Dear Sir,

I read Michael DeGolyer's article "Educated answer to crisis" (SCMPost 26 June) with interest, and would like to comment on a few points in it.

I agree with Dr DeGolyer that the key to long-term growth in the globalised knowledge-based economy of today is education. I must however take issue with him is when he talks about 4-year undergraduate courses.

I should say right away that the University Grants Committee has nothing against normative 4-year degrees, but to say that they are in line with the rest of the world is simply wrong. Certainly they are the norm for part of the US system, but by no means all of it - in fact more than half of the higher education institutions in the US are community colleges which offer 2-year associate bachelor's degrees. In continental Europe the norm is if anything longer than 4 years; in the UK (apart from Scotland) and much of the Commonwealth, the norm is still 3 years. Japan and Korea have 4-year degrees and mainland China operates a 4-year system, but in a very different context. Singapore still operates a 3-year degree system.

Hong Kong chose to standardise on the 3-year post-secondary 7 model only 10 years ago and did so consciously on the basis of the school system that had then developed. If the model is to be changed, then it must be on the basis of a comprehensive review of the whole education system. This must consider all the implications and consequences. It would therefore certainly not be possible to implement 4-year degrees courses as the norm (if that were what was eventually decided) as soon as the year 2000 as Dr DeGolyer suggests.

I agree with Dr DeGolyer that an age participation rate (APR) of 18% is still relatively low by world standards, but Hong Kong's APR in higher education is actually much higher than that. Taking into account the approx 5,000 places on higher vocational courses in the former Polytechnics and the VTC (equivalent to 6% of the age group) and the between 5,000 and 10,000 Hong Kong students who go overseas every year for their higher education, Hong Kong's real APR is more like 25-30%.

The figure Dr DeGolyer quotes for the US is not the APR for university education, incidentally, but for all higher education, which includes the community colleges. As stated earlier, these are two-year institutions - and they make up more than 50% of the US higher education system.

The expansion of university places undertaken in Hong Kong over the period from 1990 to 1995 was unprecedented, in terms of the speed at which it was achieved without material loss of quality. It makes sense, during a period when the age cohort is not increasing, to spend some time consolidating and improving all aspects of the university system.

In this context, I support Dr DeGolyer's call for more "dorm rooms" or student hostel places. However, he fails to mention that the Government has already agreed to provide an additional 11,000 student hostel places, including providing them for universities that previously did not qualify for any because they were in the main urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon. Following a recommendation of the University Grants Committee in 1996, the Government agreed that the opportunity should be given for all undergraduate students to spend at least one year in on-campus student accommodation. Already projects are under way or on the drawing board for most of these 11,000 places to be built over the next 5 years.

Hong Kong has shown remarkable vision in the development of its higher education system over the past decade. The Government has also shown great leadership and vision in the calls for improving the quality of school education and teacher education presented in the Chief Executive's first policy address. The future is indeed up to us and we are shaping it.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel J French
Secretary-General
University Grants Committee
Published: 13 July 1998