#BracketAKaNa Documented Essay
#BracketAKaNa Documented Essay
#BracketAKaNa Documented Essay
System
Dianna Limpin
(1) Following the release of the University of the Philippines’ (UP) Socialized Tuition System (STS) results
last June 30,2014, social media platforms - Twitter, in particular - were bombarded with complaints and
objections from frustrated students who were not granted the tuition brackets befitting their financial
capacities. Among these complaints surfaced a worldwide twitter trend under the tag #BracketAKaNo
(translated, this means “You are now in Bracket A"). Bracket A - sometimes referred to as the “millionaire's
bracket" - is the highest-paying tuition bracket under the STS: the households of students under this
classification are supposed to have annual net incomes above 1.3 million pesos.
(2) The tweets under the tag #BracketAKaNa4 became very popular in a relatively short amount of time,
leaving the Twitter realm to appear on other social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and
ultimately, becoming a running joke among UP students. This hype and instant popularity may be attributed
to the tweets' largely humorous and satirical nature For instance, tweets pertaining to the presence of o flush
in one's toilet were especially popular due to their amusing and mocking tone. However, the
#BracketAKaNa trend goes beyond humorous appeal; its popularity has more substantial implications with
regard to the overall effectiveness of the socialized tuition scheme and the students’ perception of the newly
implemented STS.
(3) In academic year 2014-2015, the 24-year Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP)
was replaced by the Socialized Tuition System (STS). In an official announcement on the UP website, it
was stated that "UP President Alfredo E. Pascual spearheaded this reform effort when he assumed office
believing that the old tuition system is no longer responsive to the needs of UP students." Among the
implemented reforms were a simplified application process, adjusted income brackets, and increased
stipend for those in the lower non-paying tuition bracket (“UP Unveils"). Pascual added that this new
scheme was "expected to have a fair reading of the students' socio-, economic standing" (quoted in
Serafica).
(4) Under the popular hashtag, however, “students from different UP units reported cases of alleged
‘misbracketing’" (Bautista 4).5 The questionable nature of the STS was even more clearly exemplified in
extreme cases such as that of sisters Erra Faye and Erra Mae Zabat. Despite having declared the same assets
and liabilities, they were assigned different tuition brackets; the former was classified under Bracket C
whereas her older sister had been in Bracket E2 for four consecutive years (Barawid). Another indication
of the “misbracketing" that had occurred was the overwhelming number of "rebracketing" demands from
UP students,6 In UP Diliman (UPD) alone, 1,251 appear were sent to the Diliman Committee on
Scholarships and Financial Assistance six days into the 3-week period for appeals. UP Student Regent Neill
Macuha argued that "if students still need to appeal to get a more affordable UP education, it means there
is something wrong in the tuition system itself” (quoted in Bato and Bautista).
(5) Often attributed to the "misbracketing" that had occurred is the inaccurate, unreliable, and at times, even
demeaning nature of the questions asked in the STS application forms. Aside from the annual family
income, the socialized tuition scheme "uses an income function to predict the capacity of a family to pay,”
taking into account the characteristics and assets declared by a certain family (Martin 4). Unfortunately, a
study group convened by UP President Pascual himself claimed that the varying multiplier coefficients
applied to the assets are “‘superfluous’ and ‘unscientific’...inflating] the income of poor families, [and]
making them appear capable of paying” (Martin 4). Philippine Collegian correspondent Hans Martin noted
that “a higher multiplier coefficient is given to television sets and motor bikes compared to airconditioning
units and cars" (4). This somewhat illogical characteristic of the scheme was also reflected in the
#BracketAKaNa tweets. Dr, Giovanni Tapang, an associate professor in the National Institute of Physics in
UPD and a writer for The Manila Times, writes that one uses the hashtag as “a sarcastic reference to
[his/her] ‘extra’ capacity that many feel would cause the STS system to categorize [him/her] as Bracket A”.
This “extra capacity" is not limited to luxurious items; tweets such as the ones featured in Figure 1 reveal
that even the possession of basic necessities was assessed and considered an indicator of wealth by the STS.
(6) Moreover, during the first semester of the STS’s implementation, UPD hit an eight-year high in the
number of Bracket A students, with "more than 7,000 out of 18,000 undergraduate students [paying] the
full tuition rate” (Bautista and Enriquez 3). It is also worth noting that only 2,807 of those placed under
Bracket A actually opted to pay the full tuition rate; the rest were denied tuition discounts or failed to apply
for the STS and thus, were put in the default Bracket A. This Incident - gaining much infamy for both the
STS and Bracket A - may have contributed to the popularity of the #BracketAKaNa tweets, which imply
that, nowadays, anyone can fall under the highest-paying bracket. Dr. Tapang added that the students'
“frustration stems from the basic assumption of the program that [they] are of a higher bracket (#
BracketAKaNa) unless [they] can proye that [they] really don’t have the capacity to pay the full tuition
rates". In Macuha’s words, "you are presumed rich until proven poor” (quoted in Barawid).
(7) During its first semester of implementation alone, numerous flaws have been identified within the “new
STFAP”. The #BracketAKaNa trend served as the students’ response to the implementation of what the
study group regarded as yet another “anti-poor” mechanism (Bato 3). Benedict Opinion, the College of
Mass Communication representative to the University Student Council and a member of the UPD student-
run political party STAND UP, said that the hashtag “made known to outsiders the skyrocketing cost of
tuition in UP as well as its declining state subsidy as it generates income from its students to make itself
self-sufficient"/ This seemingly trivial hashtag has, therefore, helped raise awareness on the injustices
brought about by the socialized tuition scheme and the absurdity of a bracketing system in a university that
is known to cater to "the poorest yet brightest students in the country” (Bautista 3).