The Origins and Names of Hong Kong's Five Universities—Who Is Oldest, Youngest, and Who Changed Their Name

The one-line conclusion: The "birth stories" of Hong Kong's five publicly funded universities actually fall into only three categories—direct establishment by colonial government legislation (HKU, 1911); private post-secondary colleges founded first, then retrospectively recognised and merged by the government (CUHK, 1963, pieced together from New Asia College founded 1949, Chung Chi College 1951, and United College 1956); and the government parachuting in a brand-new research university (HKUST, 1991, no predecessor, built on a greenfield site). The remaining two took a fourth path—first establish a "post-secondary college," nurture it until the conditions are ripe, then apply for "upgrading and renaming" to university status (PolyU: 1937 Government Trade School → 1972 Hong Kong Polytechnic → 1994 university; CityU: 1984 City Polytechnic of Hong Kong → 1994 university). These five distinct paths have determined the underlying character traits still visible in the five universities today: whose history is longest, whose merger was hardest, who was the last to claim the "university" title, and whose English name still carries traces of a "past life"—these are not trivial anecdotes, but keys to understanding the identities of the five universities. This article dissects each institution, citing sources for every claim.

---

# I. The Five Universities' "Birth Years" at a Glance: Three Founding Models

Before the detailed breakdown, let's place the "birthdays" and "birth methods" of the five universities side-by-side in a table. A deliberate distinction is drawn between two concepts: the legal year of the university's establishment and the "point of origin" the institution itself claims for its historical narrative—these two are often not the same number, and conflating them is the easiest trap to fall into when understanding Hong Kong university history.

---

# II. Who Is Oldest, Who Is Youngest? A Judgement for Both Ranking Methods

In a sentence: by the universities' legal age, HKU (1911) is the oldest, HKUST (1991) the youngest, with a full 80-year gap between them. But if ranked by "years of existence as a post-secondary educational institution," PolyU (1937) is actually 26 years older than CUHK (1963)—the title of "oldest" itself depends on which kind of "old" you are asking about.

Let's start with the least controversial end: HKU is Hong Kong's only "native university of the colonial era," legally established in 1911^※, a full 52 years before the second oldest, CUHK (1963). Its medical education lineage can be traced further back to the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese, founded in 1887^※ (where Sun Yat-sen once studied), but the College itself was an independent medical school, not a university. It was only incorporated as HKU's Faculty of Medicine when the University opened in 1912—this is the boundary explicitly noted in HKU's own historical documents, and the two should not be conflated.

At the other end, HKUST is the only one of the five where the time between the "legal establishment" and the "complete vacuum beforehand" is zero: the government only officially announced the decision to build this university in March 1986^※; it opened in October 1991, a mere five-plus years later, and had no predecessor institution whatsoever to trace back^※. This will be discussed in detail later, but for now, note the factual ranking: HKUST built a university from scratch in five years; HKU took roughly the same five years (from the 1908 proposal to its 1912 opening), but what preceded HKUST was a vacuum, whereas HKU at least had the lineage of the College of Medicine as a precursor.

The middle ground is where a real judgement is required. CUHK's official line explicitly takes the 1963 federation of three Colleges^※ as the university's founding year, but the three constituent Colleges—New Asia (1949), Chung Chi (1951), and United (1956)^※—were each founded 7 to 14 years earlier than 1963. PolyU's "post-secondary education history," meanwhile, begins with the Government Trade School in 1937^※, 12 years before New Asia College—if the contest is about "how long a post-secondary educational institution has existed on this soil," PolyU actually precedes CUHK, even though it obtained the "university" signboard a full 31 years later than CUHK (1994 vs. 1963).

---

# III. Merger vs. Greenfield: CUHK and HKUST as Two Extremes

The founding paths of CUHK and HKUST are almost textbook examples of two opposed paradigms—one a fourteen-year assembly project where "the grassroots came first, then the institution"; the other where "the institution was parachuted directly onto a barren plot of land."

CUHK: a fourteen-year "federal" assembly project. With the political upheaval on the mainland in 1949, a large number of scholars moved south to Hong Kong; at that time, Hong Kong had only the English-medium University of Hong Kong^※, leaving a huge gap in higher education delivered in Chinese and committed to Chinese cultural transmission. Three private colleges—New Asia (founded by Ch'ien Mu (錢穆) and Tang Chun-i (唐君毅)), Chung Chi (founded by Christian churches), and United (a merger of five private post-secondary colleges)—each struggled to operate hand-to-mouth for over a decade before forming the Joint Council of the Chinese Post-Secondary Colleges in 1957^※ to seek government recognition. The real turning point was the "Fulton Report" published in 1963^※, which explicitly proposed merging the three Colleges under a federal governance model^※. This was not three schools forcibly stitched together by a single decree, but a "confederal" structure where each retained its legal identity and historical character, unified only at the level of degree-awarding and academic co-ordination—a structure echoing the collegiate systems of Oxford and Cambridge. From the founding of New Asia in 1949 to the university's establishment in 1963, this merger took a full fourteen years, a journey the official history itself describes as "fraught with difficulties"^※.

HKUST: a rapid miracle built on "three cornerstones." In stark contrast to CUHK, HKUST had no predecessor institution^※ to trace. In 1986, responding to the demand for technological talent during Hong Kong's economic transformation in the 1980s, the government decided to build a "third university." Sir Sze-yuen Chung chaired the preparatory committee that settled on the university's name and site; the Hong Kong Jockey Club donated over HK$1.9 billion between 1987 and 1992^※, laying the material foundation for the Clear Water Bay campus. The founding Vice-Chancellor and President, Woo Chia-wei, adopted the motto "Create, not replicate" and recruited a global faculty from scratch. Originally scheduled to open in 1994, it instead opened three years early, in October 1991^※. CUHK took fourteen years to assemble three separately-run grassroots colleges into a single institution; HKUST built an institution directly on empty land in five years. These two extreme paths both yielded universities that rank within the global top 40 today, perfectly illustrating that neither "merger" nor "greenfield" is inherently superior—the outcome depends entirely on execution.

---

# IV. The Mechanics of "Upgrading and Renaming": What Did a Polytechnic Have to Grind Through to Become a University?

PolyU and CityU took a third path: first establish a post-secondary institution not called a "university," build it up until conditions were mature, then apply for "upgrading and renaming." This path is often simplified in narrative form to "they just changed a name," but the truth is: a polytechnic and a university were two legally distinct types of institution in Hong Kong. The substantive threshold for upgrading was obtaining "self-accreditation" status, not simply swapping a signboard.

As CityU's own historical documents detail, in the 1980s Hong Kong, "polytechnics" and "universities" were distinctly separated: while polytechnics could award degrees and diplomas, they were subject to validation by external accreditation bodies; universities, however, possessed self-accreditation powers, allowing them to determine their own academic standards independently and award doctoral degrees without needing the approval of an external academic committee. This was the substance of the "upgrade"—not a change of nameplate, but a transition from being "audited" to "calling one's own shots."

PolyU: over 97 years of history, it "ground it out" for 57 years to get the university signboard, changing its name four times along the way. The starting point was the Government Trade School on Wood Road in Wan Chai, founded in 1937^※, Hong Kong's first publicly funded post-secondary industrial education institution, teaching three subjects: maritime radio, mechanical engineering, and building construction. After the war, it was reorganised as the Hong Kong Technical College in 1947^※; moved to a new Hung Hom campus in 1957^※ (the relocation funds were half-covered by a HK$1 million donation from the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong^※). On 24 March 1972, the Hong Kong Polytechnic Ordinance came into effect^※, upgrading it to the Hong Kong Polytechnic, with Sze-yuen Chung serving as the first chairman of its governing body. It was only on 25 November 1994 that it was finally upgraded to a university^※ and renamed The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. From 1937 to 1994, that's 57 years and four generations of names (Government Trade School → Hong Kong Technical College → Hong Kong Polytechnic → The Hong Kong Polytechnic University). PolyU's official line even has the four generations of institutional crests engraved on its mace, a physical symbol of "changing names yet unchanged mission."

CityU: the upgrade path was identical in model to PolyU, but took far less time. The Hong Kong government began planning a "second polytechnic" in 1982^※ (the first being PolyU's predecessor). City Polytechnic of Hong Kong was legally established on 1 January 1984^※ and began classes at a temporary Mong Kok campus in October of that year. It moved to its permanent Tat Chee Avenue campus in Kowloon Tong in 1990^※, and was upgraded to City University of Hong Kong on 25 November 1994^※. Going from City Polytechnic to City University took only ten years (1984→1994), far faster than PolyU's 57 years. The reason is simple: CityU was designed from its first day of planning to the specifications anticipating a future upgrade, unlike PolyU, which started in 1937 as a purely vocational trade school and even suffered an interruption in operation (suspended during the Japanese occupation, 1941–1945).

After upgrading, PolyU and CityU made diametrically opposite branding choices—the most intriguing contrast in this article. Upon upgrading, CityU actively removed "Polytechnic," adopting the entirely new identity of a "City University," signalling its ambition to join the ranks of comprehensive universities. PolyU, however, actively retained "Polytechnic," even going so far as to coin "The Hong Kong Polytechnic University," a compound name rare globally, deliberately etching its "application-oriented" positioning into its very name—as stated in the objects of the PolyU Ordinance, its raison d'être is precisely "to provide application-oriented education, training, and research in technology, science, commerce, arts, and other disciplines." In the same wave of 1994 name formalisation, two schools gave completely opposite answers to the question "Do we want to keep our old identity?"

---

# V. Colonial vs. Indigenous: The Two Ends of the Five Universities' Identity Spectrum

In a sentence: HKU carries a dual foundation of "colonial government funding, built by both British and Chinese capital, serving the Empire and local elites"; CUHK represents an indigenous cultural steadfastness of "scholars from the north filling the gap in Chinese-language education"; HKUST, CityU, and PolyU, born or transformed around the time of the handover, have long since seen their colonial overtones fade into the background, with pragmatic economic function serving as the main narrative thread.

HKU's colonial foundation was inscribed from the moment of its naming. In 1908, the then-Governor, Sir Frederick Lugard, proposed establishing a university at a graduation ceremony^※, one of his reasons being "if we do not seize the opportunity, it will be left to others"—a classic statement of imperial competitive logic. The building funds were also heavily dependent on colonial networks: the Indian-born merchant Sir Hormusjee Naorojee Mody donated HK$150,000 for the Main Building^※; the Chinese merchant Loke Yew donated and provided an interest-free loan^※; Swire endowed a Chair in Engineering^※; the Hong Kong government provided the site. The university was named "The University of Hong Kong," a direct geographical naming without any religious or linguistic modifier^※. From its inception, it was positioned as an English-medium institution serving the Empire and the local Chinese elite—a stark contrast to CUHK's later choice to place "Chinese" in its name and emphasise its cultural positioning. HKU's official history acknowledges this dual "colonial-local" foundation: it served the British Empire's influence in China while providing a pathway to higher education for local Chinese that had not previously existed (stemming from the College of Medicine lineage).

CUHK was, in essence, a locally grown counter-movement against this "monopoly of English in higher education." The reality facing scholars who came south in 1949 was that Hong Kong had only one English-medium university, HKU^※. While private Chinese-language post-secondary colleges partially filled the breach, they had no authority to award government-recognised degrees. The vision of New Asia's founders, Ch'ien Mu (錢穆) and Tang Chun-i (唐君毅), among others, was to blend the scholarly spirit of the Song and Ming dynasty academies with the tutorial system of Western universities; Chung Chi College inherited the educational lineage of thirteen Christian universities from the mainland. The word "Chinese" in the university's name refers both to the medium of instruction and to a cultural commitment—this was the shared original intention of the three founding Colleges and the most fundamental temperamental divide between CUHK and HKU. After the university's establishment in 1963, "Chinese-medium instruction" and "Chinese cultural transmission" gained formal institutional status within the colonial system for the first time, standing alongside the English-medium HKU and creating Hong Kong's unique dual-track university system.

HKUST, CityU, and PolyU represent a third temperament: their generative impulse was economic function, not a declaration of colonial or cultural identity. The rationale for HKUST's founding is stated plainly in official documents—by the late 1980s, there was a widespread societal expectation that a service-based economy would generate strong demand for university graduates^※. The "upgrading" of CityU and PolyU was similarly a policy response to pre-1997 anxiety over brain drain and the target to expand student places. The English names of all three carry no wording tinged with colonialism (unlike HKU's "University of Hong Kong," with its subtext of Sir Frederick Lugard's imperial narrative, or CUHK's "Chinese," which carries the weight of cultural steadfastness). Instead, they self-identify bluntly with functional vocabulary like "Science and Technology," "City," and "Polytechnic"—an attitude in itself: we don't need to prove our identity affiliation, only our utility.

---

# VI. English Name Translations and Controversies: Institutional Philosophy in a Single Word

The English names of the five universities might seem like a mere matter of translation, but each choice of wording is a declaration of institutional positioning. Here are three of the most thought-provoking comparisons.

"University of Hong Kong" vs. "Chinese University of Hong Kong": Geography vs. Culture. HKU's English name is a direct geographical label with no modifier; CUHK's name inserts the word "Chinese." This is not a "translation convention" but a deliberate marker of identity—as discussed in Section V, this word simultaneously points to the language of instruction and cultural transmission. These two naming logics represent two different answers from Hong Kong's first two universities to the question "Who are you?"

"Science and Technology" vs. "Polytechnic": A Self-Declaration of Research vs. Application. When the HKUST preparatory committee decided on the university's name between 1986 and 1988, it deliberately chose "Science and Technology" over "Polytechnic"^※. The former clearly signals foundational scientific research and a research university positioning, modelled on powerhouses like MIT and Caltech. The latter, within the British educational tradition, is often associated with vocationally-oriented, teaching-focused institutions (like the contemporary Hong Kong Polytechnic). This choice of a single word was tantamount to announcing at its founding: HKUST intends to be a "research university," not an "upgraded vocational college." Intriguingly, when PolyU was upgraded in 1994, it actively retained "Polytechnic"—the very word HKUST went out of its way to avoid, PolyU wore as a badge of honour. Neither choice was casual; each is a direct projection of its respective institutional philosophy.

"City University": A choice remarkably rare in international naming conventions. Globally, universities formally named "City University" are few and far between; the best-known is City, University of London. City University of Hong Kong's English name places the modifier "City" before "University," foregrounding an "urban attribute" rather than a disciplinary or ethnic one. Among the English names of Hong Kong's eight UGC-funded institutions, this is the only one that uses an abstract metropolitan concept as its brand core, rather than a geographic, disciplinary, or religious keyword.

Now consider the abbreviated naming systems: HKU, CUHK, and HKUST all begin with "HK" or the institutional proper name, but PolyU's official short form "PolyU" places "Poly" (the core syllable of Polytechnic) at the front, not "HK." According to PolyU's official brand guidelines, this choice implies that PolyU views its "applied technology DNA" as a more core identifiable asset than its "Hong Kong geographic identity"—precisely the reverse logic of the other four, who first declare "we are a university of Hong Kong," and then specify "what kind of university we are."

---

# VII. The Five Universities' Origins at a Glance: All Key Differences in One Table

The judgements from the previous six sections, compressed into a single ultimate comparison table, make the differences in the five universities' origins clear at a glance.

---