Beyond the “Big Three”: Why University Labels Do Not Tell the Whole Story

PDF Version

In Hong Kong, university reputation often plays a significant role in how students are perceived. The University of Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are commonly regarded as the city’s “Big Three” universities. Their academic standards and achievements deserve respect, but the influence of their names can sometimes lead to overly simple assumptions about the abilities of students from other institutions.

One important point is often overlooked: the difference between university admission scores may be much smaller than people assume. In some years, the gap between a City University of Hong Kong programme and a comparable HKUST programme can be only one DSE point. Although one point may appear insignificant, achieving it can require months or even years of revision, discipline and pressure. At the same time, missing a particular university offer by one point does not automatically mean that a student is less capable, less intelligent or less hardworking.

DSE results are also programme-specific. Admission scores can vary significantly depending on the subject, programme, year, demand and grade requirements. In some cases, programmes outside the Big Three may have higher admission scores than less competitive or more general programmes within the Big Three. This demonstrates why it can be misleading to judge students solely by the university name printed on their CV.

A university label does not reveal the full story behind a student’s academic journey. It does not show the subjects they took, the competitiveness of their programme, the resources available to them or the amount of effort required to achieve their results. Two students may attend different universities while having very similar academic abilities and levels of determination.

However, the university divide can continue to influence students after the admission process. Graduates from the Big Three may benefit from strong alumni networks, employer presentations, established recruitment channels and immediate recognition from companies. These advantages do not mean that every student from a leading university has an easy experience. They may still face intense academic competition, personal pressure and uncertainty about their future.

Nevertheless, effort and privilege can exist at the same time. A student can work extremely hard while also benefiting from the reputation, connections and opportunities associated with their university. Recognising these advantages does not invalidate their hard work. It simply provides a more complete and honest understanding of the different starting points faced by students in Hong Kong.

For students outside the Big Three, the challenge can feel different. They may have to prove not only that they are capable, but also that their university background should not be treated as a limitation. Even with strong grades, internships, technical skills and relevant experience, they may not receive the same immediate attention as candidates from more familiar institutions.

This is why it can be difficult to hear students from the Big Three describe themselves as though they are facing the same level of disadvantage as students from less recognised universities. Their struggles may be genuine, and they should not be dismissed. However, complaints about unfairness should also be expressed with a sense of perspective. Students who already benefit from greater institutional recognition may have less basis to present themselves as the most disadvantaged group in Hong Kong’s education and employment system.

This is not an argument against students from HKU, CUHK or HKUST. Nor is it a claim that students from other universities are automatically more talented. Every student has their own challenges, and every university contains individuals with different levels of ability and commitment. The issue is not about attacking one group, but about questioning whether university prestige should have such a strong influence on how individuals are judged.

Employers should therefore look beyond university branding when evaluating candidates. Academic results remain relevant, but they should be considered alongside practical experience, communication skills, technical abilities, leadership, resilience and the ability to learn. Interviews, case studies, technical assessments and work samples can help employers form a more balanced view of a candidate’s potential.

A fairer system does not require anyone to deny the achievements of the Big Three. Instead, it requires greater awareness of the advantages that come with attending a highly recognised institution. Students from leading universities should be proud of what they have achieved, while also recognising that other students may have worked just as hard under different circumstances.

Ultimately, one DSE point should not be treated as proof that one student deserves more opportunities than another. A university name may influence a first impression, but it should not determine a person’s entire future. Behind every result is a different story of effort, pressure, resources and sacrifice. To understand Hong Kong’s students fairly, people must look beyond the label and consider what each individual has actually achieved.

©2026 Ryan Financial Daily