Commentary: Discrepancies in the numbers

Whenever students hear about Mathematics, or see equations, formula and even x’s and y’s next to numbers, more often than not – and many people would agree to this statement – they cringe. It is as if a venomous snake had raised itself before them, staring deeply at into their eyes, patiently waiting for the perfect instance to strike. But sometimes there are numbers that make you uneasy on your seat not because of the reminder that it is one of your least favorite subjects, but because you detect that there’s something wrong with the numbers.

In one of my courses last term, I was able to acquire data on offenses for the last five years from the Student Discipline Formation Office (SDFO) for our group paper. Fortunately, we were able to complete task and submit the paper on time; however, it was the discrepancies in the data that I chanced upon which made me sit in awe.

At first glance, one would immediately notice the error in the population of the University. For example, according to the data for AY 2012-2013, the total undergraduate population of DLSU is 44,498. Meanwhile, the Office of the University Registrar (OUR) tallies the total number of enrolled undergraduate students in the University is only 14,157 as stated in the President’s Report.

What is even more surprising is that the population used in computing the percentage of minor and major offenses are visibly different; in terms of major offenses, the population is only 14,336 which is closer to the OUR’s figure and roughly three times smaller than the population used in the minor offense percentage. This would then lead to the percentage of minor offense being smaller than it ought to be, i.e., if 3 out of 10 students violated the dress code policy, using the metrics for the minor offense, it would only be perceived as 1 out of 10 students, which are substantially different figures. What guarantees us now that the minor and major offenses tallies are not wrong as well?

Moreover, it is not only in the college population that fault can be found, but in the reports as well. Other than the fact that the results gathered from the analyses are wrong, the interpretation of these figures would undoubtedly be wrong as well.

The SDFO prepares reports quarterly regarding the tallies of minor and major offenses for that given period as well as what actions should be done based on the results. In the July-October 2013 report, a noticeable trend is the continual use of the statement ‘There should be a strong drive to reiterate these policies to the students’.  This style of concluding reports is also evident in the previous monthly reports.

Of course, this kind of information is unavailable to the general student population. A student would only be able to gain access if he has submitted a letter of request to the office which states the purpose of asking for such material.

But, when you think about it, aren’t being stakeholders of the University a valid reason already for the data to be made available to the public? As stakeholders in the University, students should have the privilege of accessing this kind of information at any given time. Student leaders, student researchers, even the average student could see the importance of these numbers in this microcosm of modern society, had it been made freely available.

Going back to basics, we must remember that as the arm of the administration in charge of maintaining student discipline, it is the SDFO’s task to ensure that we mature as individuals. It is not enough to assume that we are old enough to learn for ourselves since even as we are approaching 0r are already in adulthood, we have yet to learn all there is to learn about life. It defeats the purpose of being a discipline office if the initial assumption is that all students are immediately disciplined. It is the same as having policemen inductively believing that all citizens are law-abiding and would never commit a crime.

But we must also remember that when we formulate solutions, we must first understand what the problem is. Just like in Mathematics, you can’t simply solve for x if you don’t know what the equation is. This is the same with the SDFO in terms of focusing on their agenda. If the understanding of the problems in the University in terms of number of offenses is poor, then the programs to be implemented would be ineffective. After all, data collection is done because we wish to understand what is happening around us.

The problem is that even if the issue is raised but not addressed, the masses have heard but have remained apathetic, any discussion about it would remain as inane prattle.

So the question now is, “Do the students care?”