HKUST(GZ) College of Future Technology Red Bird Mphil Program 2026/27 Fall Intake Admission Offline Interview

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. 活动形式

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:

未来医疗技术
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).