HKUSU Council Annual Debate 2015 - Written Opinions

4

序　Preface普選評議員

Popularly Elected Union Councillors

香港大學學生會是本港大專院校中最早成立的學生架構。學生會穩定的發展吸引不少學生組織參考其嚴謹的架構。

香港大學學生會評議會則為學生會最高的常設機關，職責包括監察學生會幹事及學生會核下的所有屬會。屬會則涵蓋不同舍堂學生會、學院院會、三聯會及其下學會。同時，評議會的職能也拓展至制定學生會不同的政策、立場。為確保校園內不同的會員的意見也得到充分的反映，評議會內有來自學生會幹事會、不同舍堂、學院院會、三聯會、校園傳媒的代表，也有十席普選評議員議席。而評議會比較為人熟悉的常設委員會，大學事務委員會、時事委員會都會著手討論香港大學學生會就不同大學事務與社會時事的方向。

根據評議會附例，每屆的評議會內也會有一次會議作週年辯論，讓同學就不同議題於會議上向評議會及校方表達意見，同時藉此機會了解評議會之運作。是次週年辯論是由本年度七位普選評議員跟據評議會附例所籌辦，辯題為「香港大學應廢除核心課程」。此議程與所有本科生都息息相關，因此，評議會誠邀同學今日積極參與討論，發表意見。

The Hong Kong University Students’ Union (Union) is the first established student body amongst all Hong Kong tertiary institutions. Its sustainable and steady development serves as a complex model for some other student bodies.

The Hong Kong University Students’ Union Council (Council) is the highest standing organ of the Union. The functions range from scrutinising the exec-utive and all the affiliated clubs and societies. For clubs and societies, they referred to different Hall Students’ Associations, Faculty Societies, Sports, Cultural and Independent Clubs Associations, and their affiliated clubs. In the meantime, the Council extended its function to formulate the Union’s policies and stance. In order to ensure the opinions of the members are duly reflected, the Council is composed of the executive committee, different halls, faculty societies, the Sports, Cultural and Independent Clubs Associations and the media representatives, as well as 10 seats of Popularly Elected Union Councillor. Regarding the relatively renowned standing committee of the Council, the University Affairs Committee and the Current Affairs Committee are respectively responsible for proposing directions on the university matters and social affairs.

In accordance with the By-laws of the Council, Annual Debate will be held in every council session to allow members to express their views on various issues to the Council and the school, and it also serves as an opportunity for members to understand the functioning of the Union. The seven Popularly Elected Union Councillor, with reference to the By-law, organised this Annual Debate. The motion for today is “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum”. This motion is related to the everyday life of the undergraduates. Therefore, the Council cordially invites members to ac-tively participate in the discussion and reflect your views to us.

6

評議會主席　Council Chairperson (CC)

郭善靈　KWOK Sin Ling

－從缺－

- Nil -

註：評議會主席負責帶領會議進程，一般不參與討論。P.S.: Council Chairperson is responsible for guiding the discussion, and will not be involved in the discussion normally.

評議會榮譽秘書　Honorary Secretary (HS)

陳采欣　CHAN Tsoi Yan

－從缺－

- Nil -

註一：評議會榮譽秘書負責作文書紀錄，一般不參與討論。P.S. 1: Honorary Secretary is responsible for taking minutes, and will not be involved in the discussion normally.

註二：評議會榮譽秘書並無投票權。P.S. 2: Honorary Secretary does not have voting rights.

學生會幹事

Union Executives

8

會長　President (P)

馮敬恩　FUNG Jing En

立場：贊成　Stance: For

根據港大核心課程 (Common Core) 網頁，核心課程的主要目的有三，分別是協助建立跨學院的友誼、了解自身以及其他文化、扣連所學之物與其他學科，並從而培育學生的創意、社交等技能。是故核心課程推行一段時日，能否達到其目的實在有目共睹，以下將羅列數點加以討論。

道術將為天下裂　大學教育為深度

同學當初按照興趣和能力，選擇自己的學院和主修，並且深造下去，盼有日成為有關領域的翹楚，手執牛耳，貢獻社會。一般來說，港大的主修科目通常要求同學修畢七十二至九十六個學分，而副修則普遍要求同學完成三十六個學分。本意是以學分要求，為同學提供具有深度的教育，主修、副修皆然。以文學院的同學為例，在學期間需要修讀六個，共三十六個學分的核心課程。同學用以修畢所有核心課程的學分，變相可以選修多一個符合自己興趣和能力的副修，甚至可以在其主修領域更加深入的學習下去。因此，與其設立核心課程，不如取消有關課程以省下學分，讓同學更加深入地窺探他們具興趣的領域。

紙上談兵誠壞事　啟發能力在課外

誠然，有些核心課程涵蓋實地考察和實驗，但是礙於資源所限，這些只屬少數。更多時候，同學是埋首在核心課程的課堂與導修，苦幹於核心課程的考試和評核。試問如此手法，又何異於普通課堂？又何以比普通課堂更有效訓練同學的創意和社交？與其無法貫徹宗旨和目的，不如取消核心課程，騰出時間和心力，讓同學更有空間自行選報不同實習和交流活動，從而在課室外、實踐中，學到創意和社交等技能，豈不美哉？

最後，篇幅有限，在此打住。且在週年辯論之時，與各位評議員及同學再作交流。謝謝。

According to the website of HKU Common Core, the rationales for establishing the common core curriculum are for building friendship across the faculties; for cultural exchange; for making connections both to and beyond the chosen disciplinary fields of study and cultivating students intellectual, social and in-novative skills, etc. Since common core curriculum has been existing for long, this is a high time for us to evaluate its effectiveness.

In-depth Learning in University is of paramount importance

HKU students, at the very beginning, have chosen their faculties and Major(s) according to their interest and ability. Generally, students are required to fulfill 72-96 credits for a major while 36 credits for a minor. However, taking an Arts student as an example, they are required to finish six common core courses, 36 credits in total, before graduation. Such 36 credits can be spent on another minor or more in-depth study of their original major(s). With such 36 credits, students are given chances to develop their additional interest or more in-depth learning. Therefore, common core curriculum should be abolished for the students’ sake.

Common Core Curriculum: Learn beyond the class in the class?

It is undebatable that some of the common core courses consist of field trips or other assessment measures. However, with insufficient resources in university in general, such courses are just the special cases. The reality is that students are occupied with the common core courses’ lectures, tutori-als, examination and homework, which is the common learning practice of non-common core courses. To me, it is the critical time to abolish the com-mon core curriculum, which enable students to extricate themselves from heavy workload in school and get a greater space for voluntary exchange pro-gramme and internship. After all, innovative skills and social skills can only be inculcated beyond the class.

Due to limited space on the booklet, I am looking forward to having more interaction with councillors and students during annual debate. Thank you very much.

10

內務副會長　Vice-president (Internal) (IVP)

何珈彥　HO Ka Yin

立場：反對　Stance: Against

對於辯題「香港大學應廢除核心課程」，本人持反對立場。

為配合新學制及時代的挑戰，香港大學核心課程自 2012 年開始推行，旨在培育擁有創新及批判思維的通才，但這必修課程的制定框架及教授模式都備受批評，有些會提到香港大學核心課程不應是必修部分。不過，將其廢除與將其列為選修科目的討論不同，在是次週年辯論，前者才是重點。因此，討論基礎不應流於實際操作的弊病及可改善之處，而忽略課程的核心理念。是次討論核心課程存廢的基礎，應是它的理念及目標是否與港大教育的發展相吻合，並推進港大達至其教育目標 (Educational Aims)。

港大核心課程的出現，是因為大學認為同學應該有跨學科的認知，目光不應狹睨於自身學科，要明白及履利身為國際公民的義務和承擔。在現今資訊流通迅速、人與人及國與國之間互相依存並牽制的世代，了解毗鄰相當重要，而港大核心課程設立的四大學習範疇，正反映香港與世界的人文關係連結所接觸到的四大方向－－人文、科技與科學、全球化及中華文化。

比較不同本港大學，類似課程多被命名為通識課程，香港中文大學推入通識課程的歷史最悠久，貴校重視同學對各種人文精神的了解，範圍包括人文和科技及社會，並加入中華文化以及自然；香港城市大學設定的三大範疇，除了一般的人文和科技與科學，還有社會及商業機構研究，而其學習目標較重視個人技能，如表達能力及有效溝通；香港科技大學核心課程的框架，與城大的類似，但未有提及商業研究，而提及推論能力及文明歷史，不過依然偏重個人技能；至於香港浸會大學，他們所謂的核心課程不算是通識課程，只重點提升同學的個人技能，並另外要求同學修讀非主修學院的科目。環觀所有，人文、科技與科學及中華文化，都是不少本港大學倡議的核心學習範疇，反映這些對本港大學生的重要，而全球化是港大獨有選取的範疇，這明顯呼應港大立身為國際大學的理念，部分海外大學（如大阪大學及新加坡國立大學）的類似課程都有提及。

因此，從課程理念上，港大核心課程切合本港大學及港大教育的發展目標，設定其為必修項目有其理據，是次週年辯論的議案應遭反對。然而，本人認同現有核心課程的架構及實際設定有不少改善空間，例如寬免部分課程不計學分、優化不同課程的設計，以及為熱門課程開辦更多課堂，但樂見港大管理層不介意作出改變，期待明年對核心課程的全面檢討。

Regarding the motion that the University of Hong Kong shall abolish Common Core Curriculum, I personally stand against it.

Since 2012 HKU Common Core Curriculum has been a mandatory programme to all undergraduate students, aiming at nurturing the future pillars to quip with creative and critical thinking and also to be a leader in inter-disciplinary aspects. Yet its setting and learning framework has also being severely criti-cized, some students have shown fierce objection towards its compulsory pol-icy. It is understand that the main focus here should pinpoint to its aims and objectives, but not simply to a practical concern. Whether CC synchronies with HKU educational aims should instead be the basis of the debate.

HKU CC is in all means to support our aims in teaching and learning develop-ment, especially hindrance of its actual implementation is not considered here. In years the university would like to cultivate us with an understanding of being cross disciplinary, open-minded and responsible global citizen, which the four main core aspects covered in CC indeed echo this ideology. In comparison with other tertiary institutions in Hong Kong, commonly humanities, and science and technology, and usually study of Hong Kong society are adopted as core perspectives in Common Core, or some calling as General Education. HKU is an exclusive one to title globalization as a core pillar, other than simply equipping us with talent and skills to face life and career challenges, it is echoing our back-ground and aims to status ourselves us an international institution.

Therefore, today the motion should not stand. To further follow-up, it is be-lieved CC setting and policies always have rooms to improve, for example, some courses, like two or some out of the six credit-bearings could be waived

12

in GPA counting, and assessment methods or learning outcomes of some CC courses should have amendments, as well as offering more seats of popular-ly enrolled CC courses favors students to make best options. Though amid sparks, HKU governance leaders are willing to make changes on CC. I look forward to the full review on CC planed to conduct in mid 2016 after the end of first cycle of NSS curriculum reform.

外務副會長　Vice-president (External) (EVP)

李峰琦　LI Fung Kei


本人認為香港大學不應廢除核心課程。

核心課程是香港大學應對大學學制三年制改為四年制在課程上的重要改動。本科生同學需要在若干年期內修讀四個至六個不等的核心課程，當中最少須在科學與科技、人文學科、環球議題及中國文化、國家與社會四大範疇中各選修一個課程。

在現今科技發達的社會，擁有比其他人多的知識不再是明顯優勢，相反，社會着重擁有全球化的視野，以及持續進修的能力。大學教育的目標，由只是為學生提供職業導向的專科知識，轉為提供多元化的通識教育，以提升學生在瞬息萬變的社會保持競爭力。世界上不同知名大學在課程要求同樣加入類似核心課程的制度，例如在新加坡國立大學，學生必須在通識教育五個範疇各選修一個科目，而在耶魯大學，學生需要在人文學科，科學，及社會科學三個範疇各修讀兩個課程。通識教育乃世界各地的大學課程的發展趨勢。本人認為核心課程的設立有其存在的意義，故此反對上述議案。

I think the University of Hong Kong should not abolish the Common Core Cur-riculum.

The Common Core curriculum is the major change of the University of Hong Kong in response to the change of undergraduate curriculum from 3-year to 4-year. Students are required to take four to six common core courses within a certain period, at least one in four domains, which are Scientific and Technolog-ical Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues and China: Culture, State and Society.

With the technological advancement, having more knowledge is not longer an apparent advantage, indeed, the society emphasis on having global vision and the ability of continue education. Therefore the aim of university education, in order to maintain students’ competitiveness, shifted from solely providing career-oriented knowledge to liberal education. There was a growing trend that renown universities worldwide added curriculum requirement similar to the common core courses system. For example, the National University of Singapore required to take one courses each from the five areas of liberal education; in Yale University, students are required to take two courses from humanities, sciences and social sciences three domains each. Therefore I am oppose to the motion above. Thank you.

14

常務秘書　General Secretary (GS)

鄭博文　CHENG Pok Man

Common core curriculum has long been a controversial topic among all un-dergraduates. They are compulsory credit-bearing courses with four restricted aspects. Undergraduates are required to take 6 Common core courses. To me, the common core curriculum should not be abolished, but modification is in-dispensable.

The common core curriculum provides chances for students to explore more on the societies and the whole worlds, and develop critical thinking skills. The courses of their own majors seldom have the chance to teach this.

The major controversy is the restriction on choosing common core courses. In current situation, students can only choose courses among the four select-ed aspects, scientific and technology literacy, humanities, global issues and China: culture, state and society. They are required to take at least one but not more than two courses in each aspect. The idea of the common core cur-riculum is actually agreeable. However, the introduction of the restriction on course selection ruined the whole curriculum.

Firstly, I cannot explain the reason why students are compulsory to take cours-es in all the four aspects. I do not think making the four aspects compulsory can better attain the four goals of the common core curriculum. Instead, the goals could already be achieve by taking every single course in the common core curriculum.

Furthermore, some students may find courses in some particular topics in-terested, but totally abominate the others. Under current practice, most of the courses with relevant topics will be categorize into one aspect. So that, students are not allowed to have more understanding of topics they are in-terested in, but forced to take courses they are less attentive to.

To conclude, the restriction on common core courses selection is contrary to the benefits of students and hence should be abolished.

香港大學之核心課程一直是大學內其中一極具爭議的議題。核心課程要求同學須選讀六個由校方指定範疇的課程，同時其成績亦會計算在學分之內。於我而言，核心課程不應被廢除，但不能避免制度上的改革。

核心課程可提供機會讓同學多了解身邊的事物及訓練其批判性思考。這些重點往往不會在同學的主修課程中涵蓋。

我認為核心課程的最大爭議點是其選讀的限制。在現時的制度下，同學只可從四個由校方拍的範疇中選讀自己有興趣的課程，亦限制每一個範疇最少要選讀其中的一個，但不能選讀多個兩個。核心課程的成立目的是非常有意義的，然而校方所定立的限制令整個課程不能達致其目標。

首先，我不能理解為何校方要求同學須選讀全部四部範疇內的課目。我不認為這可以更有效地幫助同學達到校方成立核心課程的目的。相反，其實只要選讀任何一個課程已經可以做到。

再者，有些同學可能只對某些題目感到興趣，但在現有制度下，題目相似的課程很多機會會被分類成一個範疇。因此，同學是不允許廣泛地學習其有興趣的課題，亦會被強制選讀一些比較沒有興奮的課程。

總結而言，如要保留核心課程，這些對選課的限制必須被修改。

16

財務秘書　Financial Secretary (FS)

王子欣　WONG Tsz Yan

I oppose the abolishment of the Common Core Curriculum.

Two of the objectives of undergraduate education that Professor George M. Whitesides mentions in his article ‘Undergraduate Education at Harvard’ (2004), which are enabling students to cope with changes and equipping them with knowledge to understand and use globally accessible information, are also applicable to universities in Hong Kong. With the overall rise in education level in Hong Kong and the shift of the level of professional qualification from Bachelor’s to doctoral degrees, the objective of undergraduate education is less and less regarded as to train up professionals and specialists but an es-sential stage to nurture knowledgeable citizens with social awareness who are committed to ethics and values.

Since most advanced courses in major or minor curriculums teach theories and concepts that are seldom realized in our daily lives, these curriculums must be paralleled with courses on the practical knowledge of the world in order to make students realize flaws and thereby have the urge to apply their more advanced knowledge to change for the better. By requiring students to take courses from four different categories, the Common Core Curriculum of The University of Hong Kong equips students with interdisciplinary knowledge and skills of doing research for a wide variety of topics. Assignments and tasks put the knowledge into practice and encourage students to think critically about society and the information they get every day. According to my experi-ence, materials used in the Common Core courses relate closely with our daily lives and social affairs - experience of people with disabilities, the science in science fiction movies, human trafficking etc. and are, therefore, helpful to our understanding of the world and most importantly, unfortunate incidents hap-pening around us.

In conclusion, the Common Core Curriculum works in parallel with theories and concepts taught in academic curriculums and altogether cultivate young people with social responsibility who are capable of thinking critically, and it should not be abolished.

本人反對香港大學廢除核心課程。

George M. Whitesides 教授於其在二零零四年出版的文章 “Undergraduate Edu-cation at Harvard” 中評論哈佛大學本科生課程的目的，當中有兩點亦適用於港大。教授認為本科生課程旨在令同學能夠適應、應對環境及時代等不同方面的變遷，和有足夠知識去理解及運用大眾可獲得的資訊。近年香港人教育水平提高，學歷由學士水平上升至碩士或以上的水平，本科生課程的目的也應由訓練專業人才漸漸化為培養有教養及社會意識、遵守基本倫理及道德的市民。

由於大部分本科科目的課程教授在日常生活中難以應用的學術理論及概念，此課程需要一些貼近生活的知識讓同學察覺社會的瑕疵從而有動力去作出改變、改善。作為必修科，港大的核心課程使同學具備跨學科知識及透過撰寫短文、做簡單實驗或研習等鼓勵同學以批判性思維反思社會。根據我的經驗，核心課程大多採用貼近日常生活或社會時事的教材，如殘疾人士面對的困難、科幻電影、人口販賣等。這些題材對同學認識及關注社會，尤其是天災人禍都有幫助。

總括而言，主修課程及核心課程互相補足，一方面教授學術理論及抽象概念，另一方面反思社會，從而培養博學又具批判思維的年輕人。因此核心課程不應被廢除。

18

大學事務秘書一　University Affairs Secretary I (UAS1)

陳兼　CHAN Jian

In today's motion, the University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum, I hold a contrary view that the Common Core Curriculum shall be kept. The motion shall not stand base on the following reasons.

The curriculum aims to foster inter-disciplinary learning, enhance the relation-ship with students' major and future career, so as to build friendship across faculty. Through the curriculum, students may acquire different skills, have positive impact to the society and be curious towards different issues. The University have a quote “Engage, experiment, enjoy” to describe the curricu-lum which showed how the curriculum should be designed and what attitude students should have towards the curriculum.

I see these aims and directions rather unique to the Common Core Curricu-lum. There is no curriculum that I could think of that can serve the same pur-pose as this Curriculum. Therefore, I agree with the ideology where this curric-ulum certainly has its value of being kept.

Although the ideology sounds interesting, insightful and innovative, students do not see alike. I believe the problems are in execution! The problems in-cludes registration process, class size not fulfilling students’ need and the quality of the course. I would like to further explain on the quality of the course as the other two reasons are widely known by most students.

In fact, some courses are not in line with the course design as the Common Core Office presented to students. In the introductory video of the Curricu-lum on the Common Core website, the Curriculum was being portrayed as

“actively taught, active learning and learning by doing”. It said that these courses are living laboratories between the campus and the city. “It's all about WORK and PLAY!” By these claims, as a student, I assume these cours-

es are very much experiential and are being taught in an innovative way with little traditional assessments (Exams, quizzes, essays). But I am very sure that this is not the reality.

Among all 152 Common Core Courses, there are a total of 85 (56%) courses with exams, quizzes, in-class test where 30 (20%) courses count 10%-20%, 41 (27%) courses count 21-40% and 14 (9%) courses count 41-80% of total course grade. There are also courses that stress a lot in written assignments including reflective journal after every lecture, mid-term/ final term essays, individual assignments while these usually take up to 40% of total course grade. This is obviously not the expected way of assessing student performance in Common Core courses and definitely not the dominated assessment.

From my understanding, this curriculum is to provide components of experi-ential learning from different fields of study for students to learn in different ways. Student works, in the exhibition beside the Common Core Office in the Main Building, shown posters and infographics about certain topics. There is also a video in the CC Theatre on it's website about installation arts done during a Common Core course around the campus. These are examples of creative elements that a Common Core course should include. Traditional assessment should be a minor part of a Common Core course. The traditional mindset of assessment methods is hindering the development of Common Core courses, restricting the shining part of the curriculum. Efforts have to be made in order to provide quality courses to students which, in turn, will lead to the success of the curriculum.

To conclude, it is obvious that there are flaws in the execution of the Common Core Curriculum. Perfections are awaiting for the true brightness of the curric-ulum to shine. I wish that the curriculum will grow as the review, conducted by the University, is done and the suggestions are implemented.

20

今天的議案為香港大學應廢除核心課程，而我對此議案持相反意見，認為應將核心課程予以保留。

核心課程旨在增加同學跨學科學習，同時增進不同學院同學的交流。此課程亦希望增加同學了解其他範疇的議題與自己正在修讀的課程的關係，為未來學習及工作鋪路。透過此課程，同學能學習不同的技巧，並增加對不同議題的好奇心。核心課程亦期望課堂所設計的活動能讓同學多了解社會議題，對社會有正面影響。大學現時以「多投入、多嘗試、多享受」來描述核心課程，正正反映大學對課程設計的概念及大學期望同學對課程的態度。

我認為核心課程之目的及方向獨特，非其他課程所能取替。另外，考慮到此課程設立的原意有其意義，所以我認為今日的議案應予以否決，香港大學應保留核心課程。

然而，核心課程的理念看似創新、有趣，卻未受同學歡迎，究其原因，我認為是執行方面的問題。此等問題包括課程注冊、課程收生人數未能符合同學需要及課程設計與理念不符。我將就課程設計再詳細展述我的想法。

事實上，某部份核心課程的設計與核心課程辦事處 (Common Core Office) 給予同學的期望不符。該辦事處於網上發佈的一段短片中將核心課程塑造為「生動教學、邊做邊學」(Actively taught, active learning and learning by doing)。短片中亦提及此課程是個生動的實驗室，旨在把校園及社區連接，同時希望同學憲學習於娛樂 (It's all about WORK and PLAY!)。作為同學，我會認定此等課程有大部份為體驗式學習，較少傳統測驗考試的評核模式。遺憾地，我們深知事與願違。

在 152 個核心課程中，有 85 個課程 (56%) 有考試、測驗、小測。當中，30 個課程 (20%) 以測考模式計算 10-20% 總成績，41 個課程 (27%) 以測考模式計算 21-40% 總成績，14 個課程 (9%) 以測考模式計算 41-80% 總成績。另外，亦有部份課程以書寫習作，包括課堂日誌、期中／期末短篇論文、個人習作等模式評定學生成績。這種守舊的評核模式明顯偏離同學期望，更不應成為核心課程中最主要的評核方法。

於我所見，核心課程應以體驗式學習為較重要的教學模式讓同學以較新穎的模式學習其他領域的知識。現時在本部大樓有其中一個課室正在展示同學在不同課程中製作的海報。在核心課程網頁上亦載有有關校園裝置藝術的短片，展示同學於課堂中的作品。以上兩個例子恰好說明了核心課程期望各課程包含的元素，而傳統的評核應只佔少部份的課程元素。以往舊式的考核方式正阻礙核心課程的發展，校方仍需盡力改善課程設計，令同學能有高質素的核心課程學習體驗。

總括而言，核心課程在執行上仍有瑕疵，尚待改善。我寄望不久將來經過校方舉行的核心課程檢討後，能落實改善措施，令此課程得以繼續成長，達致其最終目標。

大學事務秘書二　University Affairs Secretary II (UAS2)

招永聰　CHIU Wing Chung

相信若核心科目並非必修科目，今天根本無須討論此議案。此議案需討論必須科目的存廢問題，但討論的議題實是圍繞一個爭議點：成為大學學制必修科的門檻。我認為設立大學必修科目本身，其原意應與大學的定位目標有不可分割的關係，或對學生本身的基本能力有必要性。

根據香港大學官方的資料，核心課程其中一個主要目標，是讓同學涉獵不同範疇的議題，增加對國際、地區及本土事項的了解。而此目標與港大「國際公民」(Global Citizenship) 的目標扣連。與此同時，同儕間合作溝通的能力亦同為港大其中目標。由此可見，核心課程的定為與香港大學的教學目標關係密切。

以本科生普遍修讀 240 學分為例，僅佔 36 學分的核心課程並非為多。有指核心課程的制度有不少改善之處，在此深表認同，但核心課程至今推行四年，言及刪去制度實言之尚早。我認為校方應利用第一批修讀核心課程的新學制同學畢業之時機，改善課程制度，方向可為減少所佔學分、免除計算學分積點、改善評核方法等等，以令制度貼近同學需要。

22

I believe that the controversy over Common Core Curriculum is mainly due to the compulsory nature. Although the motion of the Annual Debate is about whether we shall cancel Common Core Curriculum, the scope of discussion should be focused on the prerequisite of compulsory course of the universi-ty. I think that compulsory course in the university should be put only when it closely associates with the direction of the university, and the basic skill of students.

According to the official document of HKU, Common Core Curriculum aims to enhance students’ exposure over different issues, including international, regional and local issues. This aim echoes one of the direction of HKU, Global Citizenship. Moreover, collaboration and communication between students are also one of the major focus of the educational goal. Therefore, the aims of Common Core Curriculum and the direction of HKU is closely correlated.

Common Core Curriculum only occupies 36 out 240 credits of a 4-year curric-ulum. I agree that there are many shortcomings of Common Core in its curric-ulum as well as execution, however, there are still rooms for us to investigate other possible solutions for the betterment of common core, such as shrinking the total credits, excluding from the calculation of GPA and reform the assess-ment method, instead of cancelling the entire common core curriculum.

外務秘書一　External Affairs Secretary I (EAS1)

黎的琛　LAI Samuel Dic Sum

港大自二零一二年開設核心課程以銜接新高中課程，規定所有學生必須在畢業前修畢至少六個核心科目，所修的核心科目亦必須橫跨四個不同類別，從而達致跨學科學習及多方面思考。發展至今，核心課程備受狠批，除了比主修科目有過之而無不及的工作量以外，其課程難度及多重規限更使同學喪失學習興趣，有違當初設立原意，亦與大學教育方針背道而馳。

參考核心課程的首要條件，其目的為使學生能對不同範疇有基本認知，從而不會侷限於自己的範疇或專業。在此大原則下，核心科目理應設置於初階水平讓所有學生修讀，但不少核心科目其實需要一定的基本知識以應付課堂以致功課。以一個文學院的學生為例，在他們大多從沒在中學修讀科學科目的情況下，修讀與科學有關的核心科目難免對他們有一定難度，同時增加他們的工作量。

另一方面，興趣固然是學生選科的重要因素之一，但核心課程的多重規限卻使學生難以選擇他們自己喜歡的科目。不少學院皆要求學生於指定學年內修畢所有六個核心科目，而核心課程本身亦要求學生所修的核心科目必須橫跨四個不同類別。加上每一個核心科目的限額，大多學生最終皆未能修讀自己有興趣的科目。此情況不但打擊學生學習的熱情，同時亦令修讀核心科目淪為單單完成畢業要求的苦差。

因此，我認為可以以選修科目 (Free Electives) 代替核心科目以達致擴闊視野同時探索自己興趣的目的。我亦因此支持本議案廢除核心課程。

The Common Core Curriculum has been in place since 2012 which aims at achieving interdisciplinary learning and multi perspective thinking. It yet remains a doubt in most students’ minds of whether such aims have ever been achieved due to the inconsistency in difficulty of courses’ matter and its forced nature for interdisciplinary learning.

24

With reference to the overarching goals of the Common Core Curriculum, it is sure that it has an aim to make everyone acknowledge about at least some-thing from other fields so that no one shall ever be confined to their own ex-pertise. In order to achieve such an objective, the courses should thus be set at an introductory level so that everyone shall be able to enroll. But taking an arts student as example, some Common Core courses actually require much prior knowledge from specific science subjects, while many arts students do not even take one during their secondary education. It results in an immense workload of them in catching up with the progress of others, while failing to achieve the aims effectively. It becomes an even more detrimental failure when such difference in difficulty becomes a criterion for students in choosing the courses, with most of them preferring those of a smaller workload.

On the other hand, while one’s interest shall always be a major criterion in choosing courses, the many restrictions under the Common Core Curriculum make it hard for students to really choose according to their favour. While some faculties require students to complete their Common Core courses with-in a certain number of years, there is also a requirement on the number of courses from each AoI, which further restricts the flexibility of the Curriculum while students can hardly fully follow their interest in choosing the courses. Together with the limited space for each course, it is a usual case for students to enroll in courses that they do not even have slight interest in. Such only de-ters their passion for learning and becomes a mere fulfillment of graduation requirement.

Thus, instead of the current Common Core Curriculum, I shall rather have more free electives for each student so as to broaden their scope of learning while ensuring that they are exploring their interests as well. I thus support the motion of abolishing the Curriculum.

外務秘書二　External Affairs Secretary II (EAS2)

謝皓庭　TSE Ho Ting

香港大學應廢除核心課程。

核心課程，冀能藉此提升同學的批判性思維及擴闊視野。核心課程在港大運作多年，同學對此偶有反對聲音，認為核心課程課綱過深，評分影響本科成績。

在我而言，我認為核心課程應預以保留。

核心課程的存留，牽汲到大學的教學方針。從香港大學的抱負和使命可見，我校教育理念致在提供全面教育，啟發同學創意並鼓勵學習。核心課程正正提供機會令同學有機會透過非本科課程擴闊視野、增長知識。通才教育和專才教育二擇其一，我會選擇前者。大學生，作為社會未來棟樑、知識份子，理應裝備好自己，不但為自己，亦要為社會出一分力，令社會進步，而增廣見聞、增加認知是第一步。

核心課程的存在意義，不在於測試同學對各範疇的理解，而在於讓同學擴闊眼界，就著其出發點，我認為核心課程應預以保留。無疑的，核心課程在實行上或技術層面上仍存在很多漏洞或可改善的地方，但這些原因並不足以令核心課程廢除。

The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum.

The Common Core Curriculum in the University of Hong Kong aims at sharp-ening the critical thinking skills and widening the horizon of students. After the implementation of the curriculum, there are opposing voices from some of the students accusing that the scheme is too difficult and the results of Common Core courses have affected their GPA.

I am against the motion while upholding the notion that the Common Core Curriculum should be retained.

26

When it comes to the discussion on deletion of the Common Core Curriculum, the education principles of the University should be taken into consideration. From the visions and missions of the University of Hong Kong, they state that our school aims at providing all-rounded education to students, as well as try-ing to encourage them to study while simultaneously enlightening them to be creative. The Common Core Curriculum provides an opportunity for the stu-dents to achieve what they would like to do in different aspects, which is in line with the mission of our university – to broaden the horizon and to equip better knowledge. For the education strategies applied in the university, I would prefer liberal education rather than professional, or specialized, education. University students, who are perceived as the pillars of our future and the intellectuals in our society, should be well-prepared for themselves especially in the aspect of knowledge in prior to facilitate the improvement of the society in long run. Wid-ening the horizon in the university should be the first step of all.

The objective of the Common Core Curriculum is not to examine the under-standing of students on an array of academic contexts, but to broaden the scope of knowledge that students can receive. Undoubtedly, loopholes and technical drawbacks are inevitable when the curriculum is put into practice, but this does not imply a persuasive ground for notion that the curriculum to be abolished.

學生福利秘書　Student Welfare Secretary (SWS)

陳諾衡　CHAN Nok Hang

香港大學不應廢除現行核心課程制度

本人認同核心課程之存在，但應從速就現行課程制度作出修改。

大學教育的核心本應是通識教育，以培養學生批判性獨立思考的能力為目標，併為終身學習定下基礎專業知識和技能。核心課程現時要求所有本科生報讀，內容涵蓋社會文藝，個人群體，自然與科學及歷史推演四方面。除知識以外，課程亦以建立不同專科的同學互相交流，訓練溝通創作的技巧，讓同學在專科教育課程以外，接受較全面的教育。

然而，現時核心課程的編定，無法有效達到以上理念。多數學術部門均提供與系內課程相似的核心課程，予所有同學報讀。唯不少同學為求「靚 grade」，就算修讀過與內容相似的選修課程，亦選擇與該課程相似的核心課程。此等做法無法達致除接受專科教育課程外，令接受全面教育的目標。因此，本人建議建立名單以列載内容與學系課程相似的核心課程，禁止學生修讀。

針對現實行政問題，不同核心課程評分等級，實際學習時數分佈不盡相同，在同一學分要求下，對選修不同課程的同學造成不公。因此，本人校方能每年檢討各核心課程評分等級及實際學習時數分佈，進行調整。

The University of Hong Kong shall not abolish the Common Core Curriculum

I agree that there are reasons for the Common Core Curriculum to be existed, but The University of Hong Kong shall amend the Common Core Curriculum as soon as possible.

The aim of university education shall be general education, develops inde-pendent critical thinking mindset for students, and equips basic professional

28

knowledge and skills. The Common Core Curriculum requires of all undergrad-uates, covers areas of the artistic, social, and imaginative expressions of ideas and emotions, the reciprocal relationships between individuals and commu-nities, the relationships between scientific ways of knowing, technology and the natural world, and continuities and changes that weave together the past, present and future. Besides of knowledge, the curriculum also provides a space to build communication skills and enhance creativity for students. The curriculum allows students to be educated for more aspects instead of single field of studies.

The current arrangements of the Common Core Curriculum do not achieve the above aims and objectives. Most departments offer Common Core Curriculum courses whose content is similar to the departmental courses, for all students from all departments. However, some students as to aim for higher grade, enroll courses that they had ever studied in departmental courses. This prac-tice in fact failed in providing chances for students to be educated for more aspects instead of single field of studies. Therefore, I suggest that a course list shall be established to record all similar courses between departmental cours-es and Common Core Curriculum courses, so as to prohibit students to enroll.

Focusing on administrative problems, different Common Core Curriculum courses have varied grading distribution and actual work loads. With the same credits requirement, it is unfair for students taking different courses. I suggest that the University shall assess and review the grading distribution and work load for all the Common Core Curriculum courses annually.

出版及宣傳秘書　Publications and Publicity Secretary (PPS)

邱子健　YEOW Tsz Kin

這條議題之所以會出現，主要是因為同學對核心課程怨聲載道。然而，同學不滿的到底是甚麼？

一、「爛 Grade」「有邊啲 CC 靚 Grade」，是港大學生關心的恆常議題。除了出現在迎新營、討論區，

以及各色各樣的網站中，早前更有人舉辦分享會，向新生介紹靚 Grade CC。作為大學生，關心自己的成績自然合情合理。但學習絕非為了成績，而以「爛 Grade」為由，提倡廢除核心課程，更是令人費解。核心課程和其他科目一樣，有清晰、明確的評分指引，上足堂、交足功課、溫足書、考足試，成績絕不會差到哪裏去。怪核心課程「爛 Grade」，不如怪自己不夠努力。

二、「太 Chur」核心課程的其中一個「特色」，是其評核模式：除了一般的論文、考試、測驗，某些核心課程科目更會要求同學進行辯論、剪輯影片、製作網站、設計海報等等。固然，這些新穎的評核方式，令同學必須投放更多時間和心力，甚至要學習使用不熟悉的軟件和程式。但在現今資訊發達的社會中，這些何嘗不是重要的溝通技巧？況且，每一個核心課程科目的學習時數、評核方法、評分比重，均詳列在 “Common Core Student Handbook” 中，透明度極高。就算這些評核方法有不合理、不實用的地方，也可透過修改考核模式來解決，並不構成核心課程本質的問題，更不構成廢除核心課程的理由。

三、「冇用」這大概是三者之中最有力的理據。同學常說，一個工程系的學生，為何要學習重新演譯古典音樂的方法？一個文學院的學生，為何要懂得統計學與現今社會的關係？的確，如果你認為大學生只須懂得自己學科的知識，核心課程絕對可以廢除。可是，大學生的責任絕不止於此。大學生更應具備對歷史、科技的基本常識；清晰的批判思維，以及良好的表達技巧；成熟的審美觀，以及對文化的欣賞能力；廣泛的世界觀，以及對社會的認識和承擔。這些常被指「離地」、「冇用」、「不著邊際」的東西，其實正正是每個大學生都應擁有的基本技能，也正正是核心課程

30

可以給予同學的重要資產。退一萬步來說，校方現時提供的核心課程科目共有 150多個，而絕大部分學生只須修讀 6 個，同學大可以只選修對自己最「有用」的核心課程科目。

現時同學對核心課程的埋怨，大部分根本不是核心課程本身的問題，而剩餘少部分問題，均可以透過修改制度來解決。核心課程對同學的影響，絕對利多於弊，因此校方不應將之廢除。

One of the main reasons for this motion to be chosen is probably HKU stu-dents’ strong dislike of the Common Core curriculum. But why do they hate it so much?

1. “They offer poor grades.”“Which Common Core courses offer good grades” is a perpetual question

haunting thousands of HKU-ers. It appear in orientation camps, online discus-sion boards, and various websites; a few months ago, an organisation even organised a forum to offer freshmen tips on which Common Core courses to choose to obtain the best grades. It is of course natural and right for universi-ty students to be concerned about their grades. However, it should be made very clear that learning is not about academic results alone, and it is absurd to speak of abolishing the Common Core curriculum just because they do not offer good grades. Just like other courses, Common Core courses have very clear grading guidances. If you attend all lectures, hand in all assignments, revise properly, and do a reasonable job in exams, you will definitely perform well in terms of GPA. If you don’t, you should probably blame yourself, not the Common Core curriculum.

2. “They’re too demanding.”One special thing about Common Core courses is their modes of assessment. Aside from regular essays, tests, and exams, some Common Core courses re-quire students to participate in debates, produce videos, make websites, and design posters. These novel ways of assessment may indeed mean a heavier workload, and students may even have to learn to use unfamiliar software and programmes in order to complete the tasks. However, aren’t these also valuable communication skills in the modern era when information is flow-

ing so rapidly? What’s more, the study load, modes of assessment, and the weighting of each assignment are all clearly laid out in the Common Core Stu-dent Handbook. Even if these new ways of assessment are unreasonable and un-pragmatic, they can easily be improved by a change in the university’s policy. They do not constitute a problem in the nature of the Common Core curriculum, and certainly do not constitute a reason to abolish it.

3. “They’re useless.” This is probably the strongest argument out of the three. Students often com-plain, “I’m an engineering student. Why would I want to learn about the ways to reinterpret classical music in a modern context?” “I’m an arts stu-dent. Why would I need to understand the relationship between statistics and society?” Indeed, if you believe that a university student only needs to possess knowledge of the subject he studies, it’s perfectly okay to abolish the Com-mon Core curriculum. But a university student is much more than that. He should have basic knowledge about history and technology; he should pos-sess a clear analytical mind, and a keen ability to express himself; he should be capable of appreciating beauty and different cultures; and he should un-derstand what’s happening in the world, and be an adult of benefit to soci-ety. These are all things that are often criticised as “impractical”, “useless”, and “unproductive,” but they are in fact basic skills every university student should possess. And the Common Core curriculum offers students exactly that. What’s more, the university currently offers more than 150 Common Core courses, while the vast majority of students only have to study 6 in their entire university life. Students can always choose to only study the courses they consider to be “useful” to them.

Most complaints students have about the Common Core curriculum are not even problems of the curriculum itself, and the remaining problems can easily be solved through a change in the university’s policies. As the Common Core curriculum offers more benefits than harm to students, the university should not abolish it.

32

康樂秘書　Social Secretary (SS)

蔡穎妍　CHOI Wing In

香港大學的核心課程鼓勵同學投入不同學術範疇，並提供機會予不同學院的同學交流，原意甚好。然而，大部分同學只願修讀帶來好成績的課程，失去核心課程之原意，甚至弄巧反拙，成為了同學在大學生涯中的障礙。縱使問題甚多，貿然廢除核心課程無疑是因曀廢食。檢討並完善整個核心課程，方為解決當下問題的良方。

雖然校方鼓勵同學修讀其主修或副修學科以外的課程，但事實上，許多同學只願意修讀與其學科相關之課程，因為同學對課程內容早已有一定理解，自然能夠簡單應付，輕易獲取佳績。除此之外，核心課程的學習期僅為一個學期，同學自然認為課程無實際作用，難以令同學重視核心課程。結果同學對大部分課程都不屑一顧，只願選擇與其學科相關之課程，一切皆因「求學只是求分數」。

無疑核心課程的目標皆值得同學追求。問題是：如何完善核心課程？在德國，部分大學鼓勵同學培養跨學科技能 (Cross-functional Competencies)。以德國歷史最悠久的海德堡大學 (University of Heidelberg) 為例，本科生需利用 20 個學分修讀跨學科技能的課程（主修學科需 113 個學分而副修學科則需 35 個學分）。課程需與學科有關，如修讀計算機語言學的同學可透過修讀計算機語言學的外語課程而獲取跨學科技能的學分。除此之外，大學亦視時間管理和跨文化溝通等職業訓練為瑰寶，增設課程教授相關技能。見習生計劃亦被劃入跨學科技能的課程之列。與海德堡大學的課程架構相比，香港大學的核心課程難以達至其目標。若核心課程的內容一成不變，課程的遠大目標只會淪為泡影，既不會為同學帶來裨益，更成為同學在四年大學生涯中的障礙。

While the Common Core Curriculum at HKU has indeed very good objectives to expose students to other disciplines and provide a change for students to build up networks with their counterparts from other faculties, it is observed that the Curriculum in practice has largely failed to achieve its goals and be-comes a burden to students, many of whom only aim for a good grade from the course.

Although students are encouraged to take the courses outside their majors and minors, in reality it is observed that many students take courses which have direct relation to their own scope of studies, where they already obtained competence. Moreover, as the common core courses only offer a short term exposure to students for a semester, this deceases students’ incentive to take the courses seriously, as they do not see a solid benefit from the courses.

The practice of offering such kind of curriculum is not limited to HKU. In Ger-many, students are also encouraged to have some cross-functional competen-cies (“Übergreifende Kompetenzen”, or “ÜK”). Take the oldest university in Germany – University of Heidelberg – as an example, undergraduate students have to take 20 ECTS points from ÜK (as compared to a major which requires 113 ECTS points and a minor 35 ECTS). However, what is demanded from stu-dents are courses which have relation to the subject. For example, a student in computer linguistics can declare ECTS points from a foreign language course specializing in computer linguistics. Besides, career-related courses about time management and inter-cultural communication are also recognized as part of the credits of the competencies. Lastly, internships can also be count-ed in the ÜK credit points.

As compared to the course structure of the University of Heidelberg, the Com-mon Core Curriculum at HKU has to a large extent failed in achieving its aims. It is nothing more than a bubble dream without a good structure and pro-gramme design.

34

時事秘書　Current Affairs Secretary (CAS)

李顯昇　LEE Hin Sing


同學在選擇課程時，往往考慮三大因素：興趣、工作量及影響，而核心課程所引起的陣陣劣評亦由此而生。

興趣，看的是同學對某些學術範疇的熱誠及求知慾。核心課程一年提供近二百個課程，選擇應有盡有，但若同學對某些課程有興趣，何不直接修讀由相關學系提供的課程？現時部分學院均提供一定數目學分供同學選修任何課程，而同學一方面可一如既往，根據興趣選擇由其他學系提供的課程，另一方面亦可審時度勢，選擇主修或副修該些學科。

工作量，看的是同學應付課程審核的能力。核心課程提倡以多元的考核方法去評核同學，考核方法包羅萬有，較舊有刻板的考核有趣得多。但多年來，同學認為核心課程的負擔重，卻是以整個大學生涯作考量。同學一般需修讀六個核心課程，大多數同學均希望在三年級前修畢全部核心課程，因此同學在入學首兩年都忙於修讀核心課程，有部分學期甚至要修讀兩至三個核心課程，比主修學科的課程更多，故一二年級生不時會稱自己 “Major CC”。

影響，意味著同學在修畢課程後學習一些知識及培養相關技能，並有利將來生活。核心課程的目標遠大，除了希望同學涉獵其他學科，打破主修學科的局限之外，還希望同學能放眼世界，作個世界公民。但課程內容又能否啟發同學，令同學有切身感受，從而達至以上目標？部分核心課程會在課堂間中邀請校外嘉賓到校作分享，又或會到郊外作實地考察。可惜這類核心課程只屬少數，大多仍只以簡單講課的形式進行課堂，這當然難以令同學提起精神學習，亦無法令同學產生同理心，以達到核心課程的目標。

以上問題均可透過改革核心課程來解決，如減少同學修讀核心課程的學分、將核心課程修改為不計學分課程 (Non-credit bearing courses) 及引入「翻轉課室」(Flipped classroom) 等，但問題卻不止於此，定位不清才是整個核心課程問題的根源。

毋庸置疑，核心課程四大目標對同學甚有裨益，但核心課程是否達至上述目標的唯一途徑？又是否能吸引同學修讀？現有的通識教育科同樣提供各種類型的課程，議題觸及香港足球發展、台灣總統選舉及非洲音樂文化等。課程不計學分之餘，又常邀請校外名人作分享，自然大受同學歡迎。此外，現時部分學系均會提供少量入門課程 (Introductory course) 供同學修讀，一方面同學可接觸其他學科的知識，又可以此為基礎繼續修選相關課程，並主修或副修該學科。相反核心課程則集各大缺點於一身，招惹眾多負評實在理之當然。

故此，本人贊成上述議案，並希望校方審視核心課程的必要性。

When choosing a course, there are usually three major selection criteria in the minds of students: their own interests, workload and the impacts of the course. Negative comments of the common core curriculum are commonly derived therefrom.

Interests come from students’ passion for and curiosity towards a certain field of study. The common core curriculum offers a broad range of over 200 cours-es annually. But if students are interested in a certain subject, why do they not take courses given by the related faculty in the first place? Some faculties pro-vide students with the freedom to choose electives outside the scope of their subject. Hence, students can take courses according to their own interests and even declare majors or minors after careful consideration.

Workload, on the other hand, concerns students’ capacity to meet the re-quirements and expectations of the course. The common core curriculum advocates a multidimensional assessment method, which is way more inter-esting than the traditional one. But for years, students have been thinking that the workload of such courses are too heavy in relation to their years of stud-ies at the university. Usually, they must complete six of the 6-credit common core courses. As most of them wish to complete all the credits before their 3rd year of study, sometimes they have to take 2 to 3 common course courses per semester, a workload which actually exceeds that of their majors or minors. For this reason, some 1st and 2nd year students often call themselves a “com-mon-core major”.

36

Impacts refers to the knowledge and skills obtained after the studies, which can be beneficial in the workplace. The common core curriculum has long-sighted goals, which hope to expose students not only to the disciplines, but also to the world as a global citizen. But did the content of each course successfully inspire students and offer them a unique experience to achieve the mentioned aims? While some courses invite external guests to come and share their views, or bring students to do site visits, it is a pity that such cours-es are not commonly found in HKU. Most courses are no more than lectures, failing to interest students.

The problems mentioned can be solved by reforming the curriculum in a num-ber of ways, such as reducing the course credits, listing common core courses as non-credit bearing, and introducing flipped classroom. However, the root of the problem is actually the vague positioning of the curriculum.

With no doubt, the curriculum has four goals which are beneficial to students, but are there no other alternatives? Can they actually attract students to take the courses? The existing General Education (GE) programme offers various courses, with topics ranging from the development of local football, the elec-tion of the president of Taiwan to African music culture. Courses are not only non-credit bearing, but they also often invite famous people to share their ideas with students, making the courses wildly popular. Other than that, some of the faculties offer introductory courses, encouraging students to touch upon other disciplines while providing them a basis for studying related fields, and even the option to declare a major or minor in that field of study. On the contrary, the common core curriculum has numerous deficiencies. It is under-standable that the curriculum has received many negative comments.

Therefore, I am in favour of the above motion, and hope that the university will review the necessity of the curriculum.

行政秘書　Administrative Secretary (AS)

黎沅慈　LAI Yuen Chi


大學的教育模式可粗略分為英式及美式，兩者的其中一個差異是英式大學著重本科課程的專門訓練，奉行專才教育；美式大學則著重研究，並於本科課程採用通才教育，鼓勵學生作全人發展，如紐約市哥倫比亞大學推行 “Core Curriculum”，範圍涵蓋人文、藝術、外語、科學等。香港大學推行「核心課程」，規定學生必須從四個範疇中選修一定數目，以免學生知識受其本科課程所局限，明顯是走向美式通才教育的一步。

香港大學逐漸由英式體制走向美式，近年來有跡可尋。除推行「核心課程」外，香港大學自九十年代末推行學分制，至二零零一年於全校實行，容許本科生選課時更有彈性。另外，多個學院如文學院、工程學院、理學院及社會科學學院均相繼採用大類收生方法，學生毋須於一年級選定主修科目，選擇主副修科目時亦有更大自由。可見，香港大學的多項教育政策相互配合，以助港大達致通才教育的目的，而核心課程正正是其中重要的一環。因此，核心課程的存在有其必要，我不認為目前有需要將之廢除。

然而，「核心課程」的細節，無疑尚存商榷空間。據觀察，港大同學普遍對核心課程稍有微言。第一、身邊不少同學因名額所限，難以選擇自己最感興趣的核心課程。第二、同學或會因未能成功報讀心儀課程而令其未來學習計畫受影響。第三、同學對成功報讀的核心課程又未必感興趣，以致成績偏低。第四、同學選擇哪個課程的準則未必是自己對其內容是否感興趣，而是其授課導師是否傾向給予學生不俗的成績，令核心課程失去其原意。

總括而言，我的愚見是儘管核心課程未必需要予以廢除，但校方實宜就核心課程數量、報讀方法、成績計算方法等諮詢同學，令核心課程的發展更臻成熟。

38

The university education can be roughly distinguished into two kinds of sys-tem - the British one and the American one. One of the many differences be-tween the two is that the former stresses more on the professional training of undergraduate programmes. Meanwhile, the latter provides more profession-al training in postgraduate programmes. On the other hand, the American sys-tem puts extra emphasis on liberal arts education and encourages all-round development for undergraduate students. For instance, Columbia University in the City of New York practises a “Core Curriculum” system which covers various aspects like humanities, art, foreign language, science and so on. With the goal of enabling students to develop a broader perspective, the University of Hong Kong has introduced the “Common Core” (CC) Curriculum, which re-quires students to take a certain number of CC courses from four modules. It is obviously a step towards the American university education system.

Other than the implementation of the CC Curriculum, there are in fact other traces showing that HKU is stepping closer and closer towards the American system. HKU started to implement the course credit system in late 1990s and it is fully adopted in the university in 2001. It allows a more flexible choice of courses for students. Besides, many faculties in HKU, for example, Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Social Sciences have all started to practice a common admissions scheme. Students are not required to declare their majors and minors, thus they have more freedom to experience different courses. It is clearly shown that different education policies in HKU go hand in hand with one another to achieve the purpose of educating its students to become more all-rounded. The CC Curriculum is with no doubt a key element in the system and I do not see that there is a need to abolish it.

However, it is undoubtedly true that there is still room for discussion for some details of the CC Curriculum. From my observation, HKU students are general-ly not so satisfied with the CC Curriculum. Firstly, they find it hard to enrol in the CC courses they like due to the limited number of places. Secondly, their future study plan may be affected if they cannot enrol in their preferred CC

courses. Thirdly, they may not be interested in the CC courses that they have successfully enrolled in, causing them to receive a low grade. Fourthly, how students choose a CC course may not be based on whether they are interested in the content, but whether its instructor tends to give good grades. This prac-tice greatly blurs the purpose the CC Curriculum.

To conclude, though there is no need to abolish the CC Curriculum, HKU should definitely conduct a detailed consultation to students about the re-quired number, enrolling method and grading method of CC courses, so that the development of the CC Curriculum can be more mature.

體育聯會會長　President of Sports Association (SAP)

梁國通　LEUNG Kwok Tung

香港大學核心課程的目的是擴闊學生的視野，提升學生對現今社會不同議題的關注以及讓不同學科之間的同學能夠有更多的交流。我認為核心課程的出發點是好的，而我認為現時核心課程的存在並不是學生對其不滿之主因。因此，我並不同意廢除核心課程。

縱觀世界各地不同的大學以及本地其他院校，大部分均設有核心課程或相近的課程。由此可見，核心課程的存在是有其認受性的。事實上，普遍學生在大學內都有各自主修的科目或學系，因此大部分時間學生均在一個專門的範疇內學習及研究，尤其是修讀專業科目的學生，例如醫科、法律、建築等，這些科目由於需要在大學內學習大量的專業知識，因此只有有限的學分去研習由其他學院提供的選修科目。假如核心課程被廢除，這些學生就更少機會接觸到其他範疇的知識。這是不符合大學的教育理念的。

40

而現時校園內對核心課程不滿的聲音主要是認為核心課程位同學帶來額外的負擔，而其成績又會影響學生的畢業。我認為問題的癥結並非在於核心課程的存在與否，而是在於核心課程的課綱及其考核制度。若然要舒緩同學對核心課程的不滿，廢除核心課程是因噎廢食的做法，最直接的方法應是修改核心課程的內容及其考科制度。

The aims of the Common Core Curriculum (CCC) in the University of Hong Kong are to enable students to develop a broader perspective and critical un-derstanding of the current issues in the world, and to enhance their communi-cations with students from other faculties. I think there is not any problem for the starting point of the CCC. The problem that students are not satisfied with the CCC should not be solved by abolishing the CCC.

Many universities from all over the world have set up curriculum like CCC (or equivalent). This shows that the setting up of CCC has its legitimacy. Indeed, most students in the university got their own major studies. And so most of the time they are studying or doing research in a specific field, especially those who are in professional studies such as Medicine, Law or Architecture. These students need to equip themselves with lots of professional knowledge during their four or more year’s studies in the university. Thus they have so little free electives for them to take other courses provided by other faculties. If the CCC is abolished, they will have even fewer chance to get in touch with knowledge in other fields, which is not something encouraged in the university.

I think the current problems of the CCC are its curriculum and the exam sys-tem which bring a lot more workload to students. So the way to solve the problem is not abolishing the CCC but make changes to the curriculum and the exam system to make it more “student-friendly”.

文化聯會會長　President of Cultural Association (CAP)

黃浩揚　WONG Ho Yeung

Dear all councillors,

The aim of common core curriculum is to enlarge students’ knowledge base beyond their academic professions. Education is more than profession-train-ing. Despite the fact that specialization is crucial to economic and social devel-opments especially in the era of globalization, human is not a machine per se. Furthermore, it does not appear better-off necessarily for our society to have more and more machines. Personal development, such as critical thinking, global awareness and so forth, should not be absent in the education system.

To put the context into HKU, I deeply understand that many students are con-cerned about the grading method, rather than the curriculum contents. First of all, they feel unfair when the common core course is not conducted by their faculty. They have to compete with the students from that faculty, who seem such more knowledgeable in that academic field. To put it short, the purpose of the common core courses creates unfair competition among students from different fields. Personally, non-graded common core curriculum is much more preferred to the sledge-hammer abolishment. Students have to “pass” six (There is room for discussion) common core courses within the academic years. If a student gets “fail” in a common core course, he or she has to re-take the course; or take another common core course as replacement. No grading would be conducted.

Some may propose that two common core courses could be graded while the remaining ones would not be graded. However, this approach seems very odd. What is the justification for some are graded while the rest are not grad-ed? Which criteria can be useful in determining the proportion of the graded courses against the non-graded? If we do not have such justified criteria, the proportion is purely based on subjective judgement, just like one hopes to

42

draw a line here, while the another hopes to draw a line opposite to it. Who can draw the best line? We do not know.

To put it back to the students’ concerns, some students may have difficulty in common core course enrolment. They complain that the lucky students may be enrolled to the courses which adopt easy grading, while the unlucky coun-terparts “suffer”. First of all, that is why I propose non-graded common core curriculum. Secondly, different lectures have different grading standards. This is not unique to common core courses. Lastly, the concern is indeed a supply concern. The concern does not rationalize the abolishment.

Any technical fault can be fixed by fine-tuning. As long as we deem personal development is at least as important as profession-training, core common curriculum should not be abolished.

註：文化聯會會長沒有遞交中文書面意見。

學社聯會會長　President of Independent Clubs Association (ICAP)

施君陽　SZE Kwun Yeung


一所大學的課綱，往往反映該所大學的理念。究竟一所真正的大學應該存在怎樣的理念和性格，歷來都有不同的詮釋和爭辯。其中一項爭論是關於大學應該求專精抑或求通博。

十九世紀牛津學者 John Newman 的《大學的理念》(“The Idea of a Universi-ty”) 指出大學應為博雅教育 (Liberal education) 的提供地，乃對有修養與識見之文化人的「性格模鑄」(Character formation)，此一觀點為傳統英式大學提供支持。但隨著社會進步和專業化，大學的理念產生鉅大的變化，特別是受德國大學以研究導向的理念所影響，現今大學的學科分類更為精細。

香港大學為英殖時代之產物，百多年來既承襲了英式教學風氣，又發揚了德式研究精神。核心課程文理兼備，科目內容新穎且種類多不勝數，目的在於讓同學在專攻各自主修的領域之外，按照個人興趣選修由其他校內不同學系所設計的科目，增廣見聞。

誠然，在社會之職業結構日趨專門的形勢下，同學專修是必要的，但大學教育畢竟不應只是訓練一技一能之士。本人期望大學的本科教育不應只著眼於訓練專能之士，一個理想的大學生應時刻抱有追求學問的心，養成獨立思考的能力，並關心身邊的每一事每一物。

核心課程的出現乃針對專業教育的不足，用以擴闊同學在專業以外的視野。由科學的起源、文學的對話、全球公義問題，到中國傳統文化等等，核心課程都提供了一個廣闊的空間讓同學思考，讓同學體會知識本身的價值，理解和欣賞不同學科之美。

然而，有論者或會認為核心課程成效不彰，不能充分展現其理念，應予以廢除。但本人認為問題並不在於核心課程本身，而是實行上的一些瑕疵。

44

首先是科目之間協調不足的問題。核心課程手冊第九頁詳列內容重疊之科目名單，四十六個科目因內容重疊而禁止同學同時選修。此反映科目之間協調不足，致使資源重疊。其次是核心課程範圍的問題。究竟課程的廣度和深度應為如何？很多同學或會認為核心課程內容多為「蜻蜓點水」，未必能對所探討的議題有所禆益。

總括而言，本人反對廢除核心課程，蓋課程充分展現香港大學本科教育的理想，為大學培育人才的重要因素。核心課程雖然在理念上受到推崇，但在實行上的確存在瑕疵。一所大學的靈魂乃在於學生，有了學生就需提供教育，大學不只是專業訓練所，任何一所自命追求卓越的大學仍然要高舉全人教育的理想。期望校方在課程規劃、單元設計、教學方法和素質保證等方面多花心思，珍惜實踐大學教育理想的機會。

A university’s curriculum often reflects its virtue and vision. There has long been debates about what virtue and vision a true university should uphold. In particular, one is on whether a university should focus on specialism or on universalism.

The 19th Century Oxford scholar John Newman stated in his famous book “The Idea of a University” that the university should provide liberal education

to students, which cultivates intellectuals and serves as a means of character formation. Following the modernization of society, the virtue of university has been re-shaped by the German style on “developing” new knowledge, which explains the disciplinary division nowadays.

In her centennial past, HKU inherits both British teaching style as well as Ger-man research-base style. The Common Core (CC) curriculum comprises both arts and science disciplines. Students can freely choose courses designed by other faculties, in accordance with their own interests. It aims at widening students’ horizons and provides a wide platform for us to think, to experience the true value of knowledge.

Frankly speaking, it is necessary for students to specialize in particular dis-cipline following the progression of society. However, university education

should not be merely vocational training. An ideal university student should maintain an independent and critical-thinking ability, a heart of pursuing knowledge and wisdom, and a sense of caring.

Some may think that the CC fails to achieve those purposes and therefore needs to be abolished. However, I believe the essence of the problem is not about the curriculum itself, but rather lie in some of the defects in practices.

One is about the lack of coordination among courses. According to page 9 of the student handbook of CC, there is a list of “non-permissible combinations” due to the overlap of issues covered. This reflects the situation that resources are duplicated to provide similar courses. In addition, there is question on the scope of CC courses. Many students might think that some CC courses touch merely on the surface, in which they hardly benefit from the course.

To conclude, I am in opposition to the abolishment of the CC curriculum. Al-though it does include some defects in practice, it truly reflects the missions and visions of this University. I therefore hope the university can evaluate and improve the curriculum constantly and treasure the valuable opportunity in putting an ideal university education model into reality.

46

　

體育聯會、文化聯會及

學社聯會代表

Representatives from

SA, CA & ICA

48

體育聯會代表一　Representative of Sports Association I (RSA1)

黃嘉欣　WONG Marcia Ka Yan

Many students always think that Wednesday is a day for “day-off” as they think that Common Core courses are useless and not related to their majors. Also, some of them cannot register their prefer Common Core. Some of them will think that good grade is the only criteria of choosing the common core. Although there are many negative comments of the common core courses, I think the idea of setting up courses were good, like a space for building friend-ships across the faculty and becoming more creative and critical thinking. Yet, the difference between the idea and the mechanism of common core cours-es lead to the unsuccessful of holding the common core courses. The major problem is the students do not treat common core courses seriously as they thought it is an extra course and have nothing to do with their majors or fu-ture. I think the structure of course should be more practical like more chanc-es for students go outsides the classroom and have experiences for the future job experiences. It can archive the original goals for the common core and it can reduce the paper work workload of a student. Although there are some classes that cannot be more practical like philosophy, it can suit most of the courses. Also, in our major, we have learnt how to write essay or do projects, it is not necessary for us to learn in common core course again. It should grasp the chance of learning things that cannot learn in the lesson. Therefore, I do not agree with “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum”.

有很多學生都會認為星期三不用上課，因為他們認為核心課程很無聊，與他們的專業無關。此外，有些人不能選擇自己喜歡的共同核心，有些人會選擇核心課程只會因為那一科有好成績。雖然核心課程有許多負面評論，我認同設立課程的原意，然而原意和實行之間的差異會導致核心課程出現了很多負評。我認為最主要的問題是學生不覺得核心課程很重要，因為他們認為這只是一個額外要修讀的一個科目，對他們的未來完全沒有幫助。所以我認為課程應該變得更實用，讓學生可以從實習和做義工取經驗，為將來的工作做好準備。這樣不但沒有違反核心課

程的原意，而且可以減低學生在文字功課的負擔。雖然有一些科目不能變得更實習例如哲學等，但是大部份的核心課程能都能夠變得更實用，加上在自己的專業都會學到如何寫論文，做研習，所以應該用這個機會學一些在平時課堂學不到的東西，但總括而言，我認為核心課程應該保留，但受教的形式應該改變。

體育聯會代表二　Representative of Sports Association II (RSA2)

張毓鋒　CHEUNG Yuk Fung

核心課程無疑是為了增加同學們知識的廣度，但我認為課程不但不能有效地擴闊同學們的視野，而且只會加重同學們的學業壓力，令他們對核心課程的認識只有

「半桶水」。

核心課程要求同學從最少三個不同範籌的學科類別選擇六個課程修讀，但若同學只對這幾個範籌的學科有片面的知識，我相信對他們的個人成長毫無幫助。舉個例說，若要一個對數學毫無興趣的文科生學統計學的概率分佈和中央極限定理，這不但花費了他大量的時間去理解課程內容，還會拉低他的學分，影響前程。可能有些人真的有興趣選修不同範籌的課程，這樣看來，核心課程似乎能夠有助他們擴闊視野、增擴見聞。但殘酷的是，核心課程是有限額和先到先得的，即使你對某課程有興趣，也未必能有機會修讀。就像很多人都想選修與佛學有關的核心課程，但始終都未能如願。

所以，與其要求同學們學習多些他們不感興趣的學科，倒不如讓他們能在自己的主修課程中擁有更深入透徹的理解和認識。

Undoubtedly, Common Core courses (CC) can widen our horizons. Yet, I do not think it can achieve its goal effectively. Instead, CC will only increase our burden and provide us the skin-deep knowledge.

We are normally required to take 6 courses, one from each AoI and not more than 2 from any AoI. If students fail to acquire much knowledge from courses

50

of various Aol, it does nothing to help their growth. For instance, not only does CC squander the time of an arts student who is not interested in mathematics, it also lowers his GPA if he is required to learn something difficult to him such as the probability distribution and central limit theorem.

Some may argue that we cannot deny there are students who are interested in the CC from different perspectives. Yet, we may fail to choose the courses that we are interested in as the CC system is based on first-come-first-served. Some CC related to Buddhism are the cases in point. Many people fail to register the courses but they fail to do so.

All in all, instead of requiring students to learn something they are not inter-ested, we should let them to have a more comprehensive understanding in the subject they are majoring.

文化聯會代表一　Representative of Cultural Association I (RCA1)

楊子豐　YEUNG Chi Fung

本人不認同於香港大學廢除核心課程。核心課程主要分為四大主題－－科學與科技，人文學科，全球問題及中國問題；這些主題能夠讓學生們從了解不同方面的知識，在四年大學生活中擴闊個人的眼界。

本人是一名來自工程學院的學生，除了就讀有關自己本科內的課程，核心課程能夠鼓勵自己以興趣優先，選擇個人喜愛修讀的科目，並開拓一個全新角度的學習方式。核心課程令本人踏出成為世界公民的開端，而且能夠用學術角度融入自己的社區。同時，核心課程提供一個途經互相接觸不同背景的學生，繼而在大學生活中擴闊大家的社交圈子。

核心課程也有一些應該改善的地方，例如我們必須修讀六科核心課程科目，這個數量可能加重同學的負擔；如果將必修六科核心課程科目至四科，本人認為可以在本科及核心課程中取得相應平衡，令同學的學習效率事半功倍。

I oppose the statement that The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum. Common Core Curriculum define into 4 major aspects – Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issue, and China: Culture, State and Society; those aspects can definitely widen our schoolmates’ horizon by understanding the knowledge from different fields in our university life.

I am a student from Faculty of Engineering, Common Core Curriculum was encouraged me to explore a brand new dimension of university study, and picked up some interested courses apart from the courses of my major. It helped me to more fully participate as the citizens in global, regional, and local communities. Moreover, the lectures and tutorials of Common Core pro-vide another channel to our schoolmates for meeting the study partners from 10 different faculties in HKU, in order to enlarge social network through Com-mon Core Curriculum.

On the other hand, we have to take total 6 Common Core course in out univer-sity study, I think the number of Common Core course that we have taken can be adjust downward to 4. It can strike the balance between the exposure of new field of knowledge and the study of our own major and programmes.

52

文化聯會代表二　Representative of Cultural Association II (RCA2)

伍卓然　NG Cheuk Yin

本人贊成香港大學應廢除核心課程，原因如下：

首先，香港大學核心課程的宗旨能由不同學院所替代，例如當中使同學能夠建立更宏觀和具批判性的視野，培養出對不同文化的尊重，鼓勵同學參與不同全球、地區和本土事務等，不同學院不同學科已有不同課程設計和相關配套，達致這數項目的，為同學提供更多元化的支持，香港大學核心課程因而無疑顯得十分累贅，和其他課程互相重曡。

其次，香港大學核心課程設計失當。香港大學核心課程分為四個範疇，包括科學技術、人文學科、環球議題和中國議題（文化、國家和社會），但在實際操作層面，實情依然以學院、學系劃分為主，所修讀的內容，亦只是原有學科較簡單、通俗的部分，所應用的學習方式，卻可能無異於原本學科，但更重要問題，是核心課程設計強逼同學讀畢四個範疇，當中更有可能需修讀與本科無關，又需要額外技能的課程，無疑浪費時間。

最後，香港大學偏重核心課程，一般情況而言，同學需修讀三十六學分的核心課程，即及一般主修科目的一半內容，但當中所學，分分鐘和同學本科毫無關連，所花時間精力卻如主修科目之一半，比重過大，所學卻無用，因此倒不如廢除核心課程，讓同學自由選擇自己喜愛的選修科或於主修科上繼續鑽研，來得更實際。

總括而言，本人贊成香港大學應廢除核心課程。

I agree that “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Cur-riculum” for several reasons:

Firstly, the goals of the Common Core Curriculum can be substituted by other means other than enforcing students to fulfill the requirements of the Com-mon Core curriculum. The four goals of the Common Core Curriculum like to enable students to develop a broader perspective and a critical understand-

ing, to cultivate students’ ability to navigate other cultures, to encourage students to participate in global, regional, and local communities and to help students develop the intellectual, collaborative, and communication skills can be achieved through other means like offering exchange programs or having their own curriculum well designed by faculties instead. It need not have a strict curriculum to serve for these goals to students.

Secondly, the current Common Core Curriculum has its limitations. Under the current circumstance, the curriculum is categorized as science, humanities, global issues and China: culture, state and society. However, in practical the courses are designed for the sake of different faculties or departments’ con-venience. The content of the courses is more like a relative simplified version but its skills required may be as difficult as the original course which means students from other faculties are more difficult to follow. Other than this, the current practice forces students to study all four domains but the knowledge they learnt may not be applicable in their own studies. It is a waste for time for students.

Finally, the proportion of the Common Core curriculum is quite high. For most of the students, each student has to fulfill 36 credits requirements in Common Core, which is half of one’s normal discipline’s workload. What the students learnt, however, may not be relevant to the student’s majors. It would be better to abolish the Common Core Curriculum to let students free to choose their interested electives or to pursue a more in-depth study in their own major/minor.

Therefore, I agree that “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Com-mon Core Curriculum”.

54

學社聯會代表一　Representative of Independent Clubs Association I (RICA1)

姚良餘　YAO Leung Yu

大學教育，其價值在於讓學生擁有自主獨立性，除學習自身專業外能夠不受限制，修讀任何希望探索的科目，追求學問。

核心課程無疑能讓學生接觸不同範疇的知識，遠至科學研究，近至文化價值，的確對學生的全人發展有所幫助。然而，學生於此制度下被迫投入這種所謂博雅，實為強制灌輸資料的知識生產鏈中，不但無法在有限的資源下自主追求心中渴求的學問，還需付出時間應付興趣不大的課堂，事實讓我們看見這或換來偏低的上課出席率，或將課程淪為拉高學分的工具。十九世紀愛爾蘭詩人葉慈曾 (William Butler Yeats) 說：「教育不是注滿一桶水，而且點燃一把火。」核心課程看似鼓勵學生培養各科知識，實則以制度限制學生接受填鴨式教育，忽略教育其「自覺」的學習精神，未免本末倒置。

香港大學的課綱中，本已留有自由選修學分，讓學生以自身興趣修讀所屬或其他學院的課程，探索更多本科或其他專業知識，尋求心中理想學問。然而，核心課程卻限制了學生自由修讀大學課程的機會。以護理學本科學位為例，36 分非護理學的學分全數被核心課程包攬，學生無法藉著課程預設的空間深造本科醫學知識或其他學院的常規課程，只能透過核心課程中提供的有限科目接觸其他知識，如此浮光掠影的課程設計，真的能夠給予學生真正的學習自由、達致理想的博雅教育嗎？

高等教育應該著眼的，是培養學生以課綱中的自由度尋求知識的自覺性，並不應倒行逆施，強加一套以「博學」為名，實則限制學生自由發展和學習的制度於學生身上。香港大學歷來人材輩出，哪一位靠的是大學中強迫學習的制度？他們成功的關鍵，是因為心中有著望追求學問的精神，而這些，並不是透過外加的壓力便能培養的。正如十九世紀德國著名教育家第斯多惠 (Friedrich Adolph Wilhelm Diesterweg) 所說：「教學的藝術不在於傳授本領，而在善於激勵喚醒和鼓舞。」從學生心中培育他們對學習的熱誠，大學教育著眼之處，應當於此。

總括而言，核心課程的存在實本末倒置，只著重大學對學生單方面的知識傳授，卻忽略從根本培養學生學習的精神。培育學生的全人發展當為大學教育的願景，亦應為任何校政的先要考慮。然而，任何學習制度只有在學生能夠自主從心追求知識下，才能夠發揮功效，配合學生的發展。核心課程的存在，真正能夠培育的是追求學問的學生，還是在制度下被強迫學習的學生，還望各位反思。

University education, the value of which is to let students maintain self-au-tonomy. Except own majors, students can freely take any course they want to explore.

The Common Core curriculum, no wonder, provides students a comprehen-sive platform to learn knowledge in various aspects, including scientific re-search and cultural values. However, the compulsory curriculum is problem-atic, in the sense that students cannot pursue knowledge autonomously with the limited resources provided, but also pay extra effort and time in courses that are not so interested. Empirical evidence shows that the low attendance rate in CC courses reflects the fact that CC serves merely as a means of en-hancing students' grades. The famous 19th century poet William Butler Yeats said: “Education is not only irrigating knowledge to students, but to ignite their heart of study”. The CC seemingly aims at encouraging students to cul-tivate interests in different aspects, but the fact is that it continues to enforce the “spoon-feeding” education via administrative means, and neglects the spirit of “self actualization” of education.

For many curriculums in HKU, there has already been a mechanism of choosing free electives to fulfill respective major requirement. Students can freely choose any courses beyond their own faculties in accordance with their own interests. Nevertheless, CC further restricts such opportunity. Take school of nursing as an example, 36 credits of non-major courses are occupied by CC. Now an ordinary nursing school students can only learn other disciplines through CC curriculum. Can such mere yet inadequate course design really give learning freedom to students, and hence attain the so-called “liberal education”?

56

The focus of the tertiary education should be cultivating a sense of self-study, rather than restricting students' autonomous. HKU has nurtured many great leaders. The key of their success is that they all maintain a heart of pursuing knowledge endlessly, without external intervention. As what the German ex-pert on education Wilhelm Diesterweg said: “The value of education should not be teaching your talents, but to encourage and motivate.” Encouraging, motivating students' enthusiasm should be the point of university education.

All in all, the Common Core curriculum should be abolished, for it merely em-phasizes the top-down instillation of knowledge to students, while neglects the importance of self-learning among students. I hope the University can re-view the virtue on comprehensive education, and evaluate whether the com-mon core can still achieve such virtue.

學社聯會代表二Representative of Independent Clubs Association II (RICA2)

李妍慧　LI Ann Yin Wai


我反對將香港大學核心課程廢除。

隨著三三四學制的實行，大學除了提供專修教育外，更越趨重視在主修以外的全人教育。核心課程的出現，乃港大重視通才教育的表現。核心課程有四大主題，涵蓋範圍包括科學、人文學科、全球和中國議題。文理兼修的特色讓不同學系的同學走在一起，進行思想上的交流和激盪。此外，不少核心課程內容新鮮，而且題材吸引，每年都吸引大批同學報讀。

推行核心課程的理念固然是好，但如何於實踐中達至理想效果的確仍然有值得商榷之處。

其中，各個課程考核標準和模式不一，令同學無所適從。既然核心課程的最終目標皆為擴闊同學在主修專業以外的視野，科目之間的考核標準不應該出現過大的落差，造成不公平的現象，亦容易令某些科目受到同學的偏愛，使得各科選修人數不均。

總括而言，核心課程帶給同學在主修專業之外作出新嘗試的機會，背負著一所理想大學的抱負，因此不應被廢除。縱使核心課程在實行上或許仍有美中不足之處，但需要的理應只是再作改善，而非稍有不順便完全廢除整個課程。因此我認為校方可以多聆聽教職員和同學的意見，讓核心課程的願景得以順利實踐

58

After the implementation of the 4-year cohort, apart form providing additional professional trainings, the University has put even greater emphasis on holis-tic education, leading to the appearance of HKU Common Core Curriculum. The Curriculum is divided into the following four areas of inquiry, Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues, and China: Culture, State and Society. Besides enabling students to develop a broader perspective of topics, exploring beyond their major disciplinary fields of study, Common Core, incorporated with a diversity of themes relating to our everyday lives, conduces intellectual exchange and ideological integration among students from different faculties.

The good intentions leading to the design of Common Core Curriculum is be-yond doubt, but how these ideals should be put into practice and execution is still open to question.

First and foremost, the variations in assessment criteria of the Common Core courses may leave students at a loss as to how to strike a balance between their interests and desired workload and grades. Since the ultimate goal of the Curriculum is to encourage academic exposure, there should not be too large of a gap among the assessment standards of its courses which may result in unfairness, and the undesirable situation in which students enroll in Common Core courses mostly according to practical considerations instead of their gen-uine intellectual curiosity.

All in all, Common Core Curriculum should not be abolished. Even that its implementation has yet to be perfected, it is still worth preserving, because in enabling students to be exposed to a wider variety of previously unfamiliar topics, the Curriculum is in fact embedded with the academic vision of an ide-al university. I believe that as long as the school consults more on the views of staff and students, the Curriculum will one day fully live up to its design objec-tive to maximize students’ benefits from university education.

舍堂學生會代表

Hall Students’ Association

Representatives

60

康寧堂學生會代表Representative of Hornell Hall Students’ Association (HHR)

高翔　KO Cheung

核心課程實施了幾年，校內對課程有不同的聲音，學校亦到了適當的時間去檢討課程的制度。

綜觀本地各間大學，他們都有類似的核心課程，需要同學選修才可以畢業。課程的目標亦都十分相近，旨在擴闊同學的眼界，選修和本科不同的課程，多元化發展，訓練同學的批判性思考。課程的宗旨是十分理想，但由過往三年制必修兩個核心課程，增加至現在四年制的六個，數量未免太多。課程數量的增加，並不一定意味更好的學習效果，反而適得其反。

正如我剛才所提到，核心課程是為了訓練同學本科以外的思考與發展。適量的課程數量的確能擴闊眼界，啟發思維的作用，然而，若必修核心課程數量過多，則有喧賓奪主的反效果。核心課程過多，容易使同學無法專注主修學科。現時副修學分的最少要求，正正是三十六個學分。而核心課程耗用的學分，使同學無法選修個別課程。訓練同學本科以外的思維固然重要，但因此使同學無法專注自己興趣的課程，難免令人感到本末倒置。

故此本人認為核心課程應該修訂，可從數量上減少核心課程，或選修課程與核心課程學分互換，使核心課程的學分能夠轉移在選修課程上。

The common core curriculum has been launched for several years. Students have different ideas on it. I believe it is the time for the university to have a review.

Local universities have similar curriculum with HKU. They share similar objec-tives, like broadening the horizons of students through courses across disci-pline, multicultural development, developing critical thinking, etc. Students are required to complete it for their graduation. The objective will be perfect if it is achieved. But the workload may be too high, as the requirement changed

from 2 common core courses in 3-year curriculum to 6 in 4-year curriculum. The increase of amount of work does not necessarily lead to good outcome. It can be worse.

The main goal of common core should be developing students thinking be-sides their major. It will be truly inspiring given appropriate workload. How-ever, too much common core will even worsen your major. The minimum requirement for minoring is 36 credits, which is exactly the same as common core. Learning beyond your chosen disciplinary fields of study is important. But we should not ignore our major and minor subjects.

Therefore, I believe the common core curriculum should be amended, so that the number of common core could be reduced or the credits of the common core can be counted in the major or minor.

李志雄紀念堂學生會代表Representative of Lee Chi Hung Hall Students’ Association (LCHHR)

鄭皓軒　CHENG Hao Xuan

I support today’s motion.

Before articulating my views on whether to abolish Common core courses or not, let’s review why Common core courses are set up in the first place.Ac-cording to the website of HKU, Common Core Curriculum is designed to help you see connections across history, culture, 1knowledge and to experience more.

But, are common core courses as good as it sounds like?

62

Common core courses are claimed to be different from the normal courses undergraduates are taking. However, the differences between two are not as big as we thought. Field trips, tutorials, group projects, these elements are in-cluded in a majority of courses offered by HKU.

There are also lots of restrictions of common core courses. First of all, students cannot take more than one subjects from the same AOIs. Secondly, most courses are of very limited vacancies and will be filled up immediately after the add/drop period started

Besides, common core courses are quite time consuming. Students have to take 6 common core courses in total which accounts for up to 15% of the total credits of an undergraduate.

From my point of view, there are a lot of ways to let students experience more . For instance, a student from faculty of science can take Japanese courses from faculty of art as their electives. And there are many exchange programmes, extra-curricular activities, programmes from CEDARS, UNI-Sports Adventure Programme organized by Institute of Human Performance. Common core courses aims to let students to have more exposure in different backgrounds. However , I do think that it kind of limited students exposure. Without com-mon core courses, students could have more time to experience different kinds of life within or outside the university, like a part time job, or joining the programmes that I have just mentioned. More importantly, I strongly doubt the influence of common core courses. Therefore, I support today’s motion, to abolish common core courses.

對今日的議案，我是贊成的。

在解釋我贊成的理由前，或者我們先了解一下成立核心課程的原意。根據學校網頁所寫，核心課程的設立，是為了讓本科生了解更多關於歷史，文化，以及豐富他們的知識，增進他們的見聞。

但是，核心課程是否校方所說這麼好呢？

核心課程一直被校方包裝成與眾不同的課程，但其實它的內容，我不認為跟一般課程有太大差別。核心課程仍然會有實地考察，導修課，小組報告等等千遍一律的元素。

除此以外，核心課程還有不少的缺點。例如制限多，每位本科生不同報讀同一種類的核心課程多於一次，而學生又經常不能選讀自己心儀的科目。更重要的是，核心課程佔了我們大學生活中不少的時間。本科生必須在畢業前修讀不少於六科核心課程，佔總課程達百分之十五。

依已愚見，校方一直有提供足夠渠道讓學生發展潛能和增廣見聞，不一定要核心課程來達到此目標。例如非文學院學生亦可修讀文學院提供的語言課程。又例如和世界各地不同大學的交流計劃，學生發展及資源中心舉辦的不同類型的課外活動，運動及潛能發展研究所提供的歷險計劃等等。核心課程原意為豐富學生閱歷，但以現時情況看來，反而限制了學生的自由及他們發展自我的機會。我亦對核心課程成立至今的成效抱懷疑態度。因此，我贊成今天的議案。

64

利希慎堂學生會代表 Representative of Lee Hysan Hall Students’ Association (LHHR)

陳希朗　CHAN Hei Long

核心課程，是港大為配合香港教制改革，於大學四年制下新增設的課程架構，佔總修讀學分約百分之十五。要忖量其應然性，必先從表檢視現時課綱學分結構及成效，及從裏探討其存在意義乃至大學教育理念的推移。

核心課程由十個學院提供，針對人類共通議題設計，涉獵政經社文環等不同範疇，寬廣地為學生打開不同領域的知識連結。按現時課綱，核心課程所佔百分比較自由選修課為低，四年共讀三十六學分，實乃綽綽有餘。雖有規定學生必須在各四大範疇修讀至少一個核心課程，亦不足影響其龐大的選科彈性。成效而言，則於學生的能力及學習環境等而有所差異，未能一概而論。惟港大一直依循 SETL 及SLEQ 為參照，每兩年從整檢修一次，並頻密收集同學意見，適時調節，量體裁衣。

有關核心課程設立目的，雖為標準範談但亦非一紙空文，留待諸君自行領會。惟課程表面上打通各大學院，歡迎學生隨意選讀，但實際上打通的，更是港大的教育模式及意念。在核心課程中，與不同學院學生交流研習的情況三不五時，惟此恰恰是吾輩投身社會的工作模擬，多項專業必須互為表裏，力臻完美，共建我城。學子在大學修讀某一特定學科，以專科形式完成四年課業，習得該領域的知識深度，卻欠缺廣度。在全球經濟一體化及香港趨向知識型經濟下，時代洪流將淘汰知識面基礎狹獈的學生。為此，在進入各自專業以前，必先習得基本的共同知識，此乃我看核心課程之存在意義。

大學理念，旨在追求知識。而知識本身，又豈止於個人對本科知識的追求？一所綜合型大學，講求知識將眾人志趣關懷聯結，追求知識板塊強烈衝擊發展新思維，探求未知領域浩瀚可能。若眾學子知識層面或學習領域毫不相疊交匯，思維毫無碰擊，長遠將分裂大學。而核心課程對象為所有學生，恰好能把所有學生從本科知識的沉浸中拉扯過來，讓學生有機會就不同議題交流，正好體現大學理念。

課程背後，是一種大學理念體現。實際操作問題雖多，但不足為患，何不師生共商課程未來，繼續裨益莘莘學子？

Common Core Curriculum is a newly established structure designed by the University of Hong Kong in light of the educational reform in Hong Kong, which occupies 15% of total required credits. We should first review the cur-rent curriculum and credits required and its effectiveness superficially, and its existence and transformation of Universities’ educational concepts in-depth before we take stance on the motion.

Ten faculties, focusing on different aspects and common issues faced, desig-nate Common Core Curriculum, which provides an opportunity for students to study in different fields. Common Core Curriculum, bears 36 credits in 4 years, actually occupies a lower percentage than free electives. It doesn’t affect the elasticity in choosing subjects even it is required that we must study at least 1 course in each AoI. I am not able to comment on the effectiveness of Common Core Curriculum due to the difference of the ability of each student and their learning environment. Nevertheless, HKU has been collecting students’ opin-ions from SETL and SLEQ and evaluating the whole system on a two-years ba-sis. The Common Core Curriculum Committee will make changes according to students’ opinions in a bid to lift up to students’ expectations.

The goal of Common Core Curriculum is a cliché yet the effectiveness is left to be experienced by all of us. In fact, the Common Core Curriculum opens up not just the same study ground for the ten faculties’ students, but also the ed-ucational concept of HKU. It is not uncommon to see students from different faculties form study groups and investigate on the same issue. This is exactly an analogue to the actual situation of our society - it is necessary for different professions to work together to build a better society. It is a lack of breadth of knowledge if we just focus on certain degree’s knowledge for 4 years. Under the current economic globalization and knowledge-based economy in Hong Kong, it is definitely necessary for students to learn knowledge from different aspects. Thus, I believe that the establishment of Common Core Curriculum is to provide knowledge in different aspects to students before they enter their own professional field.

66

In pursuit of knowledge is one of the core values of University. None of us should be satisfied with the pursuit of knowledge in our own degree. A com-prehensive university should be able to connect every student with knowl-edge. If students’ don’t have the same study field, it will split the University in long term. Common Core Curriculum is appropriately a good system to draw all students to the same study ground, which enables students to dis-cuss on the same issue.

The Common Core Curriculum embodies the educational concept of the Uni-versity. Regardless of the practical problems encountered, it is beyond dispute that we, teachers and students, should join hands to improve the whole cur-riculum in a bid to benefit more students in HKU.

何東夫人紀念堂宿生會代表Representative of Lady Ho Tung Hall Students’ Association (LHTHR)

陳嘉穎　CHAN Ka Wing

我反對議案是基於以下原因。

首先，核心課程提高了香港大學學生的視野。世界變得一體化是無用置疑的事實。學生關心的不應只是本地的事，還有國際大事。學生能透過核心課程有關科技、人文、國際和中國的範疇更加了解全球化的世界。

核心課程亦是讓學生適應未來工作環境的平台。學生投入職場後有機會要面對不熟悉的領域和來自不同專業範疇的人。核心課程讓學生可以作跨學科的選讀，讓學生接觸來自不同學科的人，早日適應職場世界。

除了提供更廣闊的視野和模仿職場實際環境之外，核心課程也能作為連接中學和大學教育的橋樑，協助新生適應大學的教學模式。核心課程運用多元化的評估方法，由報告、辯論、到模擬聯合國等，都能讓學生學習在他們主修領域以外的知識和技能。

I oppose the motion with the following reasons.

To commence with, the Common Core Curriculum does provide HKU students with broader horizons. It is no doubt that our world is gradually become more and more globalized. Students shall not only focus on local issues, but also the international one. Scientific, humanities, global and China related topics are all bases for teenagers to gain greater exposure to the globalized world.

Common Core Curriculum also provides a platform for students to have a bet-ter adaptation to the workplace in the future. The Common Core Curriculum does actually act as a cross disciplinary channel for undergraduate students, given that they may also face fields they are not familiar with and need to work with people from different streams of professional in the workplace in the future.

Not only is the Common Core Curriculum provide students with horizons in the globalized world as well as workplace, it also helps bridge the gap be-tween secondary and university studies, assisting freshmen in getting use to the mode of teaching in the university. The assessment methods, which divert from written report, debate and to model united nations conference, are good ways to train up students with various skills apart from their major studies.

68

李兆基堂宿生會代表Representative of Lee Shau Kee Hall Students’ Association (LSKHR)

王馨怡　WONG Hing Yi

核心課程自全面推行後，在校園裏引起不少熱議。雖然核心課程很多方面還待改善，但我認為它值得保留，不應被廢除。

推行核心課程的目標與其他院校推行通識教育的目標相近，旨在培育學生的公民意識重批判思考能力。學生可以在不同領域根據自己興趣選擇課程，涉獵主修科目以外的知識。此外，核心課程鼓勵學生追尋學習目標，在了解當代各個領域的事件的同時，思考如何運用知識改善人類的福祉。

推行至今，核心課程遭到不少反對，不少學生認為此舉加重他們的學習負擔和壓力，其成效亦收到質疑。事實上，造就這些負面影響的並不是課程本身；而是課程的推行模式。現時，學生需要修讀最多三十六個核心課程學分，由於課程的成績計算在成績平均積點內，不少同學都只著重於課程的成績，而非課程的目的。學生的焦點由學習目標轉為表現目標，在一定程度上令課程失去原有意義。

即便如此，我認為若能在課程的推行模式上作出改善，例如將核心課程制定改為非學分性質，或增加核心課程所佔學分的彈性，並將運用其獨特優勢，長期而然可以為學生和校園的學習氣氛帶來正面影響。因此，我反對廢除核心課程。

The introduction of Common Core Curriculum has become a controversial issue within the university since its full launch. In my opinion, despite the fact that there are plenty of rooms for improvement within the curriculum, it is worth being included in the broad curriculum instead of being abolished.

Ideally, Common Core Curriculum encourages students to pursue learning goals, which favors students and the learning atmosphere within the uni-versity. The objectives of the Common Core Curriculum are alike to those of General Education, which aims to cultivate local and global citizens as well as to train students’ critical thinking skills. Students can study beyond their own disciplines according to their own interest by picking up courses from a large variety of choices from different domains. Under the exposure to differ-ent contemporary issues, students are encouraged to think out of the box and contemplate over their multiple roles, thus advocating them to utilize their knowledge for the sake of the society.

Apparently, many students are concerned with the extra workloads brought by the Common Core Courses, but in fact the cause of the problem is not due to the curriculum, it is majorly due to the implementation of the new curriculum. Under the current system, Common Core courses are credit-bearing, which makes up maximally 36 credits out of 240 credits of the whole curriculum. Stu-dents need to pay effort in the assessments since they are accounted for the grades, this measurement turns the Common Core Curriculum from learning goals oriented to performance goals oriented that students only sign up for courses with good grade, rather than picking up courses in accordance with their interest.To conclude, though there is much to do with the implementa-tion of the curriculum, such as reconsidering whether it should be credit-bear-ing or the flexibility of the credits on Common Core courses, it helps estab-lishing positive learning atmosphere within the campus if it is implemented properly. Thus, I am opposed to abolishing Common Core Curriculum.

70

馬禮遜堂宿生會代表Representative of Morrison Hall Students’ Association (MHR)

蕭震華　SIU Chun Wa

在討論此議題前，先要了解香港大學核心課程設立目的。其目的有四：一是擴闊學生的視野；二是令學生了解不同文化間的異同；三是對世界及本地公民身份的認知；四是加強學生的合作及溝通技巧，以應用在主修科目上的學習。這與其他大學的通識教育或博雅教育課程性質相當類近。

香港大學核心課程是一個良好機會令學生接觸多方面的知識。其內容雖然未必是深入的專科知識，但正因如此，令核心課程能有更大的空間，去培養同學的批判思維，例如一些由哲學部提供的核心課程，可以利用社會現況來進行思辯和討論。同時，一些科學院提供的核心課程也可以讓文科的同學，對科學的世界觀和歷史有所涉獵，例如可討論核能的發展，以及可再生能源的應用。這均有助擴闊學生的視野。

雖然選修科亦能讓學生接觸多方面知識，但由於大部份選修科亦是主修課程之內，其課程設計的空間和彈性相對較小。部分課程內容本身偏向專業性，課程目的與核心課程有異，考核的方式亦有所不同。而核心課程能補充這方面的不足。

觀乎核心課程的性質以及近年學生對其評價，核心課程實不應被廢除，反而需要思量的是如何完善課程內容，提升課程內容的質量，例如上課時數、需要必修多少個核心課程，這都可以在有開辦經驗後再作調整和改善，不應因噎廢食，不應一刀切取消。

Before commencing the discussion of this topic, we have to clarify the reason of setting up Common Core Curriculum, abbreviated as CCC. There are four major goals of CCC for students under the new 3-3-4 scheme, first is to allow students to develop critical thinking skills and broaden their horizons, so as to discover and understand the connections existed in their daily lives. Second, is to expose students’ ability into different socio-cultural context and develop skills in comparing and contrasting their own culture with others. What’s more, it raises students’ awareness of the identity of a global, regional, as well

as a local citizen. Lastly, it enables and enhances collaboration and commu-nication, which are widely useful in their disciplinary study and more impor-tantly, their lives. This commonplace practice is similar to General Education or Liberal Art Education in other universities.

Common Core Curriculum for the University of Hong Kong is a valuable chance for students to catch a glimpse of different aspects. The nature of CCC is not equipping students with professional standard in those aspects, and as a result of this, there is a greater capacity for CCC to develop students’ critical thinking skills. For instance, some CCC coordinated by School of Philosophy can make use heated current affairs for discussion and debates. In the mean-time, Arts students can explore the history and worldview of science by en-rolling themselves in CCC coordinated by the Faculty of Science. They could discuss the development of nuclear power or the application of renewable energy, which broadens their horizons.

Free elective course is also a choice for students to get the knowledge of differ-ent aspects. However, contradictory to CCC courses, most of the free elective courses available for enrolment are closely related to students’ disciplinary studies, as they aim to acquire students with the professional or specialized knowledge. It is nearly inevitable to have a limited flexibility in course design. Moreover, the way of assessment of those courses is different to CCC course. In other words, CCC and traditional course are complementary.

Concerning the nature of CCC and the feedbacks from students, there is no ground for the cancellation of CCC in the coming future. It is undeniable that flaws of CCC exists, as this is newly established in HKU. Indeed, there are opin-ions of study load and difficulty of particular CCC course. However, what we should do is to think of ways to improve the quality of content of CCC, as well as to modify the study load of CCC by amending its study hours and the num-ber of CCC required. These could be well achieved by continued opinion col-lection and reflection; we should not fall into the trap of nirvana fallacy, which puts off a desirable policy by a slight risk. All in all, common core curriculum should be preserved.

72

利銘澤堂宿生會代表Representative of R. C. Lee Hall Students’ Association (RCLHR)

薛祈安　SIT Ki On

對於應否廢除核心課程，固然要從應然性角度出發去思考此問題。從香港大學現行之核心課程處境來說，我認為其的確有不同個人、大學甚或社會層面之好處，所以我認為不應廢除。而現時被人詬病之低出席率問題、考核範圍空泛或核心課程之修讀數量及計算學分問題皆是從實然性角度出發，其準則與核心課程本意並無相違背。

首先，從課程內容來說，它涵蓋了四大單元，小至人文、環境議題，大至中華文化、世界觀皆能從中窺探得知，而此等教育對大學生而言卻是極為重要。如上述核心課程範疇之廣，對大學生個人知識增長來說是相當有效。除此，一些有關歷史及哲學性質重之核心課程亦有助大學生個人思維開拓，培養批判性思維。同時，現今大學生皆只著重其主修科目之相關課程，被詬病為職業訓練器，而核心課程則有助大學生放眼於其他學術層面，更符合社會對其主動學習，從而改革社會之期望。

說到底，核心課程對於主修科目雖未起直接作用，但接觸到的，更多是個人思維、創造力、甚或世界觀培育等較虛無卻有意義之本質，是精神層面之增長。誠如上文開首所說，現行問題皆出於課堂出席率，抑或上堂教導模式模糊等執行上之實然性問題，若然我等皆認為核心課程皆有其可取之處，就應當機立斷改善執行上之弊病，而非一言以蔽之，以廢除措施來改善現況。

When it comes to the problem of whether or not to abolish the Common Core Curriculum, we must consider the suitability of the matter. Regarding the cur-rent situation of the HKU Common Core Curriculum, I think that it does pro-vide benefits for the individual, the university even the society, so I am against abolishing it. Of course, there are alleged problems regarding the curriculum, including the low attendance rate, vague examination scope and the mini-mum required courses and credits. However, these problems are largely tech-nical and do not contradict with the original ideology behind the Common Core Curriculum.

First and foremost, the content of the curriculum includes 4 main domains. They are the humanities, scientific issues, Chinese culture, and Global topics - all are vital to a university student’s studies. We can broaden our knowledge due to the vast span of the topics offered by these courses. Moreover, some Common Core courses related to history and philosophy can further open up our eyes, building up our critical thinking abilities. At the same time, there is a notion that current university students only focus on courses related to their major. Students are notoriously famous for being products made from an assembly line, made to suit societal needs only. However, the Common Core Curriculum can introduce students to other academic subjects. Through these courses, they can change the public’s perception of university students, making the public believe that university students can learn broadly and ac-tively in an effort to provide positive change to our society.

All in all, the Common Core Curriculum may not have direct benefits to stu-dents’ majors, but it can bring much upside for a student’s spiritual devel-opment. Such intangibles include building up individual thinking, fostering creativity or understanding global topics, which are immaterial yet meaningful qualities. As for the above-mentioned problems such as the low attendance rate or vague teaching methods, these are only practical problems. If we are under the impression that the Common Core Curriculum does have a saving grace, we should actively think of ways to solve these problems immediately rather than just abolish the Common Core Curriculum entirely.

74

利瑪竇宿舍宿生會代表　Representative of Ricci Hall Students’ Association (RHR)

李彥衡　LEE Yin Hang Jeffrey

核心課程的原意為讓同學擴闊自己的知識層面，涉獵所屬學科以外的學問，並與日常生活裡加以應用。然而，現行核心課程的運作模式卻未能帶來此功效，更淪為同學「拉 grade」之工具。因此，本人認為香港大學應廢除核心課程。

讓同學涉獵更多範疇的學問當然百利而無一害，但前提是同學擁有足夠的自由度選擇自己感興趣的課程修讀。儘管核心課程提供了四大範疇的內容讓同學選擇，同學的興趣卻絕不僅如此。另外，大部分同學在考慮選擇什麼課程時，總是將課程是否「好grade」作為優先考量因素，令核心課程的本意未能彰顯。或許，如果大學不將核心課程的分數撥入 GPA 計算，才可以讓同學根據自己的興趣選修科目。

廢除核心課程並不代表同學從其他領域學習的機會減少。大學可以將本來核心課程的學分撥入自由選修類別，原來的課程亦可供同學在自由選修中選取。大學可以透過限制同學用特定的學分選修非自己學科的課程，以確保同學能學習到不同領域的知識，同時讓同學擁有更大的自由度選取感興趣的課程修讀。

The primary goal of the common core curriculum in HKU is to allow students develop a broader knowledge base for real life application. Yet, the current situation in the University reflects that this program is not running effectively, while common core courses are always regarded by students as tools for im-proving their GPA, instead of an opportunity to learn from wider perspectives. Therefore, I do agree that the University of Hong Kong shall abandon the com-mon core curriculum, and allow students to have the freedom to utilise the credits for courses from fields they are interested in.

It is always important for students to gain knowledge from a wide range of aspects, yet it is also vital that students have the freedom to pick what they want to learn. Despite the common core system allows us to choose courses from 4 categories, students often fail to choose courses they are interested

in from the given choices. Even they do, to succeed in selecting popular CC courses requires quite some luck due to keen competition. Another pity is that CC courses become popular usually not because of its interesting content, but the good grades distributed by the professors. The situation might get better if the University introduces the CC curriculum without counting the scores in GPA calculation.

To broaden students’ knowledge base, another suggestion is that the credits from abandoning the common core curriculum can be transferred to free elec-tives, while the courses originally available in the CC curriculum can be kept in free elective choices. Students cannot spend all the free elective credits to choose courses from their own discipline, such that on one hand we can gain knowledge from a variety of aspects, and on the other hand the freedom of choice of students can be secured.

孫志新堂宿生會代表Representative of Suen Chi Sun Hall Students’ Association (SCSHR)

吳欣怡　NG Yan Yee Dorothy

思考應否廢除核心課程，理應先循其本－－從成立的意義和目的說起。於我而言，核心課程最特別之處在於讓學生開拓眼界，跳出自己所屬學科的框框，接觸其他領域的知識。與此同時，我們更能從課堂中認識跨學系的同學，擴闊社交圈子。

審視現況，同學對待核心課程的態度為何？有人說它能用作提升等級，又有人說它會拖垮成績；更常聽見的是核心課程的測驗及功課花費過多時間，令本已繁重的學業百上加斤。以上種種似乎都與其原意大相逕庭。誠然，現時核心課程的發展成效不佳，但將其廢除又是否最好的解決辦法？

在偌大的校園裡，大學生若只困於自己的學科內坐井觀天，難免有點可惜。個人認為，更好的方向是改善制度，例如減少所佔學分、測驗及功課所佔的比重等等。

76

核心課程本意為鼓勵學生擴闊視野，與其讓它淪為同學的負擔，倒不如想辦法令同學集中於課堂交流及得著而非分數。再者，在香港這個被扭曲的教育制度下，莘莘學子為了追趕成績終日埋頭苦幹，往往忽略了追求知識的快樂。由核心課程開始，提倡重質不重量，減少考核及功課量亦未嘗不是一個新的出路。

Before discussing whether or not the Common Core Curriculum (CCC) is to be rescinded, let us look into its significance. To me, the most special part about CCC is that it enables students to step out of our own curriculum and explore knowledge of other fields. We can also meet schoolmates from different facul-ties, which enlarges our social circle.

So how is students' attitude towards the curriculum? Some said CC is used to improve their GPA, while some said the opposite. Yet more commonly heard is that CC assessments consume loads of time in addition to the heavy workload from their own curriculum. Apparently, the aforementioned showed us that CCC does not work well in current situation, but is abolishment the best solution?

In HKU where plentiful resources are provided with, it would more than a pity if university students can only stick in their own subject. Personally, I would suggest improvement to CCC system be made. Examples include reducing credits bore by each course and lowering proportion of examinations and assignments. The aim of CCC is to broaden our horizon and that is why we should make students focus on the content of course for ideas exchange and inspirations instead of grades. What's more, under the twisted education sys-tem in Hong Kong, students often overlook the happiness of learning as they simply engross in getting a higher GPA. Begin with Common Core Curriculum, it could be a way out to lessen students’ stress by focusing more on quality, instead of quantity.

聖約翰學院學生會代表　Representative of St. John’s College Students’ Association (SJCR)

劉卓琳　LAU Cheuk Lam Jocelyn

環觀全球各間高等學府，不少均秉持著培育年輕人、令他們在大學裡找到人生的方向以用於將來貢獻社會的辦學宗旨。以香港大學的使命為例，港大旨在培育優秀的畢業生，使他們能在所屬的行業擔任領袖。而要在今時今日的知識型社會裡擔任領袖的角色，並不能再單靠獨門的專業知識；要與不同國籍、領域的人溝通和接軌，必須成為面面俱圓，但同時也具備專業知識的人才。因此，本人覺得核心課程並不應被廢除，反而執行的制度上應該被改革，使港大的學生能更有效地吸收全面通識教育的好處。

首先，核心科目能使港大學生增加對各方面知識的攝獵。港大的核心科目分為四大範疇，包括科學與科技、人文學科、國際議題研究和中國研究，而不同本科的學生平均要根據本科的要求從四個範疇當中修讀三個至六個課程。擁有國際視野、認識歷史、建立良好道德價值觀均使理想大學生應達到的指標，而在等同通識教育的核心課程便能令學生從這些課程作為入手，從認識不同觀點、議題開始建立對身邊事、世界事的看法。

參考香港甚至是全球的其他大學，不少學府都設有通識、全面教育的課程供本科生修讀，目的並不在於短時間內為學生硬塞知識，而是令學生能從廣面，淺入的接觸不同範疇的知識，那乃是通識的本意。從此可見不同大學均重視對學生通識的培育。另外，雖說港大在世界大學排名裡也佔據不俗的位置，但從一些同學的學術或平時的表現可觀，他們對發生在身邊的時事認識並不深入，更莫說能建立一套完整、成熟的價值觀。因此，身為世界頂尖的學府之一的港大，更加應該繼續走在學術的尖端，繼續以培育學生為社會未來的領袖為本，利用通識教育來好好裝備學生們，使他們成為全面、有國際視野的領袖。

雖然核心課程在執行上仍有改善的空間，例如應否繼續被納入計算學分的必修科目或只應為純碎讓學生自我選擇為興趣和自我增值而修讀，又或選擇課程的機制應更完善等，這些都能慢慢商議使制度更完美，但本人認為核心課程乃大學不可或缺的部分，因此核心課程並不能廢除。

78

When observing the institutions around the globe providing higher education, we can see that most has the vision to nurture the youth and help them find their life goals in preparation for contributing back to the society in the future. The University of Hong Kong’s mission for example is to produce excellent graduates who will take up important leading roles in their professional sec-tors in later life. In order to be real leaders in this knowledge-based society, professional knowledge in one particular field is no longer the only criteria, but only to be equipped with the skills of being able to communicate with people of different ethnicity and backgrounds and with the broad knowledge of the world can make one a successful leader. Therefore, I think that the Com-mon Core Curriculum should not be abolished, but the way that it is carried out should be revised so that the students of HKU can benefit from it largely.

Firstly, the Common Core Curriculum can increase HKU students’ exposure to different areas of study. HKU’s Common Core courses are divided into four areas, namely Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues and China: Culture, State and Society. All students from different pro-grammes in the university needs to study three to six courses according to their programmes’ requirement. As having a global vision, having knowledge in human history and establishing good moral values are virtures that an ideal university student should possess, studying the courses in the Common Core can serve as a start for them to have a glimpse at the different viewpoints and issues happening around them, then gradually being able to establish their own views.

Taking reference from the other universities in Hong Kong and those around the world, there are many other institutions that provide general and broad education to undergraduates, with the aim of letting them get the taste of dif-ferent knowledge across various disciplines step by step, but not to stuff them up with prescribed knowledge within a short period of time. This should be what general education truly means. From this we can see that many other universities do put emphasis on giving their students general education. On the other hand, it is observable that some students in HKU do not have a deep

understanding of the current affairs occurring at the moment, and thus do not possess a complete and mature set of moral values concerning the issues hap-pening around them. As a result, as one of the top universities in the world, it becomes more important for HKU to continue to lead in the academic filed by using general education to equip students to become all-rounded leaders with global vision, under its vision of nurturing the leaders of society of the next generation.

Although there is still plenty of room of improvement for the execution of the Common Core Curriculum, like whether or not it should be treated as compul-sory courses and be counted for credits, or should students choose them for their own interests and pursuit of knowledge, or even should the mechanism for choosing courses be modified etc., I think these can be solved and revised after thorough investigation and discussion. However, I strongly believe that the Common Core Curriculum is fundamental to university education, and thus should not be abolished.

80

李國賢堂學生會代表　Representative of Simon K. Y. Lee Hall Students’ Association (SKYLHR)

楊定康　YEUNG Ting Hong

I am against the motion. I will show you today on the side Opposition with the following three points.

1. Broadening students’ horizon

Having been recognized as the educated in the society, university students are being equipped with diverse, rich and professional knowledge in the tertiary education. Common Core courses help achieve this goal with their three char-acteristics.

First, four streams are covered by 125 Common Core courses. The diversity ex-tends from life issues like impacts of smoking and coffee, to investigating mor-als and philosophies of different peoples. Second, Common Core courses do not presume students come with relevant knowledge background. Teaching will be adjusted to deliver basic knowledge before building up advanced one. Third, students cannot only focus on a particular stream. It is required to study all four streams in order to graduate.

All these characteristics allow students to develop a broad sense of knowledge according to their interest. Without Common Core courses, HKU students will be equipped nothing but their own area of study only. One of the tertiary edu-cation goals will be omitted.

2. Enhancing students’ critical thinking

Richard Charles Levin, the 22nd President of Yale University, devoted to nur-turing future leaders. To Levin, general education and enhancing students’ critical thinking are the core of university education, setting foundation for

lifelong study. Some educators even deem critical thinking a stepping-stone before encountering things. It can make one’s viewpoints and judgement clear and conscious. It helps make one deliver a sensible point, empowering the speech. It untangles one’s messy mind. It exposes fallacies. It takes away irrelevant issues. It helps you convince others to take up any job. It allows you to master with ease any fields of study. Common Core courses provide a platform for students from different faculties via small classes, group discus-sion and exhibitions, which highly involves cooperation and communication between students from different backgrounds. Multi-facets analysis can be performed on one issue. During discussion of coffee culture, Chinese med-icine, Western medicine, tradition, self-identity and business angles can be employed. Students can benefit from deep and broad ideas.

3. Extending students’ network

Through devoting time to Common Core courses, students can meet their classmates from different fields of study and professionals. Extended network paves path for students in their career.

All in all, Common Core courses are essential. It helps achieve university edu-cation goals, and therefore today I am against the motion.

我並不認同香港大學應廢除核心課程，以下將從三個向度作分析：

一、拓展學生於不同範疇上的視野

大學生一向被認為是社會上的知識分子，大學教育的其中一個重點是培訓學生具備豐富、多元及專業的學術知識。核心課程有三個特點能促成這方向的發展：

首先，一百二十五個核心課程涵蓋四大範疇，內容十分多元化，涉獵的內容小至探討煙酒咖啡的影響和文化等生活化問題，大至探討全球不同人的一些道德思想、其次不要求報讀學生有任何先備專科知識，教授內容由淺入深及以引導性思考的方式教授、再者選擇不同課程時不能集中單一範疇，如一學年內需修四個核心課程，

82

則只能於每範疇選擇一個修讀，這些特點能讓學生隨意按著個人興趣而學習各種領域的知識，培養學生多方面的知識發展。如果沒有核心課程，香港大學的學生則可能只具備自己主修學科的知識，大學教育的其中一個重點則可能被忽略。

二、增強學生的批判性思維

前任耶魯大學校長，理查德 · 萊文 (Richard Charles Levin)，耶魯致力於領袖人物的培養。在萊文看來，大學教育的核心是通識，是培養學生批判性獨立思考的能力，併為終身學習打下基礎。而且有教育學者認為擁有批判性思維是每人做事的踏腳石，批判性思維，能使一個人的觀點和判斷有清醒和自覺的認識，能令人闡明觀點時有道理，表達時有說服力，鼓動時有力量。能令人解開思緒的亂麻，識破似是而非的詭辯，撇開無關的細節，能讓人信服地勝任任何職位，駕輕就熟地精通任何學科。核心課程是一個不同學院學生聚集的平台，透過每星期的小班教學、小組討論、小組形式制作展覽等富溝通合作性的課業讓擁有不同專業知識的學生互相交流，針對同一議題上進行多角度分析，例如討論飲咖啡文化，你可以從中醫、西醫、傳統文化、身份認同、商業等等角度探討，讓學生於其中學習發展更深入和全面的見解。

三、擴闊學生於不同領域的人際網絡

上段落曾說明核心課程特點之一為滙聚了不同學院的學生，我們能於當中認識各領域的知識分子各專業人員，廣闊的人際網絡對學生於日後的職業發展和機遇有莫大的潛在認義。

從以上三點可見，核心課程有其不可或缺的重要性，能有助推行大學教育，所以我並不認同香港大學應廢除核心課程。

施德堂學生會代表Representative of Starr Hall Students’ Association (STHR)　( 法定觀察員　Official Observer)

黃融　WONG Yung

核心課程旨在為學生提供跨學院交流的平台、提升學生的創意思維和批判性思考，以及加強學生對現今重點議題的關注和了解。觀乎核心課程的意念，它具保留的必要，但審視它實際執行上的細節，學生諸批判聲也並非無因，值得正視。

核心課程的意義在於給予學生更全面的大學教育。現今的香港學生經常被詬病欠缺常識，而升上大學之後更容易過分專注於自己的主修科目，而忽略其他學術範疇上的基本認知。大學規定學生必須修讀四個不同範疇的課程，包括科技、人文、環球及中國。核心課程的強制性驅使學生接觸陌生的知識領域，同時容許他們有選修範疇中的指定課程的自由度。讓學生由自己興趣開始，推動知識的探索。因不同範疇的知識有相輔相成的作用，所以作為大學生，需意識到學習不應止步於專科知識。否則將成為「學而不思」之輩，未能將知識融會貫通。

核心課程的理念雖然賦予保留的價值，但大學仍有審視課程的必要，評核它是否達到預期成效。首先值得思考的是核心課程所教授的應是專門、高階但高門檻的知識，以作深入探究，還是基礎、不能或缺但初階知識，以作引子，吸引興趣。現時的核心課程雖然多選擇，鼓勵學生基於興趣選擇課程，以提升學習動機以致課程成效，但實際上，因課程設計上思慮不周，學生的選擇難以基於興趣選擇課程。課程設計標準過於不一，不論是課程內容的深淺度、工作量、或評分準則，也見極大差異，以致公平性成疑。大學盡量減少課程內容的深淺度、工作量和評分準則方面的差異，或把核心課程只計算合格與否，而不計算在學分內，減低學生在選科時對學分成績計算不公的憂慮。

總括而言，核心課程雖應予以保留，但仍有改善的空間，讓它的效果更趨接近它的理念。

84

Owing to the introduction of Common Core Curriculum, university education is more comprehensive. Students are required to take courses from each of the four Areas of Inquiry, namely Scientific and Technological Literacy, Hu-manities, Global Issues, and China: Culture, State and Society. As such, stu-dents would go beyond their study major and explore other relatively distant academic fields. Given the requirements, students are still entitled the right to choose courses from each Areas of Inquiry based on personal interest, so as to keep them motivated and explore further than their scope of interest in various academic fields. A university student is demanded to know far beyond their specialized field.

The HKU Common Core Curriculum is an essential part of providing a space to build friendships across all the Faculties, enhancing creative and critical think-ing, and addressing complex questions of the contemporary world. The idea of the Common Core Curriculum is out of good intention and I am in favor of its introduction in the University. However, regarding the practical details on implementation, voices of dissatisfaction from the students are noticeable and worth our reflection.

Judging from the aims of the Common Core Curriculum, it is undeniably a right move to introduce it in the University. Having said that, there is necessity for the University to review the curriculum and evaluate whether it is able to achieve its ideal. The first point to ponder is whether the course should cover relatively advanced and technical, or fundamental and applicable knowl-edge. A relevant question is whether the aim of the curriculum is to dig deep into the topic or introduce basic knowledge and encourage students’ further self-initiated research on the topic. A wide range of course option is available to encourage students to take courses based on their own interest, so as to motivate their learning and enable them to attain the most out of the curricu-lum. However, due to lack of common standards in course design, in terms of level of difficulty, workload or strictness in grading, students are largely side-tracked by the abovementioned factor in course-taking. Variation in course design is not a problem. However, it should be addressed if the variation is too

large and concerning the issue of fairness. The University should address their insecurity and concern towards the unfairness in calculating course grade, to encourage students to primarily follow their interest. For example, narrow down these variations, by introducing standards to course design, or exempt courses from accounting to GPA but simply count pass or fail.

In conclusion, although the Common Core Curriculum should not be abol-ished, there is still room for improvement before the maximum learning effect can be attained out of the curriculum.

註：法定觀察員不具投票權。P.S.: Official Observer does not have voting rights.

太古堂宿生會代表Representative of Swire Hall Students’ Association (SWHR)

李綽瑤　LEE Cheuk Yiu

於香港大學應否取消核心課程的議題上，學生中普遍存在著兩大意見。有一部份人會從核心課程的實用性和對學生的學習負擔等較功利的角度來思考，而另一些人則會以核心課程對學生追求知識、擴闊學習領域的幫助，以及能否促進不同學科的學生交流意見為考慮重點。於我而言，我認為大學作為一所高等教學機構、一個為大學生提供最佳教育的平台，應採納後者的思考方向。

首先，不同的核心課程都囊括了不同專業學科的知識。在現行每位學生須從四大領域各選讀一個課程的制度下，學生能輕易擴闊自己的學習視野，而非長年累月只埋首於自己的主修科，其他方而的知識一概不懂。

其次，由於每個核心課程都會有來自不同學院或主修副修的同學，再加上大部份的核心課程均包含小組合作的學習模式，學生在與其他學科的同學於討論其間能了解到同一件事情不同的理解和討論向度，令學生的學習層次提升至另一境介。

總括而言，基於核心課程對學生有重大學習價值，我不認香港大學應廢除核心課程。

86

To consider whether Common Core Curriculum in the University of Hong Kong shall be abolished or not, I think there are mainly two approaches. The first one would be considering the usefulness of Common Core Curriculum and their burden to study of students in terms of utility, while the other approach would be prioritizing the pursuance of knowledge by broadening of learning horizon of students and facilitate exchanges between students from different faculties. To me, I think a university should adopt the later approach for the sake of students as a university should act in a way best for students’ learning interest and provide the best platform for students to learn as a tertiary edu-cation institution.

To further explains on how Common Core Curriculum can broaden students’ learning horizon, Common Core Curriculum includes courses specialized in different professional areas and it is compulsory for each student to take one course from each of the four domains. This ensures students have chances to learn about knowledge outside their field of study.

On the other hand, each course would consist of students from various facul-ties, departments or having different majors and minors. Provided that many of the Common Core Curriculum courses not just consist of lecture but also many group work like group project or group debate, the process of allowing students from different disciplines enables them to look at the same thing from different angles. This helps students to achieve a higher level in learning.

To conclude, I disagree that the University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum due to its immense value for students’ learning.

大學堂宿生會代表　Representative of University Hall Students’ Association (UHR)

劉智恆　LAU Chi Hang


根據官方說法，港大設立核心課程之原意有二，一為培養學生之創意思維，二為令學生能夠應付當今社會之複雜難題。愚以為，核心課程之存廢關鍵在於課程能否直接或有助達到其設立之原意。雖然核心課程的確有改進之餘地，但並無廢除之需要。

核心課程能擴闊學生知識之攝取，有助培養學生創意思維。觀乎現時學制，有部分課程譬如醫學和法律等其他學生都無法接觸，而持雙學位的學生亦因學分問題而與這些課程無緣。設立核心課程，有助學生接觸和吸收更多新的知識和事物，透過不同知識的運用，更能培養學生之創意。

又，雖然更多的知識不一定代表學生能靈活運用，讓他們應付各種難題，但中庸曰：「博學之，審問之，慎思之，明辨之，篤行之」。學生能否把學了的知識批判和實

踐應用固然與核心課程難以扯上關係，但課程至少讓學生摸到應付各種難關的門柄，讓學生獲得各種知識，有助應付日後的困難。由是觀之，雖然核心課程本身未可直接達到其設立原意，但仍對學生知識之涉獵有所裨益，故香港大學不應廢除核心課程。

88

Tracing the aims or purposes of the common core curriculum，it is to culti-vate creativity; and to equip students with the ability to confront every day's social issues. In my humble opinion, the answer of the motion rests on wheth-er the Common Core Curriculum can achieve its aims and purposes. Although there are rooms for improvement in the curriculum, we shall not abolish the Common Core Curriculum due to the reasons highlighted in the following paragraphs.

With various themes and topics, the Common Core Curriculum can broaden students' horizon and provide them with adequate resources. Ideas come from experience and knowledge. The resources, in other words,the knowl-edge, that are accumulated through common core courses can therefore ap-plied to create new ideas. Also, under the current teaching structure, students may have less contact with these specifics realms. Meanwhile,the double-de-greed students are also difficult to take the courses other than their prereq-uisite courses due to the limitation of credits. The establishment of Common Core Curriculum allows students to be exposed to different fields and disci-plines. Together with the application of what they have learnt in the curricu-lum, students can nurture their creativity.

Some may argue that although the knowledge base can be enriched, the ap-plication of the knowledge in daily lives remains a question. “The Doctrine of the Mean” states, “to acquire, to question, to meditate, to distinguish, to act out.” The process of learning takes steps. Although we cannot ensure that stu-dents can utilise and apply what they have learnt immediately, these courses help and encourage students to take the first and significant step to start ac-cumulating resources they need in the challenging future.

All in all, although the Common Core curriculum cannot fully achieve its aim, the students can still benefit from the knowledge acquired in the cur-riculum. Thus, the University of Hong Kong shall not abolish the Common Core Curriculum.

偉倫堂學生會代表　Representative of Wei Lun Hall Students’ Association (WLHR)

馬嘉穎　MA Ka Wing Vanessa

The Common Core curriculum should be abolished because it has no substan-tial difference from normal courses, and it is an unnecessary burden to a stu-dents’ academic workload. The Common Core curriculum fails to make a distinction between itself and the regular curriculum. The Common Core curriculum claims its special fea-ture would be its “diverse modes of assessments”, such as fieldtrips or jour-nal writing, which aims to equip students with different skills such as critical understanding and thinking from a broader perspective. However, not all Common Core courses have such a wide array of assessment methods, with most of them simply retaining methods such as the traditional quiz, exam-ination and weekly tutorial lessons. It is evident to see that the common core lesson is no different from a regular one and does not particularly provide an alternative education to students.

Furthermore, the mandatory nature of the Common Core curriculum poses an unneeded amount of workload on students and lowers their freedom to study what they choose. In is understandable that students must choose courses from the four aspects of common core in order to expose them to different fields of study. However, the beauty of a university education as opposed to primary or secondary education is that students receive a more specialized schooling and are given a higher degree of freedom to decide what they study. Instead of spending time studying something they aren’t interest in, the Common Core credits should be exchanged for more free electives so that stu-dents can explore new subjects if they want to, or deepen their understanding of a subject they are already interested in.

90

There is no doubt that the Common Core curriculum aims to benefit students, however, it fails to show how it differs from the regular curriculum. Therefore, the motion must stand.

大學核心課程應被廢除，核心課程和常規課程並沒有太大分別，如其授課方式、教授的內容等，但核心課程規範了學生的自由，加重了他們學業上的壓力。故此，這種「多餘」的課程應被廢除。

先談其授課方式及內容，核心課程和常規課程的授課方式並沒有分別，有違當初核心課程成立時的初衷。根據核心課程網頁指其課程特色為以「多元化的教學模式」

（如實地考察、寫日記等）來培養學生的多角度思維及批判性思考模式。但事與願違，只有少量的核心課程實踐所謂「多元教學模式」，而大部分的核心課程都離不開「導修、測驗和考試」三部曲，和傳統的常規課程並沒有分別。

此外，核心課程為強制性課程，它限制學生學習的自由、加重了他們學業上的負擔。大學教育的特別之處在於給予學生高度的學習自由，另一方面學生們會專注、集中地學習自己本科的專業知識。很可惜的是核心課程編排鬆散、沒有連貫性，很難和本科課程拉上關係。我認為應將核心課程轉為選修課程，令學生能夠自由地選擇自己感興趣的科目，而非為滿足課程要求而強制修讀，抱著「為讀而讀」的心態。

總結而言，核心課程的出發點並沒有錯，但其執行方式過於死板，缺乏靈活性，引起學生對其課程的反感。故此，核心課程應被廢除。

院會代表

Faculty Society

Representatives

92

建築學會代表　Representative of Architectural Society (ASR)

蔡子軒　CHOY Tsz Hin

討論應否廢除我校核心課程前，應先知其推行原意為何，皆因若然核心課程於大學中不能確立自己地位如何重要，核心課程就會失去其意義，理應廢除。

根據我校核心課程綱領，其旨在讓同學建立更廣闊視野、批判思維以至學術與社會之關連。我們一直都稱接受過高等教育的人為「知識份子」，對於大學教育，不同人有不同意見，但相信大多數人都不會否認，大學教育旨在讓人有自己的一套主見、判斷，可對社會作出更多貢獻。從理想層面，核心課程在大學課程中固有一定意義。從實際層面，核心課程能確立其地位，在於其從另一個角度切入學術題材，相比於正常課程著重於思考以及學術與社會之關連。單看不同核心課程綱領，就可以發現課程的重點並不在於令同學了解課程所屬學系所持的理論，著墨點多放於哲理、思想、普世價值等。有些課程開宗明義講及生死、民主、法治等，有些課程名稱雖不明顯，但箇中討論的課題可能是世界觀以至個人價值等。相比於不同科系選修課程，專注於學科理論、討論，核心課程與選修課程分別甚大。

雖然核心課程大致上能夠達至其原意並確立自己於大學教育中的位置，但近年卻為同學增添不少煩惱，就如未能報讀心儀課程、拖累成績等。但究竟這些是核心課程自身問題，抑或執行、制度上有漏洞以至用者心態出現問題？從過去數據可見核心課程報讀情況非常不均，再配合網上討論等，可推斷部分核心課程因為以往學生積點高或者工作量低而吸引大量同學報讀，滿額實屬正常。若然同學主因這些原因而報讀課程，最終令真正有興趣的同學失去學習機會，甚至因為學分需求要報讀缺乏興趣的課程，這實是破壞著核心課程推行的原意。大家應該反思的是，究竟報讀核心課程為的是什麼？無可否認，不論是報讀核心課程時的技術問題、以至學額不足等都需要由校方解決，但現今同學面對到的困難又是否學生自己無法解決呢？學生又用著什麼心態去看核心課程呢？今天核心課程不應得以廢除，而是需要針對性改善。

Before discussing whether or not we should abolish the Common Core Curric-ulum in the University, we need first to consider the intention behind the pro-gramme itself. For there is no purpose for the common core to exist, should it fail in ascertaining the importance of its role and purpose within the University.

According to the principles of our University’s Common Core Curriculum, its purpose are as follows: to widen the horizons of the students, to train their critical thinking, and to build a link between the academia and the society. We have always labelled those who receive university education as the “Intellec-tuals”, and while we may hold different opinions as to the purpose of univer-sity education, there should be little opposition to the notion that university education is meant to train an individual to be assertive and critical, in order to contribute greater to the society than other people.

Ideally, the Common Core Curriculum has a certain fixed value in university education. From an operational point of view, the common core establishes its role in the curriculum, is that it can explore academic topics in such a way that it encourages more critical thinking, and to establish a stronger link between the academia and the society. One need only to look at the course objectives of the Common Core Curriculum, and would realize that the purpose of the courses is not to increase students’ knowledge in that academic field. Rather, the objectives are often oriented around philosophy, ideologies and universal values, etc. Some courses even openly discuss matters such as life & death, democracy and the rule of law, etc. Some courses may not have a concise title, but it may offer an overview to global insight to personal values. Comparing the common core with free electives offered by the faculties, there is an indis-putable difference in that the electives focus far more on academic discussion and knowledge.

Although the Common Core Curriculum has more than secured its role in the University from its achievements above, it has added additional troubles to students. Problems such as failing to register their desired courses, lower grades from additional workload, have arisen through the past few years.

94

Are these problems intrinsic in the Common Core Curriculum? Or is it a matter of operational oversight and the attitude of the students towards the common core? Looking from past statistics we can observe that the number of students for different Common Core Curriculums varied widely. These figures, comple-mented by observations on online forums, lead us to consider the possibility that some courses have attracted large amount of students over the years due to higher past grades, or low workload. The situation is understandable, and yet should the students’ hold such utilitarian motivations of taking these courses, it would be against the intention of the Common Core Curriculum. For this will result in students failing to register for their desired courses, or forcing them to trade a desired course for better grades.

What we here should all consider, is why do we take a Common Core Curric-ulum? Irrefutably, the university must take into its own hands the technical problems or small quota of the courses. Yet are we, the students, unable to re-solve the real issues at hand? What exactly is the attitude we hold towards the Common Core Curriculum? What the Common Core Curriculum need now is a surgical revision, not abolishment.

文學院學生會代表　Representative of Arts Association (AAR)

葉子成　YIP Tsz Shing


本科課程之修讀年期

隨着大學教育擴展，校方有足夠空間在主修科外開設核心課程以推動港大同學的全人發展。往昔根據 1988 年教育委員會編制第三號報告書，本科課程被統一至只有三年；可見本科課程因受限於時間與學分問題而未能廣泛開設跨學科的課程。時移世易，在新學制之下，本科課程之修讀年期延長至四年，因而使校方有足夠空間開設核心課程，改善以往大學教育有欠全面的流弊。因此，香港大學不應廢除核心課程。

核心課程的價值

維多利亞時代著名教育家紐曼 (John Henry Newman) 在其著作《大學的理想》(“The Ideal of a University”) 曾解釋和論述大學教育的重點：「大學教育旨在訓練批判性思維，以傳授知識、培養理性為己任……大學教育亦應提供普遍和完整的知識，而非狹隘的專業知識。」

核心課程正正能回應上述大學的功能。其課程規劃有別以往以研究論文和考試作主導的學習模式，主要以撰寫報告丶反思和辯論等方式輔助同學學習，用以加強同學的表達技巧，同時培養其分析能力。

除此之外，世界各地不少著名大學均有開設跨學科課程，令學生瞭解學科之間的關係。例如在普林斯頓大學，文學院的學生必須修讀科學和定性推理課程，而工程和應用科學學院的學生則必需修讀至少七個人文社會科學課程，包括：社會和歷史分析丶文學藝術丶倫理思想丶道德觀念和外語等。再者，以研究應用科技工程而聞名的麻省理工學院，亦把人文、藝術、社會科學和體育發展等科目納入課程設計和教學大綱之中。由此可見，學科與學科之間的關係密不可分，當中的融合乃大勢所趨，亦能彰顯全人教育之精神。

96

縱觀以上論點，本人反對香港大學應廢除核心課程。為促進同學的多元發展，校方亦應繼續將核心課程列為必修項目。然而，核心課程制度流弊眾多，本人認為校方需重新審視現時核心課程的規劃，務求對症下藥，以完善此立意甚佳之制度。

建議修改核心課程的學分計算制度

為提高同學對課堂活動的參與，本人認為把核心課程改革為非學分課程 (Non-credit bearing courses) 的看法未必能達至以上效果，因其無法提供合適誘因予同學學習。此舉有可能會進一步減低同學學習的動力。

然而，大部份同學反映核心課程的學習壓力及功課量太大，因此本人在此建議將每個核心課程的課時及工作量減少，其學分更可由六分減至三或四分，使同學的學習壓力得以紓緩。

在探索範疇加入本土研究課程

在探索範疇加入本土研究課程能直接連繫到你我的日常生活，除了能培養同學在日常生活中析毫剖釐的能力，更有助我們了解中港關係與本土身份認同。

香港大學立於本港，傳道授業固然重要，唯其身位也有責任擴大學生對我城的認知，並以此引導各學生反思個人在社會所扮演的角色。通過檢視我校現有的師資與各學院的課程大綱，將來也許能由不同學系開辦本土研究課程，以不同角度審視本土議題。

放眼世界，不少頂尖大學均不約而同地推廣本土文化和社會的認識。例如美國的史丹福大學開辨了美國歷史丶社會政治變革丶法律制度和文化多樣性等課程。可見立足本土，放眼國際乃是應有之義，亦是大勢所趨。

長遠而言，只要檢討探索範疇及學習模式等議題，便能完善我校核心課程的規劃。因此，香港大學亦毋須廢除核心課程，議䅁不應通過。

I am of the opinion that Common Core (CC) of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) should not be abolished. I shall hereby provide relevant justifications.

Extended University Education

Following the British system, undergraduate degrees were commonly award-ed after three-year education when Education Commission Report No.3 was issued in 1988. Less emphasis was laid on education across disciplines but concentrated on specialized fields instead due to the constraints imposed when developing undergraduate curriculum. Yet it should be noted that a reformation has already been introduced and undergraduate education was lengthened to four years under New Academic Structure (NAS) to mainly expand the comprehensiveness of our university education. With extended university education, CC courses can be included in tertiary education, akin to the North American education system.

Paramount Values of Common Core Curriculum (CCC)

John Henry Newman, the Cardinal Deacon of San Giorgio and a renowned Ox-ford academic in the mid-1830s once discussed the importance of a university in his publication “the Idea of a University” and he stated:

“It (University education) is the education which gives a man a clear, con-scious view of their own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them. It teaches him to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to disentangle a skein of thought to detect what is sophistical and to discard what is irrelevant.”

CCC allows our university to better serve as an ideal one. They equip our stu-dents with general and easily transferable skills, such as analytical thinking, articulateness when expressing ideas and diverse approaches to seek knowl-edge. As such, courses in CCC are of great variety in its components, embed-ding more than the conventional essays and examinations, and cover debates,

98

reflective journals or progressive reports, so as to enhance our all-round de-velopment.

CC also stimulate thinking and encourage investigations with different ap-proaches as students contemplate the interconnectedness of knowledge in the contemporary world today. Leading universities around the globe are also making their very best effort to offer more diversified learning to students in freshmen years. In Princeton University, courses that are not directly related to a certain discipline are made mandatory to students; for example, Arts students are required to enroll in science and technology courses with labo-ratory experiences and quantitative reasoning. Students from the School of Engineering and Applied Science are also required to take at least seven hu-manities and social sciences courses, including social and historical analysis, literature and arts, ethical thoughts and moral values and foreign languages.

In Massachusetts Institute of Technology, elements in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, or Physical Education are incorporated into their general syllabus and curriculum design despite the University’s technology-orient-ed nature. The modern trend of education encourages and supports fusions across disciplines to enhance the extensiveness of one’s education. Con-sidering the benefits offered by the courses, they do attach immense value in university education and I believe it is not justiciable to eliminate it from the curriculum.

Considering all aforesaid arguments and justifications, I believe that CC of HKU should not be abolished. CC courses shall also remain as compulsory courses to provide sufficient incentives for students to obtain diversified learn-ing opportunities. However the school authority ought to review the short-comings of the current CCC and improve the relevant system to make CC more appealing and welcomed among students.

Proposed amendment in CC credit counting system

I have some reservations in changing the CC courses to be non-credit bearing, as it may undermine learning motivation and certainly cannot encourage stu-dents to actively participate in in-class activities.

However as most students believe that the CC courses usually come with very heavy workload and are hence rather stressful to them. Therefore, it is recom-mended that the credits bore by each course shall be reduced to three to four credits so that pressure on students may be relieved.

Introduction of local studies courses

Local studies courses, I believe, should be established to substitute this cur-rent areas of inquiry (AoIs). Students may better understand the similarities and differences between their own and other cultures through the courses, especially if they can offer more different perspectives to students when mak-ing intercultural comparisons. Hong Kong-China Relations and our identity, considered crucial to the development of Hong Kong, can also be studied.

Understanding local communities directly relates to our everyday lives, and our understanding of the complex connections among local issues can be fa-cilitated through CC. Moreover, it is also necessary for students to identify and debate on local problems in different dimensions. A stronger attachment to Hong Kong, the city that our University bases in, can then be stimulated and strengthened through our reflections on the city’s distinctive cultural identi-ty and ethnical characteristics.

As one of leading universities in Hong Kong, we are in an irreplaceable and unique position to enrich understandings and offer rudimentary knowledge of Hong Kong through the provision of relevant learning experiences. The local issues in this metropolis are frequently complex, intricate and worth address-

100

ing. We shall adhere to the belief that it is the responsibility of our university to enable our students to comprehend different global and local communities clearly. By reviewing our existing resources and courses offered by different departments under various faculties, it is entirely feasible to initiate and de-velop a reasonable number of courses to facilitate understandings of Hong Kong’s history and its comprehension from different disciplinary perspec-tives and to engage HKU students in critical inquiries of the issues and prob-lems faced by Hong Kong.

Most other universities, most aim at deepening understandings about their own cultures and societies. For example, the compulsory general education of Stanford University addresses its country’s history, political development, social changes, legal system and cultural diversity.

In the long run, I believe all possible amendments in different areas including the AoIs, credit-counting system and modes of learning will be introduced. Our university, incontestably, had faced difficulties in enhancing its CC cours-es, but I am optimistic that the problems shall be tackled in time.

The motion discussed today, in my humble opinion, should not be carried.

經濟及工商管理學會代表Representative of Business and Economics Association (BEAR)

韓珈琪　HON Ka Ki

I disagree the abolishment of Common Core curriculum (CC).

Firstly, on the academic aspect, the cross-disciplinary manner of CC is benefi-cial for enriching students’ knowledge on multi-aspects. HKU is a unique uni-versity, which allows students to declare second major or minor(s) in outside their home faculties. In fact, many students may not really know what are their strengths and interests. CC provides a platform for students to explore the knowledge from different fields and allows them to step out from the comfort zone of their own discipline to seek for their real academic interest. Students are exposed to a diverse aspects of knowledge with first-hand experience un-der the structure of the four Areas of Inquiry. The functions of CC do not only constrain to nurturing students to be all-rounded people but also enable them to consolidate the knowledge they pursuit.

Secondly, on the aspect of realistic concerns, CC equips students with “soft power” to prepare for their future in the ever-changing society. Through re-viewing the syllabus of different courses, group-based elements such as tuto-rial, group discussion and in-class presentation are indispensable in most of the courses. The collaborations, presentations, and interpersonal skills arouse from these courses are valuable supplements for the programmes which concentrate on personal investigation and practical operation. Students’ soft skill is strengthened by more frequent contacts with people from all academic backgrounds. The characteristic of its compulsiveness also forms a collective memory of all HKU students, which connects fellow mates from all years and strengthens the unity and cohesion of HKU as a whole. Therefore, CC holds indispensable impacts on both the academic and personal development of students in the long run.

102

我不同意核心課程應被廢除。

第一，在學術層面而言，跨學科帶來的好處並不能被其他課程取代。香港大學是所獨特的大學，容許學生修讀非自己本科的主修或副修。事實上，很多同學於入大學前並未明瞭自己確實的興趣所在。我們當初選科的資訊大多也是來自中學所學、家庭和友人的意見、網絡知識等；而核心課程內容所設計的四大範籌，涵蓋將近十個學院的學科內容，便真真正正地讓同學能走出本科知識範圍，使他們能於必修的框架下，切身地接觸不同學科的知識，從而確立自己的求學方向。可見核心課程的存在不但推動了學生的全人發展，還協助他們尋找真正的興趣，探索學問的真知。

第二，在實際考量的層面而言，核心課程加強了同學的軟實力，為未來生活作好準備。核心課程推動了的香港大學的其中一個教育目標 - 發展同學溝通與合作的技能。翻查核心課程大綱，大多均加入了讓學生互相切磋交流的元素，如導修、小組討論及班上報告等。這彌補了部分本科課程專注個人研究、實際操作的不足之處，增加同學與不同學術背景的人溝通的機會，為日後投身社會打好基礎。核心課程的必修特點，有望使其成為港大學生的共同回憶，團結各屆的學生，加強港大的凝聚力。可見核心課程於同學的學術及個人成長方面，均有着不可或決的角色。

牙醫學會代表　Representative of Dental Society (DSR)

陳冠彤　CHAN Clinton Koon-tung

Common Core (CC) Curriculum, or its equivalence, is prevalent among high-er education institutes across Hong Kong and the globe alike as a means of general education by requiring undergraduate students to take credit-bearing courses. Its prevalence among institutes may be tied with its many advantag-es, and as such it ought not to be abolished.

The CC Curriculum provides an opportunity for students to learn outside of their discipline, allowing them to explore or delve into their interests, thus expanding their education. This is especially invaluable for students in cur-riculum with few, if any free electives, such as BDS and MBBS. Take BDS as an example, Common Core, along with University Language courses, are the only courses its students have apart from its professional core.

The CC Curriculum also ensures each and every student take part in all 4 Areas of Inquiry (AoI), all of which have a high relevance to modern society, e.g. top-ics related to globalization and modern China. This enables and ensures that all undergraduate students develop a broader perspective and a critical un-derstanding of everyday life issues. In an increasingly intellectual society, it is highly likely that the knowledge will prove useful in the students’ future. The credit-bearing nature of the courses also ensures the education be properly received as the student’s grade-point average is concerned.

One of the University of Hong Kong’s missions is “to provide a comprehen-sive education, developing fully the intellectual and personal strengths of its students while developing and extending lifelong learning opportunities for the community.” The above-mentioned two points clear illustrate how the CC Curriculum supplements the shortcomings when university education is limit-ed within a discipline, thus achieving a comprehensive education. As a result, the CC Curriculum should not be abolished.

104

不論境內抑或境外的高等教育院校，含學分的大學核心（或通識教育）課程並不罕見。核心課程之流行絕對與其優勝之處有關，因此除非有足夠理據，廢除核心課程並不合理。

首先，大學核心課程讓學生能夠進行本科以外的學習，讓學生能夠發掘或鑽研自身的興趣，使其能夠得到更全面的教育。一些學科，例如牙醫學士及內外全科醫學士，只有很少甚至乎沒有選修課程，核心課程將接近是其學生唯一學習本科以外科目的機會，非常可貴。

另外，現時的大學核心課程規定本科生必須涉獵四個探索範疇，其中包括環球議題、中國文化、國家與社會等與當代社會關係密切的題材。修讀這些課程將能加強學生對日常生活的理解及分析能力，對學生在此知識型社會上的發展定必會有幫助。課程的含學分性質亦能確保學生認真對待課程，從而達到其教育目的。

香港大學的其中一個使命為「提供全面的教育，充分發展學生的才智及個人潛能，並為社會人士開拓終身學習的機會」。以上兩點正正顯示了核心課程如何補足當大學教育流於自身專業範疇的不足之處，從而達至全面的教育。總括而言，香港大學核心課程不應被廢除。

教育學會代表　Representative of Education Society (EDSR)

馬卓羚　MA Cheuk Ling Rachel

While the means of implementing and administering the Common Core Cur-riculum is still disputed, the Common Core Curriculum is essentially designed for the benefit of learners.

The world is in so many ways being condensed in terms of space and time; the advance in technology and civilisation has brought information closer and more accessible than ever. The extension of connectedness in this new millen-nium has changed how the world works and in turn calls for a change in the demand for human resources and thus the mode of learning. Knowledge is no longer simply measured by depth, but also in broadness and dimensions. Common Core courses in various domains provide a window and platform for students to broaden our intellectual perspectives, equipping us to become graduates that possess the necessary skills and high order thinking to make connections across different fields and between theory and reality. In a prac-tical sense, the Curriculum is intended to foster in us adequate understanding and capacity to face issues and changes in the local and global community.

As an institution of higher education, its goal should not merely remain on the level transmitting declarative knowledge; the essence of education is to inspire in learners inquisitiveness and to equip learners with self-learning skills such that learners can “stay hungry, stay foolish” and be able to acquire new information and skills. The Common Core Curriculum comes in as a key element to cultivating this mentality and skill set. Being exposed to unfamiliar areas of study, learners explore new dimensions through the process of rea-soning and critical enquiry, provoking their thoughts and interests with new ideas. This builds up multi-perspective thinking, ideally guiding students to fully appreciate the richness, diversity and meaning in the pursuit of knowl-edge across different academic domains.

106

It cannot be denied, however, that there exist limitations in the current curric-ulum structure. Some students find the Common Core Curriculum impractical and irrelevant to their studies; the credits distribution, workload and content of courses have also been criticised. Such problems remain on the administra-tive level, thus showing the need for revision and adjustment of the Curricu-lum, not its abolition.

All in all, the motion itself is an argument between means and ends. The in-tended ends are well-intentioned, but apparently the means have come under fire. While it is agreed that further modification on the curriculum’s imple-mentation and execution is needed in order to enhance its efficacy in reaching its ideal aims, the platform for general education offered through the Com-mon Core Curriculum is worth preserving in a sense that students can broad-en their perspectives and grow as inquisitive and life-long learners.

核心課程之執行雖然備受批評，但核心課程的設立是以學生學習為本。

隨著科技和文明的進步，空間和時間的隔膜漸漸變得模糊，將世界上的資訊和人脈拉近。全球化為世界的運作、市場對人力資源的需求以致新一代的學習模式帶來了前所未有的改變。對學科要有深入的認知的同時，更要廣泛涉獵各方面的知識、思維和技能。核心課程在不同範疇上均提供渠道和平台讓學生透過課程將不同領域所接觸的知識、以致書本中的理論和日常生活連繫起來，擴闊視野，以致學生面對本地及國際社會中不同方面的議題和改變時有全面的理解和充分的能力去應對。

香港大學作為一所高等學府，其目標不應僅停留在教授陳述性知識的層面；教育的本質在於激發學生的好奇心及裝備其自學能力，令學生得以保持「求知若飢，虛心若愚」的心態，從而讓學生有能力不斷學習、精益求精。學生在核心課程接觸不同學術領域，在推理與批判思考的過程中激活思維和興趣、培養多角度思維，從而更能體會和欣賞學術追求的多元性與豐富意義。

無可否認，現存機制仍有限制。部份學生發現核心課程與他們的本科無關，課程内容毫不實用，亦有人批評核心課程的學分分佈、工作量和教學內容等方面安排不周。然而，上述問題主要為推行核心課程的行政安排上的缺陷，採取的解決方法應著眼於課程修訂和調整而非完全廢除核心課程。

總括而言，議題的爭議點其實在於調整課程的方法或廢除課程。核心課程在實行上的確仍有改善和調整的空間，設立核心課程的本意為幫助學生有更全面的發展和培養學生的自學能力，於教育層面上有其存在價值，實在值得保留。

108

工程學會代表　Representative of Engineering Society (ENSR)　

葉碧欣　YIP Pik Yan

大學課程的目標並不僅限教授學生自己本科或主修上的知識，更是培訓學生的批判性思考能力和讓學生增廣見聞，以至作育英才。有見及此，大學成立了核心課程，即學生需修讀本科或主修以外，不同範疇的課程，希望達致全人教育。然而，核心課程衍生的問題除了阻撓了學生於核心課程中的發揮以及影響平均積點，更削弱了核心課程原意中對學生的作用，亦即非本科／主修知識的獲取以及批判性思考的訓練。

作為一個四年制的工程學生，我認為核心課程影響教學進程。現時的工程學生須要於第一年完成原本於香港高級程度會考課程授教的高等數學及物理課程，同時亦須完成由學系設立的兩個共同基礎課程。由於現在透過大學聯招招收的工程學生均於第一學年完結之時按成績選科，所以這代表著學生於第一年並沒有習到太多的專業知識。四年制工程學生須修完三十六個學分的核心課程才能畢業，大部分學生會選擇在首兩年分別完成三個核心課程以便在往後專注於主修科。但於第二年修讀的三個核心課程會佔據了很多學習時間，相比於以往三年制學生只需完成十二個學分的核心課程，現時的核心課程制度減少了學生深入學習本科的時間。

毫無置疑，核心課程對擴闊學生的眼界有所幫助，但是我們需要重新考慮核心課程所需的時間和核心課程的內容。在這裡，我想提出美國部分大學的課程作為參考：以分類選修課程取代核心課程。學生必須完成三個 NQE 課程（自然科學 / 定量科學／工程學），以及三個人文學或社會科學課程。這些課程涉及範圍廣泛，例如社會科學課程中的硬科學（自然科學），如神經解剖學，或軟科學（社會科學），如社會心理學。學生能自由選擇修讀自己感興趣的課程。而這些課程正正是其他學生的主修課，因此能同時傳授學生不同於自己的主修課的深度知識。學生亦能選擇跟自己主修有關的課程，例如心理學學生能報讀不是必讀但有關的神經科學班，這可以增加學生對分類選修課程的興趣，再而提高他們在分類選修課程及主修課程中的成績。

總括而言，如果沒有任何課程需時及內容上的更動的話，核心課程理應被廢除。

The goal of college experience is not only to equip students with knowledge in their majors, but also to train students’ critical thinking skills and broaden their horizons in order to nurture talents. Therefore the common core curric-ulum was set up to ensure that students acquire knowledge in an all-rounded way by taking classes in different areas outside their majors. However, prob-lems with the curriculum have not only hindered students’ performance in common core classes and affecting their GPAs, but have also undermined the effect of the common core curriculum on students in terms of non-major knowledge acquisition and critical thinking training.

As a 4-year curriculum engineering student, I believe that common core cours-es disrupt the learning schedule. First-year engineering students now need to take Mathematics and Physics courses which were supposed to be taught in the A-Level syllabus. Since the first academic year is common to all engineer-ing students, students have to take at least 2 introductory courses in their first year of study. Based on their academic performance in year 1, they then select their programmes at the end of the academic year. This implies that students can only acquire little professional knowledge in their first year of study in HKU. As engineering students have to take 36 credits of common courses throughout the years, it is common for students to take 3 courses per annum during their first two years. When students start studying their programmes in depth during their second year, the 3 common core courses would take up a lot of time in their schedules. Compared to the 12 credits of common core re-quirement for engineering students in the past, the common core system now reduces the amount of time available for engineering courses in the students’ schedules.

It is undoubted that the common core courses help broadening students’ minds, but the amount of time required and the content of CC classes should be reconsidered. Referring to the system in some universities in America, I suggest that the university can consider replacing common core courses with Distribution Requirements: instead of taking classes from the Common Core curriculum, in order to graduate, students have to take 3 courses of NQE (Nat-

110

ural science/ quantitative science/ engineering), and 3 courses of humanities or social sciences; these areas are very broad, e.g. social science can be “hard science” classes like functional neural anatomy or “soft science” classes like social psychology. Students are free to choose whichever class within the cat-egory that they are comfortable with and would like to know more about. The classes to choose from are actually major classes for students in other majors, and can provide students with in-depth knowledge in other majors. Students are also free to choose classes that are related in some way to their major (e.g. psychology student choosing a neuroscience class that is not required for the major but is related), and this would increase students’ interest in the required distribution class and hence enhance their performance in both the distribution classes and major classes.

The Common Core Curriculum should be abolished under the condition that the time requirement and contents remain unchanged.

法律學會代表　Representative of Law Association (LAR)

譚皓　TAM Ho

I am against the motion that HKU should abolish Common Core courses once and for all.

To commence with, it is valuable to apprehend the initiatives of implementing Common Core courses. It has long been criticised that the Hong Kong edu-cation system is such a spoon-feeding one, churning out moulded products and that students lack critical thinking in general. Common Core courses aim to broaden students’ horizons by enabling them to expose to multifarious aspects of study, including Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues as well as China: Culture, State and Society. Since students are required to take courses in each of the four categories, it can be guaranteed that students can learn something not directly related to their major curric-ulum and gain a taste of diversified courses provided by different faculties. Common Core courses also strive to let students learn in more vivid ways, such as through media production, fieldwork and interviews.

People who support this motion claim that students are already under im-mense pressure and cannot take these additional credit-bearing courses under the disguise of an all-round education. According to the Common Core Curriculum handbook, workload hours for a 6-credit course are approximately 120-180 hours. Admittedly, this figure could be daunting, especially to those who are taking 3 Common Core courses in one semester. Also, the grading sys-tems of these courses vary. There are often complaints from students about courses having extremely heavy workload but giving out poor grades easily.

Putting aside whether or not these opinions are only myths, the current sys-tem generally gives students an impression of uncertainty and unfairness. This is particularly true when students of the same major are taking various non-major courses and the divergences are not reflected in their GPA. Some

112

feel that this practice bars them from showing their capability regarding their major curriculum to their future employers.

To ameliorate the situation, changes shall be made to the current system. I believe that keeping these courses as compulsory is acceptable but the work-load of each course can be adjusted to ensure that students will not be under suffocating pressure. Moreover, consultations can be made to see whether students agree that grades of Common Core courses should not be counted in their GPA. This will patently help reduce stress and perhaps deal with the issue of fairness. Nonetheless, it can be foreseen that some may raise concerns as to whether students will endeavour to study these Common Core courses. If not, the new practice will inevitably undermine the objective of fostering all-round learners.

As a tertiary institution, a prominent stepping stone for students to gain a foothold in society, it is no doubt important to equip them with more than one spectrum of knowledge. I trust that Common Core courses serve this cause but some details of implementing the curriculum can be altered after thor-ough discussions among relevant parties. Considering the above viewpoints, I believe that there is no imminent need to abolish Common Core courses and thus today’s motion shall not stand.

關於香港大學應該取消核心課程的建議，我認為有商榷的餘地。

首先，我們必須探本溯源，了解推行核心課程背後的理念和目標。香港的教育制度經常被垢病為呆滯因循，而培育出來的學生也普遍缺乏批判思考能力，思維單向。核心課程規定同學修讀由不同院校提供的課程，橫跨四個範疇的學科，鼓勵同學涉獵截然不同的學術領域，大大擴闊知識視野。同時，這些核心課程致力讓同學以多元化的渠道學習，例如影片制作、實地考察及採訪，有助他們日後掌握靈活多變的自主學習。

有人批評大學生已面對不勝枚舉的壓力，不適宜額外修讀這些與其主修學科無關的課程。根據核心課程手册，每個課程要求學生投放 120 至 180 小時。對某些在一個學期修讀三個核心科目的同學來說，修讀核心課程無疑會大大削減他們溫習主修學科的時間。另外，由於每個核心科目的工作量及評分標準有異，經常可聽到同學抱怨一些科目不但課程內容繁重，而且評分特別嚴苛。

先撇除以上論點是否成立，現行的制度的確給不少同學留下難以預計及不公的印象。背後的原因不難理解，現時非主修科的學分，也會跟主修科的學分一同計算成績平均點 (GPA)，一些只在主修科目獲取卓越成績的同學，因而憂慮這張成績單會影響他們的就業競爭力。

我認為保留核心課程為必修科目有其價值，但同時應該調教每個課程的工作量，好使同學不會因個別核心課程範圍太廣闊而感到過分吃力，甚至難以抽取足夠時間應付主修科目。另外，校方可以諮詢同學關於把核心課程的學分計算在成績平均點的做法。要是主修、核心課程的分數分開計算，相信有助同學舒緩壓力及解除對核心課程的公平性的疑慮。當然，這做法很可能會引起爭議，例如令同學失去認真研習核心課程的動力，無法達到推行核心課程的初衷 ——多元學習。

大學，作為年青人投身社會的踏腳石，誠然應該提供多元化的平台讓同學接觸不同範疇的知識。我相信核心課程或多或少達到此目標，但校方值得在作出全面諮詢後修改一些實行的細節，好讓課程的優勢能充分發揮。基於上述理由，我認為現時沒有迫切需要取消核心課程。

114

醫學會代表　Representative of Medical Society (MSR)

陳頌暉　CHAN Chung Fai

Common Core Courses should not be abolished. Although many complaints were received from students, the courses should be improved instead of abolished.

First and foremost, Common Core Courses provides great opportunities for students to cooperate and communicate with students in other faculties. For most students learning in Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, the courses take place either in Medical Campus on Sassoon Road or in Queen Mary Hospital. Isolated from main campus, they may find it hard know more students from other background. Tutorials, group assignments and field trips provide stu-dents to interact more and allow the exchange of ideas. The Common Core Courses provide this distinctive advantage that no other courses could replace as most students in medical faculty do not have extra credits for taking free electives.

Apart from that, Common Core Courses enable students to understand com-plex connection between issues in daily lives and this is essential for tertiary education. Students in the medical faculty receive in-depth professional train-ing and have a packed schedule, so they may be discouraged to learn in dif-ferent fields of study due to limited time. Common core courses enable them to have a basic understanding on different issues in contemporary world. Di-vided into four categories, different faculties provide introductory courses for students from other faculties and promote lifelong learning among students. In the 21st century, graduates of university should not possess particular skills or qualifications only. Instead, they should understand the world in various aspects thanks to multidisciplinary learning.

However, despite all the advantages mentioned above, the Common Core courses fail to achieve their objectives. Even so, I firmly believe that they should be kept and improved, instead of abolished.

On top of all, more flexible timeslots for tutorials should be offered by the courses. Due to packed schedule, many medical students find it hard to reg-ister appropriate timeslots for tutorials. Hence many MBBS students would register the same tutorial. Consequently, the aim of integrating students from different faculties would not be achieved.

Besides, continuous assessment should be the major assessment method in Common Core courses. Some Common Core courses require examination but this does not fit the original purpose of having these courses. Rather than memorizing the content before the examinations, it is better for students to understand and reflect the concepts taught in order to have a basic un-derstanding on different issues. In fact, summative examinations of medical students pose huge pressure on students already and it is inappropriate to increase the burden of students before examination period.

In general, Common Core courses should be monitored and improved as the problems mentioned. Nevertheless, they should not be abolished, as the orig-inal intention is valuable to tertiary education.

116

香港大學不應廢除核心課程。雖然現時核心課程備受質疑，但大學應對核心課程予以保留並改進，而不是廢除。

首先，核心課程讓同學能與其他學院的同學互相合作並交流，讓各學院的同學能透過互動學習模式互相認識並交流學習心得。大部分李嘉誠醫學院的學生在大學生涯中都會在沙宣道醫學院或者瑪麗醫院學習，到本部校園的機會可謂少之又少。由於地理上的分隔，醫學院的會員或會對融入本部校園的社群感到困難。因此，核心課程能有效地令各學院的同學透過導修課、小組研習以及實地考察等互動學習方法，互相融合並交流意見。香港大學缺乏其他讓各學院同學互相融合的課程，加上並非每位基本會員均能夠修讀自由選修科，因此核心課程有其獨特性及存在意義。除此之外，核心課程能夠令學生明白日常生活中的不同事件的複雜關係，而這正是高等教育的意義所在。誠然，醫學院的學生於求學生涯中接受深入的專業訓練，但由於課業繁重，他們可能缺乏學習其他領域知識的興趣和興趣。核心課程令他們能夠對其他學院的課程有基本認識，而且能明白現代社會不同事件之間的關聯。核心課程分為四個領域，不同學院分別提供基本的課程，能培養學生求知若渴的學習態度，令他們畢業後也能繼續自我進修，終身學習。二十一世紀的大學畢業生不應只擁有某一種特殊技能，而應對世界各種議題均有多角度的認知及了解。

雖然核心課程的理念值得推崇，但實際上這些理念未能實踐出來，因此核心課程仍有不少改進空間。但我仍深信香港大學應保留核心課程，並加以改進。

首先，導修課的時間應該更有彈性。由於醫學生的學習日程由學院制訂而且非常緊湊，醫學院會員或難以找到一個合適的導修課時間。因此，部分導修課中大部分學生均為醫學院的學生，如此一來，令不同學院學生加強交流的原意便淪為空想。

此外，持續評估應為核心課程的主要評核模式。部分核心課程要求學生參與考試，但這並非切合核心課程設立原意的最佳模式。與其於考試前背誦課程內容，倒不如鼓勵學生反省及明白課程的概念。再者，以醫科生為例，總結性評估已經對學生構成極大壓力，若是再有核心課程的考試，恐會令學生難以負荷。

總之，香港大學應全面檢討的並改善核心課程。但是課程的原意仍然值得推崇，不應被廢除。

理學會代表　Representative of Science Society (SSR)

張澤深　CHEUNG Chak Sum


近年來，不少同學對核心課程的不滿不絕於耳。反對者的理由包括：浪費學術資源，學生的態度冷漠等。可是，就核心課程的成立目的，本人相信核心課程仍有其存在價值。

第一，核心課程可讓同學接觸自己主修以外的知識。大部份同學需要修讀四個不同類別的核心課程。學科之間環環相扣，修讀核心課程讓同學涉獵自己主修以外的知識，同學可藉此擴闊視野。第二，核心課程有助培養同學成為世界公民。修讀核心課程有助同學由不同角度了解世界上的改變，提升同學的國際視野。第三，修讀核心課程當中會有導修課或專題研習等，同學可借此與不同學院的同學溝通，從而互相學習。

雖然現今的核心課程制度仍有不足之處，有指大學理應廢除核心課程。我卻認為核心課程理應推行改革，而非將其廢除。

第一，同學所需修讀的核心課程數目太多。大部份同學都需修讀六個核心課程。理學院、文學院、社會科學學院的同學一般會在第一年修讀不同初階課程，以尋找自己心儀的主修。其後，當他們選擇雙主修時，這六個核心課程對同學會做成一定的負擔。因此，校方可以考慮減少自行選擇雙主修的同學需要修讀的核心課程，由六個減至三個。第二，核心課程欠缺本土文化的元素。本土文化仍是構成香港人身份認同的重要因素。香港雖然是國際化都市，但一直被稱為文化沙漠，除了因為政府對本土文化的漠視之外，本地教育甚少提及到本土文化。在中小學的填鴨式教育下，一眾學子難以有空間了解本土文化。核心課程正正可以給予同學可以認識本土文化的機會。因此，校方可以新增更多有關本地古蹟、建築或近代史的核心課程給予同學修讀。校方可以在原有四個類別中，增設本地文化的核心課程類別供同學修讀。

綜觀而言，雖然現今的核心課程制度仍有很大的進步空間，本人相信核心課程在本質上是對學生有所裨益，因此辯題不應成立。

118

Discontent towards the Common Core courses has been raised from students these years. The reasons of their discontent include a waste of academic re-sources and how these courses affect the grades of students. However, in view of its aims of establishment, I believe Common Core courses still have their reasons to be kept.

Firstly, Common Core courses allow students to enrich their knowledge be-yond their Major. Most students need to study 4 different key areas of Com-mon core courses. With the close interaction between the contents of key areas, studying Common Core courses can broaden their horizon beyond their original scope of study. Secondly, Common Core courses cultivate students to be a global citizen. Studying Common Core courses allow students to ac-knowledge change of the world from different perspectives, broadening their horizon again in this sense. Thirdly, tutorial classes and projects in Common Core courses allow students to interact with schoolmates from different study backgrounds. Through in-class discussions, students can learn from their schoolmates and enrich their knowledge.

Although there are many inadequacy in Common Core courses syllabus, the syllabus should not be demolished, but reform should be adopted instead.

Firstly, there are too many Common Core courses required for students. Most students need to take 6 Common Core courses. For students in the Faculty of Science, Faculty of Arts and Faculty of Social Sciences, they will take intro-ductory courses from different intended Majors in order to select their Major. When students from these faculties intended to take double Majors, these 6 Common Core courses may impose burden for students. Hence, the Univer-sity may consider reducing the amount of Common Core courses to be taken by students taking double Majors from 6 to 3. Secondly, there is a lack of el-ements including local cultures in Common Core courses. Local culture con-tributes much to the identity of Hong Kong people. Even though Hong Kong is claimed to be an international city, it is also being called the “cultural des-ert”. Apart from the inadequate input of resources from the government to lo-

cal culture, the education sector rarely includes local culture into the current syllabuses. Common Core courses can be a valuable opportunity for students to know more about local cultures. The University could include more courses about local heritages, architecture or history about Hong Kong. A new catego-ry providing courses about local culture could be provided for students.

To conclude, even though there are rooms for improvement towards the cur-riculum design of Common Core courses, I believe in the view of the nature of establishment, it is beneficial for students. Hence, the motion should not stand.

社會科學學會代表　Representative of Social Sciences Society (SSSR)

張皓明　CHEUNG Ho Ming Preston　

“Education can give you a skill, but a liberal education can give you dignity.” - Ellen Key

Today the debate of retaining or abolishing the Common Core curriculum is more than just a debate on an educational reform at the University of Hong Kong, but intrinsically a debate on which model of education we believe in. That being said, I would first like to discuss the two associated educational models, general education and liberal education, so as to establish a ground in support of the Common Core curriculum. And in later parts of my argu-ments against the motion, I will briefly examine the major weaknesses of the Common Core curriculum. The attachment of general education to liberal education dates back to the 18th century, it was when the higher education in the United States was first organised to serve the aim of providing liberal education to allow students to be well versed in classic literary works, philosophy, foreign languages, rhet-

120

oric, and logic. This model stressed “the importance of a broad base of edu-cation that encouraged an appreciation of knowledge, an ability to think and solve problems, and a desire to improve society”. Later in the century, how-ever, the American society began to ask for a more utilitarian and practical education that would prepare students for work upon graduation, and there-fore, the Morrill Act was passed in the U.S. Congress in 1862 to push the new education model forward. But not until the mid-twentieth century, the notion of general education was raised by the President's Commission on Higher Education, in quest of a balance in tertiary education between “specialized training on the one hand, aiming at a thousand different careers”. Therefore, valuing the significance of liberal education and recognizing the importance of vocational training evolved the model of general education, which is the edu-cation model pursued by nearly every college and university as a part of their curricula nowadays. Needless to say, the Common Core curriculum at HKU is designed in accordance to the philosophy of general education, too. Hence, I would like to elaborate on how crucial the Common Core curric-ulum is to the university graduates and in meeting social expectations. As information across the globe is now produced so seamlessly at an precedent speed with the fine services of instant communication, the demand for high-er productivity for both human beings and machines inevitably outpaces improvements in this era of big data, and therefore, university graduates are very much expected to have both the vocational skills as well as some es-sential “soft” skills to comprehend and solve a variety of challenges at their workplaces. And this is what the Common Core curriculum is prepared for - to “enable students to develop a broader perspective and a critical under-standing of the complex connections between issues in their everyday lives.” On that account, the curriculum assured that the graduates would have been trained to complete inter-disciplinary inquiries, in order to solve problems not only at workplaces but in daily lives too. On another hand, from a larger social perspective, universities are responsible for preparing educated citizens to initiate improvements of our society. The educated sector of the population has long been an essential driving force for social changes and improvements

across countries and regions in the globe, and ever since the higher education was formulated in the U.S. in the eighteenth century, it has been a mission of tertiary education to foster the sense of consciousness of the local and global community among students. In order to serve such a purpose, courses in the Common Core curriculum are designed to have relevance with an array of social issues from both local and global aspects to allow matters of diverse natures to be discussed, analysed, and even debated in a free and guided ac-ademic environment. To conclude, the Common Core curriculum at HKU is to equip our students with essential inter-disciplinary knowledge and skills to let them not only work well, but also bring advancements to our society.

If we are to abolish the Common Core curriculum today, we are to create a deadly flaw in the education at the University of Hong Kong. Despite utilitari-anism is much valued in the current education in a fast-paced society, univer-sities and institutions of higher education never provide vocational trainings only, as tertiary education serves aims more than just empowering students to be self-sufficient economic entities. The major difference between a university and a vocational school have been illustrated clearly by Newman and Turner (1996) in The Idea of a University, “If then a practical end must be assigned to a University course, I say it is that of training good members of society... It is the education which gives a man a clear, conscious view of their own opin-ions and judgements, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them. It teaches him to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to disentangle a skein of thought to detect what is so-phistical and to discard what is irrelevant.” That being so, if the Common Core curriculum is abolished or made not compulsory, I am afraid that the Universi-ty may fail to uphold its reputation and quality of education, meanwhile grad-uates may even face more difficulties in securing work positions. Of course, there has never been a flawless piece of human design, so does the Common Core curriculum. I am to highlight a few major weaknesses of the curriculum that are obstructive to serving its aims. First and foremost, some courses require an unreasonable level of prior knowledge about the subjects.

122

This problem is distinctly worrying for the courses in the area of Scientific and Technological Literacy, as many students have received no previous education in sciences. An unreasonable requirement of prior knowledge would double students’ workloads and kill their curiosity about the subjects as being over-whelmed. Second, the distribution of disparate workloads among the courses may pose an issue of unfairness. There are seemingly some courses of much heavier workloads than others in the curriculum, and students admitted in these courses would have more time reduced for other courses that they are admitted in, thus this causes unfairness and discourages students from choos-ing courses of heavier workloads, too.

In spite of the weaknesses that the curriculum may have, it is of utmost impor-tance for us to notice that the Common Core curriculum is an indispensable part in our pursuit of general education. Whilst our society is in search of gen-eralists who are capable in handling obstacles in multiple fields of profession, we should not underestimate the importance of general education, and thus to undermine the success of the University of Hong Kong by removing an im-perative element of its education.

「教育，能賦予你一技專長，然而博雅教育，卻能賦予尊嚴。」－－愛倫凱

今天關於保留抑或是廢除香港大學核心課程的辯論不僅是關於香港大學的一項教育改革，更是在本質上一場關於選擇教育模式的辯論。因此，我首先希望探討通識教育 (General education) 和博雅教育 (Liberal education) 這兩項具關連性的教育模式，以確立支持核心課程的原因。在反對這項議案的同時，我亦會在文章後半部份審視核心課程的主要不足。

通識教育與博雅教育之間的連結可回溯至十八世紀。當時美國以博雅教育為目標，推行高等教育，期望學生能精通於古典文學，哲學，外語，修辭學與邏輯學。此教育模型強調博學多聞的重要性，並藉此鼓勵學生欣賞知識、發展其思考解難的能力及對改善社會的渴求。然而，美國社會後來要求推廣一種能讓學生在畢業後立即投入工作及更接近功利主義和具實用性的教育。因此，美國國會於 1862 年通

過摩利爾法案 (Morrill Act) 來推動新的教育模式。但直到二十世紀中葉，通識教育的概念才正式出現。總統高等教育委員 (President’s Commission on Higher Education) 希望學生能在專業訓練與廣泛學習間取得平衡，在接受專業訓練同時，能配備適用於不同發展路向的知識。所以，社會對博雅教育的重視及對職業培訓的認同逐漸演化成現時近乎每所大學或學院都追求的通識教育。無疑，香港大學的核心課程便是以通識教育理念為本而所設計出的課程。

接下來，我希望能闡述核心課程對於大學畢業生及回應社會期望的重要性。置身在這大數據時代，資訊無遠弗屆。人與機器的生產力均難以趕上社會的需求。因此社會希冀大學畢業生能同時具備實質職業技能和一些必要的「軟技巧」，以理解及解決工作中的各種挑戰。這也正是核心課程的目標－－「讓學生培養更廣闊的視野，及對日常生活中的複雜關係具有批判性理解」。所以核心課程能確保學生在完成跨學科探究的同時，具備解決工作和日常生活中問題的能力。另外，從更大的社會層面來看，大學肩負為社會培訓精英從而改進社會的使命。在全球各國家和地區，有受教育的一群一直都是推動社會革新的重要力量。自從美國在十八世紀開始推動高等教育發展，高等教育肩負了重要的使命，讓學生更認識本地社群，乃至培養國際視野。為達到如此目標，在設計上，核心課程都與不同種類的社會事務都會有所連繫，從而讓同學可以在自由和附有導師指導的學術氛圍下，就事件作討論丶分析丶甚至辯論。總括而言，香港大學的核心課程是以跨學科的知識和技能裝備學生，從而讓他們不僅僅在工作上取得成功，更能為社會帶來革新。

若然我們今天廢除核心課程，香港大學的教育將會出現嚴重漏洞。儘管現今社會事事求快，推崇功利主義，但是大學和其他高等教育院校都不會只提供職業培訓，只因高等教育除了讓學生有自立的經濟能力外，還有其他目標。約翰 · 亨利 · 紐曼在在《大學之理念》一書中，就闡述了關於一所大學和一所職業學校的分別－－「只有教育，才能使一個人對自己的觀點和判斷有清醒和自覺的認識，只有教育，才能令他闡明觀點時有道理，表達時有說服力，鼓動時有力量。教育令他看世界的本來面目，切中要害，解開思緒的亂麻，識破似是而非的詭辯，撇開無關的細節。教育能讓人信服地勝任任何職位，駕輕就熟地精通任何學科」。因此，我們若對核心課程予以廢除，或取消其強制修讀性質，有可能會危及大學的名聲和其教育質素，同時畢業生在求職或者會遇上更大困難。

124

當然，金無足赤，人無完人，世上沒有十全十美的事物，核心課程亦如是。誠然，課程的部分缺點令校方想促進學術討論、排解學生疑難的原意窒礙難行。首先，部分課程要求學生具備對該課程有不合理程度的先前知識。這情況尤見於科學與科技範疇的核心課程。事實上不少學生未曾接受過科學教育，對課題不具備許多先前知識，甚或只停留於基本認知的層面，因而課題的艱深使其對課程的興趣大跌，亦令其工作量倍增。第二，難以統一的課程工作量或導致課程的不公平性。照現況而言，無疑部份課程有相對較重的工作量，令參與的學生需無奈減少投放於其他課程的時間。由是觀之，現存的課程問題導致了不公平性的出現，並減低了學生選擇工作量高的課程的意欲。

縱使核心課程存有弊病，可是我們仍要知道核心課程是我們在通識教育的追求中不可或缺的一部份。而當社會在尋找能解決不同專業領域疑難的通才，我們絕不能低估通識教育對大學生及對社會的重要性，進而因此動搖了香港大學的成功基石。

普選評議員

Popularly Elected Union

Councillors

126

普選評議員一　Popularly Elected Union Councillor I (PC1)

陳俊傑　CHAN Chun Kit

本人贊成是項議案。香港大學應廢除核心課程。誠然，核心課程理念宏大，但其效成疑。核心課程希望令學生托闊視野、探索未知、啟導新知，課程總監如是說；而理想與現實總有差距。

校方稱，課程令學生可在本科以外學習；而現實正正相反，如果對課程有所認識，即更易取得佳績，豈有不讀之理？惟其修讀核心課程時，學生多關注課程是否靚Grade 少 Workload。君不見靚 Grade 者報讀者眾、爛 Grade 者報讀者寡？由學生反應即見課程之敗。

每一課程為時一學期，時間雖短，但亦有沉悶、複雜的課程。走馬看花，最後落得博而不精，亦常有狹而不精者。學生同時亦有主修、副修課程，核心課程就顯得食之無味，棄亦不惜。如果希望六個課程就可令學子拔新領異，實是謬想天開。

而尋根究底，核心課程亦是由不同學院提供。有人擔憂，如果廢除課程，學生豈非求學無門，實為笑話。學生大可自由旁聽、選修喜愛科目，網上還有各種公開課程；也可聽講座、亦有實習或交流活動；也可選擇走堂，做更有意義的事。選擇絕對比核心課程的四個範籌廣。

如果希望以強逼報讀、各類考核以保令學子有所學，豈非與其理念背道而馳？大學，應是一個自由的地方。

I am for the motion, that common core curriculum should be abolished. The curriculum was introduced with the aims of enabling students to explore, ex-periment and jostle with the unfamiliar, and to make something new, said by Common Core Director, Gray Kochhar-Lindgren. These expected outcomes, however, are just too idealistic when the curriculum comes in to practice.

The school introduces that common core curriculum can serve the purpose of encouraging students to explore in fields that they are not unfamiliar with and

out of their major studies. In reality, majority of the students would choose courses that they are familiar with and easier to get good grades. What they are concerned about when choosing a course are the workload and expected grade of it, but seldom about their interest. This creates a phenomenon that courses with higher tendency to get good grades are fully enrolled, leaving courses that are relatively harder to get good grades with lots of vacancies. Therefore, it is said that the curriculum fails to cultivate students’ interest in fields outside of their major.

Each common core course only lasts for one semester. Though time is limited, the concepts taught could be so broad and complex. It is quite difficult for students to digest all the new knowledge which may not necessarily related to their own studies within one. With students’ preference of focusing on their own studies rather than the common core, they can hardly develop deep understanding in the unexplored fields. It is ridiculous to expert students to make something new.

Some may worry that abolition of common core curriculum will mean having no way for students to explore in their interested fields. But actually, students can choose to sit in in lectures whenever they want or enrol in a wide range of free electives offered by different faculties. Learning should not be bound in the classroom. Students can take some online courses, apply for internships and go on an exchange to learn. They can even skip their lessons to do some-thing that they find to be more meaningful and worth their time. These ways should be what students should take to step from their own studies to explore the new.

Making it compulsory for students to take common core course and satisfy the course requirements actually goes against the curriculum’s aim. In the uni-versity, students should be given the choice to freely choose what they want to learn outside of their disciplinary studies, which should not be restricted in the common core courses.

128

普選評議員二　Popularly Elected Union Councillor II (PC2)

陳烈文　CHAN Lit Man


主席大會，在我表達對對辯題的看法前，我想先談談我對大學教育的意義和目標的看法。林語堂先生在〈論現代批評的職務〉一文裏談到大學教育的目的：「我們要明白大學的宗旨，並不是教出一位有學問的人，因為這是四年中萬萬辦不到的事。我們所求於大學的畢業生，並不是一位學問淵博的專家，只是一位知道學問的門徑，及有學問的旨趣，而最重要的還是一位頭腦清楚思路通達的人，對於普通文化事物、文學、美術、政治、歷史有相當批評的見解。」

林語堂說學生在四年大學教育之後應該「知道學問的門徑，及有學問的旨趣」，所說的「學問」，不一定是指學術研究追求的專門學問，也可以泛指繼續求知的方法和求知的興趣。為何要繼續求知呢？因為人有自省的能力，可以自我改進和追求完善，而求知是改善自己的有效方法；從實用方面考慮，四年教育教不了多少知識，畢業後要學的東西還多著，而且世界不斷在變，你不繼續學習，便只有落後。因此，大學教育著眼的不應該是學生所得知識的量，而應該是從學習態度和方法的質上訓練學生，令他們終生受用。

因此，要擴闊學生的視野，啟發學生對大千世界的思考，以及令學生成為一位頭腦清楚思路通達的人，核心課程都發揮重要作用。香港大學的核心課程範圍廣泛，學習內客涵蓋中國國情、全球化議題、人文社科以及科學，有助啟發同學對世界的思考，更減少同學因過份側重於其主修科而導致個人發展不平衡的情況出現。

然而，有不少同學認為核心課程所教授所涵蓋的知識領域並非他們的強項，核心課程或會對學生成績 (GPA) 構成影響。因此，我認為在維持現有制度的同時，核心課程的學分比重可以減少。目前為止，同學普遍需要在三年內修讀六個核心課程科目，合共三十六個學分。個人認為校方可把學生需修讀的核心課程數目由六個減到四個（合共二十四學分），而四個核心科目必需平均涵蓋四個核心課程的領域，包括中國、全球化、人文社科及科學。透過此安排，同學仍能探索不同的學習領域，又能減少核心課程對 GPA 的負面影響。

Council Chairperson and the Assembly fellows, I would like to talk about the purposes and meanings of tertiary education before expressing my views con-cerning the abolition of the Common Core Curriculum. “Tertiary education does not aim at nurturing people with high academic qualifications, but nur-turing pillars for the society and country which are equipped with the ability of independent and critical thinking.” Lam Yutang said. Undeniably, a univer-sity graduate could not be developed into an expert in a certain academic field after 4 years of university education.

From Lam’s viewpoint, Students should have developed the interests in ac-quiring knowledge after 4 years of university education, more importantly the ways of acquiring knowledge. Human beings possess the ability of self-eval-uation and self-improvement. The recipe for self-evaluation and self-im-provement is the acquisition of knowledge. In the pragmatic sense, university education cannot nurture a mass of graduates with remarkable academic achievements, but nurturing students’ attitude in learning. A university grad-uate has much more to learn after graduation including inter-personal com-munication skills and the ability in wrestling with adversities.

Therefore, in enlightening students’ minds different viewpoints and helping them to explore the contemporary world, the Common Core Curriculum is of great importance and significance. HKU’s Common Core Curriculum is char-acterized by great flexibility and diversity. The Curriculum covers a wide range of issues including China, globalization, arts and humanities and science. Common Core Courses can therefore help inspire students and prevent them from having an imbalanced personal development.

However, it is widely heard that Common Core Courses would pose a menace to student’s GPA since the students are not good at the academic areas cov-ered by the Common Core Courses. In hopes of striking a balance between GPA and the balanced academic development of the students, it is suggested that the number of Common Core Courses taken by the students can be re-duced from 6 to 4, from 36 credits to 24 credits.

130

普選評議員三　Popularly Elected Union Councillor III (PC3)

陳穎琪　CHAN Wing Ki


我是贊成這個議題的。校方設立核心課程期期望可以達至以可數個目標：第一，希望有助同學發展多角度思考，以理性分析能力將不同議題連結到同學的日常生活。第二，培養同學了解不同文化的異同。第三，配合全球化，讓同學以公民身份投入至世界、地區及本土事務和議題。第四，通過學習，培養同學溝通、社交及合作能力。可惜，現時核心課程根本未能達到以上目標，同學負面評價不絕，早已對不同的核心課程失去信心。

核心課程的原意本是突破了恆常大學生學習的框框，令同學可以用更多資源去修讀和涉獵更多範籌的知識，可惜課程本身畫地為牢，限定四大範籌，所提供的課程都必須要和四大範籌有關，同學選擇減少。而且，不少課程不能與時並進，更未能連結到生活或時事議題中，令同學不明所意，更有課程因為長期收生不足而關閉。由此可見，核心課程未能有效連結同學日常生活，使到感到學非所用。

其次，學習和了解不同文化應通過體驗、考察和交流，而絕非考試和測驗，核心課程其中一大缺點便是有考核制度，不單使同學的學習負擔增加，亦令同學對課程厭惡度增加，學習動機減少。現時有超過五成的課程設有考試和不同的測驗，無疑是使同學百上加斤，過時的評核方式亦與課程設計不配合，既要同學體驗生活，從中學習，又要通過考核強逼同學學習課程提供的內容，流於傳統，使同學認為核心課程「貨不對版」、信心大失。

即使將來核心課程有望改革，亦難以挽回同學對其之信心，與其由互動體驗，變成考試測驗，由多元思考，變成四大範籌，不如將課程取消，使同學有更多學分去修讀不同的選修科，甚至可以將學分轉為職場實習，有助同學日後發展。

I agree on this motion since common core curriculum failed to go along with its goal. Common core curriculum is set up for several purposes. Firstly, en-able students to develop a broader perspective and a critical understanding of the complex connections between issues in their everyday lives. Secondly, cultivate students’ ability to navigate the similarities and differences between their own and other cultures. Thirdly, enable students to more fully participate as individuals and citizens in global, regional, and local communities. Last, enable the intellectual, collaborative, and communication skills that will be further enhanced in students’ disciplinary studies, and, in turn, contribute to the quality of their lives after graduation. However, students are disappointed to common core curriculum due to the contradictions between executing and aiming.

The design of Common core is creative and breakthrough the traditional lean-ing methods. Unfortunately, all courses in common core curriculum are lim-ited in to four categories only. Students do not have their freedom to choose what they want to learn. Also, many courses are failed on giving connections between students’ daily lives and social issues and behind the times due to the lack of updating. Some even close because it failed to enroll sufficient number students. Many students get confused during the learning experience.

Also, it is contradictory to force students taking exam and tests for under-standing and experience the global and regional cultures. Over 50% common core course syllabuses include exams, tests and quiz. The learning burden of students and the loathing for these courses will definitely be increased. Con-servative study load could not match the development of learning method.

It is difficult to get back the confidence from students even the reform of common core curriculum will be conducted in the future. It will be better if we could choose what we really want to study and even change the credits to internship and placement for the future career of students.

132

普選評議員四　Popularly Elected Union Councillor IV (PC4)

霍旻鍵　FOK Man Kin Ken

本人就廢除整個核心課程予以反對態度，但認為核心課程有執行上的改善空間。有見於同學就核心課程的不滿多源於其安排及執行，而我亦認同核心課程在本質上有其存在的意義。因此，我會先就核心課程意義發表意見，再討論現行制度上有何問題。

首先，核心課程是全球知名大學的一貫做法。大部分的學校也提供必修核心課程，如：哈佛大學、大阪大學、新南威爾斯大學等等。這些課程或許以不同形式出現，但內容上大同小異，大致上與人生價值觀及基本社會知識聯繫。就此，我不是要論證知名大學的做法就理應是香港大學的做法，而反之，核心課程的出現是適合香港社會的需要。

核心課程有助同學去理解不同領域的知識，從而防止在早年過份重視專業知識。香港並沒有分辨專業及純學業學位，同學有機會只集中於專業發展而忽略了其他方面的平衡。我們常常聽到人越成長，越頑固。那正正因為人生閱歷增長，我們越來越以為自己的一套就是對的。加上，大學是同學進入社會前最後的踏腳石。所以，合時的核心課程可以讓同學了解不同領域，從而開放自己。在香港被稱為政治冷感時，在政府只著重於經濟發展時，在沈默佔據大多數時，此點尤其重要。不過，核心課程在量化及質化上也只有低程度上的參與，加上校園內不倦的牢騷可見其執行上的問題。因此，我認為在維持現有制度的同時，核心課程應在以下三方面進行改革：減少學分、改善評分準則及優化核心課程的內容。

就減少學分方面，我認同必修核心課程的重要性，但此課程所佔有的學分是不合比例的。同學如修讀單學位便需要滿足三十六學分的核心課程，而雙學位則為二十四學分。如與社會科學學系的副修課程比較，一個副修亦只需要三十六學分而已。我認為在平衡核心課程及本科內容時，本科內容應佔有更高的重要性。因此核心課程可能可縮減至三學分或更少，而我亦不認為此舉會違背慣常做法，因為現時亦有課程有多於六學分的做法。

在改善評分準則上，我認為校方應重新審視核心課程的評分準則，從而在學生的學習動機及其負擔上作出平衡。我發現在課程中，同學就算不參與課堂，仍然能得到好成績，此現象會更為減少其動機去在核心課程中努力。我認為校方應該廢除現時的評方制度，以合格與否為評分標準。與此同時，合格的標準應予以提高，一個例子可能是合格的必要要求是在無合理解釋下，所有課堂也是必須出席的。

課堂質素及課程的深入程度也會影響同學的參與程度。倘若同學不能從課堂上得到知識上的增長，他們自然不想出席課堂，而寧願把時間放在其他學習或娛樂上。因此，課堂質素及課程的深入程度也應在審視過程中恰到好處，而做到恰到好處的必要步驟就是咨詢同學意見，因為同學正是最大的受惠者。

我的總結是雖然核心課程是應該不是現行制度上有很多執行上的問題，但仍不應全面廢除。

I disagree with the motion despite the unsatisfactory execution of the cur-rent setting. As I may have indicated, the opposition to the curriculum mainly comes from the arrangement and execution of the curriculum, in which the subsistence of the curriculum is acceptable, if not desirable. I will first illus-trate why the curriculum has value in itself, followed by the discussion of the current arrangement.

To begin with, this is the common practice in prestigious schools around the globe. As what I found out, most of the schools offered general education or some other curriculums which are equivalent to common core curriculum in Hong Kong, such as Harvard University, UNSW and Osaka University. They may exist in different forms, but they do recognise the importance of infusing the correct values or some fundamental social knowledge into the students during their study. I am not to say that the curriculum is valuable as most of the other universities offered it, but rather, it very much fits into the social needs in Hong Kong.

Common core curriculum could assist students in their understanding to-wards different disciplines to prevent the over-emphasis on expertise in early

134

stage. The fact that Hong Kong did not distinguish professional degree from that of the purely academic degree, students might have over-focused in their expertise. It is often heard that human tends to turn a deaf ear to opinions of the others as they experience more, as they affirmed their own set of values. University education might be the last (involuntary) step to acquire knowl-edge from different disciplines, and open up to opinions of others. This is particularly important when Hong Kong is often condemned as a place of po-litical aloofness, as we focused too much on economic development, in which the most of the citizens, the silent majority neglected the importance of other aspects of life. Therefore, I see the advantages in the curriculum. However desirable it seems, the low (both quantitative and qualitative) attendance rate and the recurring criticism in the campus manifested its problematic execu-tion. Based on this observation, I suggest that the university should maintain the curriculum, subject to three main reforms, which are reduction of credits, and improving grading distribution and the quality of common core courses.

Regarding the credit issue, I do recognise the need of compulsory nature, but the curriculum may have taken up more than enough credits compared to the core courses of the degree. Students are expected to take up 36 credits of common core courses for single degree, and 24 credits for double degree. However, contrast to a minor subject in for example social sciences, I find it quite disproportionate as it requires also 36 credits. It is always important to strike a balance between the exposure to general knowledge and the knowl-edge necessary to complete a degree as they should, in order to better pre-pare themselves under the Hong Kong’s arrangement of bachelor degree. As a suggestion in the preliminary point, a common core course may share 3 credits or fewer in the system, and I do not find it deviate from the usual prac-tice to add or deduct from the 6 credits per course, as it could be easy to man-age and there are in fact courses that bear more than 6 credits currently.

On the account of grade distribution, I think this is necessary to take steps to review the assessment criteria of all of the common courses in order to balance between student’s incentive to be attentive and their burden in

academic study. I find that students are not willing to attend common core courses, and the fact that they can still get a good grade from some courses further reduces their incentive. A suggestion can be on the one hand, abolish the current grading system, and replace it with a pass-and-fail credit-bearing course. On the other hand, the coordinators have to ensure that the course requirement is tight enough to allow students to be attentive. For instance, one must not be absent to any lesson or tutorial without proper explanation in order to get a pass.

Another reason that can be attributed to the current general reluctance to attend lectures is presumably the low quality of lectures and the not-so-in-depth curriculum. If students think that they cannot get anything out of the lecture, they would just save their time for study or entertainment. Therefore, it is essential to assure that the common core courses are informative. Also, in the review, it shall consult the student’s opinion on what should or should not be included in the curriculum, as they are the ones who studied the cours-es and the future students are the greatest beneficiaries of the curriculum.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the improvements that could be made in long, the common core curriculum shall not be abolished.

136

普選評議員五　Popularly Elected Union Councillor V (PC5)

韓鈞元　HON Kwan Yuen

我認為香港大學並不應廢除核心課程。

第一，現今企業要求人才「專才」、「通才」兼備，大學生不但要精於攻讀的學系，更要對社會不同範籌有認識及獨特見解。香港大學就重大議題以設計的核心課程正能顧及此需求，令將要投身社會的學生得到更廣闊的視野，並改善其分析及解難能力。例如全球化單元中的核心課程，能夠令同學掌握世界脈搏，提高他們在職場中的競爭力。

第二，核心課程能夠創造機會，讓不同學系的學生在課餘活動以外的時間交流。核心課程中不同學系的學生能夠以不同的角度切入剖析，透過辯論、小組討論和專題研究全面地了解該核心課程中的主體議題。另一方面，透過與不同學術背景的人接觸，同學可以擴展其知識領域，並擴展人際網絡。至於有同學認為核心課程中有各種流弊，例如學習負擔過重，甚至令同學不能專注於其主修課程，又或有同學質疑不同核心課程的評分標準和學術深度不同，令同學蜂擁報讀較易取得佳績的課程，有違讓學生依興趣選擇課程的原意。我認為這些流弊能歸詬於行政和管理不善，尚有改善的空間，能夠於之後的檢討中討論、修改，不妨礙學生核心課程中獲得上述的好處。至於如何修改並不在此議案的討論範圍。

香港其他大學和世界其他一流學府，如芝加哥大學和哈佛大學，亦設有類似模式及學習目的的課程，香港大學大可以借鏡改善課程，並不需要廢除。

I think the motion “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum” shall be defeated.

Firstly, firms nowadays require both the qualities of generalists and specialist from the graduates who should be skillful in their professions and knowl-edgeable to the global issues. In order to educate its students who are one step from the workforce with a broaden vision, the Common Core Curriculum, focusing on significant issues, in the University of Hong Kong do it well in improving their analytical skills and problem-solving skills. For example, the courses in the Globalization module allow students to keep up with the world so as to increase their competitiveness in their career.

Secondly, Common Core Courses enables students from different curriculums to interflow their thoughts. In the issue-based courses, students can share their ideas based on their professions so that the discussed topics are ana-lyzed all-roundedly through debating, group discussion and conducting proj-ects. On the other hand, students can expand and enrich their network and academic profile through meeting their fellows with different background.Some may argue that the workload of some Common Core courses is too heavy that the students cannot focus on their own curriculum core courses. While some may doubt that there are different marking standards and diffi-culties for different courses resulting in students crazily fighting for so called

“good grade” courses, which is contradictory to the original aim of letting people register courses regarding their interests. However, I think improper management should be blamed on these flaws, which can be revised later, but not hindering students to get benefit from the curriculum. And the details of amendment should not be discussed under this motion.

All in all, the University of Hong Kong shall not abolish the Common Core Cur-riculum.

138

普選評議員六　Popularly Elected Union Councillor VI (PC6)

盧業威　LO Yip Wai

主席、大會：

今天之動議是香港大學應廢除核心課程。對此議案，我未可苟同。在決定支持或否決此議案時，我認為必須要問自己一個問題，大學教育應該是提供什麼知識予學生，大學是培育什麼的人的地方。1993 年度至 2013 年度的耶魯大學校長理查德 ‧ 利文 (Richard Charles Levin) 曾經在其演講中提到：「大學的教育核心在於通識，在於培養學生批判性思維的能力，為其終身的學習經歷打好基礎。」我對此看法十分認同，特別是在香港大學的層面上。我認為在歷經十多年填鴨式教育的香港大學學生，身負同年齡層香港學識層面上最高的背景，實在有必要去學得更多，想得更闊。而我認為，核心課程實有助學生去認識更多，思考更多。

今天香港大學核心課程是要求所有香港大學本科生最少修讀四門課程，且範疇不同的課程。當中有包括科學性的課程、人文學科的課程、認識世界和認識中國的課程。這些課程的設計都是給予不同專業的同學去增廣自己的見聞。舉一極端至致的例子。在舊日，一位以科學為專業的本科生，實無機會去一探人文學科的知識。科學其專業和事事講究準確反應的要求，在人文學科中或許可說是天荒夜談。人文學科所重視的說理、討論、以駁斥為主的思維學習方式是一個理學院學生可能從未見識過的學習。在此，相信諸位都可以明白跨學科的學習實對不同專業的學生實有百利。

然而，今天反對聲音之出現不外因核心課程會拉低學生學分，浪費時間、不可使人增廣見聞的論調。但這一切論調都建基於一錯誤的稻草人，實有違公允。大學課程的設計理應是去讓學生更準備應對明天的試歷，是讓他們未來可以應對不同環境問題的法門。誠如開始亦提到，大學教育核心在於通識，在於培養學生批判性思維的能力，是開啟未來學習的鎖鑰，是一個在個人成長歷練中有所成長的學習。在此一個前題下，以上曾提到的各反對原因均不能比這重要。

然而，反對取消核心課程並不是核心課程無大礙之意。核心課程影響萬多名本科生，畢業與否都會與此有所關聯，因此，檢討核心課程是不容忽視。如核心科目應否計算入學分之中；應否有與專業學科的一樣要求；學生應修讀的科目；開設的範疇，均需要不同程度的檢討。在此，我希望評議會可以去更多收集同學的意見，反映予校方所知，進一步滋養香港大學的學生。

Chairperson and Assembly,

To begin with, I have to express my stance on today’s motion. I think we have to consider a few things before we pick our side: what is University Education, what type of students would be produced under such education? Richard Charles Levin, the former principle of Yale University said, “the realization of human potential, in ourselves and for those around us – is the ultimate goal of higher education.” I totally agree with him, especially when we are mention-ing HKU. In Hong Kong, students all are suffering a lot under the Hong Kong Education system, the system that emphasizes recitation, and is lack of logical thinking process. Even though we are learning in this environment, every sin-gle one of us is standing on the top of our generation. We are the best. At least we have to believe it. We have to learn more, to think more, to step out of our comfort zone. In that sense, the Common Core Curriculum is the key and pil-lars for HKU students to develop more on it.

Common Core Curriculum in HKU requires every undergraduate to study at least 4 courses with different areas. They are Scientific and Technological Lit-eracy, Humanities, Global Issues and China: Culture, State and Society. These are the courses that could help students to broaden their horizon. To give an extreme example, a science student would not have any chances in studying any humanities courses. The profession of a science student would never have the chance to explore the ideas of debate. They are studying about fact, evi-dence and data. However, the Common Core Curriculum offers a chance for different students to explore different aspects of knowledge.

140

Most of the opinions of opposing against Common Core Curriculum are that it would make our GPA become lower, wasting our time and cannot help our students to widen their vision. However, those are all attacking the straw man. University should be the institution that helps university students to develop their logical thinking and prepare them for their learning in the future. It is a precious experience for personal development.

Indeed, Common Core Curriculum still has rooms for improvement. As it is re-lated to all undergraduate students, we have to examine its problems and im-prove it. Should Common Core Curriculum be counted in the credits, should it have the same requirement as a profession course, what areas should it in-clude? These are some of the aspect we could consider to have a suitable im-provement. In here, I sincerely hope that the HKUSU Council could gain more opinions from our members, so that we can reflect our voice to the school and let them know what HKU students are truly thinking.

普選評議員七　Popularly Elected Union Councillor VII (PC7)

宋晧妍　SUNG Ho In

我反對「香港大學應廢除核心課程」此項議案。

現時大部分港大同學需要修讀六個核心課程：四個探索範疇中，同學在每個探索範疇中需要修讀至少一個課程，而同學不能於每個探索範疇中修讀多於兩個課程。雙學位課程的同學則需要修讀四個課程。為了確保一個平衡探索，核心課程被分為四個探索範疇，分別為科學技術、人文學科、環球議題以及中國文化、國家與社會。

我認為核心課程其中一個最大目的是令不同課程的同學接觸到不局限於自身課程的知識，並期望同學能連結兩者，將知識融會貫通。我認同此意念。修讀核心課程能帶給同學有別於其主修及副修的專門知識的不同知識，而四個探索範疇更是確保了知識的廣度。可是核心課程執行上時亦出現不少的問題，例如，核心課程的工作量太大影響到同學的主修及副修、部分同學經常無故缺席核心課程，俗稱「走堂」，知識亦未有接觸，遑論將其融會貫通。就第一個現象，我建議將必須修讀的核心課程數量劃一地調低至四個。就第二個現象，我認為同學會缺席核心課程是因為他們對該課程沒有興趣。故此，我認為校方可以首先擴闊探索範疇、增加受歡迎的課程的收生人數、允許由選修科目的學分轉移，以確保同學能修讀感興趣的課程，再論接觸知識的深度、廣度，以及能否將其融會貫通。

總括而言，我認同核心課程出現的原則，但我同時承認核心課程於執行上有進步空間。故此，我反對今天這議案但期待於往後執行上的進步令核心課程更能達至其目的。

142

I am opposing the motion “The University of Hong Kong shall abolish the Common Core Curriculum”.

Students of HKU are normally required to take 6 six-credit courses, one from each area of inquiry (Aol) and not more than 2 from any Aol while students from double degrees are required to take 4 six-credit courses. The four Aols are namely, Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues and China: Culture, State and Society; Common Core (CC) is divided into these four areas in order to ensure a balanced exploration.

I believe one major objective of CC Curriculum is to provide a space for build-ing friendships across all the Faculties and it will help students make con-nections both to and beyond their chosen disciplinary fields of study. I am in favour of this idea. Studying the courses of CC Curriculum can equip us with dissimilar knowledge other than specialized knowledge from our majors and minors. The four Aols ensure the diversity of knowledge gained. How-ever, problems generated during the execution of CC Curriculum and make students in disfavour of it. For instance, the heavy workload of some courses pressurizes the students; students always ditch the lessons of CC Curriculum. For the former phenomenon, I would suggest to reduce the number of re-quired courses of CC Curriculum for all students to 4 uniformly. For the latter phenomenon, I believe the reason of students ditching lessons is that they have no interest of that course. Therefore, I am making suggestions including broadening the Aol, increasing the vacancies of those popular courses and al-lowing credits transfer from free electives as credits of CC Curriculum courses so as to ensure students can study what they are really interested in.

To conclude, I find the principle of establishing CC Curriculum is justified yet the execution part still has room for improvement. Therefore, I am opposing the motion but still looking forward to seeing the changes which make the CC Curriculum to achieve its goals more easily.

去屆代表

Past Representative

144

去屆會長　President of the previous Union Session (PP)

梁麗幗　LEUNG Lai Kwok Yvonne

因應香港於 2012 年推行四年制學士學位課程，香港大學銳意革新核心課程。作為2012 年最後一屆入讀三年制學士學位課程的學生，我於一年級選修兩個核心課程共十二學分，便已完成相關學位要求。惟同年入讀四年制課程的學弟妹，已須在首兩年選修六科共三十六學分，佔四年課程總學分多達一成五。

但核心課程革新三年以來，要求廢除核心課程的呼聲甚囂塵上。究其原因，主要是認為核心課程課業過份沉重，且有與本科本末倒置之勢。然而，作為曾於舊制下修讀核心課程的四年級生，我認為校方縱有必要調整核心課程，但整體而言這一類跨學科通識課程仍有一定保留價值。

首先，核心課程的精神在於把重要的學科或合併若干學科內容為一個廣泛的領域，並以社會問題、社會需要及社會功能為主，確保學生有完整的生活經驗。在大學中提供核心課程，離不開「回復基本能力」、讓學生瞭解社會價值與問題的主目標。為培養健全的公民，以及回應社會對通才愈加殷切的需求，核心課程的本質並無虞。

其次，港大編制核心課程符合院校特性。作為香港數一數二面向國際的綜合型大學，要善用多元人力及課程資源，以培養不僅在自己專科成就卓越，更能把各個學科融會貫通的學生，實無可厚非。

無可否認，港大核心課程有若干進步空間。在課程佔重方面，六科共三十六學分佔總學分多達一成五，直接影響學生於本科畢業時的榮譽等級。其實核心課程成效與學分多少並無直接關係，關鍵反而在於核心課程能夠提供充足機會讓同學接觸非自己本科、卻屬基本知識的課程內容。作為社會科學（政治及公共行政）及法律本科的學生，當年我選修的兩個核心課程為「全球化下的法治」及「中國與世界」，跟本科課程的內容頗有重疊之處。我認為，校方可以考慮把核心課程減少，再加入按照同學本科配對核心課程範疇的措施。

In response to the implementation of the new 4-year curriculum in Hong Kong in 2012, HKU carried a reform on common core curriculum. As one studying in the last batch of 3-year curriculum, I only had to study 12 credits of common core in my freshman year to fulfill the degree requirement. Nonetheless, those in the 4-year curriculum who entered the University in the same year as I did had to study 6 common core courses comprising 36 credits in their first two years of studies, attributing to 15% of the total credits they need to take.

In the three years subsequent to the reform, there have been calls for abol-ishing the whole common core curriculum. The main reasons being the over-loading burden common core curriculum brought to students, and the risk of them overriding the importance of their own professional studies. However as a fourth year student having completed the old system of common core, I do sense the worthiness to keep the common core curriculum despite a need for fine-tuning.

First of all, the aim of common core curriculum is to introduce important sub-jects or their combination as a wider scope of studies for all students. The gist is to address social problems, social needs and social functions, in order to provide students a comprehensive learning experience. Providing common core courses in tertiary studies helps ensure the acquisition of all necessary skills and an ability to identify social problems before the student actually complete their degrees. This facilitates civic training, and is a response to the increasing social demand of polymath.

Secondly, common core curriculum in HKU is complementary to its status being a comprehensive university. With the diversified human and academic resources, HKU shall excel in training students who do not only excel in their own professions, but also in emerging knowledge from various disciplines.

Undeniably there is quite some room for improvement in the HKU Common Core Curriculum. In terms of weight, six courses comprising 36 credits attri-butes to as much as 15% of the total credits for a degree, thus it affects the

146

overall honors. After all, there is no direct correlation between the results and the number of credits to be taken; the key is yet vested on whether sufficient chances for students to acquire necessary knowledge from other disciplines. As a student majoring in politics and public administration & law, I chose “Rule of Law in a Globalizing World” and “China and the World” to fulfill the Com-mon Core requirement. As a result, I did not benefit a lot from the presence of common core courses. In my opinion, the University shall consider reducing the proportion of common core courses, and at the same time, introduce measures to prevent students choosing courses that correlate to their own profession.

校園傳媒

Campus Media

148

學苑總編輯　Editor-in-Chief of Undergrad (ECU)

劉以正　LAU Yee Ching

即使現時核心課程制度於設計或執行上有不少漏弊，然而其意義在香港大學的教育上仍未有可取締的空間，故未見非廢除不可的必要。

我認為當討論到核心課程制度時應針對兩個問題，一、現行核心課程制度能否達到其目的；二、核心課程於本科生教育之意義。

從課程指引可見，核心課程的模版參考現代美式大學教育的博雅教育模式，其目的在於培養學生於不同領域之興趣，達到全人發展。然而今日可見，此目的之實行效果成疑，有學生反映對核心課程的重視比其他課程低、選課時學分導向、不同科目的評分標準不一、單一課程未必能提高學生興趣芸芸。惟批評多針對制度的執行面向多於否定其目的，故或可從現行制度著手改善，至於如何改善則仍可開放討論，例如減少課程所佔學分、每三年對課程的科目進行全面檢討、統一所修科目的數量等，惟具體措施不在是次辯題的討論之列。

其次在於核心課程之工具與內在意義，核心課程有助緩解香港高等教育長年積累的專業導向問題，提供予香港教育生態更多的可能，亦容許學生探索主學科以外的不同知識，藉著結合舊有的知識版塊，鞏固知識體系，有助學生了解當下複雜的社會。另外，核心課程中有不少學科是由跨部門的教師一同教授，此舉體驗跨學科學習的可能性，在跨學科學習愈見普及之際，就算單純基於工具價值的層面，核心課程亦有需要持續在校推行。

在是次辯論中，期望正立辯題的評議員必須解釋，為何必須以廢除的手段解決現存核心課程之弊端。我認為即使課程的目的在現行制度框架之下，未能全面被傳達到受眾，但在假設弊端可以藉時間推移而逐步改變的前提下，此課程仍有保留之需要。

Even the design and execution of the current Common Core curriculum has been revealed different problem through out the years, its significance in the education of the University of Hong Kong is still irreplaceable. Therefore, I don’t see justified causes that suggest a need to abolish the entire curricu-lum as a resolve to the problems occurred.

I believe when discussion comes down to the Common Core (CC) curriculum, the two major concerns are whether the current system can achieve its aim and secondly, its significance in the undergraduate education.

With reference to the course guide, the concept of CC is quite similar to the liberal arts education in universities in the United States. It aims at nurturing students’ interest in different fields including arts and science, with an end goal of whole person development. As we see today, however, whether the aims have been achieved very much remains in mist. For instance, students pay less attention to the CC system, or the motive behind them choosing the courses is very much GPA-driven, etc. Most critics pinpoint on the execution instead of refuting the objective of the curriculum thus it is plausible to im-prove on the current system. Take for example, does it necessary of a CC to be worth for six credits like any other courses or it can be less. Let say, for three? Improvements are too early to be discussed in the debate though.

The introduction of CC allows on one hand for the university to alleviate the problem of professional-oriented education in Hong Kong, and on the other for students to search for potential interests apart from their major. It also helps students in understanding the complex society we are living in today. The design of having professors from different department in formulating the same course itself has manifested the possibilities of interdisciplinary studies. Given interdisciplinary studies has become more popular in recent decades, we can see both instrumental and intrinsic values in CC, and the need of keep-ing it as well.

150

In the course of the debate, I hope any councilors or students who think there is a need to abolish explain and persuade all of us why abolishment is the only option on the table. In short conclusion, even with the constraints of the current system, the aims of the CC as a whole cannot fully deliver to the un-dergraduates, yet if we assume the pitfalls of the curriculum can be gradually solved in time, there is still a need to keep the CC.

註：學苑總編輯不具投票權。P.S.: Editor-in-Chief of Undergrad does not have voting rights.

校園電視主席　Chairperson of Campus TV (CTVC)

丘明曜　YAU Ming Yiu

港大核心課程以不同領域的議題為主軸，學生須接觸各學術範疇的概念以探討課程中提及的議題。而教職員制定課程大綱時一般會顧及來自不同學系的同學在已有知識上的分別，調校深入度至大部分同學都能理解。如此，核心課程能讓同學嘗試用不同學術範疇的思維分析問題，而同學在核心課程中發掘出對其他學術範疇的興趣後，更可以再選讀該學科的選修課程增進了解。

博雅教育在教育史上出現已久，全球𣎴同大學均有開辦各種類似課程讓來自不同學院的學生共同修讀，以啟發學生對𣎴同學術範疇的興趣。

培養以不同學術範疇思維思考的能力，對大學生以至香港社會有莫大裨益。港大核心課程的必修政策能推動同學接觸各學術範疇，而課程深入度則能方便來自不同學系的同學初步了解不同學科。核心課程有著鼓勵同學擴闊思維的作用，非其他現有政策可取替，因此港大應保留核心課程。

The Common Core Curriculum of HKU allows students to learn about and apply concepts from a wide range of academic fields to address issues of our world. Teaching staff do consider the differences in knowledge and ability of students from different faculties, and then try to guide students to briefly understand concepts of different fields of study. Hence, students can explore ways of thinking of different fields while going through issues addressed in the Common Core courses with more incentive.

Liberal arts education has been valued high as it can provide students with the mindset to critically evaluate this world with different ways of thinking. Common Core Curriculum of HKU is aiming to do the same while it cannot be replaced by other existing policies to achieve the goal. Therefore, the Com-mon Core Curriculum of HKU should be kept, and we should keep going on improving its effectiveness in achieving its goal.

註：校園電視主席不具投票權。P.S.: Chairperson of Campus TV does not have voting rights.

HKUSU Council Annual Debate 2015 - Written Opinions

Documents

Transcript of HKUSU Council Annual Debate 2015 - Written Opinions