In the current wave of globalization, university rankings have become the gold standard for measuring the quality of higher education. Hong Kong’s universities have continuously improved their international rankings over the years, achieving impressive results that reflect the overall strength of the city’s higher education sector — a commendable achievement.

At the same time, it is worth considering how to balance the development of their unique roles with the pursuit of international rankings. Is an excessive obsession with rankings truly serving the long-term development of Hong Kong society? When we shift our focus from ranking lists to the actual effectiveness of talent cultivation, from the quantity of papers to substantive contributions to social progress, and from international reputation to national cultural identity, we find that Hong Kong’s higher education is facing a profound “cultural security” challenge — we cannot measure our value solely by standards set by the United Kingdom and the United States, cannot replace long-term missions with short-term indicators, nor dissolve local uniqueness through global homogenization.

International university rankings are essentially a form of “discourse power”, compressing the diverse values of higher education into a few quantifiable indicators, which reflect the values of the UK and US higher education consumption models and as such are inherently limited. For example, the widely cited QS and Times Higher Education rankings heavily favor indicators such as the number of published papers, the proportion of international faculty, and English-language academic output.

In the 2026 QS World University Rankings, the University of Hong Kong rose to 11th globally, and five Hong Kong universities had 38 disciplines ranked among the world’s top 100. These achievements reflect overall strength and are worthy of full recognition, but we must be clear: Rankings are not absolute; the core of higher education lies in talent cultivation and research strength.

For example, Kyoto University in Japan is not prominent in international rankings but has produced 19 Nobel laureates. Similarly, Harbin Institute of Technology on the Chinese mainland is not among the top mainstream rankings but has made breakthrough contributions in aerospace technology that are world-renowned.

These universities have substantial impact because they focus on long-term knowledge accumulation and practical problem-solving rather than short-term ranking indicators. In contrast, some universities have formed a “paper factory” model in the pursuit of rankings — the staff is encouraged to publish large numbers of research papers that cater to the tastes of international journals but are unrelated to local needs, distorting the value of research itself.

More alarmingly, the current ranking system has serious cultural biases. UK and US journals are given more authority, and this hierarchy of knowledge production is also a form of “cultural hegemony”. Prestigious European universities such as the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland and the University of Barcelona in Spain do not chase rankings but do not lose their academic reputation or social contributions.

Overreliance on ranking systems essentially reflects cultural insecurity and the lack of an established higher education evaluation standard that fits their own social characteristics. When a university’s success is entirely judged by over-reliance on external standards, it can lose cultural autonomy at any time, which is the core of the “cultural security” crisis facing Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s higher education has made significant progress in international rankings over the past 20 years, but this progress has come at a cost — some universities increasingly resemble branches of Western multinational education service companies rather than cultural institutions nurturing local talent. Moreover, a worrying phenomenon has emerged: Teaching is marginalized, research is utilitarian, and the quality of talent is declining.

University rankings are essentially “discourse power”.

The imbalance between teaching and research has become a phenomenon worthy of attention. Education policies pay significantly less attention to the role of “educators” (teachers) than to “learners” (students), reflecting a policy tendency to emphasize “results” over “process”. In practice, university faculty promotion and evaluation mainly depend on the number of published papers and high-impact journal articles rather than teaching effectiveness or social contributions.

This incentive mechanism leads professors to focus on quickly prepared “publishable research” rather than long-term, fundamental, and local issues. Although some universities advocate education-oriented philosophies, they still find it difficult to escape the ranking-driven academic production model in practice.

The crisis of cultural identity is the most fundamental dilemma facing Hong Kong’s higher education. The introduction of a large number of foreign teachers has indeed improved the “internationalization” indicator, but many of them lack a deep understanding of and emotional connection with Hong Kong and the country.

The knowledge systems they bring may be disconnected from the local cultural context, and their research agendas often serve the global academic market rather than local social needs. This lack of cultural subjectivity may turn Hong Kong’s higher education into a “processing factory” in the global knowledge production chain rather than a cultural innovator with autonomous consciousness.

The concept of “cultural security” is rarely discussed in the field of higher education but is a key perspective to understanding Hong Kong’s current predicament. “Cultural security” not only concerns traditional protection but also involves core issues such as knowledge sovereignty, value inheritance, and innovation autonomy.

Cultivating cultural subjectivity is a deep reform. Universities are not only places for knowledge transmission but also important bases for cultural inheritance and innovation. Chinese history, culture, and values education should be strengthened in curricula to cultivate students’ national identity and cultural confidence

When a university’s research agenda is decided by international journal editors, when its success criteria are set by UK and US institutions, and when its faculty lacks cultural rootedness, the university has actually lost cultural autonomy — and a society that loses educational autonomy will inevitably be controlled by others in its future development.

Hong Kong’s “cultural security” crisis manifests itself on multiple levels. In knowledge production, Hong Kong universities overly rely on the international publication system, leading to research topics disconnected from local needs. A typical example is that Hong Kong, as a high-density city, faces unique housing, transportation, and environmental challenges and should generate corresponding local knowledge systems, but our academic output focuses on more easily publishable theoretical topics.

In value inheritance, although some Hong Kong universities offer “Chinese culture”-related courses, Western theories still dominate the overall curriculum, and students lack an in-depth understanding of national history and culture. In talent cultivation, our education system produces many professionals proficient in international rules but few thinkers and practitioners rooted in Hong Kong and serving the country.

“Cultural security” is deeply connected with technological innovation. The success of Harbin Institute of Technology’s “ground space station” proves that when research is rooted in national strategic needs, it not only produces practical value but also forms a unique knowledge system. Its satellite company has become a national-level specialized and innovative “little giant” enterprise.

Its success lies in “steadfastly choosing the small satellite development track”, transforming nearly 30 years of theoretical accumulation into aerospace technology needed by the country. In contrast, Hong Kong’s research investment is scattered across various “hot” fields, lacking deep integration with national development strategies, making breakthrough innovation difficult.

Hong Kong’s higher education must establish firm positioning confidence to achieve cultural security — clearly knowing “who we are”, “whom we serve”, and “what our unique value is”.

“Cultural security” is not about being closed or conservative but about maintaining subjectivity in openness. As an international city, Hong Kong’s higher education certainly needs a global vision, but this should be built on a solid local foundation.

The current problem is that our university system needs to emphasize this foundation awareness and cannot simply equate “internationalization” with “Westernization” or narrowly understand “excellence” as “meeting UK and US standards”. To change this situation, we need to rethink Hong Kong’s unique role under the “one country, two systems” framework — we are not only a crossroads of East and West but should also become “cultural translators” and “knowledge innovators” between the Chinese mainland and rest of the world.

Changing the current situation of Hong Kong’s higher education requires systematic reform, which is not a wholesale denial of international rankings but a rebalancing of various university functions, reconstructing the evaluation system, and reshaping the connection between higher education and local society. Specifically, the following aspects can be addressed:

Establishing a diversified evaluation system is the foundation of reform. Relevant departments should change the “one-size-fits-all” ranking-oriented policy, allowing different types of universities to have different development focuses. This classification evaluation requires developing new indicator systems, including long-term tracking of graduates’ development, social impact assessment, and contribution to solving local problems, among other qualitative indicators.

Developing a unique ‘Hong Kong model’

Reforming admission and cultivation models is crucial. The current centralized allocation system based on exam scores selects exam-oriented elites rather than potential talent. The special administrative region government should decentralize power to give universities greater autonomy. Universities should introduce more diversified selection methods, such as project practice assessments and interviews, to discover students with special talents and innovative potential. In the cultivation process, the proportion of standardized courses should be reduced, and project-based learning, social practice, and interdisciplinary seminars should be increased.

Curriculum system reconstruction needs to align with Hong Kong’s future development needs. Traditional strong disciplines such as finance and law are important, but universities must proactively lay out emerging field courses, such as artificial-intelligence ethics, smart city design, and cultural and artistic technology applications. Especially, the integration of technology and humanities should be strengthened to cultivate new talent who understand both technology and social complexity. Curriculum content should increase local cases and Chinese elements to enable students to be rooted in Hong Kong and contribute to the country.

Faculty construction with local care is key to “cultural security”. While continuing to attract international talent, universities should establish mechanisms to encourage faculty to research local topics and include local impact in promotion criteria. Importantly, cultivating local academic leaders — scholars with both international vision and deep understanding of Hong Kong’s context — who will become bridges connecting global knowledge and local needs.

Deep integration of industry, academia, and research lies at the core of the social function of universities. Hong Kong universities can learn from the Harbin Institute of Technology’s experience, establishing closer innovation ecosystems with enterprises to transform academic research into actual productivity. In particular, interaction between universities and Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area industries should be strengthened to truly serve regional development with Hong Kong’s talent and research advantages.

The future aim of Hong Kong’s higher education is not to become the “Oxford and Cambridge of the East” but to develop a unique “Hong Kong model” — an innovative system that can absorb international essence while rooted in Chinese soil, and serve local needs while contributing to global knowledge

Cultivating cultural subjectivity is a deep reform. Universities are not only places for knowledge transmission but also important bases for cultural inheritance and innovation. Chinese history, culture, and values education should be strengthened in curricula to cultivate students’ national identity and cultural confidence. Meanwhile, universities should support research and creation related to Hong Kong’s local culture to construct a unique cultural identity in the context of globalization.

A previous Policy Address proposed “developing Hong Kong into an international higher education hub”, which should not be simply understood as ranking improvement but as an education innovation hub with Hong Kong as the subject serving national strategies. Hong Kong universities certainly need international recognition but more importantly require deep understanding and sincere commitment to this land.

When Hong Kong’s higher education can cultivate talent with both global competitiveness and local roots, when Hong Kong’s research can top international journals and solve practical problems, and when universities truly become the ideological engines of social progress rather than just names on ranking lists — only then can we say Hong Kong has a truly safe, healthy, and vibrant educational culture.

The future aim of Hong Kong’s higher education is not to become the “Oxford and Cambridge of the East” but to develop a unique “Hong Kong model” — an innovative system that can absorb international essence while rooted in Chinese soil, and serve local needs while contributing to global knowledge.

Rankings are just signposts, not destinations; papers are just means, not ends. The core mission of universities is always talent cultivation and promoting social progress. When Hong Kong’s higher education reclaims this fundamental mission, it will provide a solid talent and cultural foundation for the steady and long-term implementation of the “one country, two systems” framework.

The author is a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies and artistic director of Zuni Icosahedron.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.