Editor's note: In late December, Ming Pao reported that the University Grants Committee (UGC) is committed to reforms in tertiary education. It is planning to "reposition" the existing eight tertiary institutions into two categories: research and teaching universities. It is also looking into ways to cut back on duplication and overlapping of academic departments to make better use of existing resources. In response to the media report, Professor Y S Wong, Vice President (Institutional Advancement) wrote to Ming Pao to discuss the value of university education and the strategy of reform. Below is the English translation of Professor Wong's article, published on 7 January.

That the UGC has taken a proactive approach to explore reforms in tertiary education in Hong Kong should be commended. On the surface, what the UGC has proposed seems to make sense and both the community and the media appear to be receptive to the ideas. Tertiary education and university development are nevertheless a specialized and complicated business. When formulating policies, we need more than just a commonsensical approach but a deeper understanding of the likely outcomes of the proposed policies and their effects on the social and economic development of Hong Kong.

Healthy competition promotes growth
For the research profile of a country or region to achieve any significant genuine breakthrough, it is necessary for the number of researchers to reach a certain level. That is what professionals call a "critical mass". For example, it is necessary to have a contingent of scholars, experts and technicians develop a world-class biotechnology industry. It won't help much just to recruit two or three of the world's best researchers to Hong Kong. At present, there are people across the eight institutions working in the same research area or discipline. From a positive angle, this constitutes a critical mass for Hong Kong and creates a healthy competitive environment in research work. If we are to arbitrarily label two or three universities as research universities, this will not bring about collaboration or competition. Even those classified as "research universities" may slow down in their development because of a lack of competition.

Different institutions have different strengths
There is a misconception in the community that Hong Kong's past research achievements were concentrated in only two to three universities. In fact, in the past 10 years or so, thanks to the increase in government funding and the efforts on the part of the researchers themselves, most local universities have witnessed a quantum leap in their research output and quality. A senior vice chancellor of a UK university recently pointed out that the academic standards of local universities are now comparable to those of the top 25 of the 100 best universities in the UK. Once every three years, the Research Grants Council of the UGC evaluates the research performance of the eight local universities. Its findings show that some young and upcoming universities have scored first in four or five research areas. In the past seven years, for example, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University came first in bidding for competitive earmarked grants in the civil and structural engineering disciplines, double what Hong Kong University (HKU) and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) received between them. In electronic engineering, City University of Hong Kong received more funding than HKU, the Chinese University of Hong Kong or HKUST did. CityU researchers in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry and materials science) have published an average 5.3 refereed papers per year in international journals, surpassing the output not only of their counterparts in Hong Kong but also of those in renowned US universities (2.5 to 3 papers).

The above illustrates that different universities have unique strengths in different academic disciplines. These achievements are inseparable from the generous support from the Government on research in the past. I have worked at four local universities and I understand there is, in the mind of the general public, a certain ranking order of the eight institutions. Truth is, there is not much difference among the eight in terms of the quality of staff, equipment and facilities. In the young and upcoming universities, there is a number of eminent scholars (some are world-class in reputation), who have worked hard in the past 10 years or so to raise the academic profile of Hong Kong and improve our research infrastructure. If we relegate these young institutions back to being "teaching universities", it will not only be a blow to the morale of their staff but also a waste of our investment. Such a move will also go against government policy of nurturing and developing innovative technologies in Hong Kong. So it is not surprising that my colleagues have told me that the UGC proposal will destroy our very stronghold in the battle for a knowledge-based economy. We should be prudent before committing to changes.

Universities should uphold teaching and research
The mission of a university lies not only in educating youth but also in the creation of knowledge. Teaching and learning methods are important but teachers' learning, quality and sophistication are more crucial. Teachers who do not advance the frontiers of knowledge can seldom inspire students. Without a firm grounding in academic research, there is no guarantee for quality teaching. In real life, one rarely meets an outstanding and inspiring teacher who is not involved in research work. A good teacher is usually enthusiastic in the pursuit of knowledge and at the same time performs well in teaching duties. Is it wise, therefore, to put research and teaching at two opposing ends? It appears that the concept of pure teaching universities does not fit Hong Kong's reality.

All-round universities enhance education
The community seems to also believe that academic departments are duplicated in the eight institutions, and as such, resources are put to poor use. The logic goes that certain areas or disciplines should be grouped under one or two roofs. Thus, a certain university or two should focus on business and management courses, another on humanities and still another on science and engineering. Without doubt, higher education is very costly in Hong Kong. We should strive to economize and optimize our resources. Proponents say that such a division of labour will save money, but in fact this is not likely to happen unless the current teacher-student ratio is also changed.

The word "university" is associated with "universitas", which may mean "comprehensive" and "macro". Past experiences on the mainland and the former Soviet Union show that specialized universities (such as oil and petroleum colleges, textile universities and the like) were complete failures, because teachers could not delve into cross-disciplinary research. Most of the breakthroughs in modern science and technology emerge in new areas where different academic disciplines meet. And the students in such universities do not get the nourishment for growth from the cross-currents of humanities and science. For teachers and students alike, comprehensive universities are better suited to promote academic exchanges and collaboration across disciplines. They provide an environment that is more conducive to new ideas and their students are better prepared for the knowledge-based society.

Good universities in Hong Kong have a role in southern China
Behind the rationale of repositioning the eight universities (and merging of departments) is perhaps the belief that there are far too many universities in Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, in 10 years' time some 60% of our eligible young population will have a chance to receive post-secondary education. Most of them will enrol in associate degrees. Only a minority--18%--will go on bachelor's degree programmes. Here is a two-tier system of community colleges and regular universities. We should not divide the existing eight universities into research or teaching institutions but rather develop them further, on a "walking on two legs" strategy, that is, upholding the value of both teaching and research, into leading institutions in the Asia-Pacific region.

Because of an uneven geographical distribution, most of 50 well-established and renowned universities in China are now concentrated in the north, east and northwest of China. In the seven provinces of southern China, where more than 300 million people live, there are only four reputable universities. Hong Kong should strive its best to develop its eight universities so we can extend our reach into southern China and contribute to the development of universities there. We should make a positive contribution to China's academic research and education. Seen from this angle, then, and coupled with our intention to become an international city in Asia, is eight really too high a number of universities in Hong Kong?