Statement on Maravillas issue of the Chairman of Jury Arch. Nonito Manila MARAVILLAS-MENDEZ GRADUATION – UNJUSTLY DENIED? IT IS NOT TRUE. A lot of things has been said about this issue, and it is just right and proper now to present the facts as to where the riotous story started – if this ‘facebook’ became the tool to convey the message of intentional prevarication, then perhaps this can also be an avenue to serve the truth - to give liberal freedom and rational justice to the community who talks and listen. Jann-Rizz B. Maravillas and Jefferson Ll. Mendez are candidates for the Degree of B.S. in Architecture [Bicol University], but ‘FAILED’ in the concluded thesis deliberation TWICE (First Deliberation and Remedial Deliberation). I am speaking as the chairman of the panel of jury who were invited by the B.U. Department of Architecture - I am very sure that they have not passed any of the two deliberations as scheduled. Because of the many statements made by the father of one of the thesis defender, I am voluntarily presenting the attached ‘verdict statement’ or ‘opinion of the jury’ so that the public may know the real reason as to why they failed the thesis deliberation twice, that these became the basis of the faculty of the department of architecture of not including them on the list of graduating architecture students. It was conscientiously judged based ONLY on the merits of the thesis study. Although it is true that the panel of jury have knowledge on the controversy accompanying this thesis tandem - we made it a point that their appearance before us should not in any manner regard to emotional issues and personal attachments but rather to focus on the assimilation of the design study – OBJECTIVELY. I STRONGLY CONDEMN the contrary statements made by the father of one of the thesis defender and doubted the ‘impartiality’ of the panel of jury. I am a private practicing architect and not part of the academe of any architecture schools, but had contributed many years of voluntary mentorship to aspiring architects on their 3840 hours or equivalent to two (2) years diversified training as post baccalaureate pre-licensure experience required of a graduate prior to taking the licensure examination, consisting of a variation of experiences in the different phases of architectural service. And not in a boastful way of speaking, I have a 100% track record of helping architecture students under my training program passed the licensure examination. And this is NOT THE FIRST time that I have ‘Failed’ nor ‘Passed’ a thesis defender on my participation as a panel of jury on the thesis deliberation of architecture students. On the invitation to seat as the panel of jury on this school year thesis deliberation, I was informed just a day before the scheduled thesis defence – and I was only told that I will be seating on the Maravillas-Mendez tandem when I was already at the venue of the thesis defence. I have to admit that at first I was hesitant to accept the assigned tandem due to my personal friendship to the father of one of the thesis defender. And I admittedly informed the thesis council, but they have not reacted but simply responded – ‘we know you deal professionally’. And so I immediately asked ‘where is the thesis book?’, that it is my understanding that the thesis book must be brought to the assigned panel of jury a day before the oral defence – and they answered with an explanation that the thesis tandem have not passed on the scheduled deadline of submission and requested for reconsideration, and was accepted late on regular schedule - that it underwent entreated approval of the College and University administration. I will not deny that I myself is curious to ask about some of the stories behind the intriguing incidents before the reconsidered acceptance of the thesis study – but I know the thesis council will continue to remain mute on the full details of the sequential happenings, on not to influence our judgement - that I wonder why it reached the level of the College including the University acting as intermediary on the matters of the department - so instead I also kept my silence and took time to read the whole thesis loose-leaf book while waiting. And the attached ‘verdict statement’ or ‘opinion of the jury’ will tell the basis on why the thesis defenders FAILED – and NOTHING ELSE. The panel of jury had a lot of findings on the thesis study and made some necessary evaluations and recommendations including the emphasis to RE-PLAN the thesis study. And it is true that they needed a remedial deliberation to completely accomplish the missing requirements to pass the subject. Honestly, I could have stopped already the continuance of the first deliberation due to the major mistake of the study of choosing a site for a SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY adjacent to the existing Hospital Complex, SCHOOL and RESIDENTIAL AREAS – but I have allowed the defenders to proceed on the defence of the study on the premise of duality - ‘theory’ and ‘reality’. And not to give notion of complicity – compromising the sensitiveness of the issue and tension of the thesis tandem - giving them the chance to prove their worth-while effort. And after almost two (2) weeks from the first deliberation – we were again convened to judge the remedial deliberation. But to my dismay, still I am looking almost on the same ‘banana’ with little revisions to correct the multiple errors committed on the first deliberation. I have to confess that I even tried to shed light and exerted effort during the deliberation to help them find the way out - so that the thesis defenders will convince me and my co-panel of jury, but still they have not delivered quantifiable solutions to support the argument. Before the start of the remedial deliberation, I had even requested an outline of coverage - for us to be guided ONLY on the included scope, so that we will no longer deliberate subject matters which are not included in the outline, even if we will discover new problems along the remedial deliberation, but still there has been no convincing ‘exit’ stochastic solution. It was difficult that I am faced with a multifaceted problem that needs multifaceted response. I felt like I suddenly became a prisoner of my own prison cell. A lot has been said about the “true story” version of the father, and now – finally, the side of the “true story” coming from the department head of BU Architecture. It is for all of you to follow the truth behind the sequential happenings – finding the difference between gray areas before the thesis tandem faced the panel of jury. But above all, I am particular that whatever it is – I do separated the issue from us – BECAUSE WE AS A PANEL OF JURY HAS OPERATED ON THE NORMS OF THESIS DELIBERATION STANDARDS AND ETHICS. https://m.facebook/story.php?story_fbid=620756701333118&id=100001963822868&refid=17
Posted on: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:17:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015