獎學金制度厚此薄彼 Higher education: How the govt is getting its priorities wrong
由<<今日信報>>轉載
從董建華年代開始，本港積極擴充專上教育，並承諾增加大學學額，目的是為完成專上教育的學生提供進修機會。10多年來，到底本港學生升學之路是否真的能夠做到「條條大路通羅馬」？本文嘗試藉美國專上教育的學生的升學情況，了解和分析本港專上教育的政策，從而探討本港學生的升學情況。
曾榮光教授的文章〈算是什麼樣的專上教育機會？—「增加專上教育機會」政策的批判〉與學者Burton Clark著名的「冷卻」功能（’cooling-out’ function）理論，同樣對美國社區學院的「雙重任務」作出分析，發現美國推行普及專上教育時，會以社區學院提供的副學士課程「冷卻」美國龐大高中畢業生人口升讀大學的期望，在兩年制學院中，約有三分二學生選讀「轉學」課程，期望之後能夠升讀四年制學院；然而，當中只有三分一人能夠實現願望，亦即最後大約只有22%學生能夠得償所願，完成四年制學士學位課程。
升學期望給「冷卻」
過程中，學生被「透導」（indeed）接受自己入讀的課程、得到的學歷和身份，在學院內以至社會上，只是一種較低地位（lower status）的「代替品」（substitute）。如此一來，社區學院成功幫助美國社會「冷卻」接近八成的升學壓力，大大減省美國政府當時在教育投資的經費。在這樣的教育生態下，對學生來說，「冷卻」過程是一個可能的妥協，或甚至是必需的妥協。
現時本港社區學院的功能與Burton Clark分析美國社區學院的「冷卻」功能理論頗為相似，由於適齡青年入讀副學士/高級文憑（下稱副學位）課程時，抱着對升讀政府資助（UGC-funded）學士學位課程的期望；然而，當他們畢業之時，正是升學期望幻滅之時，因為本港社區學院所發揮的「冷卻」功能比Burton Clark分析時的美國更甚。
本港現時每年全日制副學位畢業生逾40000人，而取錄副學位畢業生的高年級學額（即入讀學士課程二年級或三年級）到2016/17學年亦只有4600個，即大約只有11.5%副學位畢業生能夠升讀政府資助學士學位課程，有近九成的升學壓力被「冷卻」。
《施政報告》發表前，曾一度傳出香港特區政府將提出副學位畢業生銜接內地升學的措拖。如果《施政報告》真以內地升學為副學位畢業生開闢升學之路，又能否一解其升學需求的燃眉之急？
事實上，2014年的《施政報告》已提出「內地大學升學資助計劃」（下稱「資助計劃」），資助持有香港永久居民或非永久居民身份證，以及港澳居民來往內地通行證的人；獲內地院校透過「內地部分高校免試招收香港學生計劃」（下稱「免試收生計劃」）取錄於下一學年到內地修讀學士學位課程一年級的學生。
通過入息審查的每名申請者，可視乎需要，獲發每年15000港元的全額資助，或7500港元的半額資助。可惜，資助計劃成效不彰，推出的第一個學年只有448份申請，只佔2015年61000多名文憑試考生不足1%，顯示香港學生到內地升學的意欲極低，內地升學亦絕非本港學生的升學意向，計劃根本搔不到副學士畢業生升學的癢處。
副學位畢業生受忽視
筆者從《施政報告》中看到「促進民心相通」部分第62段提出「政府將向獎學基金注資10億元，將『特定地區獎學金』的名額，由每年10名分階段增加約100名，鼓勵更多『一帶一路』國家的學生來港升學」。
另一邊廂，比較2014年《施政報告》「增加資助高等教育」部分第96.（4）提出「推行一項新的獎學金計劃，資助每屆最多100名傑出學生在香港境外升讀知名大學，以培育更多元化的頂尖人才，推動香港的發展。除一律獲發每年最高可達25萬元的獎學金外，有經濟需要的學生可另獲每年不超過20萬元的補助金」。這計劃去年以香港卓越獎學金計劃的名義推出，注資金額為3.5億元。
筆者大惑不解，為何政府資助「一帶一路」國家的學生來港升學注資的金額，竟然比資助本港學生到海外升學的還要多？本港的副學位畢業生完成課程後已負上纍纍學債，升學情況更是水深火熱，為何《施政報告》未有半點着墨？若我們的政府、我們的林鄭司長真的強調公義、關心對本港的年輕人，筆者敢問林鄭司長一句，這種厚此薄彼的做法，是否真的對我們的年輕人公平、公義？
筆者認為，如果香港特區政府真心希望解決副學位畢業生升學不足的問題，應從問題的根源着手，即增加資助大學學額。香港卓越獎學金計劃給予政府協助本港青年到海外升學的經驗，加上香港推行專上普及教育已10多年，當中不少副學位畢業生繼續升讀海外院校課程，並已獲海外院校豁免學分而能在兩年內完成學士課程。香港特區政府宜與港人熱門升學地區的政府建立一套更完善的學分豁免機制；開通「一帶一路」的來港升學渠道，倒不如打通副學位畢業生的海外升學之路，助本港副學位畢業生一圓升學夢。
蕭超杰 關注副學位大聯盟成員
連結：http://www1.hkej.com/dailynews/commentary/article/1224306/獎學金制度厚此薄彼#.Vp7nUBfM8MQ.mailto
English Version
For more than a decade, Hong Kong has been seeking rapid expansion in post-secondary education. Following the efforts all these years, is our tertiary education sector now really able to deliver on its promise and provide every eligible secondary school graduate in the city with the opportunity to receive higher education?
Before we answer this question, let’s first take a look at the situation about the admission rate of universities in the US, which may offer us some insight into the current state of our tertiary education.
Burton Clark, a prominent American education expert, had noted that state governments in the US often offer incentives for high school graduates to get enrolled in associate degree courses provided by community colleges. The move is aimed at cooling the students’ aspirations for pursuing university education, since the increase in the places in state universities just can’t keep up with the growing number of high school graduates.
It is said that only 22 percent of community college graduates in the US are able to gain admission to formal universities. In other words, community colleges have helped divert almost 80 percent of high school graduates into accepting an inferior substitute for formal undergraduate degrees and alleviate the shortage of university places across the country. A community college degree, though less competitive in the job market, could be the only option for students who either come from underprivileged families or whose grades are not good enough.
In fact what is happening in the US bears a striking resemblance to the situation in Hong Kong, where hundreds of private or publicly funded community colleges are providing tens of thousands of associate degree or higher diploma courses for secondary school graduates who at first could have aspired after a formal undergraduate degree, but over time, most of whom may end up resigning themselves to a lower qualification.
Simply put, the community colleges in Hong Kong are fulfilling the same kind of “cooling-out” function, a phrase coined by the late Clark himself, as their US counterparts.
Intriguingly, it seems community colleges in our city have outdone their US counterparts in fulfilling that so-called cooling-out function, as only 11.5 percent of our community college students here are able to gain admission to local universities, just a little more than half of the percentage in the US.
Aware of the severe shortage of university places in Hong Kong, the Education Bureau launched the “Mainland University Study Subsidy Scheme” (MUSSS) in 2014, under which secondary school graduates in Hong Kong may receive a means-tested subsidy of up to HK$15,000 a year in order to study in selected universities in the mainland, in an apparent effort to channel some of our demand for university places into institutions across the border.
Unfortunately, public response to the MUSSS has been lukewarm. Last year the Education Bureau received less than 500 applications, accounting for only one percent of the 61,000 students sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) in 2015, suggesting that the overwhelming majority of our teenagers are not in favor of the idea of pursuing higher education in the mainland. Simply put, the MUSSS is a complete flop.
It really boggles the mind that, in face of the serious shortage of university places for local students in Hong Kong, our chief executive had proposed in his recent Policy Address that we should spend more to subsidize foreign students from “One Belt One Road” countries to study in Hong Kong, rather than helping our own kids to study abroad. Is it really that difficult for top officials to get their priorities right?
I believe if our government is really sincere in helping youngsters further their education, it must get to the root of the problem and commit a lot more resources to providing more formal undergraduate places.
The government can also draw experience from its Hong Kong Scholarship for Excellence Scheme and assist more students in pursuing studies abroad.
What’s the point of spending so much time and effort to toe Beijing’s line and pitch the “One Belt One Road” plan if our government won’t even take care of our own kids?
This article appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on Jan. 18.
Translation by Alan Lee