status of the student. Because looking from the perspective of an underprivileged student, it would be unfair if only those who are born in wealthy families would be able to receive quality education. The government should think of a better way of serving education to the youth without sacrificing the quality that educators offer to the students. Because if this would be given a solution the more progressive the economy would be since everyone is given equal opportunities.

# data[].attributes.body
Both education systems are pro-poor to various extents. Free tertiary education is pro-poor because it benefits their classes the most. We can say that a facet of social inequality will be eradicated with this system in us. However, this will worsen the social inequity here in the Philippines. I have always had a mindset that equity must be achieved first before we can proceed to achieving equality. Having free tuition for all is a step to equality since it provides all students, regardless of background, with the same benefits, but it's not exactly equity. In totality, it is a pro-poor and pro-equality move, but not pro-equity. This leads us to the Socialized Tuition System, which is both pro-poor and pro-equity. This system provides financial assistance to students coming from lower classes or those who are struggling to pay tuition by assessing different conditions and factors that affect their financial status. This system is more geared towards pro-poor and pro-equity because it gives consideration towards those who need consideration the most, while those who have a higher financial status will not be needing such and will still pay the tuition; if they are capable of paying, there is little to no reason to accept financial aid, so might as well give that chance to those who really need it. I believe that the Socialized Tuition System is much more pro-poor and better as it is pro-equity - it's geared towards equity and equality, which is like hitting two birds with one stone.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that free tertiary education is not entirely pro-poor. This is because it gives the same amount of assistance to those who are less fortunate and those who are privileged. In order to achieve equality, we must first allow our poor countrymen to be at the same level as those who are rich. Therefore, we need to give them more assistance or financial aid. The Socialized Tuition System, on the other hand, assesses the financial situation of the student before giving them aid. This ensures that those who need the tuition more will be given more, and those who need it less will be given less. This should be the case because the government must prioritize where it will allot its funds, and if it gives every single student the same amount of money, then the gap between social classes will remain the same. The poor remain poor when compared to the rich who were just given more money.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Socialized Tuition System is pro-poor. Although it may have its cons, such as the divide between social classes, I do believe that it does more good than bad. A university education is, as we all know, extremely expensive. Implementing this act will benefit individuals under the poverty line, and come from low-income families who are interested in pursuing a certain level of education. The system favors those who fall under their criteria and assists those who truly are unable to receive a university-level education.

# data[].attributes.body
To begin with I believe that both the Socialized tuition system and Free Tuition for all, both have its pros and cons in terms of them being a pro-poor and divide between social classes in the Philippines. However, I believe that the Socialized tuition system is more in favor of students that come from low income families, in other words it is more pro poor than the free tuition for all. To begin with, the STS of UP is implemented based on specific factors of those that apply, and those that meet said criterion, receive financial assistance, therefore this "financial aid" is only really available to those that need it, therefore more "well off" students will not feel the effects/benefits of this program. I believe that this is only right following the principle of equity. The free for all tuition system leans more towards "equality" but in hindsight, if all students are given the same benefit regardless of their social class, then this "benefit" is none existent. Whereas the Socialized tuition system operates on Equity, catering to those that need the financial aid to balance out the playing field. With that being said, I still believe that the difference between social classes will still be significant regardless of which system, only when the gap between public and private schools is reduced will we truly find a system that is "pro poor".

# data[].attributes.body
In summary the Socialize Tuition System (STS) and RA 1093: Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act are both programs that help students provide them financial support and get students into colleges.

(worsen social inequality)

Through the research that I have gathered there is clearly an issue on social inequality in the STS program. For those who are in the program what can be seen are tuition brackets that depend on the students socio-economic status. These help the students in their financial aid towards helping them in their studies, but the scope of that help depends largely on their income. This helps the poor in theory, but presents itself as a problem of social inequality of students not being given the same benefits.

(pro-poor)

On the other hand when looking at RA 1093, it is more effective towards providing free-education to those who are poor because it was made exactly for that problem. Being provided the opportunity from the state, the state money will be used to directly give opportunities of full scholarships to those who go into the program. However, this is a risky decision because of how much full scholarships they will provide towards the huge collective of students in need that are in the country. But it will be a great investment in the long-run, towards their prioritization of giving high education to the bottom 20 percent in society.

What we can learn from this would be that both means have both good intentions. The Philippines has too many families that are not financially stable to pay for the expenses of higher education. When looking at situation STS it provides a realistic method of helping people than free tertiary education. They intentionally allocate their financial aid to provide more of their budget to those who need it. The question would be, that should everyone have a right to free education? Personally after hearing a students opinion of the matter, I came to a conclusion that we should push more towards free tertiary education. It would be in the hopes of letting everyone having an equal opportunity towards education.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I believe that Social Tuition System is more pro-poor. In the context of University of the Philippines (UP), all students receive financial aid from the government. Since all students have different backgrounds, there are those who may not be able to afford the tuition fee. The assessment is based on the paying capacity of each student, as well as the social-economic affects it greatly. Thus, the students, who can’t pay the tuition fee, are given an opportunity to have access to education. These people are carefully examined and evaluated by a set of criteria and judgment. The system is geared towards the betterment of quality education for the impoverished.

The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act, on the other hand, is a law that states institutionalises free tuition and exemption from other fees in state universities and colleges. It creates social division among classes. Most of the subsidies accrue to the non-poor rather than the poor. The law insinuates that the free tuition fee is also catered to the rich students whose parents can provide them with accessible tuition fee. Meanwhile, the poor students are not represented well in this type of education. The free tuition policy is not adequate for their public tertiary education.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Socialized Tuition System is more pro-poor than the free teritiary education system. For those who are unable to pay the tuition fee because they lack the money for it, needs the support in order to actually get quality education or let alone be able to access any sort of education. Moreover, it is more about being able to focus on marginalized group that needs our help. However, I both see the problems of the Socialized Tuition System and the Free Teritiary Education System.

One of the reasons why I believe that Socialized Tuition System is more pro-poor was because of my belief in equity. As mentioned before, focusing on the impoverished sector of the Philippines allows us to boost them to achieve something that they are not able to achieve just because of financial issues. I understand that this can also be done throught the Free Teritiary Education System but I can point out that there are other contradicting factors to this type of system. I would like to bring out the quality of education. Placing into context that our present government is applying the free tuition for all, how are we sure that every student in the Philippines are able to recieve that 'quality' education. Nothing is considered 'free', there will always be circumstances wherein it can negatively affect the quality of education.

Additionally to the idea that STS is a pro-poor system, in some cases I see that those who are in need are given more benefits than those who can afford the tuition fee. However I see that this is a contradicting idea because the rich are able to afford those benefits when they want to acquire it. There is also a contradicting issue in the STS program. It's more in the factor of not offering this type of the system. I also believe that there should be certain criteria to actually get into the education system. There should be a criteria on how the students can be included in the tuition system. Investigating on their socio-economic status and even on how they perform educational wise. It's more of being able to make sure that they are going to give contribution to the education system.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I find the Socialized Tuition System will just worsen the social inequality in the Philippines. Besides the fact that it does give less opportunities to those in need. The students' that has the privilege to pay won't receive the same benefits of the students; who doesn't have the budget. Although, it does sounds like a good strategy to reduce poverty and promote greater education, if you look at the bigger picture it creates a reason why social indifferences occur between classes.

# data[].attributes.body
The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act or (RA 10931) pushes for providing free tuition for tertiary education. I do believe that this is pro-poor, given the fact that pursing higher education truly is pricey. The poverty-stricken population of our country constantly struggle with gaining income to fund for their education. I have heard of stories of families starving themselves just to save every penny for their children's tuition fees. I see that this Act will be highly beneficial for this specific demographic. On the other hand, we have the Socialized Tuition System. I think that this emphasises social inequality, rather than abdicating it or at least toning it down. At first, it sounded like it would foster equity, but further analyzing it, it actually gives social classes a definite and tangible gap, which may lead to even more problems in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
The Socialized Tuition System (STS) of the University of the Philippines is a program implemented wherein individuals who reach the initial requirements and are therefore eligible can apply for financial assistance. This aid may be granted at different price ranges according to how financially stable the student is, among other factors. On the other hand, the Free Tuition for All or RA 10931 enables individuals from any social class to receive free education in state universities and colleges.

In my opinion, the STS is more pro-poor and effective in bridging the gap social inequality has caused in the Philippines. This is because the STS derives its structure from the concept of equity. Those who need more financial aid will receive more while students who have the ability to pay the tuition won't receive as much. I believe this system is necessary because of numerous reasons. Firstly, it enables universities to give out more financial aid since they then can allocate their budget according to rationality and fairness. Secondly, colleges are expensive due to the many resources they provide; not giving 100% scholarships to each student, regardless of their financial capabilities, would effectively fund the universities' facilities while at the same time provide opportunities to those who cannot meet the full tuition. Thirdly, by receiving funding for its facilities, universities can then provide quality education to all of their students, whether they paid in full or not.

These reasons depict the contrast between the STS and RA 10931. Since RA 10931 allows anybody, even those who have the ability to pay tuition in full, experience tertiary education for free, would the allotted government budget be enough to provide quality education? Furthermore, since all students would be able to grab this opportunity, wouldn't the social inequality in the Philippines remain the same, considering the equal treatment? Therefore, while I understand the government's efforts, I believe that the RA 10931 worsens the social inequality in the Philippines and the STS is more effective in providing educational opportunities for the poor.

# data[].attributes.body
In my perspective, the free tertiary education that The University of the Philippines (UP) approved on is pro-poor considering the fact that they will take into consideration and prioritize the poor and the needy, who lack sufficient funds, than those who are capable to afford the tuition fee. Another reason is that this STS that UP approved on will worsen the social inequality in the Philippines since those who can only apply for the tuition discount must be a Filipino. What if another citizen from another country chose to study here rather than in his/her country because it is expensive. Every individual in the society knows for a fact that studying in a well-known university is expensive, and that not everyone can afford to enroll themselves and graduate in college and earn a bachelor's degree. With this kind of system, not every student will get the same benefit as for those who are really in need of financial funds. It may be nice to hear, but I hope they take into consideration that not because the family of the student is capable of paying the tuition fee is considered rich and wealthy. On the other hand, The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act won't really affect much as this law applies to all State Colleges and Universities, which makes every student who are enrolled in such university will have a privilege to afford themselves to finish their education.

# data[].attributes.body
In both point of views they support each other on pro-poor and worsen the social inequality. However i do believe this would rather be a Pro-Poor matter. The PSA has gathered an average of Filipino family income at 260thousand pesos annually. And an Average cost for university here in the Philippines would cost 1,000  USD for public and 1,500 for private schools. While the tally of total expenses could come up to 4,200-6,000 USD in exchange to php at 201thousand pesos as of dec 14 2020. Although this could create a divide between classes this is majority pro poor as this helps give education the less fortunate. And should be in effect as majority of the Filipinos are at a middle to low class society.

# data[].attributes.body
I find that free tertiary education is what it states to be which is pro-poor. As we consider that a significant number of students face their individual situations that lead to a lacking in being able to meet the tuition fee's amount, this law claims that it not only gives free education, but exempts the need to pay other fees in the said institution. However, this creates more of a social inequality in our country due to the system that brings about a different treatment between those who can afford their fees and those who cannot, along with an evident division with the students' social classes.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Free Tuition for All Act is pro-poor. Everyone in Philippine society knows that college and university is expensive; hence, having this act would benefit the unprivileged who would want to finish their education have a bachelor's degree. The socialized tuition system, however, would further worsen the social inequality in the country as not every student would get the same opportunities and benefits as others. Those who can pay may question the system to why are they not getting the same benefits to those who are under the system. It looks good on paper as it could be seen that the state is doing something; however, there is a negative effect for this. This system is harming the financially challenged students instead of helping them.

# data[].attributes.body
Free tertiary education, in my opinion, is indeed pro-poor. With this, students who can't afford to pay for the school's tuition fee would be prioritized by the school/universities to be able to get education as well, just like those students who can afford to pay for tuition fees. The socialized tuition system however, would widen the gap between the social classes. This system tend to not treat the students who are more than capable to pay the tuition fee just as good as how they would to the scholars

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Socialized Tuition System will worsen the social inequality in the Philippines. The system is not only practiced at the University of the Philippines, but it is implemented in other schools as well. The students that will have the ability to pay won't be able to receive the same advantages as the students who won't have the ability to pay for their tuition. This system will create a division between social classes, as they would want to demand the same advantages and benefits the scholars will receive. On the other hand, the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act won't have much effect on the social inequality here in the Philippines. Students who can't pay their tuition will be helped by their respective universities and even banks; making these students a priority and as much as possible there won't be a social inequality present.