University chiefs and the government have agreed that an English proficiency exit test will be introduced for all undergraduates as early as the next academic year.

Initially, they intended the test to be optional. It now appears, however, that each university chief will have the power to make it a graduation requirement.

The heads of Hong Kong’s eight universities and the University Grants Committee approved the plan.

While the details of the test have yet to be confirmed, the debate over its effectiveness is hot.

The inter-institutional task force on Language Enhancement Grants recommended the test. The eight university heads appointed the task force.

Jeff Leung, deputy secretary-general of the University Grants Committee, said that the implementation of the test was driven by social demands.

“Although there is no concrete evidence to support the view that the English standard of university students is declining, we do hear complaints from time to time,” said Mr. Leung.

Dr. James Gregory is the convenor of the task force. He said that it is an undeniable fact that students enter universities with a low English standard.

According to the findings of a survey commissioned by the government in 2001, most employers think that graduates should improve their language skills.

More than 90 percent of employers agree that graduates should pass a proficiency test in English before graduation, according to the same survey.

An English proficiency exit test is only part of the task force’s recommendations.

Apart from the test, they suggested that there should be continuing assessment.

“We hope to get a profile of students’ language achievement,” said Dr. Gregory.

He added that the test should come first because it would take a longer time to standardize the policy adopted by the eight universities for a continuing assessment.

According to Mr. Leung, there are two proposals for such a test.

One is to subsidize university students to sit for standardized international English tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language and the International English Language Testing System.

The other is to model a test on the Graduating Students’ Language Proficiency Assessment, a standardized test developed in 1994 at Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Prof. Arthur Li Kwok Cheung, vice-chancellor of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, objects to subsidies for students to sit for an overseas English language test.
“It will cost over $30 million to subsidize all 14,500 graduating university students each year to sit for the test,” said Prof. Li.

“Sitting for such tests does not necessarily enhance students’ English proficiency, and it makes no sense to let overseas examination bodies gain a huge sum in examination fees,” he said.

Meanwhile, Prof. Leung Tin Pui, vice-president for student and staff development at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, welcomed wider use of his university’s language proficiency test.

“The test was developed by academics and consultants with a lot of experience and strong international reputations in the field of language assessment,” said Prof. Leung.

“There is no need for students to mug up and memorize all materials, because the test emphasizes practicability and flexibility.”

He supports the adoption of a language proficiency test, stressing that universities and students should respond to the demands of society.

“Universities have a certain degree of independence. They can allocate resources themselves according to their needs and conduct different kinds of research to pursue their goals.

“However, this does not mean that they can do whatever they like and ignore requests from society,” said Mr. Leung.

According to Mr. Leung, a total of $87.5 million was allocated for Language Enhancement Grants to institutions for the 2000/2001 academic year in addition to so-called “block grants” that cover other institutional expenses.

He said that university students should therefore shoulder the responsibility when society demands higher language standards.

Dr. Gregory of the inter-institutional task force agrees.

“Several millions of dollars were spent on language enhancement. Thus, universities can’t just behave as they wish.

“An exit test can show whether the money is well spent because it indicates whether the language standard of students is rising,” said he.

Mr. Ho Man Wui, registrar of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said that the test would not offer an instant boost to university students’ English standard.

“It would merely serve as a reference for employers to choose the most suitable applicants,” said Prof. Ho.

“No one can have drastic improvement in English overnight. It is a long process entailing perseverance and enthusiasm.

“Students should be willing to expose themselves to an English environment, to speak and write more. Practice makes perfect.”

Prof. Ho said universities could not mandate compulsory education.

“Universities preserve freedom. We cannot dictate education to students.”

He also joked that the student union would kill him if he made the exit test compulsory.

Along these lines, Prof. Ho worries about the participation rate of an optional exam, because students are not enthusiastic about optional language programmes.

He quoted an example in which, among 2,825 Year 1 students at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the attendance for a three-session intensive programme in English was fewer than 300.

However, Prof. Ho said that in light of the economic downturn, students have been jolted by a sense of anxiety. They will be more motivated to better themselves.

Prof. Ho said students should still have the right to decide whether to have test results printed on their graduation transcripts, however.

Mr. Leung denies that the University Grants Committee is infringing on the autonomy of the universities.

He said funding for language enhancement programs from academic years 2000/2001 to 2004/2005 has already been given to universities and it would not be withdrawn even if university heads opposed the standardized English test.