EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS GRADUATES

OFFERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS IN REGION VIII

By: Rommel L. Verecio

Every education act is a part of a process directed towards an end. It is attained not only for
education’s sake but for other meaningful goals and objectives - a means of social continuity of life - a
guidance of students into professions best suited for them (Lucey, 2005). A major influence on education is
the stronger awareness of the direct relationship between education and income potential (Cabrera and La
Nasa, 2001; Meyers, 2006; Becker and Murphy, 2007) creating pressures on education to ensure
continuing relevance of courses in response to the rapidly changing environment and job opportunities.
Nearly half a century ago, Fletcher (1959) envisioned the vital role of education in national survival.
The educational system is the best instrument to influence values and shape attitudes towards national
development goals. It is, therefore, imperative that the educational system be so structured such that its
goals are attuned to the country’s economic requirements and at the same time responsive to the needs of
students. The Long Term Higher Education Development Plan 2001-2010 (Commission on Higher
Education, 2001) currently in effect envisions the higher education system of the Philippines as a key
player in the education and integral formation of professionally competent, service-oriented, principled, and
productive citizens. Through its tri-fold function of teaching, research, and extension services, the higher
education system becomes a prime mover of the nation's socio-economic growth and sustainable
development.
Meanwhile, the educational sector has an unenviable task of addressing the labor requirements of
industry as its contribution towards national economic and social development. The academe must define
the specific sectors of industry for which the students can productively involve themselves in after
graduation.
The outputs of education are the future inputs for industry. Alongside this argument is the need to
integrate the educational system with the society of which it is a part - making education an inseparable
part of the whole process of national development and freeing our country from charges of mismatch
between educational outputs and national manpower needs; and wastage of time, money and effort of both
schools and graduates.

Insert the status of Information Technology in region 8

The results of this study would thus be of primordial significance to the administration of the Higher
Education Institutions offering IT Programs in Region 8, in their efforts to design an ideal framework for
student career guidance and support.
Guide for Statement of the Problem:
1. What are the factors affecting the choice of course in terms of:
1.1 Economic

1
 1.1.1 Ability of parents to pay school fees
1.1.2 Awareness of present salary rate of course, expected salary,
advertisements for higher salary abroad
1.1.3 Employability level/ employment campaigns
1.1.4 Scholarship (grant and incentive)
1.2 Non-Economic
1.2.1 Childhood dreams or aspirations
1.2.2 Parental influence
1.2.3 Peer influence/agreement
1.2.4 Gender
1.2.5 Prestige and guidance/counseling

2
 ABSTRACT
Every education act is a part of a process directed towards an end. It is attained not only for education’s sake but for
other meaningful goals and objectives - a means of social continuity of life - a guidance of students into professions best suited
for them (Lucey, 2005). A major influence on education is the stronger awareness of the direct relationship between education
and income potential (Cabrera and La Nasa, 2001; Meyers, 2006; Becker and Murphy, 2007) creating pressures on education to
ensure continuing relevance of courses in response to the rapidly changing environment and job opportunities.

In this study the economic and non-economic restrictions affecting students’ choices of careers were identified and
analyzed. As students enrolling in college stand at the crossroads of making decisions, it is imperative that quality decision
support and guidance be authentically shared with students as they contemplate on the choice of a college course. This support
is a crucial service requirement for every educational institution. Students indeed need guidance in making reasonable plans for
the future, and at the same time, availing themselves of opportunities in the present for the realization of their plans. The
academe, on the other hand, is in the best position to offer this guidance, must possess essential and up-to-date information to
successfully steer students towards the best career decisions. Students are the outputs of education who in turn will be the
schools’ future inputs for industries and other organization sectors where they can productively engage themselves. Thus,
bridging the gap between choice of career and economic rationality.

The study also attempted to identify the collegiate departments which were influenced by economic
and non-economic considerations in the students’ choice of course. In this study, the decision
considerations affecting the choice of college course which were classified under economic restrictions
which include ability of parents to pay fees (financial capability); current salary rates of graduates in chosen
courses (otherwise, earning power); employability level; and scholarship. On the other hand, the non-
economic factors include childhood dream; parental influence/aspiration; peer agreement; gender; course;
prestige and guidance and counseling.
METHODOLOGY

The study adopted the survey method which employed a researcher-made questionnaire as the
main data-gathering instrument. The respondents were first year college students during school year 2007-
2008 from five private higher education institutions in Tacloban City, namely : Asian Development
Foundation College, Holy Infant College, Leyte Colleges, Remedios T. Romualdez School of Nursing and
St. Paul’s Business School. For purposes of confidentiality, the school names were randomly assigned
using the first five letters of the English alphabet. A stratified random sample of thirty percent (30%) of the
total freshman population by course per institution was utilized in the survey. A total of 1,023 respondents
composed the total sample: 278 from School A; 227 from School B; 142 from School C; 171 from School D,
and 205 from School E.
The researcher–made questionnaire was composed of two parts: Part I was on socio-economic
variables of the respondents (gender, age, civil status, monthly family income, religion, father’s occupation,
mother’s occupation and source of financial support). Part II sought information on institutional restrictions
that influenced the students’ decision regarding choice of courses, which may be economic or non-
economic.
The restrictions in the second part of the questionnaire were couched in statements answered
through rating scales on extent of influence using these values Very much, Much, Little or Not at all.
Consistency in responses was verified by presenting some statements twice, thrice or four times, with each
statement formulated differently but with the same content or meaning.

3
 The procedure adopted was a modified form of the Delphi Technique (Cline, 2001; Stuter, 1996;
and Dunham, 1996) where statements regarding the two categories of factors were restated in the same
questionnaire. Two economic factors were asked twice: ability of the parents to pay school fees (items 2
and 14) and scholarship (items 10 and 23). Two of the economic factors were asked thrice: awareness of
present salary rates (items 3, 9 and 15); employability level/employment campaigns (items 4, 16 and 22).
Five of the non-economic factors were asked twice: childhood dream or aspiration (items 1 and 13); peer
influence/agreement (items 12 and 20); gender (items 5 and 17); prestige (items 7 and 19); and guidance
and counseling (items 11 and 24). Parental influence, a non-economic factor was asked four times.
The data-gathering process began with a personal request by the researcher to conduct a survey
among the students in each of the five participating schools. Upon receipt of approval, research assistants
were fielded to the five schools to distribute the questionnaires to the concerned school authorities in order
to facilitate distribution and later, retrieval of the accomplished questionnaires.
The key variables considered in the study are the following: institutional restrictions on students’
course choices, degree of influence on student’s choice of course and implications of students’ course
choices to economic rationality (otherwise, regional manpower development).
Economic restriction variables are: (1) ability of parents to pay school fees; (2) awareness of
present salary rates of course, expected salary, advertisements for higher salary abroad; (3) employability
level/employment campaigns; and (4) scholarship (grant and incentive).
Non-economic restrictions or factors are: (1) childhood dream or aspiration; (2) parental influence;
(3) Peer influence/agreement; (4) gender; and (5) prestige and guidance/counseling.
Table 1 shows the numerical values assigned to the degree of influence of the economic and non-
economic factors, together with the statistical limits for each degree.
Table 1. Interpretation Scale for Degree of Influence

Statistical Limits Numerical Equivalent of Verbal Interpretation for the Response

of the Mean each degree degree of influence Code
3.50 – 4.00 4 Very Much Much V
2.50 – 3.49 3 Little M
1.50 – 2.49 2 Not at all L
1.00 – 1.49 1 N

The data gathered were tallied, organized, analyzed and interpreted with the use of the following
statistical measures: (1) percentage distribution was utilized to show the profile of the respondents; (2)
mode was used to designate the responses in Part II of the research instrument; and (3) ranking was
utilized in presenting the responses in ordering of the frequencies and percentages.
DATA AND RESULTS
Table 2 presents the profile of the respondents. Respondents were categorized under three age
groups : 15 – 19 years old, 20 – 24 years old, and 25 years old and above. Civil status was classified under
two categories, single and married. Monthly family income in Philippine currency was typified in five groups:
4,999 and below; 5000-9999; 10000-14,999; 15,000-19,999 and 20,000 and above. Fathers’ occupations
were classified under nine groups: not employed, government employee, farmer, businessman, politician,
military service, professional, Overseas Filipino worker (OFW) and others. Meanwhile mothers’ occupations
were categorized under eight groups: unemployed; government employee, businessman, professional,

4
health worker, politician, OFW and others. Sources of financial support were sorted under six categories:
parents/relatives, scholarship, self-supporting, spouse, combined sources, and other sources.
As shown in Table 2, the profile of the freshman respondents may be described as follows: majority
(576 out of 1023) are female. Six out of every seven respondents (or about 85 per cent) are 15 – 19 years
old, while 151 belong to the 20 – 24 age bracket; only 5 of the respondents are 25 years old or older. All but
18 of the 1023 (or 98.2%) are single. Close to one-third (31.5 percent) are from households with an
average family income of PhP 4,999 and below, while about one-fifth (21.7 per cent) are in the PhP 5,000-
9,999 income bracket. The smallest number of respondents (150 out of 1023) from families in the PhP
15,000 to 19,999 income bracket. Most of the respondents are Catholics (93.9 percent), while the rest are
Christians (1.9 percent), Protestants (0.9 per cent), Muslims (0.3 per cent). Three per cent belong to other
religions/sects. Majority have fathers who are government employees (20.9 per cent) and farmers (15.3
per cent); while the rest are businessmen ( 11 per cent); military personnel (9.2 per cent), practicing
professionals ( 4.6 per cent), politicians (2.7 percent), and OFWs (0.4 per cent). About one-fifth of the
respondents’ fathers are engaged in other kinds of occupation, which were not specified. More than half of
the respondents’ mothers are unemployed, while the rest are government employees (11.4 per cent),
businesswomen (9.1 per cent), practicing professionals (8.2 percent), health workers (4 per cent), OFWs
(3.4 per cent) and politicians (1.5 per cent). Less than ten per cent of the respondents’ mothers are
engaged in other kinds of occupation, which were not specified by the respondents. Four out of every six
respondents are financially supported in their studies by their parents or some relatives; the rest are self-
supporting (4.8 per cent), on scholarship (3.3 per cent), supported by spouse (0.5 per cent), other
combined sources (6.7 percent).

5
Table 2. Profile of the Respondents
Profile Variable Frequency (n=1023) Percent
Gender
Female 576 56.3
Male 447 43.7
Total 1023 100%
Age
15 – 19 years old 867 84.8
20 – 24 years old 151 14.8
35 years old and above 5 0.4
Total 1023 100%
Civil Status
Single 1005 98.2
Married 18 1.8
Total 1023 100%
Monthly Family Income (in PhP)
4,999 and below 322 31.5
5,000 – 9,999 222 21.7
10,000 – 14,999 171 16.7
15,000 – 19,999 150 14.7
20,000 and above 158 15.4
Total 1023 100%
Religion
Catholic 961 93.9
Christian 19 1.9
Protestant 9 0.9
Muslim 3 0.3
Others 31 3.0
Total 1023 100%
Father’s Occupation
Government employee 214 20.9
Farmer 157 15.3
Unemployed 151 14.8
Businessman 113 11.0
Military serviceman 94 9.2
Professional 47 4.6
Politician 28 2.7
OFW 4 0.4
Others 215 21.0
Total 1023 100%
Mother’s Occupation 53.0
Unemployed 542
Government employee 117 11.4
Businessman 93 9.1
Professional 84 8.2
Health worker 41 4.0
OFW 35 3.4
Politician 15 1.5
Others 96 9.4
Total 1023 100%
Source of Financial Support
Parents/relatives 660 64.5
Self-supporting 49 4.8
Scholarship 34 3.3
Spouse 5 0.5
Combined sources 68 6.7
Other sources 207 20.2
Total 1023 100%

About one-fifth of the respondents have other sources of financial support for their studies, which they did
not specify.

Table 3 lists the collegiate departments affected by economic and non-economic considerations in
the students’ choice of course.

Table 3. Collegiate Departments Affected by Economic and Non-Economic Considerations in the

Respondents’ Choice of Course.

School Course Factors which Affected the Choice of Course

Code1

6
1
For ethical considerations and confidentiality, the five schools involved in the study were randomly assigned letter codes.

It may be gleaned from Table 3 that the collegiate departments affected by the respondents’ choice
of course are Computer Science in School A, Nursing in School B, Criminology in School C, Nursing and
Biology in School D and Commerce and Accounting in School E. Two economic factors influenced the
course choice in all the collegiate departments affected by such choices in each of the five schools:
financial capability and employability. Earning power influenced only courses in Schools A, B and D. Among
the non-economic factors considered in the study, only childhood dream or aspiration affected the students’
choice of course for all schools except School E.

Table 4 shows the degree of influence of the economic factors considered in each of the five
schools.
Table 4. Degree of Influence of Economic Factors in the Respondents’ Choice of Course
Economic Factor Degree of Influence
Financial capability VERY MUCH
School A Much
School B Very Much
School C Much
School D Very Much
School E Very Much
Earning power MUCH
School A Much
School B Very Much
School C No idea1
School D Much
School E Little
Employability MUCH 2
School A Much
School B Much
School C Much
School D Very Much
School E Very Much
Scholarship NONE AT ALL
School A None at all
School B None at all
School C None at all
School D None at all
School E None at all
1
Majority of the respondents from School C indicated that they do not have
information on the earning power of graduates of their chosen course;
2
Majority of the respondents from all schools believe they were influenced by
the employability aspects of the affected courses, but not influenced by media
campaigns on employment.

Data from Table 4 reveal that among the economic factors considered, financial capability has the
most profound influence on the students’ choice of course, posting a mode of “Very Much ” in three of the
five schools (B, D, and E), a mode of “Much” in the remaining two schools, and an over-all mode of “Very
Much”. Employability exerted some influence on the respondents’ choice of course, but to a lesser degree,
compared with financial capability which registering a mode of “Very Much” in two of the five schools (B),
and mode of “Much” in the remaining three schools and an over-all mode of “Much”. Earning power also
wielded some influence the on the respondents’ choice of course, but to an even lesser degree compared
with financial capability, accounting a mode of “Very Much” in only one of the five schools (D and E), a

7
mode of “Much” in two schools (A and D), a mode of “Little” in School E and an over-all mode of “Much”.
Respondents from School C have no idea about the earning power of their choice of course. The
availability of scholarships did not exert any influence on the respondents’ choice of course.

The degrees of influence of the non-economic factors considered in each of the five schools are
displayed in Table 5.

Table 5. Degree of Influence of Economic Factors in the Respondents’ Choice of Course

Non-Economic Factor Degree of Influence

Childhood dream/aspiration MUCH
School A Much
School B Much
School C Much
School D Much
School E Little
Parental influence, Peer agreement, Gender, NONE AT ALL
Prestige and Guidance/Counselling
School A None at all
School B None at all
School C None at all
School D None at all
School E None at all

Table 5 shows that the only non-economic factor which affected the respondents’ choice of course
is childhood dream or aspiration, which posted a mode of “Much” in four of the five schools (A, B, C and D),
“Little” in School E; and an over-all mode of “Much”.

All the other factors, namely parental influence, peer agreement, gender, prestige and guidance
and counseling did not have any effect on the respondents’ choice of course.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the study:

1. The typical freshmen in each of the five participating institutions are female, 15 – 19 years old,
single, with an average monthly family income of PhP 4,999 and below or 5,000 to 9,999.
2. More than half of the respondents’ fathers are government employees, farmers, businessmen or
military servicemen. Two out of every 20 respondents’ fathers are unemployed.
3. More than half of the respondents’ mothers are unemployed, while the rest are government
employees, business women and practicing professionals.
4. Parents and other relatives constitute the major source of financial support for the respondents’
studies.
5. Among the economic factors considered, financial capability exerted the most profound influence in
the respondents’ choice of course.
6. Among the economic factors considered financial capability and employability affected the
respondents’ choice of course in all the participating schools, while earning power affected the
respondents’ choice of course in three of the five participating schools.

8
 7. Among the non-economic factors considered, only the respondents’ childhood dream affected their
choices of course.
8. The collegiate departments affected by the economic and non-economic considerations are
Computer Science for School A; Nursing for School B; Criminology for School C; Nursing and
Biology for School D; and Commerce and Accounting for School E.
9. Although employability exerted some influence in the respondents’ choice of course, the modal
responses from all schools indicated that their choices were not influenced by media campaigns on
employment.
10. Respondents from School C are not aware of the earning power of their modal choice course.

In relation to the findings and conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are put forward:

1. Conduct of regular career orientation programs for senior students in high school.
2. Maintain a functioning Guidance Center staffed with appropriate expertise to assist students on
career decisions.
3. Evaluate students’ satisfaction every semester on teachers’ competence, methods/materials used,
grading system, relations with students, decision to stay in the course or not, reasons for staying
and reasons for shifting to another course to derive possible inputs for guidance intervention and
career planning programs
4. Flex requirements on scholarships for deserving students to encourage enrollment in relevant
courses specially science and technology courses which technocrats believe are the backbone of
national development efforts.
5. Coordinate with the Department of Labor and Employment on the current labor supply and demand
situation to guide the formulation of program offerings and curriculum design.

6. Conduct career assessment and tests on aptitude, skills, interests, and intelligence for incoming
freshmen to ensure that students are enrolled in courses which complement their interests and
academic qualifications.

REFERENCES

Antepuesto, M. (1976). Some Factors Associated with Occupational Choices of Agricultural College Seniors in the Visayas .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cebu City, Philippines : University of San Carlos.

Barrios, P. (1970). Educational factors influencing specialized vocational choices of third year high school students at Villamor
High School. FAPE Review.

Becker, G. & Murphy, K. (2007). The upside of income inequality. The American . Volume 1 Number 4. Washington, D. C., USA :
American Enterprise Institute.

Cabrera, A. and La Nasa, S. (2001). Pathways to a Four-Year Degree: The Higher Education Story of One Generation.
Pennsylvania, USA : Center for the Study of Higher Education Policy.

Cagabihon, J. (1978). A Study of the Family Socio-Economic Backgrounds of Selected Nava, Leyte Youth: Implications for
Career Guidance. Unpublished Thesis. Cebu City, Philippines : University of San Carlos.

Cline A. (2001). Prioritization Process Using the Delphi Technique. White Paper. Ohio, USA : Carolla Development, Inc.

Commission on Higher Education (2001). Long Term Higher Education Development Plan 2001-2010 . Republic of the
Philippines.

9
Dunham, W. (1996). The Delphi Technique. Wisconsin, USA : Biomedical Consulting Group, University of Wisconsin.

Encarnacion, J. (1976). Unemployment and underemployment. Philippine Economic Problems in Perspective . Quezon City,
Philippines : University of the Philippines.

Espiritu, R. (1971). Study of the Career Preferences of High School Graduates in the Province of Ifugao . Unpublished Thesis.
Baguio City, Philippines : St. Louis University.

Fletcher, C. S. (1959). Continuing education for national survival. The Annals . Vol. 325. No. 1. New York, USA : American
Academy of Political and Social Science.

Flores, P. (1960). A Study of Relationship Between the Goals of Ambition and the Vocational Preferences of High School
Students in Siliman University. Unpublished Thesis. Dumaguete City, Philippine : Siliman University.
Freeman, R. (1981). The job newcomers. Economic Impact . Volume 35, Number 1.

King, J. (1996). The Decision To Go to College: Attitudes and Experiences Associated with College Attendance Among Low-
Income Students. Washington, D.C., USA : College Board Washington Office. ED398775.
Leitch, T. (2005). Top reasons for going to college. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/
archive/2005/July/DelawareOnlineTopTenReasongoingtoCollege071805.htm?id=4e7wgf9fn5ohqsfet zz8hrpmiz4jjevo.

Lucey, C (2005). Higher ed’s other goals. Community College Times. Volume 17 Number 4. Nevada, USA : Western Nevada
Community College.

Meyers, M. (2006). College degree still worth investment, economists say. Seattle Post Intelligencer. Washington, USA : Seattle
Times Company.

Nillos, S. (1979). The Career Guidance Needs of Fourth Year High School Students in Seminary Schools under Agustinian
Sisters in Central Visayas. Unpublished Thesis. Cebu City, Philippines : University of San Carlos.
Santamaria, J. (1978). Career values of Filipino adolescents and their parents in Dela Salle University. The ARAVEG Journal .
Manila, Philippines : Dela Salle University.

Stuter, L. (1996). The Delphi Technique : What Is It.? Retrieved October 14, 2007 from http://www.learn-
usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm.

Tan, E. (1977). Career of the college educated. Human Resource Development Journal . Volume. 1, Number 2.

Tenefrancia, L. (1973). Some Social-Psychological Factors in High School Seniors’ Academic Achievements: Implications for
Vocational Guidance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cebu City, Philippines : University of San Carlos.

Tritz, P. (1965). Factors affecting vocational courses. The Guidance and Personal Journal . Volume 1, Number 1.

10