The
consulted formally on the subject. Committee discussed this at
at its meeting in July 1986, and concluded that :-
(a) there is a general case for retaining the system of declaring fee levels four years in advance as this would allow families, particularly those not eligible for financial assistance, to have some firm indication of the extent of their commitments, particularly when tuition fees are likely to rise in real terms; and
(b) differential pricing is undesirable as it would require students to make choices according to costs, and that, as this could result in different fees for similar courses at different institutions, it could serve to perpetuate
and might even
-
be taken as illustrating a pecking order for institutions in Hong Kong.
UPGC further noted the inter-relation between possible changes in the Local Student Finance Scheme and tuition fee arrangements. It advised the Government against considering these issues separately and individually.
30
An ad hoc committee comprising representatives of the student unions of the five UPGC-funded tertiary institutions, known as the "Joint Committee on Government Policy of Student Finance" and formed in response to Government's review of the Local Student Finance Scheme, has written in formally on the subject. The Joint Committee considered that the development and funding of education are the responsibility of the Government which should explain to the public how and why tuition fees are to be increased and should ensure such increases take account of people's living standard and the effect on families. The Joint Committee objected to differential pricing since this would affect students' choice of study and is
is contrary to equality of opportunity for education. It would also affect manpower supply and cause difficulties in faculty and department administration.
31
Subject to Members' views, the Secretary for Education and Manpower will formally consult the Heads of the five concerned institutions on
on the recommendations set out in paragraph 24. Should the institutions disagree with these proposals and offer convincing reasons for making alterations to them, a further submission will be made this Council on the Administration's final proposals, having taken into account the institutions' views.
to
CONFIDENTIAL