Higher Education Review Report 2002 A controversial reformation At the end of March, the University Grants Committee released the Higher Education Review Report. There are number of recommendations in the Review Report. One of these ecommendations sparked controversy among the committee and the vice-chancellors of the eight tertiary institution. This hot topic of debate, indicated in Appendix E of the report, concerns the creation of extra capacity in the senior years of universities for new entrants and the introduction of a credit accumulation and transfer system. The concept of the proposed system is that universities will be funded with respect to a student base to be expressed in credit units. In order words, the amount of funds received by a university will depend on the number of courses taken by students instead of the number of students admitted. Under the proposed credit accumulation and transfer system, if a student takes a course in another university, the funding will also be transferred to that university. This system will, on one hand, allow the committee more flexibility in funding universities accepting mature students and associate degree graduates looking for senior-year places. On the other hand, it will provide undergraduates with more flexibility in pursuing their studies. Students can take courses outside of their home institutions. Moreover, it will encourage competition between the local eight universities. Hence, tertiary education in Hong Kong can stay competitive both locally and internationally. The committee has stated that institutions will have the power to set home rules, such as the number of credits necessary to qualify for a degree, or the number of years which a student can spend at an institution. However, it seems that this compromise was received with much apprehension by university heads. For example, spokespersons from Lingnan University reacted negatively to this recommendation since the announcement of the report. Their dissatisfaction is understandable. The proposed scheme tends to benefit well-known institutions, such as The University of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Under the credit transfer scheme, students may flock to the well-known universities. The financial support for smaller institutions, therefore, will certainly be reduced. Likewise, brand name universities will receive greater monetary support from the committee because students from other institutions will want to enroll in courses at the larger ones. As a result, small institutions will receive less money to develop while the larger universities become bigger and bigger as they get more funding. Besides its inequality with respect to funding, in principle, the proposed scheme conceptualizes education as a commodity. Since the amount of funding depends on the number of students admitted to a course, departments of unpopular disciplines will definitely receive less funding from the committee under the scheme. So, this may hinder the diversification of educational disciplines since the distribution of resources is market driven. Undoubtedly, the local tertiary education system demands reforms. The quality of local graduates must improve so that the next generation can excel in the job market. The government's recognition of the need for a better tertiary education system is duly noted. Nevertheless, its proposal lacks clarity, factual basis, and successful precedence in foreign countries.

Sam Ho Assistant Managing Editor