NRES2 Scheduling BSN Batch 2027: Why did the official process come last?

Before we continue blaming students who decided not to follow the July 26 (night before the enrollment) coordination initiative, I think we should first ask whether the process itself earned the level of trust and compliance people are now expecting from everyone.

This isn’t about saying students had no responsibility. Clearly, once many groups started making independent decisions, the situation became even more chaotic.

But I also don’t think it’s fair to discuss accountability without first examining the process that led students to lose confidence in it.

So here are the questions I genuinely think deserve answers.

1. If official coordination with the department, NurSoc, and Sir CJ was always an option, why wasn’t that the very first step?
- Why was the batch first expected to rely on an informal initiative before consulting the appropriate authorities?
- If the process ultimately required official guidance, shouldn’t that have happened before asking everyone to commit to it?

2. Why was an informal batch initiative expected to carry the same weight as an officially recognized enrollment process?
- Some students (particularly student-athletes) had already secured their schedules through an officially granted early enrollment privilege.
- Those schedules weren’t randomly chosen. They were arranged because of institutional accommodations for athletics.
- Why should those already secured schedules automatically become secondary to an informal coordination introduced afterward?

3. If everyone was expected to follow one system, why weren’t the mechanics completely clear before it started?
- Why were deadlines changing?
- Why were students experiencing document access issues?
- Why were there different understandings of the rules?
- Why were people learning important details only while the process was already happening?

4. If confidence in the process had already started declining, why is the expectation still that everyone should have blindly continued following it?
- Trust isn’t something people owe a process.
- Trust is something a process earns through consistency, transparency, and equal implementation.

5. If students were supposed to “wait for clarification,” what exactly were they expected to do while enrollment was already ongoing?
- Enrollment doesn’t pause.
- Schedules get filled.
- Students had to make real-time decisions with the information available to them.

6. If the newly proposed protocol requires students to adjust, who bears the consequences?
- Who pays the adjustment fees?
- How will working students be accommodated?
- How will student-athletes be affected if their schedules had already been coordinated under official University accommodations?
- How will groups with 10 or 11 members be guaranteed to stay together if section capacities remain limited?
- Are these concerns already resolved or are students once again expected to simply adjust?

7. Why is the expectation that other groups should sacrifice the schedules they legitimately secured?
- Every research group wanted the schedule that worked best for its members.
- Every group had valid reasons.
- Every group was protecting its own interests.
- Why is one group’s preferred schedule considered more deserving than another’s?

8. Why does accountability seem to stop with the students?
- Students should absolutely be accountable for their decisions.
- But shouldn’t the same standard apply to those who organized a process affecting the entire batch?
- Leadership comes with responsibility.
Responsibility comes with accountability.
Acknowledging lapses isn’t an attack on leaders.
It’s part of leadership.

The timeline matters.
July 25 — Student-athletes officially received early enrollment. They were instructed by team management to maximize that privilege by choosing schedules that would best accommodate their training and the upcoming UAAP season. Some athletes had already legitimately enrolled and secured their schedules.

July 26 (night) — An informal batch-led coordination initiative was introduced just hours before regular enrollment.

July 27–28 — The process became increasingly confusing, with concerns raised about changing deadlines, document access issues, unclear mechanics, and conflicting expectations. Confidence in the process began to decline.

July 29 — Only then was there a formal meeting involving NURSSOC and Sir CJ that resulted in an official, department-recognized direction. It was also only at this stage that new implementation questions surfaced: section adjustments, adjustment fees, working students, student-athletes, and whether entire groups could still stay together.

That’s what many of us have been questioning from the very beginning.

If coordination with the proper authorities and an official protocol was always possible, why wasn’t that the first step?

Why was the batch expected to rely on a last-minute, informal initiative that was already being questioned, only for an official process to come several days later?

At the end of the day, this isn’t simply about whether students should have followed an agreement.

It’s about whether the agreement itself was introduced in a way that reasonably deserved the trust and reliance that everyone is now expecting from students.