8 _# t4 T3 w3 C: g2 G' N5 ^, J ' e, g5 l" K0 vtvb now,tvbnow,bttvbThe Faculty of Law’s Response tothe RAE 2014 Report5 `% r; a- _& L$ G* ]/ D" y
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。" h2 V' z8 _. ^- H* c9 f
There has been media interest in the last few days concerning the University Grants Committee (UGC)’s results of the Research Assessment Exercise 2014(RAE), particularly with the comparison between the law faculties of The University of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 q; ~, Z# \1 Z8 q, ]* e
5 i4 g8 o0 x# F/ m
We begin by thanking the Law Panel of the RAE for completing a demanding and important task in such a professional manner, and we congratulate the Faculty of Law of The Chinese University of Hong Kong for its excellent achievement in the Exercise. It is a very good situation that all the law schools in Hong Kong SAR are collectively making a significant impact in Hong Kong, in the region and internationally.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& K& Z y) U$ G" T1 z8 r
What we wish to point out is well described on the UGC website and the Reading Guides of the RAE report: . W$ h, ?+ y- E1 q4 D0 j5.39.217.77:8898tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb( W& r/ m9 M3 ?- t0 e
“On the interpretation of the RAE results of each institution, [it has been] emphasised that due regard should be given to the institutions’ different roles, missions, discipline focus and history.” (http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/press/2015/pr27012015.htm)3 l5 W; l; `$ Z! o
8 w4 k! {/ S2 [) `; X“The results are not for comparison purposes and not to be used in a standalone manner… [I]t is neither fair nor appropriate to compare the quality profiles of different institutions.” (Reading Guides1 and 5) ! J# Y( Y9 V" t* ^3 I1 MTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 , X5 [5 R2 w, R. N# Ktvb now,tvbnow,bttvbThe Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong is the oldest and the largest of the three law schools in Hong Kong.Historically, it has seen its mission to be both a law faculty that responds to the needs of the legal system and legal profession in Hong Kong and as part of the international community of legal scholars. It has sought to produce high quality research and publications in a way which has a high impact in both Hong Kong and global legal discourse. As an institution the HKU Law Faculty divides its time and resources between them. The RAE report on us in fact reflects this dual mission.# P, O* ^/ Q, E+ Y z
2 h m9 A6 ^7 j. t9 i; [# SThe Faculty wishes to dispel the suggestion or implication made in some quarters that it is not doing well in terms of research. The Faculty was, and is, aware that serving its mission to contribute to the Hong Kong community in general and the legal profession in particular might mean that it will sometimes be at the expense of doing more work with a global focus, but that is a trade-off the Faculty is proud to make. 9 C, _- ~! K+ w$ k6 `5 O- d8 C5.39.217.77:88984 ]0 L7 ?4 `$ k A4 _/ p( y
The Faculty does not, by any means, intend to convey the impression that it thinks that there is no room for improvement. It is the Faculty’s aim to be regarded amongst the top law schools in the world.The Faculty has been engaging in a wide-ranging exercise of institutional self-reflection and strategic planning. Many of the RAE panel’s suggestions on international collaboration and globally-focused research form a major part of our current research strategy. We shall, over the next few weeks, be discussing the RAE report very carefully to reflect on how we can do even better. Indeed, we are most grateful for the positive and critical feedback which the exercise has provided. 4 u: P& L2 \" w! |8 J: ? ( s; c5 }. U' x+ o( Y$ |tvb now,tvbnow,bttvbWith the feedback gained from RAE and the continued support of the community, the Faculty looks forward to becoming even stronger in the coming years.4 t& p; h! c/ Z9 r& S7 L, ~- b
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。; n3 b, @% [7 g
Michael Hor公仔箱論壇7 ^# M5 |' G. I! j$ N
Dean9 [6 a7 f0 L/ e$ s5 I( M7 v8 ^
Faculty of Law* y& {2 {5 a# C# {/ d' r
The University of Hong Kong7 a9 r- S& `" \8 A7 S
( [3 M7 n2 e& C5 `& b$ p5.39.217.77:88981月26日，文匯報更動用三版的篇幅，重點講述陳文敏擔任院長時，如何「貽害」港大法學院。報道披露理應於翌日由教資會公佈的「研究評審工作（RAE）2014」報告內容，指出陳文敏任內，港大法律學院的學術質素轉差，例如研究項目僅有46%達三星至四星的「卓越標準」，表現不如中大法律學院，大罵該學院「有人只顧搞政治」，「不務正業」。公仔箱論壇2 D& L6 M, ~' C G% N, c7 F
# _5 @3 u% @8 O! V" M2 Ttvb now,tvbnow,bttvb到底文匯如何取得教資會未公開的文件？據蘋果日報報道，有關文件理應只得教資會高層才持有，而教資會委員、「梁粉」張志剛事前曾閱覽文件，《立場》本周二去信教育局、特首辦及教資會委員、「梁粉」張志剛，有否向外界洩密，至今未獲回應。 ( S, o+ F. D% c* a4 g8 D$ ^1 u3 c0 K& W0 l2 s6 I6 `+ Q& R4 i( L9 A. G 有否放料批陳敏文？特首辦、張志剛不回覆 4 P- j# A( r7 P0 V4 _3 }公仔箱論壇公仔箱論壇+ J9 D; |0 q- s2 }; V
2月4日，《文匯報》再有報道，引述港大校務委員會的內部會議，指在「RAE 2014」公布結果的同日，該學院內學術地位最高的三名講座教授中有兩名會於年中離任，並說這意味該學院的「領軍人物」層處於「真空狀態」，點明指陳文敏不合資格任港大副校長。公仔箱論壇* J, o/ p' ^# N
( K% j, l3 b. y. k5.39.217.77:8898港大法律學院新任院長、來自新加坡的學者何耀明，發信予職員及校友，反擊《文匯報》的報道，表明無悔於因履行對香港社會及法律專業的使命，而影響以環球焦點為主的研究。信件內容有理有節，但昨日曝光後，《星島日報》今天就報道，接獲匿名信件，指該學院的新任院長何耀明與港大簽下多份合約，其中一份及至2026年違背院長任期一般只有五年的慣例。然而，據調查，何耀明與港大所簽下一份出任院長的合約只去到2019年，另外兩份教授合約才至2026年。該匿名信又指出，陳文敏有份操縱遴選新任院長之事，但該學院的首席港師張達明回應，陳文敏並非法律學院委員會成員，相信何耀明的聘任與陳文敏無關，匿名信的指控，無從證實。
