Using teachers' focus group interviews (n = 40), this study examined the impact of the General University Requirements (GUR) implemented at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). Results showed that teachers were generally satisfied with the GUR subjects and its implementation in its second year. Teachers regarded the design of GUR subjects was good and the students generally welcomed the subjects. Interactive teaching and learning methods adopted in GUR subjects such as fieldwork, hands-on projects, and team debates were highly appreciated by the respondents. Teachers also reflected that the GUR had promoted the intrapersonal and interpersonal development of the students. However, several challenges were also reported by teachers, including the difficulty level of Freshman Seminar subjects and lack of interaction in some GUR subjects, which suggested directions for further improvements.

In the spring of 2005, students and alumni of the Chinese University of Hong Kong staged an adamant protest against University directives which they perceived would result in a significant increase in the number of courses taught in English. They denounced the administration of selling out on the founding mission of the University, for which, as stated in its Ordinance, the principal medium of teaching would be Chinese. The University, on the other hand, defended its policy in the name of 'internationalization' and the need to stay ahead in the midst of severe competition at home and abroad. This paper examines this language controversy against the wider context of English hegemony and the rise of academic capitalism, two forces which are inextricably linked for the non-Western societies in a post-colonial era. I will try to show that the controversy was ultimately a struggle over the meaning of university education, between what I would call the instrumentalists and the humanists in this age of globalization. I end the paper with a pessimistic note, saying that it is the former who have gained an upper hand, and that the scope and parameters of the language debate are heavily restricted.
[Copyright of Journal of Education Policy is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930903443886]