It’s the fourth year through the program and several ‘barely useful’ courses have been ‘studied’. Some of these courses are barely applicable and pertinent in today’s time. Too obvious to be valuable; with ‘knowledge’ independently arrivable if you just read the news. Half of the courses avail nil value due to combining factors of poor teachers and outmoded contents. To name a few: Introduction to Political Analysis and Research, Gender and Society with Peace Education, Purposive Communication, Philippine Public Administration, Global Identity and Citizenship, Introduction to International Relations, Law and Public Policy, Philippine Pop Culture, Public Policy and Program Administration, Peace and Human Rights Education, Principles of Teaching, Political Argumentation and Debate, Culture and Politics, and Assessment in Learning. Most of which have zero bearing in our current domestic political conditions.

We have a course called ‘Seminar in Political Science’ and as much as I admire the diligence of our professor, he isn’t the best in teaching. I notice his rigidity and literalism in his lectures. A lack of capacity to conceptually nor definitionally stretch the idea in question. This course basically hearkens back to the ‘fundamentals’ of political science — an introductory freshman course. He was troubling himself with distinguishing political science concepts. He had a person named ‘Max’ define the terms: power, authority, influence, and rule. To which he answered, ‘such terms overlap with each other in the first place, to make a proper distinction’. Meritable, most of us probably thought the same.

I think instead of quibbling on distinctions of terms: power, authority, influence, and rule, being strict in adhering to definitions when these terms have their respective ambiguities and obvious semantic overlaps, we should focus on actual understanding of political science, especially geopolitics and economics. And if the status-quo ideologies are oppressive, demonstrably so, then exposure to ideas that resist it must be the central theme of our education — not ideas that forge it. That being said, here are my better ‘obvious’ alternatives to ‘policy formulation processes’ and needless ‘political typologies’ on *insert useless topic here*.

In political theory & philosophy, we should focus on anticapitalist ideologies like Marxism, including its relevant strains, anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-communism, mutualism (libertarian socialism), individualist & collectivist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, green anarchisms. They should’ve us read banned texts and taboo topics that challenges the State. Ideologies designated as substantially subversive i.e., National Democracy, not the state supportive kinds. They should’ve us read the intertwining of Marxism with other fields like pedagogy (Critical Pedagogy) to gain theoretical intuitions and imaginations on how liberalism affects a particular thing. They should have us read the anatomy of fascism and how we ought to combat it. I find no wrong in the extensive study of such. Beyond that, we should study anarcho-capitalism and its current applications in Javier Milei’s Argentina, paleo- and neoconservatism.

In gender, person-focused domains, we have feminism and its strains of bourgeois feminism, Marxist feminism, postcolonial Feminism, radical Feminism, Carceral feminism, even underground, heterodox violent twists of it. We should be not just acquianted, but understand how the patriarchy affects its superstructure. We should understand why there are ideological reactions to ideologies that seek to liberate the oppressed. Why there are Males Rights Activists and the internet-born Manosphere. Why do we have the Red Pill, Black Pill, and the Purple Pill ideologies. Why do we have incels and femcels. We should study queer theory, Critical Race Theory, cultural appropriation. We should analyze the legacy of slavery and Whiteness, esp. White Privilege.

In areas outside direct political theory & philosophy and gender politics, prison abolitionism, ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), green capitalism and keynesianism, veganism, environmentalism (esp. the legacy of environmental racism), animal and disability rights politics, New Urbanism, Sohei Kaito’s degrowth communism, consumer rights, mad studies, fat studies, crip theory, the anti-Psychiatry movement, rising anti-AI activism (and by extension, the water scarcity crisis), the consolidation of surveillance capitalism, cultural appropriation, etc.

We should have a ‘Martial Law studies’ in our curriculum: having students make a reportage of what they’ve learned from an ouevre of Martial Law classics. Primitibo Mijares’ The Conjugal Dictatorship and Ricardo Manapat’s Some Are Smarter than Others are exhaustive pieces on the dictatorship. We ought to be reviewing the biographies of historyadors in the Philippines: Teodoro Agoncillo, Ambeth R. Ocampo, Xiao Chua, Carlos P. Quirinio, Gregorio Zaide, Renato Constantino, etc. We could’ve had a highly valuable ‘History of the Philippine Congress from the 1st Congress to the 20th Congress’ — tackling on the works, legislative landmarks, and legacy of senators and representatives, the post-war political scams and scandals, controversies, and fights in the congress.

We should be having a vastly underdiscussed, ‘Third Republic Studies’ comprising five post-war presidents from (1946–1965) to have an analysis of what predated the ascendance of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. By extension, we ought to include ‘Fifth Republic Studies’ that covers Corazon Aquino to the de-facto dictator Rodrigo Duterte. In a broader scale, we ought to merge ‘Readings in Philippine History’ with the ‘Rizal’ course and add the temperamental plebeian Andres Bonifacio, the first premier Apolinario Mabini, and Emilio Aguinaldo into one course. But I guess, there’s unseen primacy in prioritizing typologies that all sound the same as the next. Remove PE courses, merge UTS (Philosophy-rich course) with Ethics (a branch of philosophy) courses into one, remove Global Identity and Citizenship and Philippine Pop Culture courses — we can learn the latter by keeping up with the news.

Wehave an abundance of resistance ideologies that aides the abolition of capitalism and liberalism. And it’s a grave misfortune to merely gloss over since education of theory and the practice thereof, is what can change the world. Revolutionary theory combined with revolutionary praxis is a nasty offense to the ruling elites; therefore systems must relegate emphasis on educations of such nature, rather than status-quo supportive. Unfortunately, in the liberal-capitalist hegemony, such ambitions are unlikely since those at the top wouldn’t legislate for ideological education that threatens their class and Capital. As the Black American political thinker Audre Lorde once said, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

This is our current education system, especially in our political science program. In retrospect, it is a neoliberal scam injected of fruitless courses that bear no pertinence in today’s time. It’s curriculum is unimaginative, lagging-behind, and ancient. Shameful as we have to tolerate this state-supportive curriculum combined with too-many mandated conferences on ‘Christ’ and ‘voter education’. If you’re into law and aim to excell in law school, don’t choose political science as your undergraduate program. Choose legal management instead, or accountancy.

sincerely, a disgruntled polsci student.

MARCOS DUTERTE, WALANG PINAGIBA! PAREHONG TUTA, DIKTATOR, PASISTA!!!