The University Grants Committee speaks of specialisation, research collaboration and performance-linked funding in its blueprint for tertiary education.
Those opposed to these recommendations cite decreased competition, infringement of autonomy and the insufficient long-term development of world-class educational institutions. Nowhere does either side mention the impact on students. Doesn't that make you wonder where their priorities lie?
Let me put the following scenario to you. Consider HKUST; recently renovated with funds devoted towards the construction of a sophisticated technology hub.
Software design being your passion, you look forward to using state-of-the-art facilities. You scoff at the poor fools who ever disagreed with university specialisation; without such a consolidation of resources, your university would never be able to afford these improvements.
And then, being the eager student you are, mid-way through the term you decide a course on the sociological impact of technology would be quite interesting. And you can't possibly design visually appealing software without majoring in art as well.
Unfortunately, HKUST doesn't offer art courses and enrolling in two universities is out of the question.
Forced to specialise early, you are unhappy with your eventual choice: you can't compete internationally and wish you had just become an artist instead. Hong Kong citizens are cited as among the least creative and least able to think 'outside the box'; it has become a running joke that students are programmable machines, clueless beyond their chosen subject.