Author︰Cheng Ka Wai

News Commentary Competition – The 3rd Runner up of Senior Form  

Queen Elizabeth School Old Student’s Association Tong Kwok Wah Secondary School

Author : Ching Ryann

News Commentary Competition – The 1st Runner Up of Senior Form  

As a current Form 5 student considering my options after secondary graduation, I find the issue about introducing differentiated tuition fees across university disciplines in Hong Kong noteworthy. While I understand the rationale behind the proposal to ease the financial burden on the government and universities given the rising costs, I hold concerns that a stratified fee structure may negatively impact equal access and equity in higher education.  

To commence with, higher tuition for certain disciplines, such as medicine, dentistry, and other laboratory-based sciences, may discourage financially disadvantaged students from pursuing these fields regardless of their academic strengths. As highlighted in the news article, students from working-class backgrounds may not dare to enrol in expensive courses even if they offer better career prospects and the potential to raise family income. This differentiated fee structure risks creating financial barriers that deprive motivated, lower-income students of equal opportunities. For many talented students from working-class families, career choices are not solely based on passion or aptitude as financial considerations are a major factor and the burden of higher tuition may be difficult to take on without support. Even if the prospects of a medical or dental career may lift one’s whole family out of poverty in the long run, the initial cost barrier to enter these programs could seem insurmountable.  

Taking on heavy student loan debt is also risky without certainty of graduating and finding well-paying employment. This is emphasised as Li Yi-ying, a secondary school principal and the Chairwoman of the Subsidized Secondary School Council, notes that good students may shy away from expensive but profitable disciplines due to fears over affording costlier textbooks and lack of financial support networks. Differentiated fees shift the criteria for selecting a field of study from meritocracy to socioeconomic background. For motivated low-income achievers who excel in science and wish to enter medical lines, tiered tuition privileges those who can rely on family wealth over academic talent alone as the low-income achievers are eliminated and more places are available for less excellent students who are able to afford the tuition fees. Without subsidies, such promising youths may feel that they have no choice but to redirect their aspirations to less costly areas of study simply due to their financial circumstances rather than passion or potential. In essence, stratified tuition risks shutting doors of opportunity that could allow disadvantaged students to achieve upward mobility through education and occupation, which runs counter to principles of equitable, universal access to university resources according to merit rather than means. 

Moreover, tiered tuition fees based on study programs could further stratify society along economic lines. Students may feel compelled to choose less costly majors and limit their options based on monetary constraints rather than passion and talents. Over time, this could concentrate certain professions among those privileged financially while restricting upward mobility through education. Implementing a tiered fee system threatens to entrench class divides instead of alleviating them. As costs influence choice of major, professions may gradually become dominated by those who can afford to enter them, regardless of aptitude. For example, students gifted in sciences but facing tuition barriers may opt for less expensive humanities degrees instead of pursuing medicine. This denies both the individual’s talents and societal need for qualified, capable and passionate medical professionals. Besides, upward mobility is restricted as youth from lower-income families feel confined to less remunerative fields simply due to their ability to afford university course fees rather than academic levels.  

This class-based clustering can then perpetuate the cycle of disadvantage across generations. In fact, children from upper-class families already tend to have greater guidance and resources preparing for high-cost majors and stratified tuition simply stacks the odds further in their favor. In the long run, such entrenchment of socioeconomic barriers dissuades the best and brightest across all strata of society from maximizing their skills. Not only is this inequitable, but it also constrains Hong Kong’s human capital and potential for innovation as talented youth from different backgrounds feel their paths are limited from the onset. If differentiated fees were introduced, divides in life trajectories and life outcomes would be at risk of calcification rather than reduction. 

The news article by SCMP highlighted that the costs of nurturing an undergraduate student at public universities in Hong Kong has increased dramatically over the past decade, rising 42% to an average of HK$288,000 per year. Certain disciplines such as medicine and dentistry entail even higher expenses that are more than double other subjects. The UGC figures cited that expenditures across the board have been ballooning rapidly. At the same time, tuition fees collected from students now only account for about 13% of total costs, below the targeted 18% cost recovery rate. If this trend of rising expenditures outpacing fee contributions continues unrestrained, it threatens to undermine the long-term fiscal viability of supporting a quality higher education system.  

Upholding a world-class yet financially sound university system benefits both current and future generations of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is necessary for the government and universities to explore innovative, multi-faceted solutions to address the rising costs faced by the higher education system sustainably. One approach that could be expanded is strengthening needs-based financial aid, as implied by Lau Chi-pang, the Associate Vice-President of Lingnan University. This approach enhances existing scholarship and subsidy programs to ensure that financially disadvantaged yet academically outstanding students can afford enrolling in costly disciplines, balancing the expenditures while upholding equal access. As highlighted in the article, one of the major issues putting pressure on the sustainability of the higher education system in Hong Kong is the widening gap between escalating expenditures and the tuition fees collected from students.  

Implementing a robust needs-based financial aid framework could help bridge this funding gap while maintaining equitable access to university education. This approach on the other hand allows high-achieving students from less privileged backgrounds to pursue high-cost degrees that offer favorable career prospects, without being deterred by financial constraints, and helps maximize the utilization of talent pools from all sectors of society. With more students able to meet full tuition fees through aid, universities would collect higher fee incomes which subsidize rising expenditures to some degree. Proper means-testing and monitoring would ensure that aid only reaches truly underprivileged groups while bonding clauses could require aid recipients to work in priority fields facing labor shortages upon graduation. Expanded financial aid thus achieves the twin goals of managing cost burdens sustainability while upholding meritocracy and social mobility in higher education. It cultivates more homegrown professionals for fields with high development importance as well as public returns on investment. Over time, strengthening needs-based aid could play a meaningful role in narrowing the university funding gap in a manner that considers socioeconomic diversity. 

In addition, forging industry partnerships as seen in other countries could help share the financial responsibility, especially for high-cost programs training students for skills in high demand. For instance, industries that benefit from medical professionals could co-invest alongside the government and universities in medical education. To implement the approach effectively, universities could reach out to key employers that recruit graduates from certain fields in need. Programs such as Medicine, Engineering and IT that produce in-demand talent would be prioritized. Memorandums of understanding could be signed detailing partnership scopes. Consequently, industries may invest directly in state-of-the-art labs or equipment used to train students skills of mutual interest or sponsor research projects tackling industry problems. In return, universities provide industry-relevant curriculum and faculty expertise. Partners gain pre-placement access to recruit top students while bonded scholarships may be awarded to attract new enrollments. By co-developing customized courses together, universities optimize education quality and career preparedness as industries facilitate skills pipelines for their workforce needs. With industry investments supplementing government allocations, institutions receive additional funding support without raising fees which eases cost burdens on universities to some degree. If structured systematically with transparency, industry partnerships can be mutually beneficial for higher education, businesses and the economy. By diversifying funding sources, this provides an innovative approach to the financial sustainability challenge. 

In conclusion, while I understand the rationale behind considering differentiated tuition fees to ease financial pressures, I believe a stratified fee structure risks compromising equal access and social mobility in higher education. A more prudent approach would be to explore balanced, multi-faceted solutions such as expanding needs-based financial aid and forging industry partnerships, as discussed in the article. When implemented thoughtfully with proper safeguards, these alternatives can help universities sustain quality while upholding meritocracy as the primary criterion for university selection. As a future university applicant, I hope to see the system prioritize nurturing talent from all socioeconomic backgrounds instead of imposing barriers. The government and institutions shoulder an important responsibility to cultivate aptitudes wherever they lie, unhindered by monetary concerns. Only then can Hong Kong maximize its human resources and develop an equitable, vibrant knowledge economy for generations to come.  

Author : Siu Wing Yan Tiffany

St. Mary Canossian College

Mega Event Economy, a brand new proposal introduced by the HKSAR government at the start of 2024, has sparked considerable anticipation among citizens due to its ambitious goal of revitalizing the struggling economy, thus leading to widespread discussions and debates surrounding the initiative.