Just before the opening of classes last August 10, the Associate Dean for Student Services posted an image on their official Facebook page stating that the parking area reserved for Loyola Schools students would be reduced to a little more than 900 slots for nearly 9,000 students. This reduction was due to Bellarmine Hall being used for Ateneo Junior High School classes, as well as the renovations being done to the John Gokongwei School of Management building.
Unsurprisingly, the post was met with much furor on social media, with many students complaining about the inconvenience that it would cause them.
Arguably, the availability of parking stands in a gray area on whether it is to be considered as a privilege or as a right. But what can be agreed upon is that paying for its use at a premium price warrants a proportional expectation of quality and convenience. However, in light of the recent changes in the parking scheme, mandated by the university in spite of an ever-growing student population, the Ateneo has not met these expectations.
Although the school may have various reasons to justify their actions, the parking situation is reminiscent of the numerous problems our country has experienced despite paying for these services with our money: Train systems’ constant blackouts and delays, telecommunications companies’ spotty signal coverage, and the Land Transportation Office’s recent crisis with the lack of license cards are just a few examples of such shortcomings.
Despite raising complaints to these companies and government agencies, these services still continue to be lackluster. And yet, we still continue to pay the price for them, mostly because it is easier to do so than to give up the service altogether.
For example, sticker prices in the Ateneo have been steadily rising over the past few years but students and their parents still continue to pay for it, despite the low quality of the parking areas and constant complaints on social media about the lack of parking spots on campus.
Similarly, people continue to take the Light Railway Transit and Metro Railway Transit trains to work and school in spite of the fare hikes and the lack of improvements. Most of the time, consumers have no choice but to continue paying just for their convenience.
In both instances, we see people begrudgingly accept their situations provided to them by institutions that have failed them. The bureaucracy deeply ingrained into these systems certainly does not help, as one would still have to face a myriad of forms and offices just to have their complaints heard.
It makes one wonder why we continue to pay for a premium that we are not even receiving. But when we look at the alternatives, the answer becomes clear: We are more comfortable with paying a little extra for the supposed convenience, even though it is clearly not what we used to expect from our institutions.
