For whom is interested in English version, we are here to provide some articles of Wings 21.1. about school policy.
温習在秋季——可能嗎？
Study Week in Fall Term—A Dream or Reality?
Living in UST is highly correlated to academic results. CGA is emphasized in major selection, exchange, hall application, etc. It is universally recognized that it is a University of Stress and Tension. Yet study week is only limited to Spring Term, whereas the situation isn’t the same for the equally-stressful Fall Term.
據悉，校方有意採納同學的意見，於秋季學期十二月大考之前增設温習週，以紓解廣大同學的學業壓力，讓同學有充分時間温習，預備大考。但這一決定，亦顯示出校方的短視。
There are sources saying that the University is intended to adjust accordingly. It is likely that there will be a study week before the final examinations in December, as a solution to relieve the pressure due to studies and exams. It is hoped that students will have sufficient time to prepare for the final exams. However, such decision unavoidably reveals how short-sighted the University is.
環顧整個秋季學期，同學壓力最大之時，相信並非年終大考之前，而是學期中段、即十月至十一月期間。同學除了要應付日常課業、準備期中考試之外，更要兼顧學業以外的工作和會社活動。新生加入學會成為其附屬幹事，協助籌辦活動，努力適應新身份，融入大學生活；已上莊的同學則把握秋季學期短暫的三、四個月，招募新會員，推廣所屬學會，為同學服務；快將畢業的同學則作最後衝刺，盡最後努力追CGA、寫畢業論文、找工作，畢業前要完成的不計其數。而這一切，都是集中於學期中段進行。因此，同學工作量最大的時段，也是最需要温習週的，是學期中段，而非期終試之前。更何況，期終試之前一向都有最少兩日的假期供同學準備考試，再於此時增設作用相近的假期，相信效用遠不及於學期中段增設温習週。校方此舉，顯然並不清楚同學的真實需要，亦足見其思慮不周。
Throughout Fall Term, students experience most pressure during mid-term (October and November), rather than before final exam. During that period, on top of daily studies and mid-term examinations, students are simultaneously preoccupied with duties and functions of societies. Freshmen join societies as subcommittee members and assist in organizing events, while adapting to their new identity and living as University students. Executive committee members of societies are recruiting new members, promoting their societies and serving their members in that couple of months. Final-year students have to meet numerous targets: focusing on studies, completing final year projects, finding a job, etc. All these have to be completed in mid-term. Furthermore, usually there is a holiday of at least two days for the use of revision. Providing a lengthened holiday with a similar purpose before final exam period is far less effective in pressure-relieving than that in mid-term. This decision clearly implies the University’s failure in acknowledging the true needs of their students.
温習週，顧名思義，其作用主要為增加同學的温習時間。用意雖好，卻充分地體現校方的短視。校方設置温習週，反映其目光之狹隘淺陋。校方極為重視學業成績，一切以考試為先，卻忽略了同學其他方面的個人成長。校方與其設置温習週，倒不如將之名為學習週，鼓勵同學把握該星期進行自修、自習，學習不同於日常課業的知識，或與興趣學會、運動學會合作，推廣相關範疇，於校內形成一股學習以外的風氣。當然，同學亦可選擇善用假期温習。此方式於大學並非不可行，例如在重視全人發展的香港大學，兩個主要學期期中均設有閱讀週，鼓勵同學接觸新事物，閱讀不同課外書，增廣見聞，於校內推動學習風氣。有關做法於同學有益無害，科大校方亦可仿傚之，紓解同學學習壓力。教育並非只是強調成績與課業，校方態度、方針如此，同學豈能不受其影響，過於重視成績，以致壓力過大？
The term “Study Week” is self-explanatory, that it aims at providing more revision time for students. The intention is good, yet it shows the ill-judgment of the University. Study Week is a reflection of their narrow-mindedness. It is an inevitable outcome of the overemphasis of academic performance. It encourages students to revise for the examinations, but ignores other aspects of personal growth. Rather than Study Week, the University can name it as Learning Week that students are encouraged to expose to knowledge and interests other than studying. Surely students can utilize such holiday for revision, but Learning Week would be an option that initiates an atmosphere other than focusing on academic affairs. It is not a brand-new idea in Hong Kong. In The University of Hong Kong (HKU), where respects whole-person development, there is a whole holiday named “Reading Week” in the middle of both regular terms. It is set up to encourage attempts to new interests and book, that students will be exposed to an atmosphere of self-learning. Being particularly effective in relieving pressure, it does no harm to students. Education is not only about results and studies. With such discouraging attitude and direction of the University, how is it possible that students will not be affected to be overstressed in academic results?
校方增設温習週的用意雖美，但其方式處處體現校方的短視與思慮不周，做法確有改善空間。兼之此舉乃治標而非治本之法，校方只重視學業的方針一日不變，同學的壓力來源依舊存在，令人感傷的事件始終會重演。
The idea of an additional holiday is beneficial to UST students, but the presentation of such holiday only reflects the shortsightedness and incomprehensiveness, that there is room of improvement. Study week only deals with the results of a problem instead of the problem itself. Unless the policy of over-emphasis in study is adjusted, the sources of pressure would remain, and saddening history will still iterate.
______________________________________________________________________
本科生宿分調整驚魂
UG Home Distance Score Adjustment
在宿分制度中，居所距離的比重達五成。因應香港各區交通配套上的改變，每約兩年調整其計算方式，但每次更改均引來同學的激烈反響。部分同學因為宿分增加而竊喜，卻有更多人看着新宿分黯然惆悵，而同學對今次調整的震驚與失望更甚於往昔。由於校方電郵用字含糊，令同學以為來年的宿分計法已成定局，雖然不滿，也只好無奈接受。在三月十八日有關調整宿分的諮詢會中，經同學反映意見後，主要由十三名學生代表組成、負責研究宿分計算方式的專案小組（下稱專案小組）決定收回方案，而來年仍以零八、零九年定下的計分方法為準。但為何是次方案惹來那麼大的反對聲音？問題出在哪兒？
In the Composite Score System of Hall allocation, home distance score weighs over 50%. Due to the changes in transportation, the scoring system is adjusted once every few years, but each adjustment is poorly received by students. Some chuckle at the raise of score, while more are feeling lost and worried, but students are more shocked and disappointed than usual. As the meaning of the email sent by the University is vague, most students thought that the home distance scores were finalized. Although they were unsatisfied, the result was reluctantly accepted. In the forum on home distance score adjustment on 18th March, 2013, the 13-student taskforce resolved to withdraw the scoring proposal, and the calculation will follow the one set in academic year 2008 -2009. However, why would this particular proposal arouse strong opposition?
計算時間方式
Method of Calculation
是次居所宿分的計算除了車程時間，亦考慮了繁忙時段的候車時間，可見到專案小組的確有考慮到實際情況，頗為公平。以交通總時間制定居所宿分雖可接受，但亦應考慮其他因素。同學可能會因轉乘次數、車費、轉乘優惠、步行距離等，而選擇不同交通工具。但綜觀多份會議記錄，未見考慮上述因素。
Apart from the travelling time, the waiting time during rush hour is also considered. This hints that they justly considered the actual situation. Although it is acceptable to calculate the score with total traffic time, there are more factors that were not mentioned in the minutes to be considered. It is possible that students choose various transports due to the frequency of transit, fee, discounts, walking distance, etc.
對於候車時間是否應該計算在內，專案小組內部似乎亦有頗大爭議。計算候車時間可確保方案全面，但計算候車時間的方式尤其複雜。候車時間與人為因素千絲萬縷，同學到達車站的時間、交通工具的到站時間、滿座情況等均可能造成差異，難以統一估算。
It seems to be controversial that whether the waiting time should be included in calculation. The inclusion would ensure the comprehensiveness of the proposal, but the estimation of the waiting time is extremely complicated. The waiting time is correlated to human factors, such as the time at which the student arrive at the station, the arrival time of the transportation, and whether the transportation is packed with passengers. The differences in these factors are impossible to estimate with a unified standard.
收集數據之不可思議篇
Collection of Data
雖然候車時間的分野可能極大，但其敗筆在於收集數據的方式。早前專案小組分三步收集交通時間：先以問卷調查收集數據為主，再參考谷歌地圖（Google Map）的資料，最後由學生助理實地考察偏遠地區，記錄交通時間，確保資料的可信性。表面看似正常，方式合理，問題不大，但其實暗藏玄機。
Even though the waiting time is a controversial idea, the reason for this epic fail is the methods used in collection of data. There are three steps involved to ensure the credibility of the data: a survey in collecting raw data, adjustment made with information on Google Maps, followed by the site visits to remote areas. Everything seems normal and sensible, but there are more underlying problems than you can imagine.
先談問卷調查，方法用意不錯，學生每日往返居所及科大，理應最清楚所需時間，但專案小組既沒有考慮到大部分同學不會回應問卷，令數據太少，導致可信性不足，亦無顧慮到同學的回應可能會受到某次車程特長的經驗所影響，而未必與日常的情況相符，以致答案可能有所偏頗。此外，問卷調查內容包括學生所住地區，但居所宿分的分區而同學認知的分區可能有所出入。例如屯門青山公路黃金海岸一帶的住宅群，在居所宿分的分區上，只是一街之隔，已非黃金海岸而是大欖涌，但同學或認為兩者都只是屯門區。分區的認知偏差，可能降低資料的可信性。
Questionnaire is a plausible method. As the most frequent travelers between UST and home, students should be those who are clearest about the average traffic time. However, the taskforce failed to foresee the limited response as most students would not response to the questionnaire. They did not consider that those responses are likely to be affected by one particularly unpleasant experience. The region in the perception of students might not be the same as that in the scoring system. All lead to the lack of credibility of the survey.
其次，引用谷歌地圖的做法只能以荒誕可笑形容。香港運輸處有一個名為「香港乘車易」的網頁，為全港每個位置，提供最少十條建議乘車路線。資料包括不同轉乘方式、每一轉乘方式的車程時間及收費，可謂包羅萬有，可信性極高。零八、零九年度訂定的宿分表亦是參考運輸處官方資料，但是次專案小組捨棄官方資料不用，反而參考不需為資料準確性負責的谷歌，可謂荒謬之極。
The use of Google Maps as reference is more than ridiculous. Transport Department of our Hong Kong Government has an official website that provides not less than 10 recommended travel route for each location in Hong Kong. Information includes different transition combinations, fare and travelling time. It was used in the last adjustment of this system. However, this taskforce ridiculously forwent the official information, and used Google, which has no obligation to the accuracy of data, as reference.
再者，有人在諮詢會期間問及有關實地考察的詳情，小組其中一位學生代表回應，於繁忙時間作實地考察約用了一星期，逾二十名學生助理需於出發時，及到達指定的屋苑時拍照，以證明學生助理曾到訪目的地，並用作記錄時間。另外，小組認為有需要考察的每個偏遠地區，均有來回各一次的數據供參考。姑勿論學生助理會否因為考察地區並非自己居所所在地而有所偏頗，學生只能在上學放學的繁忙時間計時，造成時間上的限制。時間倉卒，加上學生助理人數不足，令參考數據太少，在統計上而言實難有指標性作用。更何況，實地考察並不包括名單上全部一百一十八個地區，究竟哪些地區有進行實地考察，同學根本無從得知。此外，實地考察亦包括記錄候車時間，據學生代表所言，大部分實地考察的候車時間結果與問卷調查結果有出入，而在上述情況下，小組捨問卷調查結果而以實地考察的結果為準。想當然耳，候車時間的長短視乎運氣，一來一回的結果相信並不比學生每天的親身體驗準確，反而此舉令結果受小組主觀判斷影響，也是造成新宿分表不合理的其中一個主因。
Furthermore, as mentioned by one of the taskforce member, a 1-week round trip site visit was conducted to selected remote areas. Over 20 student helpers are required to take a photo upon departure and arrival for time keeping and as a proof of job accomplished. Other than factors like whether helpers are biased about that particular region that they are not living in, there is limitation in time, that helpers can only conduct the site visit during peak hours. In such a short period of time, a limited number of student helpers create constraints to the set of statistics. However, not all areas are being site-visited. It is unknown to students which of those areas are depending on the data of surveying and which are depending on site visit. Moreover, the waiting time obtained in surveying is inconsistent with that from site visit, and in such cases, time recorded in site visit is used. Length of the waiting time depends of luck, and merely two results are unlikely to be more accurate than the daily experience of students. Such a resolution is affected by subjective judgment and hence creates the inconsistency of the home distance score.
宿分公式
Formula
根據大學教育資助委員會（教資會）的計算方式，每日往返大學車程需要四小時或以上（即單程兩小時）的同學應優先獲分配宿位，予同學方便。居所宿分
以五十分為滿分，小組以單程一百二十分鐘為滿分，車程最短（即二十七分鐘）的地區為零分，車程在兩者之間的則以一公式計算分數。
宿分=（交通時間 - 27）／1.85
According to the constraints set by University Grants Committee, students whose daily total traffic time is more than 4 hours shall have priority in hall allocation, which means that areas that single trip travelling time is more than 120 minutes will be scored with the maximum score of 50. Areas with the shortest traffic time, i.e. 27 minutes, will be scored 0. For the areas which the traffic time is between the two, the following formula is used:
Home distance score = (traffic time-27)/1.85
新宿分表之不可思議篇
Problems with the New Home Distance Scoring System
> 滿分的區域由十九個減至五個，新界西北地區，例如屯門、元朗、天水圍均不獲滿分，漠視偏遠地區同學來回交通之苦。而且去年宿位風波事件的其中一個爆發點是由於本科生宿分達五十分仍不獲派校園內的宿位，而要輪候香港三育書院（HKAC），該處往返科大車程不少於三十分鐘，而且往返的班次稀疏，極不方便。如果情況與去年相近，偏遠地區的同學極有可能因宿分不足五十而不獲發宿位。
> The number of the districts with a full score decreases from 19 to 5. Northwestern areas of the New Territories like Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and Tin Shui Wai are not given a full score. The suffering from travelling back and forth of students living in remote areas is thus neglected. In the hall place disputes last year, one of its flash points was that some undergraduates awarded a score of 50 still were still not offered hall places and was put on the waiting list of Hong Kong Adventist College (HKAC), where is extremely inconvenient to travel back and forth with UST due to the travelling time back and forth more than 30 minutes and a dispersed number of runs of public transport. Providing that the situation is similar with last year's, students from remote areas would probably not be offered hall places as their score is less than 50.
> 部份離島區域不獲滿分，根據運輸處官方資料，例如大澳最短交通時間為一百三十分鐘，宿分表標示其為一百一十五分鐘，只獲四十七分；南丫島交通時間為一百二十分鐘至一百三十五分鐘，宿分表標示其為一百零一分鐘，更只獲四十分。
> Some districts in Outlying Islands were not awarded a full score. With reference to the official data of Transport Department, the shortest traffic time for Tai O is 130 minutes and that for Lamma Island is 120 to 135 minutes. The score table, however, indicates that the traffic time for Tai O is 115 minutes and that for Lamma Island is 101 minutes. Tai O is awarded 47 while Lamma Island even 40.
> 部分鐵路沿線地區交通時間存在極大矛盾。例如彩虹往科大的交通時間為四十四分鐘，而佐敦往科大只需四十七分鐘，難道三分鐘時間足夠由彩虹去到佐敦？銅鑼灣設有港鐵站，交通時間為七十一分鐘，鄰近銅鑼灣而沒有港鐵站的渣甸山往科大只需七十分鐘；中環往科大需時七十二分鐘，港島線中比中環更遠的上環只需七十分鐘，難道科大與上環之間存在蟲孔？
> The traffic time, of some districts along the railway, are greatly contradictory. For instance, it is shown that to UST it takes 40 minutes from Choi Hung and 47 minutes from Jordan, but is 3 minutes enough for one to go from Choi Hung to Jordan? There is a railway station at Causeway Bay and the traffic time is 71 minutes, while it takes only 70 minutes with Jardine's Lookout, at where there is no railway station, near Causeway Bay. It takes 72 minutes from Central to UST but 70 minutes from Sheung Wan, which is further than Central on Island Line - is there a loophole between UST and Sheung Wan?
> 以主要幹線觀察而發現部分地區的交通時間不合理，例如下列三地屬屯門公路周邊地區，距離由近至遠排列，深井／龍頭往返科大需時一百零三分鐘，黃金海岸需時一百零六分鐘。前往大欖涌必須路經深井／龍頭或黃金海岸兩者其一，但宿分表標示只需時六十五分鐘。
> Considering main lines, one can observe irrationality of traffic time of some districts. Sham Tseng, Lung Tau and Gold Coast are near Tuen Mun Road. It takes 103 minutes to travel back and forth between Sham Tseng/Lung Tau and UST and 106 minutes between Gold Coast and UST. One must pass through either Sham Tseng/Lung Tau or Gold Coast to To Tai Lam Chung, but the score table indicates that it only takes 65 minutes.
> 將所有地區宿分相加，會發現舊宿分表的總分為三千一百六十二分，新宿分表總分卻只有三千零九十一分，這變相降低居所宿分的比重。
> The sum of all district scores in the original score table is 3162, but that in the new one is 3091 only. It de facto decreases the ratio of residence score.
> 部份地區並不包括在宿分表內，例如土瓜灣不在列表中，但實際上不可算作紅磡或馬頭圍。
> Some districts are not included in the score table. To Kwa Wan is one of them, but it actually cannot be regarded as Hung Hom or Ma Tau Wai.
> 部份分區面積太大，同區內的不同地點交通時間存在極大差別，例如寶馬山雖為北角區，但由寶馬山到北角港鐵站最少需時十分鐘。
> The areas of some districts are too big that there is a great difference of the traffic time for various locations in the same districts. For example, Po Ma Shan is in North Point, but it takes at least ten minutes from there to North Point MTR Station.
建議
Suggestions
一、 在分數上遷就居於偏遠地區的同學
Adjusting the score to accommodate those living in remote areas
專案小組並無更改居所宿分的比重，足見專案小組亦同意居所宿分比學生對科大的貢獻及學業成績等其他範疇更為重要，對之亦應更為重視。既然想法如此，在居所宿分的計算方式上亦可作出遷就，例如將滿分的界線定於一百一十分鐘，而非一刀切的以一百二十分鐘為限，相信可照顧到更多居於偏遠地區的同學。
As the weighing of home distance score remains unchanged, it is implied that the task force agree with the importance of home distance in hall allocation. To accommodate more students, the taskforce can set the full mark to be eg. 110 minutes, instead of 120 minutes.
二、 以運輸署資訊為準
Use the information from HK Transport department for referencing
運輸署的官方資料相當方便，以之作為訂定居所宿分劃一而唯一的資料來源，可避免出現由於兩種調查方式結果相左，而由小組作主觀判斷的情況再次出現。如將細則公佈，相信同學亦難以質疑數據的可信性，可避免交通時間計算上引發的爭議。運輸處在每一個位置均有不少於十條路線的車程時間供參考之用，若專案小組使用轉乘次數最少和收費最便宜的路線各五個，然後取其平均數作為車程時間，則可兼顧分別以方便和以收費決定乘車路線的同學。
This database is user-friendly. Using it as the only sources on information can avoid arguments settled by subjective judgment. Revealing this method of referencing, arguments can be avoided. It is recommended that the task force could use the transport time with the 5 least transit frequencies and 5 cheapest routes, then take the average of those data. This considers both aspects of convenience and fare.
三、 候車時間
Waiting Time
有關候車時間方面，由於計算方式過於複雜，以專案小組的人力物力而言不可能作出準確和全面的統計，因此如果堅持要計算候車時間，可改以計算轉乘的交通種類及次數。同學需轉乘不同交通工具，則於該乘車路線増加因交通工具而異的候車時間，複雜性會較低。但始終候車時間難有劃一的標準，因此最佳做法為放棄計算候車時間，簡化問題，減少爭議。
It is too complicated in terms of the resources of the taskforce to calculate a set of accurate and comprehensive waiting time. An alternative way would be to calculate the number of transition and add a waiting time according to the transport. This is less complicated, but as it is hard to have a standardized waiting time, the best solution is to simplify the issue by forgoing the waiting time.
四、 SHO支援專案小組
SHO as a support to the taskforce
是次專案小組就宿分作調整，不論是資料收集或是實地考察，均未見學生住宿辦事處（簡稱SHO）提供支援。學生住宿辦事處作為一專門處理住宿事宜的部門，對有關資訊應有更全面的掌握，校方如能善用已有資源，可減輕小組工作量，加快完成有關統計。另外在實地考察方面，由同樣作為持份者的學生進行計時，難免令人憂慮調查結果的可信性；如果由學生住宿辦事處提供支援，進行實地考察，則可避免利益衝突。
It is not clear that to what extent the Student Housing Office involved in this adjustment. As a department specializing in housing issue, they should have a more comprehensive set of related information and accelerate the progress of the survey. On the other hand, student helpers are also stakeholders in the adjustment. If the site visits are conducted by staff of SHO, it can effectively avoid the conflict of interest.
五、 公佈方案前再三考證
Double-checking before announcing the proposal
是次收集的數據甚多，專案小組人手不足，加上希望趕及在新一年申請宿位之前通過方案，以致忙中有錯，的確在所難免。但上述眾多令人啼笑皆非的問題，以對香港地理、交通網絡的普通認識，對最後結果加以細心檢視，無一不能避免。尤其宿分問題關係到廣大學生的切身利益，必須嚴謹認真對待。
A large set of data was collected and considering the hopes of finishing the chart before the application for the new residential year, it is acceptable for the proposal for the short-staffed taskforce to contain a reasonable amount of errors. Yet many of the problems can be discovered with basic knowledge to geography and transport network of Hong Kong. Together with detailed reviewing, most of those errors could be avoided. It should be treated with serenity as the scoring is affecting the interests of most students.
專案小組之不可思議篇
Reflection on Taskforce
當同學在諮詢會上一一細數新宿分不合理之處，專案小組的其中一位教授竟一再強調分數的本身並不具任何意義，其作用只是基數排列（Ordinal Ranking），以便定出各區域的先後次序。但此說法顯然是校方又一似是而非、混淆視聽的例子。如果居所宿分只是計算宿分的單一指標，分數的多寡當然不重要，但宿分制度並非只考慮交通時間，亦包括學生對科大的貢獻及學業成績等其他範疇，因此不能將居所宿分簡單化地視為一種排列先後次序的方式。
While students were commenting on the unreasonable parts in the proposal,one of the professors in the taskforce repeatedly emphasized that the points itself had no actual meaning other than a means of ordinal ranking for different areas. This is utterly wrong. If home distance scoring is the single standard in the composite scoring system, the points itself obviously is unimportant, but it is not the actual situation. Composite scoring system also considers contribution and academic results. Therefore it has a relative relationship with other aspects in the system, and cannot be simplified as a method of ordinal ranking.
專案小組另一令人驚訝之處，在於其組員的出席率。上文提到，專責小組成員包括十三名學生代表，共開過九次會議，但根據網上已上載的七份會議記錄顯示，只有一位學生代表出席所有會議，五名學生代表的會議出席次數不多於兩次，而學生會幹事會代表的出席次數亦僅為四次。專案小組成員的出席率偏低，而學生會幹事會代表的出席率亦僅僅多於一半，如何將同學的需要充分反映？如何能代表同學發聲？如何令同學心悅誠服地認同學生會代表自己？如何說服同學相信他們的結論、認同新宿分表？
The other surprising fact of the task force is the attendance of its members. As aforementioned, there are a total of 13 members in the taskforce and among the 9 meetings with minutes uploaded; only one student representative attended all meetings, while five representatives attended less than 2 meetings. With such low attendance that even the SU Ex-co representative only attended merely more than half of all meetings, how can they sufficiently reflect the needs of students? How can they speak for students? How can they expect students would recognize their representation? How can they persuade students to believe in their conclusion and approve of the new Home Distance Scoring proposal?
專案小組未來
Future of Taskforce
有消息指，由於專案小組中部分同學快將畢業，因此小組決定提早解散，並盡快重組。由於過往學生代表出席率欠佳，校方決定將學生代表人數大幅減至最多六人，當中包括學生會幹事會、學生會評議會、學生會編委會、僑生代表各一，以及最多兩名在網上普選中獲得多於四百票的學生代表。新小組將接手制定宿分計算方式，期望在五月之前完成重組，於十一月之前完成新宿分方案。汲取前人經驗，以及更多同學積極參與，向專案小組反映意見，相信專案小組的建議將會更加貼近實際情況。但新專案小組中極有可能不包括舊專案小組的任何成員，最後的結果如何，大家仍然要拭目以待。
As some students in the taskforce will soon graduate, it is decided that the taskforce will be dissolved and reform as soon as possible. Since the attendance record of the representatives is not satisfying, the number of student representatives will be cut to a maximum of five, including one representative each from the HKUSTSU executive committee, the Editorial Board and the SU Council respectively, together with a maximum of two popularly-elected student representatives with more than 400 votes in the online voting system. The reformed taskforce is expected to set the composite score calculation system and complete the proposal before November. In the lights of previous experience and more active involvement of students in terms of expressing opinions, it is believed that the recommendation of the taskforce will be more practical and realistic. Yet none of the previous taskforce member will be involve in the reformed taskforce, hence the outcome is still filled with variables.
再者，有人在諮詢會期間問及有關實地考察的詳情，小組其中一位學生代表回應，於繁忙時間作實地考察約用了一星期，逾二十名學生助理需於出發時，及到達指定的屋苑時拍照，以證明學生助理曾到訪目的地，並用作記錄時間。另外，小組認為有需要考察的每個偏遠地區，均有來回各一次的數據供參考。姑勿論學生助理會否因為考察地區並非自己居所所在地而有所偏頗，學生只能在上學放學的繁忙時間計時，造成時間上的限制。時間倉卒，加上學生助理人數不足，令參考數據太少，在統計上而言實難有指標性作用。更何況，實地考察並不包括名單上全部一百一十八個地區，究竟哪些地區有進行實地考察，同學根本無從得知。此外，實地考察亦包括記錄候車時間，據學生代表所言，大部分實地考察的候車時間結果與問卷調查結果有出入，而在上述情況下，小組捨問卷調查結果而以實地考察的結果為準。想當然耳，候車時間的長短視乎運氣，一來一回的結果相信並不比學生每天的親身體驗準確，反而此舉令結果受小組主觀判斷影響，也是造成新宿分表不合理的其中一個主因。
Furthermore, as mentioned by one of the taskforce member, a 1-week round trip site visit was conducted to selected remote areas. Over 20 student helpers are required to take a photo upon departure and arrival for time keeping and as a proof of job accomplished. Other than factors like whether helpers are biased about that particular region that they are not living in, there is limitation in time, that helpers can only conduct the site visit during peak hours. In such a short period of time, a limited number of student helpers create constraints to the set of statistics. However, not all areas are being site-visited. It is unknown to students which of those areas are depending on the data of surveying and which are depending on site visit. Moreover, the waiting time obtained in surveying is inconsistent with that from site visit, and in such cases, time recorded in site visit is used. Length of the waiting time depends of luck, and merely two results are unlikely to be more accurate than the daily experience of students. Such a resolution is affected by subjective judgment and hence creates the inconsistency of the home distance score.
宿分公式
Formula
根據大學教育資助委員會（教資會）的計算方式，每日往返大學車程需要四小時或以上（即單程兩小時）的同學應優先獲分配宿位，予同學方便。居所宿分
以五十分為滿分，小組以單程一百二十分鐘為滿分，車程最短（即二十七分鐘）的地區為零分，車程在兩者之間的則以一公式計算分數。
宿分=（交通時間 - 27）／1.85
According to the constraints set by University Grants Committee, students whose daily total traffic time is more than 4 hours shall have priority in hall allocation, which means that areas that single trip travelling time is more than 120 minutes will be scored with the maximum score of 50. Areas with the shortest traffic time, i.e. 27 minutes, will be scored 0. For the areas which the traffic time is between the two, the following formula is used:
Home distance score = (traffic time-27)/1.85
新宿分表之不可思議篇
Problems with the New Home Distance Scoring System
> 滿分的區域由十九個減至五個，新界西北地區，例如屯門、元朗、天水圍均不獲滿分，漠視偏遠地區同學來回交通之苦。而且去年宿位風波事件的其中一個爆發點是由於本科生宿分達五十分仍不獲派校園內的宿位，而要輪候香港三育書院（HKAC），該處往返科大車程不少於三十分鐘，而且往返的班次稀疏，極不方便。如果情況與去年相近，偏遠地區的同學極有可能因宿分不足五十而不獲發宿位。
> The number of the districts with a full score decreases from 19 to 5. Northwestern areas of the New Territories like Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and Tin Shui Wai are not given a full score. The suffering from travelling back and forth of students living in remote areas is thus neglected. In the hall place disputes last year, one of its flash points was that some undergraduates awarded a score of 50 still were still not offered hall places and was put on the waiting list of Hong Kong Adventist College (HKAC), where is extremely inconvenient to travel back and forth with UST due to the travelling time back and forth more than 30 minutes and a dispersed number of runs of public transport. Providing that the situation is similar with last year's, students from remote areas would probably not be offered hall places as their score is less than 50.
> 部份離島區域不獲滿分，根據運輸處官方資料，例如大澳最短交通時間為一百三十分鐘，宿分表標示其為一百一十五分鐘，只獲四十七分；南丫島交通時間為一百二十分鐘至一百三十五分鐘，宿分表標示其為一百零一分鐘，更只獲四十分。
> Some districts in Outlying Islands were not awarded a full score. With reference to the official data of Transport Department, the shortest traffic time for Tai O is 130 minutes and that for Lamma Island is 120 to 135 minutes. The score table, however, indicates that the traffic time for Tai O is 115 minutes and that for Lamma Island is 101 minutes. Tai O is awarded 47 while Lamma Island even 40.
> 部分鐵路沿線地區交通時間存在極大矛盾。例如彩虹往科大的交通時間為四十四分鐘，而佐敦往科大只需四十七分鐘，難道三分鐘時間足夠由彩虹去到佐敦？銅鑼灣設有港鐵站，交通時間為七十一分鐘，鄰近銅鑼灣而沒有港鐵站的渣甸山往科大只需七十分鐘；中環往科大需時七十二分鐘，港島線中比中環更遠的上環只需七十分鐘，難道科大與上環之間存在蟲孔？
> The traffic time, of some districts along the railway, are greatly contradictory. For instance, it is shown that to UST it takes 40 minutes from Choi Hung and 47 minutes from Jordan, but is 3 minutes enough for one to go from Choi Hung to Jordan? There is a railway station at Causeway Bay and the traffic time is 71 minutes, while it takes only 70 minutes with Jardine's Lookout, at where there is no railway station, near Causeway Bay. It takes 72 minutes from Central to UST but 70 minutes from Sheung Wan, which is further than Central on Island Line - is there a loophole between UST and Sheung Wan?
> 以主要幹線觀察而發現部分地區的交通時間不合理，例如下列三地屬屯門公路周邊地區，距離由近至遠排列，深井／龍頭往返科大需時一百零三分鐘，黃金海岸需時一百零六分鐘。前往大欖涌必須路經深井／龍頭或黃金海岸兩者其一，但宿分表標示只需時六十五分鐘。
> Considering main lines, one can observe irrationality of traffic time of some districts. Sham Tseng, Lung Tau and Gold Coast are near Tuen Mun Road. It takes 103 minutes to travel back and forth between Sham Tseng/Lung Tau and UST and 106 minutes between Gold Coast and UST. One must pass through either Sham Tseng/Lung Tau or Gold Coast to To Tai Lam Chung, but the score table indicates that it only takes 65 minutes.
> 將所有地區宿分相加，會發現舊宿分表的總分為三千一百六十二分，新宿分表總分卻只有三千零九十一分，這變相降低居所宿分的比重。
> The sum of all district scores in the original score table is 3162, but that in the new one is 3091 only. It de facto decreases the ratio of residence score.
> 部份地區並不包括在宿分表內，例如土瓜灣不在列表中，但實際上不可算作紅磡或馬頭圍。
> Some districts are not included in the score table. To Kwa Wan is one of them, but it actually cannot be regarded as Hung Hom or Ma Tau Wai.
> 部份分區面積太大，同區內的不同地點交通時間存在極大差別，例如寶馬山雖為北角區，但由寶馬山到北角港鐵站最少需時十分鐘。
> The areas of some districts are too big that there is a great difference of the traffic time for various locations in the same districts. For example, Po Ma Shan is in North Point, but it takes at least ten minutes from there to North Point MTR Station.
建議
Suggestions
一、 在分數上遷就居於偏遠地區的同學
Adjusting the score to accommodate those living in remote areas
專案小組並無更改居所宿分的比重，足見專案小組亦同意居所宿分比學生對科大的貢獻及學業成績等其他範疇更為重要，對之亦應更為重視。既然想法如此，在居所宿分的計算方式上亦可作出遷就，例如將滿分的界線定於一百一十分鐘，而非一刀切的以一百二十分鐘為限，相信可照顧到更多居於偏遠地區的同學。
As the weighing of home distance score remains unchanged, it is implied that the task force agree with the importance of home distance in hall allocation. To accommodate more students, the taskforce can set the full mark to be eg. 110 minutes, instead of 120 minutes.
二、 以運輸署資訊為準
Use the information from HK Transport department for referencing
運輸署的官方資料相當方便，以之作為訂定居所宿分劃一而唯一的資料來源，可避免出現由於兩種調查方式結果相左，而由小組作主觀判斷的情況再次出現。如將細則公佈，相信同學亦難以質疑數據的可信性，可避免交通時間計算上引發的爭議。運輸處在每一個位置均有不少於十條路線的車程時間供參考之用，若專案小組使用轉乘次數最少和收費最便宜的路線各五個，然後取其平均數作為車程時間，則可兼顧分別以方便和以收費決定乘車路線的同學。
This database is user-friendly. Using it as the only sources on information can avoid arguments settled by subjective judgment. Revealing this method of referencing, arguments can be avoided. It is recommended that the task force could use the transport time with the 5 least transit frequencies and 5 cheapest routes, then take the average of those data. This considers both aspects of convenience and fare.
三、 候車時間
Waiting Time
有關候車時間方面，由於計算方式過於複雜，以專案小組的人力物力而言不可能作出準確和全面的統計，因此如果堅持要計算候車時間，可改以計算轉乘的交通種類及次數。同學需轉乘不同交通工具，則於該乘車路線増加因交通工具而異的候車時間，複雜性會較低。但始終候車時間難有劃一的標準，因此最佳做法為放棄計算候車時間，簡化問題，減少爭議。
It is too complicated in terms of the resources of the taskforce to calculate a set of accurate and comprehensive waiting time. An alternative way would be to calculate the number of transition and add a waiting time according to the transport. This is less complicated, but as it is hard to have a standardized waiting time, the best solution is to simplify the issue by forgoing the waiting time.
四、 SHO支援專案小組
SHO as a support to the taskforce
是次專案小組就宿分作調整，不論是資料收集或是實地考察，均未見學生住宿辦事處（簡稱SHO）提供支援。學生住宿辦事處作為一專門處理住宿事宜的部門，對有關資訊應有更全面的掌握，校方如能善用已有資源，可減輕小組工作量，加快完成有關統計。另外在實地考察方面，由同樣作為持份者的學生進行計時，難免令人憂慮調查結果的可信性；如果由學生住宿辦事處提供支援，進行實地考察，則可避免利益衝突。
It is not clear that to what extent the Student Housing Office involved in this adjustment. As a department specializing in housing issue, they should have a more comprehensive set of related information and accelerate the progress of the survey. On the other hand, student helpers are also stakeholders in the adjustment. If the site visits are conducted by staff of SHO, it can effectively avoid the conflict of interest.
五、 公佈方案前再三考證
Double-checking before announcing the proposal
是次收集的數據甚多，專案小組人手不足，加上希望趕及在新一年申請宿位之前通過方案，以致忙中有錯，的確在所難免。但上述眾多令人啼笑皆非的問題，以對香港地理、交通網絡的普通認識，對最後結果加以細心檢視，無一不能避免。尤其宿分問題關係到廣大學生的切身利益，必須嚴謹認真對待。
A large set of data was collected and considering the hopes of finishing the chart before the application for the new residential year, it is acceptable for the proposal for the short-staffed taskforce to contain a reasonable amount of errors. Yet many of the problems can be discovered with basic knowledge to geography and transport network of Hong Kong. Together with detailed reviewing, most of those errors could be avoided. It should be treated with serenity as the scoring is affecting the interests of most students.
專案小組之不可思議篇
Reflection on Taskforce
當同學在諮詢會上一一細數新宿分不合理之處，專案小組的其中一位教授竟一再強調分數的本身並不具任何意義，其作用只是基數排列（Ordinal Ranking），以便定出各區域的先後次序。但此說法顯然是校方又一似是而非、混淆視聽的例子。如果居所宿分只是計算宿分的單一指標，分數的多寡當然不重要，但宿分制度並非只考慮交通時間，亦包括學生對科大的貢獻及學業成績等其他範疇，因此不能將居所宿分簡單化地視為一種排列先後次序的方式。
While students were commenting on the unreasonable parts in the proposal,one of the professors in the taskforce repeatedly emphasized that the points itself had no actual meaning other than a means of ordinal ranking for different areas. This is utterly wrong. If home distance scoring is the single standard in the composite scoring system, the points itself obviously is unimportant, but it is not the actual situation. Composite scoring system also considers contribution and academic results. Therefore it has a relative relationship with other aspects in the system, and cannot be simplified as a method of ordinal ranking.
專案小組另一令人驚訝之處，在於其組員的出席率。上文提到，專責小組成員包括十三名學生代表，共開過九次會議，但根據網上已上載的七份會議記錄顯示，只有一位學生代表出席所有會議，五名學生代表的會議出席次數不多於兩次，而學生會幹事會代表的出席次數亦僅為四次。專案小組成員的出席率偏低，而學生會幹事會代表的出席率亦僅僅多於一半，如何將同學的需要充分反映？如何能代表同學發聲？如何令同學心悅誠服地認同學生會代表自己？如何說服同學相信他們的結論、認同新宿分表？
The other surprising fact of the task force is the attendance of its members. As aforementioned, there are a total of 13 members in the taskforce and among the 9 meetings with minutes uploaded; only one student representative attended all meetings, while five representatives attended less than 2 meetings. With such low attendance that even the SU Ex-co representative only attended merely more than half of all meetings, how can they sufficiently reflect the needs of students? How can they speak for students? How can they expect students would recognize their representation? How can they persuade students to believe in their conclusion and approve of the new Home Distance Scoring proposal?
專案小組未來
Future of Taskforce
有消息指，由於專案小組中部分同學快將畢業，因此小組決定提早解散，並盡快重組。由於過往學生代表出席率欠佳，校方決定將學生代表人數大幅減至最多六人，當中包括學生會幹事會、學生會評議會、學生會編委會、僑生代表各一，以及最多兩名在網上普選中獲得多於四百票的學生代表。新小組將接手制定宿分計算方式，期望在五月之前完成重組，於十一月之前完成新宿分方案。汲取前人經驗，以及更多同學積極參與，向專案小組反映意見，相信專案小組的建議將會更加貼近實際情況。但新專案小組中極有可能不包括舊專案小組的任何成員，最後的結果如何，大家仍然要拭目以待。
As some students in the taskforce will soon graduate, it is decided that the taskforce will be dissolved and reform as soon as possible. Since the attendance record of the representatives is not satisfying, the number of student representatives will be cut to a maximum of five, including one representative each from the HKUSTSU executive committee, the Editorial Board and the SU Council respectively, together with a maximum of two popularly-elected student representatives with more than 400 votes in the online voting system. The reformed taskforce is expected to set the composite score calculation system and complete the proposal before November. In the lights of previous experience and more active involvement of students in terms of expressing opinions, it is believed that the recommendation of the taskforce will be more practical and realistic. Yet none of the previous taskforce member will be involve in the reformed taskforce, hence the outcome is still filled with variables.
沒有留言:
發佈留言