Common Year One and the "Second Competition": Post-Admission Major Allocation under PolyU's Scheme-Based Admissions, with a Territory-Wide Comparison

The JUPAS programme code you click when filling in your application no longer directly determines the degree you will hold four years later, at least at PolyU. The one-sentence conclusion: Since the 2025/26 academic year, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) has restructured the bulk of its undergraduate admissions around seven "Bachelor's Degree Schemes". Applicants are admitted into a broad disciplinary area rather than a specific major, must first complete a "Common Year One", and at the end of that year compete for their preferred major through a three-dimensional ranking assessment (entrance qualification score + Year One GPA + interview). Admission is only the entry ticket; securing your preferred major is the second competition that begins after you arrive.

This article focuses on the second half of this "admit first, allocate majors later" mechanism: how the Common Year One works, how the year-end ranking decides who gets what, what the seventh "self-designed major" scheme is, and how PolyU's route compares with the rest of Hong Kong's eight UGC-funded universities. The six major schemes' constituent majors, quotas and application strategies are covered in the companion piece Scheme Admissions and the "College-System" Entry and will not be repeated here; JUPAS entry requirements and standalone programme cut-off scores can be found in PolyU Undergraduate Admissions Overview. Figures are based on the 2026 admission cycle / 2025/26 academic year official figures, last compiled in July 2026.

---

# When did PolyU's scheme-based admissions actually take shape, and how many schemes are there now?

PolyU's scheme-based admissions have not always been this way. According to a Ming Pao JUPAS supplement report, PolyU "introduced and uniformly implemented" the Bachelor's Degree Schemes "from the 2025/26 academic year"^※, substantially shifting from admissions under individual programme titles to admissions by broad disciplinary area. PolyU's official programme pages describe the arrangement as "a new initiative designed to help students align their studies with their passions"^※, pitched as giving students time and flexibility to "explore disciplines and navigate academic interests".

A fact often overlooked: PolyU currently operates seven, not six, Bachelor's Degree Schemes. According to the official PolyU Bachelor's Degree Scheme page, there are seven schemes in place^※, comprising six faculty/disciplinary schemes — Engineering, Construction and Environment, Business Administration, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Science, and Humanities — plus one Interdisciplinary Studies scheme (JS3000) that sits outside the individual faculties. The companion article's six schemes follow an "in-faculty stream allocation" model, whereas JS3000 operates through a "cross-faculty self-designed major" model with its own distinct mechanics (dedicated section below).

The table below sets out all seven schemes side by side, noting their JS codes and allocation nature, for an overview (the list of selectable majors for each scheme is in the companion piece and is not repeated here):

Note: apart from JS3000, major selection within the six schemes occurs within a single faculty, through the year-end ranking assessment; JS3000 instead uses a "structured framework + mentorship" model that lets students design a major across faculties, outside the normal in-scheme ranking competition.

---

# Why did PolyU switch to scheme-based admissions? What is driving it?

The shift of the entire undergraduate admissions system to scheme-based entry was not an isolated administrative change but the product of two converging forces. The first is the reality of industry. According to Ming Pao's JUPAS supplement reporting on PolyU's stated rationale, "innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data and robotics are gradually becoming part of every industry",^※ blurring the boundaries of single disciplines and making interdisciplinary, flexible study a perceived necessity. When an engineering student will very likely have to work with data analytics and AI in future, locking him into the narrow specialism he picked on application day is arguably a disservice.

The second is the educational philosophy of "delayed decision-making". An 18-year-old HKDSE candidate filling in JUPAS does not necessarily know at that moment what suits him; PolyU has pushed the point of "declaring a major" from "at admission" to "after one year of study", and the official positioning is precisely to give students "time and flexibility to explore disciplines and navigate academic interests"^※. This "broad entry, late allocation" approach is not unique to PolyU in Hong Kong — it is a direction several universities have adopted over the past decade or more, as the comparison below shows. What distinguishes PolyU is the scale: it has rolled the model out across seven disciplinary areas in one go, making it one of the more systematic applications in the sector.

Understanding these drivers helps clarify the fundamental trade-off of scheme-based admissions: it trades "one more competition after entry" for "no need to rush a major choice at application time". That flexibility is a gift to students who have not yet found their direction; for students who know exactly which narrow programme they want, it may simply be one extra hurdle.

# What exactly does the Common Year One involve? How is it different from a conventional first year?

The Common Year One is the institutional foundation of scheme-based admissions at PolyU. According to PolyU's official description, all students admitted to the same scheme, together with students from departmental programmes, study the "Common Year One" curriculum,^※ which comprises the University's General University Requirement (GUR) subjects as well as foundational subjects tailored to the disciplinary area. The stated design intent for these foundation subjects is to cater to students from diverse backgrounds and give them "a solid foundation for exploring a range of disciplines".

The difference from a conventional first year, where you are placed in a department on day one, lies in the generality of the foundational subjects. In traditional programmes, first-year courses tend to point directly at one profession (a nursing student takes nursing-specific courses in Year 1); the Common Year One deliberately keeps the syllabus "broad", letting an undeclared student sample introductory material across several directions within the same scheme in a single year, before aiming at a major based on interest and results. The Faculty of Science states the credit requirement for its entire four-year degree as "at least 120 academic credits plus training credits"^※, and the Common Year One is the first foundational layer within those 120 credits.

There is a practical implication applicants should note: Common Year One results are not a throwaway transitional year — they feed directly into the year-end ranking for major selection (next section). In other words, every subject's GPA in Year 1 accumulates points for "whether I get my preferred major" — a different pressure rhythm from systems where "Year 1 is relaxed and the real work starts in Year 2".

---

# How is it decided who gets which major at year-end? Dissecting the three dimensions of the ranking assessment

The real "allocation valve" of the Bachelor's Degree Schemes opens as the first year draws to a close. According to the PolyU Faculty of Science, at the end of Year One students select their preferred programmes via a "ranking assessment" that combines entrance qualification score, Year One GPA and interview performance^※. All six faculty schemes share the same mechanism. The nature of each dimension is as follows:

Of the three dimensions, only one (the entrance qualification score) is "written in stone on the day you arrive"; the other two are generated during the first year. This determines a core feature of PolyU's scheme-based admissions: a lower admission score does not rule you out of a popular major. A student admitted with a mid-range score who pushes their Year One GPA to the top can, in theory, overtake a higher-scoring student who coasts through Year 1. Conversely, a strong admit score combined with a weak Year One GPA can see a popular major slip away. This is a competition that splits "one exam decides your fate" into two stages: admission plus Year 1.

It must be said plainly: the ranking assessment is competitive, not "apply and you get it". Popular majors have finite places; when the number of students requesting a major exceeds its capacity, offers go by merit on the ranking above, and those at the bottom are streamed into majors that still have places. PolyU does not publish internal allocation data (applicant-to-place ratios) for individual majors, so there are no official figures on "which major is hardest to get into"; students can only gauge by public popularity. Taking the Engineering scheme (JS3005) as an example, the 16 majors within the scheme differ markedly in popularity — internal competition for AI-related directions bears no comparison with some traditional, less sought-after fields.

---

To make the ranking mechanism more concrete, here is a purely illustrative scenario (the people and figures below are for explanation only, not a real case). Suppose two students, A and B, are in the Engineering scheme: A has a higher entrance qualification score but achieves only a mid-range GPA in the Common Year One; B's admission score is slightly lower, but B works hard in every Year 1 subject and finishes with a top GPA. When both put "Artificial Intelligence and Information Engineering" as their first choice and places are tight, the ranking assessment combines both candidates' entrance qualification scores with their Year One GPAs (and interviews where applicable) — B may well overtake A on the composite ranking on the strength of their first year, taking the popular major, while A is deferred to a direction with remaining places. The scenario illustrates the essence of the mechanism: the admission score is the starting line, not the finish line.

It bears stressing that the above is only a mechanism illustration. PolyU publishes neither the applicant-to-place ratios for individual majors nor the exact weights of the three dimensions in the composite ranking, so there is no official formula for "how much GPA makes up for how many admission-score points". Students cannot calculate this precisely and can only treat "give your best in Year 1" as a safe strategy.

# Do non-JUPAS and international students go through the same process? Do they face the ranking assessment too?

Scheme-based admissions do not apply only to local JUPAS applicants. According to the JUPAS programme catalogue, PolyU's JS3000 has 30 first-year places counting "JUPAS and non-JUPAS applicants together"^※, indicating that the same scheme entry is open to both local DSE students and non-JUPAS/international applicants. Students who enter a scheme via international and other qualifications join the same disciplinary area, take the same Common Year One, and in principle must also go through the year-end ranking assessment for their major — except that their "entrance qualification score" is converted from the equivalent qualification (IB, GCE A-Level, the mainland gaokao, etc.) rather than a weighted HKDSE score.

This raises a fairness-design issue that is often overlooked: how "entrance qualification scores" from different qualification systems are made commensurable on the same ranking table is not publicly detailed by PolyU. For international students, the more actionable takeaway is the same as for local students — since Year One GPA is the only dimension that can still be changed after admission, building a solid Common Year One record is a common counterweight to the uncertainty of qualification conversion. Non-JUPAS/international entry requirements and English-language requirements are set out in PolyU Undergraduate Admissions Overview Section 2 and are not repeated here.

# The seventh scheme JS3000: what is this "design your own major" for high achievers?

Alongside the six faculty schemes, PolyU has introduced a qualitatively different entry from 2025/26: the Bachelor's Degree Scheme in Interdisciplinary Studies (JS3000). This is not "choosing a major within a faculty"; it allows students to cross the boundaries of existing faculties and disciplines and assemble a major of their own.

According to the JUPAS catalogue's JS3000 page, the scheme admits 30 students in its first year (JUPAS and non-JUPAS combined) and states explicitly that it is "designed for high-scoring students, including those taking the Manpower Planning (MPP) programmes",^※ with an emphasis on personalised counselling and intensive mentorship. According to the official PolyU JS3000 programme page, its credit structure has three components: 18 credits of "interdisciplinary core subjects", at least 54 credits of a "Self-Designed Major", and at least 36 credits of "University Core Curriculum"^※. In other words, the largest single block — those 54 credits — is self-designed by the student within a structured framework, without needing to fit the University's existing faculties or disciplinary groupings.

JS3000's entry bar is also distinctive. According to the JUPAS catalogue, the HKDSE requirement for JS3000 is "a score of 34.5 or above in the best 5 subjects", with Level 3 in both Chinese and English, Level 2 in compulsory Mathematics, a pass in Citizenship and Social Development, plus Level 3 in any two additional subjects (or Level 3 in one additional subject plus Extended Mathematics)^※; furthermore, the "flexible admission" considerations PolyU applies to general programmes do not apply to JS3000. This clearly drawn score line sets it apart from the other six schemes, which do not separately publish weighted admission scores — JS3000 reads more like an elite track laid out for high achievers than a universal broad-entry gate.

To characterise the seven schemes in one sentence: the six faculty schemes mean "enter a faculty, compete for a major within it at year-end"; JS3000 means "enter a cross-faculty elite programme, design your own major within a framework". The former is a ranking contest; the latter has a higher bar, only 30 places, and stresses autonomy and mentorship.

---

# In the context of Hong Kong's eight UGC-funded universities: is PolyU's route like any other's?

"Broad-based admission, choose a major after entry" is not a PolyU invention; several UGC-funded universities in Hong Kong operate similar arrangements. But set them side by side and it becomes clear that, for all of them being called "broad-based / school-based", the internal rules for major selection split into two opposing philosophies: one "guarantees you get what you choose", the other "makes you compete again". PolyU belongs to the latter.

CUHK's Faculty of Science represents the "guaranteed" route. According to the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Science, its "SCIENCE Broad-based Admission Scheme (JS4601)" lets students explore 11 science majors in Year 1 before declaring, and "no quota for a specific major, and students are guaranteed admission to their programme of choice"^※. In other words, as long as you progress normally, you study whichever science major you want, without competing with classmates for places. This is a fundamentally different design from PolyU's ranking assessment: CUHK's Faculty of Science treats the broad entry as an exploration period, ultimately returning the choice to the student; PolyU treats the broad entry as a competitive pool, with the final allocation decided by ranking.

HKUST and PolyU share the "competitive" route. According to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology's School of Engineering, the School practices "School-based Admission" (admission by school rather than department), with students required to participate in major selection and popular directions having limited places^※ — the School states openly that entry into the Computer Science and Engineering Department or the Computer Engineering programme, while possible, is "subject to competition due to a tight quota". This is highly consistent with PolyU's logic of "popular majors allocated by merit on a ranking, with those at the bottom streamed elsewhere": neither university guarantees the most sought-after major.

The table below sets out several typical broad-based/school-based arrangements (all from official sources around 2025/26; it covers institutional mechanics only, not score comparisons):

Institutional implication: for all of them being "enter a broad group, choose a major later", PolyU and HKUST leave the risk with the first year — admission is only eligibility, and the major must be fought for on Year 1 performance; CUHK's Faculty of Science hands the certainty to the student — getting in means getting what you want. Applicants aiming at a popular PolyU major must understand they face a "two-stage competition", not a "touchdown at the door".

---

# What does this mean for JUPAS application strategy?

Translating the mechanism above into application actions, the impact of PolyU's scheme-based admissions on strategy comes down to three points, each complementary to the "schemes vs standalone programmes" question in the companion piece — that article covers choosing the entry; this one covers managing what happens after entry.

First, Year 1 is not a year off. Since Year One GPA is one of the three ranking dimensions, and the only variable that can still be changed after admission, treating the Common Year One as a transition to sleepwalk through is voluntarily giving up your comeback chip. For students admitted with mid-range scores in their scheme who want a popular major, the Year One GPA is almost the only lever for overtaking.

Second, have a Plan B if the major falls through. Competitive allocation means "getting into the scheme does not mean getting into the major you wanted". Rational applicants should establish in advance: if the ranking is not enough to land the first-choice major, what directions remain in the same scheme, and would you accept being streamed there? Thinking through "what is the worst major I could end up in" before choosing a scheme is safer than fixating on the most popular direction.

Third, high achievers can take the JS3000 route instead. If your HKDSE results can realistically clear 34.5 in the best five subjects and you lean towards an interdisciplinary self-designed path, JS3000 offers an elite channel that bypasses the "in-scheme ranking contest" — at the cost of only 30 places, equally fierce competition, and no flexible admission, so the hard score bar has no wiggle room.

As for which counting subjects to back, how weighting aligns with schemes rather than sub-majors, and the role of banding in selection — these are entry-level strategies, already detailed in Scheme Admissions and the "College-System" Entry, and are not repeated here.

---

# Scheme-Based Admissions · Quick FAQ

---

# Cross-References

• Scheme Admissions and the "College-System" Entry — which majors, quotas, flexible-admission thresholds and "scheme JS code vs standalone programme JS code" application strategies for each of the six schemes (entry-level).
• PolyU Undergraduate Admissions Overview — JUPAS entry requirements, the 8.5-point conversion, per-programme cut-off scores for standalone programmes, Non-JUPAS / international / mainland JEE admissions.
• PolyU Tuition and Scholarships Overview — local/non-local tuition and the admissions scholarship system.