14/07/2021
員生共取錄
Staff-Student Collaboration in Admission (Please scroll to bottom for English)
從敬文創辦以來，書院收生是一個「員生共治」的實驗模式。現在仍不能說十全十美，但卻建立了一個有效的機制。讓我詳細描述一下，可使未曾積極參予的同學多了解。
書院從2012-13起有了首屆的學生，就開始邀請學生參予招收第二屆的新生，當年主要是幫忙宣傳和擔任親善大使。自從2013-14，就加入了學生與jupas新生的小組面試，由學生會主持。緣起是學生常誤會書院主要取錄成績優異的新生，並沒有考慮新生能否對書院氣氛帶來正面貢獻。無疑老師比較欣賞智性顯著的新生，但收生面試的標準確實非學業。一來為了尊重學生的意願，二來多費唇舌解說不如讓學生親身體驗，書院因此加入學生會面試。這樣一方面取錄過程加入了學生眼光，平衡一下老師的「偏見」，另外也讓學生經過實際執行，了解取錄新生的關鍵因素。
多年以來，基本的模式大致相同，都是學生先與新生進行小組面試，兩三個學生與三四個新生會面，然後老師與新生單對單的會面。學生會主持的面試完全獨立，書院管理只在運作上給予引導和支援。而兩個面試的結果，同等重要。某種意義上有個計分制度，但由於每年聯招的競爭激烈，Jupas取錄男女新生大約各佔18-20個，重點其實只是排名位於15至25的新生。
在任何一方的面試表現極差的新生，絕不取錄；而兩個面試表現極好的則盡量吸納，具體安排和執行上卻每年有改進。每次收生完結，我還與學生代表開會，交代一些特殊個案，和檢討可改進之處。幾年下來，學生越來越明白，師生兩個面試的取向雖然不盡相同，但結果大同小異。有些學生的意願顧及不周，也只是欠缺溝通，通常在下一年就修正了。
新生的取錄並非完全由面試表現決定！原因是敬文不希望學生完全被「神科」佔據，多元的學生群體對學生的內涵培養非常重要。可是，不論學生或老師，都發現學業成績良好與面試表現有正面關聯。因此，我們儘量平衡各學院(Faculty)的新生人數。可是，這不能以硬性的人數來處理，否則就做成對「神科」的新生的不公。籠統來說，當「神科」生的面試只是稍微優勝，我們會選擇取錄另一個學院的新生，但若「神科」生的面試表現實在超卓，就不應因限額而拒之門外。此外，一些家庭背景稍差的學生，面試表現可能不夠大體，敬文仍樂於給他們機會在書院裡成長並貢獻。
這個收生過程是「共治」嗎？按最狹隘的標準，不算是。由於各種私隱緣故，學生不能觸及所有資料，很難做出全面的判斷。因此，敬文這個模式只是書院尊重學生的做法。到了最後，有了師生兩重的面試結果，還是由老師去綜合所有資料，去作出最終決定。雖然最後這步很大程度是按資料處理，但總有一些邊緣的情況須由老師做出取捨。在客觀的限制下，我們取錄聯招新生的過程，算是不錯的「員生協作」了。
由於大學的非聯招（包括本地生、國際生、國內生）程序並非一次過處理，很難找到一個統一收生安排讓學生參予。敬文在這方面還要動動腦筋，怎樣引入學生的參與。
Ever since the beginning, college admission of CW Chu has been a “Staff-student Collaboration” project. It is far from perfect now, yet there has been a workable system. Let me explain further so that students who had never engaged in the process will understand more.
Once we had our first cohort of students in 2012-13, the College started involving our students in the admission of the second cohort. In that year, students mainly assisted in promotion activities and served as student ambassador. From 2013-14, interviews in charge by CWC Student Union was introduced. Our students tended to think that College admission selection relied largely on the academic excellence, and so the contribution of a new student to the college life was neglected. Undoubtedly, teachers might incline to appreciate new students with strong intellectual qualities, yet we deliberately looked for non-academic ability in the interview. Action is always better than words to bring forth respect and understanding. College decided to add an interview in charge by students. In this way, the preference of students is included in the admission process. Moreover, our students will discern the crucial elements in admission.
The jupas admission process has been more or less the same in years. A group of 3 or 4 new students will first meet a panel of 2-3 CW Chu students. Then each new student will meet individually with a teacher. The interview run by Student Union is completely autonomous. The College Administration only provides coordination and support. The assessments of the two interviews are equally important. In a way, there is some sort of a ranking system. However, since the competition of getting into a full residential college is very heated and we only admit 18-20 new jupas students in either gender, what really matters is the selection of new students ranked at 15-25.
If a new student performs bad in either interview, he/she will not be admitted. On the contrary, we try our best to admit those impressed both our students and our teacher. Nevertheless, each year we discovered something in the operation should be adjusted. Each year after the admission exercise, there is a meeting between myself and Student Union. We would talk about some special cases and discuss places that need improvement. In these years, our students have seen that the views of teacher and students are not very diverse. If some expectations of our students were not met, it was usually out of miscommunication. It usually was rectified in the next year.
Indeed, the admission is not totally determined by the two interviews. A multi-dimensional college environment is best for our students in the long run. Thus, we do not want to fill up the College with students from a few “prestigious majors”. Yet, both teachers and our students realize that interview performance is highly correlated with academic abilities. For this reason, we try to balance the number students admitted to the different faculties. However, this cannot be done by hard quotas for each faculty; otherwise it will be unfair to some excellent candidates from those “prestigious majors”. Roughly speaking, if a candidate from a “prestigious major” is only slightly better, then we would prefer another one. But, if he/she indeed performed excellently in interviews, we should not reject him/her simply because of over-quota. Besides, we understand that candidates from under privileged families may not be so presentable in interviews. Sometimes, CW Chu is a good environment for these students to grow and contribute.
Does this admission process satisfy “Staff-Student Co-governance” advocated by some students? In a narrow sense, it does not. Due to the restriction of privacy issues, our students cannot access all information of the new students and thus an overall assessment is impossible. This admission process is only a way to respect the preference of our students. With the results of the two interviews, at the end, it is the teachers to gather all the information and make a decision. While this last step is most procedural, there are always a few borderline cases that teachers have to make a choice. Under such constraints, our jupas admission can be consider a good “Staff-Student Collaboration”.
Finally, besides the jupas admission, there are non-jupas admission (some local, international, and mainland). The process is not arranged in one go by the University. Therefore, it is quite difficult to find a unified way for our students to engage. This is an area that we still need to find a solution for the future.
