From three- to four-year degrees; from subsidies to self-financing

From three- to four-year degrees; from subsidies to self-financing

Professor (Chair) Leung Kwok
Department of Management

Switching the existing three-year university education system to a four-year system will certainly benefit the students. The extended university life will allow students the time to grow and learn better. Under the present system, Hong Kong students have to study intensely for two years at the advanced level in preparation for university entrance exams. It is actually a waste of time for them to focus on subjects so narrowly for two years, especially since many of them will major in a completely unrelated discipline upon entering university. The proposed four-year university education system will allow students to enter university a year earlier and enjoy a much richer and broader learning environment. This is definitely healthier for students' development.

A university student should do more than specialize in a certain discipline. He should also strive to develop himself in various directions. With the present curriculum, the first six months are largely spent adjusting to university life and the last six months are generally devoted to job hunting. This leaves students only about two years for effective learning. If the university curriculum is extended by one year, our students will have more time for their major and their general studies, including language development (both English and Chinese). I would like to see students in the Department of Management take a variety of electives in such disciplines as the humanities, social sciences and science; you never know what kind of company they will work for after graduation.

Theoretically speaking, it should not be difficult for Hong Kong universities to switch to a four-year mode. In fact, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the private Baptist College, and Lingnan College adopted the four-year system some years ago. Given this history, and the many four-year models around the world, I believe it would not be difficult for other Hong Kong universities to switch to a four-year program also. It would, however, require much more work to modify the present "five-two" secondary school curriculum to keep in step with changes at the tertiary level.

Yes, our biggest challenge will be resources. With the severe budget cuts recently, how can universities manage to provide one extra year of quality education to undergraduate students? I am in full support of the President's proposal - that the government maintain the existing funding and that we apply it to a four-year programme. Without sufficient government funding, it will simply not be feasible for universities to embark on this project.

I don't think it will be workable for universities to set up their own timetable to push the four-year curriculum forward without government support. Whether the shift is achievable or not relies very much on the government. In addition to funding, the government must create a master plan for the redesign of the secondary school system and how it links with the tertiary system. Universities cannot change their curriculum without taking the secondary school system into consideration. Ideally, the government should set out a clear and well-thought-out plan for universities and secondary schools in consultation with all parties concerned.

With the budget cuts, some MA programmes in the Department of Management and the Faculty of Business are forced to become self-financing. We have been working hard on developing strategies to maintain our position in a highly competitive market. We must have a good grasp of our competitors' strengths and weaknesses, as well as our own. Raising tuition fees is inevitable. The question is: how do we continue to attract high-quality students and maintain the standards of our programme? That's certainly one of the major challenges the Department and the Faculty face in the years to come.

With the withdrawal of government funding, the only option is self-financing, whether it be for Taught Postgraduate (TP) or Associate Degree (AD) programmes. It is not feasible for programmes that are losing funding to rely on subsidies forever. The key is to find the ways to enable the programmes to survive in the market. It would not be fair to use undergraduate resources to finance TP and AD programmes. I think the University could look into the possibility of offering some form of assistance to self-financing AD programmes. I believe, however, that these programmes can only endure if they are competitive and financially viable.

26 June 2003