University internationalisation | Hong Kong loses itself in the international ranking game

Hong Kong, which claims to be "international", is naturally eager for "university internationalization". It must be difficult to understand the fact that Renmin University of China, Nanjing University, Lanzhou University and other mainland universities have withdrawn from the international university rankings earlier. , a far-left move to decouple from the world.

But judging from the educational policy that President Xi Jinping has always emphasized to build "China's independent knowledge system" to build a world-class university, the withdrawal incident is not surprising.

For Hong Kong, it is even more worth reflecting on whether our leading institutions of higher learning have become too immersed in chasing the international ranking game, thus forgetting the educational function of cultivating morality and improving people's economy, and only driving educational output with economic interests, making the Universities have become market-oriented, commercialized, and McDonald's, and have not been able to lead Hong Kong's transformation and progress through various teaching and research results?

Or is it just following the European and American standards, gradually dwarfing the national cultural roots and Hong Kong's main value, and failing to achieve two-way integration and promote mutual assistance and win-win through internationalization?

Let's take a look at two news first.

In January 2020, City University of Hong Kong was selected as the most international university in the world according to the 2020 THE World University Ranking Index by the special issue of Times Higher Education in the United Kingdom; the evaluation criteria include the proportion of foreign teaching staff, the proportion of international students, and the number of international collaborative papers and global reputation and other four major areas, each accounting for 25% of the weight; as CityU has exchanged students with more than 4,000 institutions in 44 countries and regions, providing overseas exchange opportunities for 50% of students (14,000), and more than half of them The faculty (3,000 people) are from overseas, so they stand out in the international competition.

However, by 2021, according to the 2021 Global International University Rankings assessed by the same authoritative organization and the same scoring criteria, the University of Hong Kong, which has more than 35% international students among its 30,000 students, will become the first in the world; The top-ranked City University of Hong Kong has fallen out of the top 100 in the world, and if it goes back to 2019, City University is also not on the list.

The disparity between the two pieces of news has caused a series of doubts. First, when the publishing institution, evaluation criteria, and university profile have not changed much, why does CityU's international rankings fluctuate?

So is there a problem with CityU, or is there a problem with the ranking?

Second, what does the rating result of the "Global International University" mean?

Does it reflect the level of university education, academics, and scientific research, the ability to attract local and non-local students to enroll, or the performance of English-taught teaching because there are many more overseas teachers and students?

But does "English culture" mean "internationalization"?

Third, why can the degree, level and capability of the “internationalization” of an institution be determined solely based on the above-mentioned four evaluation criteria that seem to involve an “international” element?

These series of questions have to start with what is meant by "internationalization of higher education"...

For details, please read the 318th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Electronic Weekly (May 23, 2022) "