334新高中學制之下，大學學位應否増加？

My sincere comment is: NO. Arguments as follows:

1) We should not compare to US / Canada / Aust., etc. They have huge no of U below standard, in my opinion. You see, many of our CE failures, say 2 - 7 marks, can enter the overseas universities easily and can also get good results. Why?

U-Grade distributions are based on relative results. In a group of students, those 15% scored highest will get A, then 35% B, etc. If the opponents are weak, it is easy to get A and even a 1st Honour! But, are they valuable?

2) Talk about our key competitor Singapore. Why are they success? It is because their system will phrase out lower achievers at different stages and those who left in U-level are comparatively low in quantity. But that is the point: Because of keen competition, the kids value the chance of study a lot, and they have good learning attitude and their levels are much higher than overseas countries. That is why their graduates are excellent in quality.

3) HK has such phenomenon before early 90s, and that is our most success time. Since the sharp rise of U-seats and introduction of Asso, we can see students have a lot of channels to study but, the general quality drops cont'. This is not HK culture. We look for the best and strive for the best. The current scenario is opposite to our culture. The new generation is less motivated in study for too many chances available. They do not value what the old generations did not have before early 90s.

4) In HKDSE, it is right the no of candidates is much higher than
HKALE, yet do not forget this group of students have no scanning in S.5 stage. I am sure over 70% are not capable entering U. Only 30% are left to compete for 10K+ seats. How high is the chance!

5) Do not forget we invest huge sum of money from taxpayers. We should be responsible to them. The money spent must be valuable and meaningful. Why are there so many people opposing the holding of Asian Game 2023? Money!

Hope I can help all to think about the issue comprehensively.