香港科技大学（广州）未来技术学院红鸟硕士项目 2026-27学年秋季入学招生线下面试

一：小组项目活动

（一）活动介绍

每4-6名申请人现场随机组成一个小组，必须在规定时间内，只使用官方提供的基础材料（积木、纸、绳子等），结合特定的题目、关键词和挑战任务，创作出一个模拟未来城市的作品。每组随机分配2位评委进行全过程观察、记录与评分。

（二）活动流程

1. 签到及随机分组（30分钟）

所有申请人和评委签到后进入等候区等候，在系统随机分配小组后，按随机分组结果进场就坐。各小组入座后可自行核对物资。在制作阶段未开始前不允许小组间交流。

2. 抽取主题及关键词（10分钟）

主办方负责人开场致辞后，在5大领域（即未来健康保健技术、可持续生活、智能工业化、低空经济、海洋科技与经济）中随机抽取其中一个作为主题关键词1，并现场使用AI软件随机生成一个形容词作为关键词2。例如，本次活动随机抽取的主题关键词1为“智能工业化”，关键词2为“寒冷的”。

3. 启动与制作阶段（110分钟）

每个小组根据上述两个关键词，在一个长、宽、高分别为75.5cm、51.5cm、＞43cm的立体空间内制作相应的作品。要求每组作品包含不少于5个模块（模块功能或内容由小组自行定义），而且整个作品高度必须超过这个空间的顶部（即43cm）。例如，有一小组根据“智能工业化”与“寒冷的”两个关键词，创建了一个具备高度智能工业化生产能力，且能够在严寒环境中提供可持续的生活条件和高效管理的未来城市，包含了智能工业中心、严寒能源供应与管理系统、智能交通网络、常温智能居住区、抗寒垂直农业与生态等模块。各小组自行组织讨论，制定实施方案，并在制作阶段结束前整理台面，回收剩余的材料，不得再用于制作。要求各小组必须将作品所具备的主要功能或结构，清楚写在白板上，以便后续交流与调研。

4. 设计挑战任务（15分钟）

每个小组前往签到处，随机抽取另一小组作为观察对象进行观察，并结合自己小组的作品情况，有针对性地为被观察的小组提出一个挑战任务（例如：地震、海啸、核污染等人类社会可能面临的重大灾难或者挑战，具体内容由各小组自行定义）。挑战任务必须是针对对方作品所缺乏的功能或结构，同时要求自己小组的作品必须能够满足给对方所提的挑战任务要求。设计挑战任务阶段的最后5分钟设定为各小组闭门会议，不能进行跨组的交流和调研。

5. 应对挑战任务（15分钟）

在应对挑战任务阶段，允许各小组调整各自的作品以及相互使用金块进行模块的自由交易。建议各小组妥善使用金块，争取使投资产生最大价值。交易结束时，如果顺利完成了模块交易，要求必须将所交换的模块取回，并完成与自己小组作品的拼接组合，并标注交换来的模块。在应对挑战任务期间，各小组均不能与被自己小组提挑战任务的小组进行直接或间接的交易。应对挑战任务阶段结束，每个小组必须在白板（或白纸）上写好作品介绍和挑战任务应对方案，形式不限。

6. 团队及个人陈述与组内互评（30分钟）

每个小组面向各自评委进行团队及个人陈述，结束后按照现场指引完成组内互评。

（三）评分细则

评委将通过以下四个阶段观察申请人的表现，并完成评分（每位申请人总分最高为34分）。每项指标的评分范围为0-2分，具体如下：

0: 未观察到相关行为
1: 观察到相关行为
2: 完全观察到行为，且表现突出

1. 阶段一：启动与规划（最高分：8分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
创新构思	该组员是否在白板或口头讨论中，提出1项以上与关键词相关的构想（含模型、元素或故事设定等）？	0：未提出任何与关键词相关的构想 1：提出1个与关键词相关构想 2：提出2个以上与关键词相关的构想，并获得团队的认可
信息整合	该组员是否复述或整合他人想法（非简单重复），促进小组达成共识？	0：未复述或整合他人想法 1：至少复述或整合他人想法1次 2：多次复述、总结、整合他人想法，对整个项目与合作有全局性思考或把握，促进小组达成共识
分工参与	该组员是否主动提出或确认分工任务，在白板或口头讨论中明确职责？	0：未明确任何分工或角色 1：主动提出或接受分工或角色 2：以领导者或协调人的角色，积极提出分工方案，获得团队认可和实施
团队沟通	该组员是否通过口头或行为，主动表达或回应他人观点,参与团队互动？	0：未参与团队讨论或基本保持沉默 1：通过口头或行为表达或回应他人观点 2：清晰地主动地表达见解，提出建设性意见，或认真倾听，积极回应队友，参与团队互动

2. 阶段二：制作（最高分：8分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
原型制作	该组员是否有制作原型或参与团队建模创作？	0：无或者很少参与制作原型或团队建模创作 1：参与制作原型或团队建模创作 2：熟练使用原型工具进行模型创作，充分利用有限材料，从不同的角度将理念转化成原型
协作行为	除自己的任务以外，该组员是否与小组其他成员共同完成至少1个子模块？	0：无或很少与他人合作完成子模块 1：合作完成1个子模块 2：合作完成2个以上子模块
解决问题	该组员是否在他人或团队遇到问题或者发现问题时，提出或实施1个以上具体解决方案？	0：未提出或实施解决方案 1：针对他人或团队的问题，提出或实施具体解决方案 2：发现问题并提出解决方案，或者针对2个以上他人或团队问题，提出或实施解决方案
任务完成	该组员是否独立完成团队所分配的子模块，按要求完成团队模块整合？	0：未完成子模块或者团队模块整合 1：独立完成子模块，并与团队模块进行整合 2：按要求完成子模块，以领导者或者协调者的角色，推动完成团队模块的整合，获得队友认可和实施

3. 阶段三：设计与应对挑战任务（最高分：8分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
挑战任务设计	该组员是否参与挑战任务的设计，在团队讨论中，提出至少1条具体挑战任务（如灾难类型、资源限制等）？	0：未参与本组挑战任务设计 1：通过团队讨论提出挑战任务 2：通过团队讨论提出针对性的挑战任务，并获得所在团队认可和实施
思考角度	该组员是否基于对方模型结构或功能等层面不足，针对性地提出挑战任务？	0：挑战任务无针对性 1：针对对方模型的具体结构或者功能的不足，提出挑战任务 2：通过深入理解和分析对方的模型与设计思路，结合己方作品，进行多角度思考提出了挑战任务，获得所在团队认可
应对挑战	面对挑战任务，该组员是否通过团队讨论，提出1个以上模型优化方案或应对策略？	0：无或很少参与应对挑战任务 1：通过所在团队讨论中，提出1个以上应对挑战任务的方案或策略 2：承受压力，通过所在团队讨论，分析和发现本组模型的缺陷，精准地提出模型优化方案或应对策略，并获得队友的认可与执行
交易与协商	该组员是否主导或参与1次完整交易协商（包括发起、议价或达成协议等）？	0：无或很少参与交易协商 1：参与交易协商过程 2：基于团队讨论，以领导者或协调人的角色，主导性地完成交易或协商

4. 阶段四：团队及个人陈述（最高分：8分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
内容陈述	该组员是否独立明确描述自己负责的模块/任务，无需他人提醒或帮助？	0：描述不清或依赖他人 1：独立描述完整的模块/任务内容 2：生动、清楚地讲述自己的角色和任务，逻辑清晰、有理有据
内容一致性	申请的陈述内容是否与主题和关键词相符合，以及能够有效应对挑战任务？	0：陈述内容与主题和关键词无相关或者关联度低 1：陈诉内容基本符合主题与关键词，能应对挑战任务 2：陈述内容与主题和关键词保持一致，较好地应对挑战，并体现系统性思维
问答表现	回答评委提问时，该组员是否准确地理解和回答？	0：回答模糊或内容空洞 1：基本回答了评委的问题 2：准确地理解和回答问题，思维敏捷、表达流畅、条理性强
行为表现	该组员是否表现出良好的情绪或行为，例如热情、自信、积极向上，肢体语言得体，保持与评委眼神交流等？	0：未表现出良好的情绪或行为 1：表现出良好的情绪或行为表现 2：表现出良好的情绪和行为表现，且对团队氛围有明显增益

5. 其他突出表现（最高分：2分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
其他	该组员是否在整个活动中存在评价范围以外的突出表现，例如照顾/鼓励队友、愿为团队妥协、敢于承担责任、富有同理心或韧性等？	0：无其他突出表现 1：有其他突出表现（请具体说明） 2：有其他突出表现，且给团队带来明显的增益（请具体说明）

6. 总评分总结

总分≥30分：发展潜力优异，具备优秀个人综合素养。
30分＞总分≥24分：发展潜力较好，在多个阶段中均有突出表现，但某些能力仍有提升空间。
24分＞总分≥18分：发展潜力一般，在沟通、团队协作、应急等某些关键能力存在不足。
总分＜18分：发展潜力有限，在各阶段的表现中存在明显不足或基本没有突出表现。

（四）注意事项

主办方将根据实际工作需求，在活动现场安排相关录音、录像或拍摄等；
如果在面试过程中有非中文为母语的评委参加，该小组成员需要全程使用英文；
迟到、缺席或不遵守规定，甚至对面试现场造成破坏或不良影响者，将被直接取消面试资格；
活动地点为香港科技大学（广州）校园的嗨呗天地，全部面试环节必须在指定区域内完成；
各小组在活动结束后须快速整理物资，清理台面后，方可离场；
若中英文版本产生歧义，将以中文版本为准。所有规则的最终解释权归香港科技大学（广州）所有。

二：个人面试

（一）面试形式

1. 口头演讲（5分钟，请使用PPT）：申请人须在以下五个主题中挑选一个，并阐述其攻读该领域相关硕士学位的原因。

未来健康保健技术
可持续生活
智能工业化
低空经济
海洋科技与经济

2. 问答环节（10分钟）：评委将就广泛话题进行提问。

3. 面试语言：

母语为中文的申请人，口头演讲可选择使用中文或英文。
如果申请者的口头演讲使用中文，问答环节必将使用英文；如果口头演讲使用英文，问答环节将可使用中文或英文。
母语非中文的申请人需全程使用英文面试。
如果该场面试有外籍评委，申请人则需要全程使用英文。

4. 由多名评委对一位申请者进行面试。

（二）评分细则

评委将通过以下四个阶段观察申请人的表现，并完成评分（每位申请人总分最高为34分）。每项指标的评分范围为0-2分，具体如下：

0: 未观察到相关行为
1: 观察到相关行为
2: 完全观察到行为，且表现突出

1. 阶段一：演讲（最高分：16分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
主题相关性	申请人的演讲是否围绕五大主题之一展开？	0：演讲与主题关联度不高 1：演讲与主题相关，阐述主题关键词，但平铺直述 2：主题明确、内容匹配，从问题入手或采用“讲故事”的方法展开演讲
结构完整性	申请人的演讲及内容是否具有完整结构（开头+主体+结尾），至少1次使用结构性语言（如“首先、然后、最后”或者“第一、第二、第三”等）？	0：演讲及内容无完整结构 1：使用“开头-结尾”的演讲结构或结构性语言 2：演讲结构完整，分段明确，多次使用结构性语言
内容熟悉度	申请人是否演讲流畅，准确地陈述概念、技术、背景等？	0：多处停顿、读PPT或念稿 1：准确地陈述概念、技术、背景等，无需读稿 2：演讲流畅，用专业知识或案例进行准确陈述，内容丰富、真实
表达逻辑与清晰度	申请人是否条理清晰，注重使用逻辑连接词（如“首先、其次、最后”）？	0：经常性中断，前后表达无衔接，发言小声、模糊 1：演讲较为连贯，表达清晰，有一定的逻辑性 2：演讲内容和条理清晰，有理有据，逻辑性强，多次使用逻辑连接词
幻灯片设计	申请人的PPT是否与演讲内容一致，要点突出，无错别字或错误图表等？	0：PPT与演讲内容不一致，或存在明显错别字或错误图表，单页PPT文字篇幅过多等 1：PPT与演讲内容基本一致，内容无明显错别字或错误图表，文字和图表使用基本平衡 2：PPT与演讲内容保持一致，内容准确，图文并茂，设计精美，有效支撑演讲
跨学科视角	申请人是否提出至少1个针对未来趋势或现实问题的跨学科见解？	0：无提出跨学科见解 1：提出跨学科见解 2：基于未来趋势或现实共性问题，提出了多个跨学科见解，且有理有据
创造性观点	申请人是否提出至少1个独特设想或跨领域创新想法（如将所学专业与其他领域的理论或技术相结合）？	0：无提出创造性观点 1：提出独特设想或跨领域创新想法 2：有依据地提出独特设想或跨领域创新想法，说服力强
申请动机与项目匹配度	申请人是否明确阐述了申请动机以及“为何适合红鸟硕士项目”？	0：无阐述申请动机以及与红鸟硕士项目的匹配度 1：基本阐述了申请动机和与红鸟硕士项目的匹配度 2：准确阐述对红鸟硕士项目的理解，基于个人发展目标、研究方向等，清楚阐明申请动机，强调与红鸟硕士项目的匹配度

2. 阶段二：问答（最高分：16分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
理解能力	申请人是否认真倾听、准确理解和回应评委的提问？	0：无倾听、理解和回应评委的提问 1：有倾听，基本理解和回应了评委的提问 2：在认真倾听/复述评委提问的基础上，准确理解和回应评委的提问
回答内容	申请人是否准确回答，采用了举例、类比、数据、个人经验等内容？	0：没认真回答问题 1：通过思考，准确回答问题 2：深思熟虑后准确回答问题，且多次使用举例、类比、数据、或个人经验等进行作答，展现专业见解
逻辑/批判性思维	申请人是否基于因果关系、假设条件、优劣权衡或多角度分析等进行作答？	0：回答问题缺乏逻辑性或批判性 1：有逻辑或批判性地回答问题 2：基于因果关系、假设条件、优劣权衡或多角度分析等进行作答，明显展示了逻辑推理能力或批判性思维
自我认知	申请人是否分析了自身优势/劣势（非模板化自夸）？	0：无分析个人优/劣势 1：基本分析了个人的优/劣势 2：通过深入分析，认真阐述了自身优势/劣势，并清晰指出改进方向或期望
共情能力	申请人是否至少根据评委反应或反馈，及时调整回答、修正立场或补充观点？	0：无视评委的反应或反馈 1：基本能通过观察评委的反应反馈，及时调整 2：认真观察评委的反应或反馈，针对性地及时调整回答、修正立场或补充观点等
应急反应	申请人面对“意外型或压力”问题（假设类、挑战类）时，是否即时提出清晰、有条理的解决策略或想法？	0：面对“意外型或压力”问题时，回答模糊或逃避 1：中规中矩地回答“意外型或压力”问题，提出解决策略或想法 2：思维灵活敏捷，即时提出清晰、有条理的解决策略或想法，说服力高
情绪与互动	申请人是否在评委施加压力或追问下保持语速平稳、情绪稳定与自信，问答过程中保持与评委互动，包括眼神交流、点头、回应微笑等行为？	0：在压力或追问下，表现出情绪不稳定或无自信 1：基本保持语速和情绪稳定，与评委保持互动 2：在压力测试下保持积极向上的情绪，能够继续自信地回答问题，保持良好的非语言交流
团队合作	申请人是否提及“团队合作”相关的经验或案例？	0：作答无涉及团队合作内容 1：有提及团队合作的关键词，经验或案例 2：多次提及团队合作经验，通过真实案例，体现团队合作精神和集体荣誉感

3. 其他突出表现（最高分：2分）

指标	描述	分数（0-2）
其他	申请人是否在整个面试活动中存在评价范围以外的突出表现，例如跨学科创新思维、幽默感、领导力、感染力等？	0：无其他突出表现 1：有其他突出表现（请具体说明） 2：有其他突出表现，且给个人面试过程带来明显的增益（请具体说明）

4. 评分总结

总分≥30分：发展潜力优异，具备优秀个人综合素养。
30分＞总分≥24分：发展潜力较好，在多个阶段中均有突出表现，但某些能力仍有提升空间。
24分＞总分≥18分：发展潜力一般，在沟通、团队协作、应急等某些关键能力存在不足。
总分＜18分：发展潜力有限，在各阶段的表现中存在明显不足或基本没有突出表现。

（三）注意事项

主办方将根据实际工作需求，在活动现场安排相关录音、录像或拍摄等；
迟到、缺席或不遵守规定，甚至对面试现场造成破坏或不良影响者，将被直接取消面试资格；
面试地点为香港科技大学（广州）校园，全部面试环节必须在指定区域内完成；
面试结束后，申请人须带齐个人物品，立即离开指定面试区域；
若中英文版本产生歧义，将以中文版本为准。所有规则的最终解释权归香港科技大学（广州）所有。

Part One: Group Project Activity

I. Introduction

Applicants will be randomly grouped into groups of 4-6 people on-site. Each group must, within a set time frame and using only the basic materials provided by the officials (such as blocks, paper, rope, etc.), create a model of a future city based on specific themes and spontaneous challenge tasks. Each group will be randomly assigned two evaluators to observe, record, and score the entire process.

II. Procedures

1. Check-in and Random Grouping (30 minutes)

After all applicants and evaluators have checked in and are waiting in the waiting area, groups will be assigned randomly by the grading system. Groups can then take their seats and check their own materials. No communication between groups is allowed before the start of the construction phase.

2. Random Selection of Theme Keywords (10 minutes)

The person in charge of the organizing committee will give an opening speech, and randomly select one keyword from five theme areas (Future Healthcare Technology, Sustainable Living, Smart Industrialization, Low Altitude Economy, Ocean Science and Economy) as Theme Keyword 1. A random word (adjective) will be generated on the spot using AI technology as Theme Keyword 2. For example, “Smart Industrialization” as Keyword 1 and “Cold” as Keyword 2 for the event.

3. Initiation and Production Phase (110 minutes)

Each group will create their piece within a three-dimensional space measuring 75.5cm in length, 51.5cm in width, and ＞43cm in height, based on the two theme keywords. Each group’s work must contain no less than five modules (functions or contents defined by the group themselves), and the entire work must exceed the height of 43cm. For example, a group might create a future city with highly intelligent industrial production capability, capable of providing sustainable living conditions and efficient management in a cold environment, including modules such as an intelligent industrial center, cold energy supply and management system, smart transportation network, ambient intelligent residential area, cold-resistant vertical agriculture and ecology. Each group should organize their own discussions, develop an implementation plan, and tidy up the workspace by the end of the production phase. Any remaining materials must be collected and cannot be used for further production. It is required that each group clearly write the main functions or structures of their project on the whiteboard for future communication and research.

4. Challenge Task Design (15 minutes)

Each group will go to the check-in desk to randomly select another group to observe. Based on their own group’s work, they will propose a challenge task (e.g., earthquake, tsunami, nuclear pollution or other major disasters or challenges humanity might face) for the observed group. The challenge task must target the missing functions or structures in the other group’s work. At the same time, each group’s work must meet the requirements of the challenge task posed to the other group. The last 5 minutes of the design challenge phase will be set for each group’s closed-door meeting, during which cross-group communication and research are not allowed.

5. Challenge Task Execution (15 minutes)

After the challenge task is designed, each group is allowed to adjust their own work and engage in free module trading with other groups using gold bullion. It is recommended that each group use the gold bullion wisely to maximize the value of their investment. At the end of the trading session, if the module exchange is completed successfully, the exchanged modules must be retrieved, and the groups must complete the integration with their original work, ensuring that the exchanged modules are clearly labeled. During the challenge task phase, no group is allowed to engage in direct or indirect transactions with the group they have challenged. At the end of the challenge task phase, each group must write a work introduction and the approach to addressing the challenge task on a whiteboard (or white paper) in any format.

6. Group and Individual Presentation and Peer Evaluation (30 minutes):

Each group and individual will present to their own evaluators. After the presentation, they will complete the peer evaluation following on-site instructions.

III. Scoring Details

Evaluators will observe applicants across four phases and assign scores based on observable behaviors (each applicant will be scored out of 34 points). Each criterion is scored 0-2, where:

0: Behavior not observed
1: Behavior partially observed or inconsistently demonstrated
2: Behavior fully observed and effectively demonstrated

1. Phase 1: Initiation and Planning Phase (Max Points: 8)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Innovative Thinking	Did the participant propose more than one concept related to the keywords during whiteboard or verbal discussions (including models, elements, or story settings)?	0: Did not proposed any ideas related to the keywords. 1: Proposes 1 idea related to the keywords. 2: Proposes ≥2 ideas related to the keywords and gains team recognition.
Information Integration	Did the participant summarize or integrate others’ ideas (beyond mere repetition) to facilitate team consensus?	0: Did not repeat or integrate others’ ideas. 1: Repeated or integrated others’ ideas at least once. 2: Repeated, summarized, and integrated others’ ideas multiple times, showed a holistic view of the project and collaboration, and helped the group reach consensus.
Task Division & Participation	Did the participant proactively propose or confirm task division and clarify roles during whiteboard or verbal discussions?	0: Did not clarify any role or division of labor. 1: Proposed or accepted a role or division of labor. 2: Took a leadership or coordinating role, proposed a division of labor, and gained team approval and implementation.
Team Communication	Did the participant actively express or respond to others’ opinions verbally or non-verbally and engage in team interaction?	0: Did not participate in team discussion or remained silent. 1: Expressed or responded to others’ opinions verbally or through actions. 2: Clearly expressed opinions proactively, offered constructive suggestions, listened attentively, and responded actively to teammates.

2. Phase 2: Production Phase (Max Points: 8)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Prototype Making	Did the member make a prototype or participate in team modeling?	0: Little or no involvement in prototype making or team modeling. 1: Participated in prototype making or team modeling. 2: Skilled in using prototype tools to create models, made full use of limited materials, and transformed ideas into prototypes from different perspectives.
Collaborative Behavior	Did the member collaborate with others to complete at least one submodule besides their own task?	0: Little or no collaboration on submodules. 1: Collaborated on 1 submodule. 2: Collaborated on over 2 submodules.
Problem Solving	When others or the team faced problems, did the member propose or implement one or more specific solutions?	0: No solutions proposed or implemented. 1: Proposed or implemented solutions to others’ or the team’s problems. 2: Identified issues and proposed or implemented solutions to over 2 of others’ or the team’s problems.
Task Completion	Did the member independently finish their submodule and meet the team module integration requirements?	0: Submodule or team’ module integration not completed. 1: Completed submodule and integrated with team’ modules. 2: Completed submodule as required, took a leadership or coordinating role, and led team module integration with teammates’ approval and implementation.

3. Phase 3: Challenge Task and Response Phase (Max Points: 8)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Challenge Task Design	Did the member participate in designing the challenge task and propose at least one specific task (e.g., disaster type, resource limitation) during team discussions?	0: Did not participate in the group’s challenge task design. 1: Proposed a challenge task through team discussion. 2: Proposed a targeted challenge task through team discussion and gained team approval and implementation.
Task Design Perspective	Did the member propose challenges based on deficiencies in the opposing team’s model structure or functionality?	0: The challenge task lacked specificity. 1: Proposed a challenge task targeting the specific structural or functional shortcomings of the opponent’s model. 2: After thoroughly understanding and analyzing the opponent’s model and design approach, and combining it with their own work, proposed a challenge task from multiple perspectives and gained team approval.
Response to Challenges	Faced with the challenge task, did the member propose one or more model optimization solutions or response strategies through team discussion?	0: Showed little or no participation in responding to the challenge task. 1: Proposed one or more response strategies to the challenge task through team discussion. 2: Under pressure, analyzed and identified flaws in their team’s model through team discussion, and proposed precise model optimization or response strategies that were recognized and implemented by teammates.
Negotiation and Trading	Did the member lead or participate in a complete negotiation process (including initiating, bargaining, or reaching an agreement)?	0: Showed little or no participation in negotiation and trade. 1: Participated in the negotiation and trade process. 2: Based on team discussion, took a leadership or coordinating role and led the completion of the trade or negotiation.

4. Phase 4: Group and Individual Presentation Phase (Max Points: 8)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Content Statement	Did the member independently and clearly describe their module/task without reminders?	0: Description unclear or reliant on others. 1: Independently described complete module/task content. 2: Vividly and clearly explained own role and task with logical clarity and solid reasoning.
Content Consistency	Did the member’s statement match the theme/keywords and address the challenge task?	0: Content unrelated or loosely related to theme and keywords. 1: Content basically matched theme/keywords and addressed challenge task. 2: Content consistently aligned with theme/keywords, effectively addressed challenges, and demonstrated systematic thinking.
Q&A Performance	Did the member accurately understand and answer the judges’ questions?	0: Response vague or lacking substance. 1: Basically answered the judges’ questions. 2: Accurately understood and answered questions with quick thinking, fluent expression, and strong logical organization.
Behavioral Performance	Did the member show positive emotions/behaviors, like enthusiasm and confidence, maintain eye contact, and use proper body language?	0: No display of positive emotions or behaviors. 1: Showed good emotional and behavioral performance. 2: Excellent emotional and behavioral performance that significantly enhanced team atmosphere.

5. Other Outstanding Performances (Max Points: 2)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Other	Did the member have notable actions beyond the evaluation criteria, such as supporting teammates, compromising for the team, or showing responsibility, empathy, or resilience?	0: No other outstanding performance. 1: Other outstanding performance (please specify). 2: Other outstanding performance that significantly benefits the team (please specify).

6. Overall Scoring Summary

Total Score ≥30: Outstanding potential with excellent personal qualities.
24 ≤ Total Score <30: Good potential with strong performance across multiple stages, but some room for improvement remains.
18 ≤ Total Score <24: Average potential with deficiencies in key areas like communication and teamwork.
Total Score <18: Limited potential with significant shortcomings or lack of standout performances.

IV. Notices

The organizer will arrange recording, filming, or photography on-site according to work needs.
If there are evaluators who are non-native Mandarin speakers in the interview, English must be used throughout the interview.
Latecomers, absentees, or those who fail to comply with the rules and cause damage or adverse effects to the interview site will be directly disqualified.
The activity venue is Highbay, and all production stages must be completed within the designated area.
Groups must quickly collect the remaining materials and clean the workspace after the activity ends.
In case of ambiguity, Chinese version shall prevail. All rules are subject to the final interpretation of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou).

Part Two: Individual Interview

I. Interview Format

1. Oral Presentation (5 minutes, please use PPT): Please state the reasons for choosing to pursue a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) degree in the related field of one out of five options below:

Future Healthcare Technology
Sustainable Living
Intelligent Industrialization
Low Altitude Economy
Marine Technology and Economy

2. Q&A Session (10 minutes): The interviewer will ask questions on a wide range of topics.

3. Interview Language:

Applicants whose native language is Chinese may choose either Chinese or English for their oral presentation.
If the applicant’s oral presentation is in Chinese, the Q&A session will be in English. If the applicant’s oral presentation is in English, the Q&A session will be in Chinese or English.
Applicants whose native language is not Chinese will be interviewed in English only.
If there are evaluators who are non-native Mandarin speakers in the interview, English must be used throughout the interview.

4. The interview will be conducted by multiple interviewers for one applicant.

II. Scoring Details

Evaluators will observe applicants across two phases and assign scores based on observable behaviors. Each applicant will be scored out of 34 points. Each criterion is scored 0-2, where:

0: Behavior not observed
1: Behavior partially observed or inconsistently demonstrated
2: Behavior fully observed and effectively demonstrated

1. Phase 1: Individual Presentation (Max Points: 16)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Topic Relevance	Was the applicant’s speech centered around one of the five themes?	0: Speech was not closely related to the topic. 1: Speech was related to the topic, covers key keywords, but was presented in a straightforward manner. 2: Topic was clear, content matches, and the speech is problem-oriented or storytelling-based.
Structural Integrity	Did the speech have a complete structure (introduction, body, conclusion) and use structural language like “First, then, last” or “First, second, third”?	0: Speech lacked a complete structure. 1: Speech used a beginning-end structure or structural language. 2: Speech had a complete structure with clear segments and multiple uses of structural language.
Content Familiarity	Was the applicant fluent in the speech and accurate in explaining concepts, technologies, and backgrounds?	0: Frequent pauses, reading from PPT, or script-reading. 1: Accurately explains concepts, technologies, and backgrounds without reading. 2: Speech was smooth, with accurate and rich content using professional knowledge or examples.
Logical Expression & Clarity	Was the applicant’s expression logical and clear, with emphasis on using logical connectives like “First, next, last”?	0: Speech was often interrupted, incoherent, and unclear. 1: Speech was fairly coherent with clear expression and some logic. 2: Speech content and logic were clear, well-reasoned, and used multiple logical connectives.
PPT Design	Was the applicant’s PPT consistent with the speech content, highlighting key points without typos or incorrect charts?	0: PPT was inconsistent with speech content, or had typos, incorrect charts, or excessive text per slide. 1: PPT was basically consistent with speech content, free of typos and incorrect charts, with balanced text and images. 2: PPT was consistent with speech content, accurate, well-illustrated, and well-designed to effectively support the speech.
Interdisciplinary Perspective	Did the applicant present at least one interdisciplinary insight on future trends or real-world issues?	0: No interdisciplinary insights proposed. 1: Proposed interdisciplinary insights. 2: Proposed multiple interdisciplinary insights based on future trends or common real-world issues, with solid reasoning.
Creative Thinking	Did the applicant propose at least one unique or cross-disciplinary innovative idea?	0: No creative ideas proposed. 1: Proposed unique or cross-field innovative ideas. 2: Proposed unique or cross-field innovative ideas with strong persuasiveness and evidence.
Motivation & Suitability	Did the applicant clearly explain their motivation and suitability for the Red Bird MPhil Program?	0: No explanation of application motivation or suitability of the Red Bird MPhil Program. 1: Basically explains application motivation and suitability of the Red Bird MPhil Program. 2: Accurately explained understanding of the Red Bird MPhil Program and application motivation based on personal development goals and research direction, highlighting the suitability.

2. Phase 2: Q&A Phase (Max Points: 16)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Comprehension Ability	Did the applicant listen carefully, understand accurately, and respond appropriately to the judges’ questions?	0: Did not listen to, understand, or respond to the judges’ questions. 1: Listened and basically understood and responded to the judges’ questions. 2: After carefully listening to or paraphrasing the judges’ questions, accurately understood and responded to them.
Answer Content	Did the applicant answer accurately with examples, analogies, data, or personal experiences?	0: Did not answer the questions seriously. 1: Answered the questions accurately after thinking. 2: Answered the questions accurately after careful thought, and used examples, analogies, data, or personal experiences multiple times to demonstrate professional insights.
Logical/Critical Thinking	Were answers based on causal relationships, assumptions, trade-offs, or multi-perspective analyses?	0: Answers lacked logic and critical thinking. 1: Answers showed logic and critical thinking. 2: Answers were based on causal relationships, assumptions, trade-offs, or multi-angle analyses, clearly showing logical reasoning or critical thinking.
Self-Awareness	Did the applicant analyze their strengths and weaknesses without generic self-praise?	0: Did not analyze personal strengths and weaknesses. 1: Basically analyzed personal strengths and weaknesses. 2: Through in-depth analysis, carefully explained personal strengths and weaknesses and clearly pointed out directions for improvement or expectations.
Empathy	Did the applicant adjust answers, correct positions, or add points based on judges’ feedback?	0: Ignored the judges’ reactions and feedback. 1: Adjusted in a basic way based on the judges’ reactions and feedback. 2: Carefully observed the judges’ reactions and feedback, and adjusted answers, corrected positions, or added points in a targeted manner.
Emergency Response	When facing hypothetical or stressful questions, did the applicant quickly propose clear solutions?	0: When facing “hypothetical or stressful” questions, answers were vague or evasive. 1: Gave conventional answers to “hypothetical or stressful” questions, proposing solutions or ideas. 2: Showed flexible and quick thinking, immediately proposing clear and well-organized solutions or ideas with high persuasiveness.
Emotional Interaction	Did the applicant maintain stable speech rate, emotional stability, and confidence under pressure, with good non-verbal interaction?	0: Showed emotional instability or a lack of confidence under pressure or when probed. 1: Basically maintained a stable speaking rate and emotional state, and interacted with the judges. 2: Maintained a positive emotional state under pressure tests, answered questions confidently, and kept good non-verbal communication.
Teamwork	Did the applicant share teamwork-related experiences or cases?	0: Answers did not involve teamwork content. 1: Mentioned keywords related to teamwork, as well as experiences or cases. 2: Repeatedly mentioned teamwork experiences, showcasing teamwork spirit and collective honor through real cases.

3. Phase 2: Other Outstanding Performance (Max Points: 2)

Criteria	Description	Score (0-2)
Other	Was there any exceptional performance beyond the evaluation criteria, like interdisciplinary thinking or humor?	0: No other outstanding performance. 1: Other outstanding performance (please specify). 2: Other outstanding performance that significantly enhanced the personal interview process (please specify).

4. Overall Scoring Summary

Total Score ≥30: Outstanding potential with excellent personal qualities.
24 ≤ Total Score <30: Good potential with strong performance across multiple stages, but some room for improvement remains.
18 ≤ Total Score <24: Average potential with deficiencies in key areas like communication and teamwork.
Total Score <18: Limited potential with significant shortcomings or lack of standout performances.

III. Notices

The organizer will arrange recording, filming, or photography on-site according to work needs.
Latecomers, absentees, or those who fail to comply with the rules and cause damage or adverse effects to the interview site will be directly disqualified.
The interview venue is HKUST(GZ) campus, and all interview stages must be completed within the designated area.
After the interview, applicants are required to bring all their personal belongings and leave the designated interview area immediately.
In case of ambiguity, Chinese version shall prevail. All rules are subject to the final interpretation of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou).