HKUST(GZ) College of Future Technology Red Bird MPhil Program 2027-2028 Fall Intake Admission Online Interview Guidelines
Part I Group Project Activity
I. Activity Overview
At the start of the activity, one of the following five core domains will be randomly selected as the theme domain for all groups, paired with a keyword generated by GenAI tools.
- Future Healthcare Technology
- Sustainable Living
- Intelligent Industrialization
- Low-Altitude Economy
- Marine Technology & Economy
Each group consists of 3 to 6 randomly assigned applicants. (If the number of participants in a session is less than 3, the organizer will invite 1 to 2 project supervisors to join and act as group members to cooperate with group interactions.) Each group must complete a series of project tasks, including theme discussion, problem definition, solution ideation, prototyping, challenge response, and project conclusion, within the designated timeframe. At least two assigned evaluators will observe, document, and score each group throughout the activity, comprehensively assessing communication skills, teamwork, on-site adaptability, and other core competencies.
[ Digital Tools Usage Policy ]
Digital tools (such as GenAI tools or prototyping software, etc.) can be used as auxiliary means, but it is strictly prohibited to use GenAI tools to replace manual core thinking, decision-making or content creation, etc. Applicants may bring electronic products (such as laptops, tablets, mobile phones, etc.), but each group is limited to using only one electronic product for communication with GenAI or prototyping, and the screen must be shared to the officially designated Zoom link. The entire process must follow the irreversible procedure that "the team/individual first forms an independent viewpoint/core plan, and then can use GenAI tools to assist in expansion/optimization/verification."
Violation processing: For applicants found to have improperly used digital tools, the evaluators will issue a deduction in accordance with the scoring rubrics. If the violation occurs again, the applicant's interview score for that session will be counted as zero.
II. Activity Procedures
Step 1 Check-In & Random Grouping (30 minutes)
- All applicants and evaluators are required to check in at the designated online area and await further instructions.
- One applicant and one evaluator will be randomly selected by the admissions system to conduct the grouping draw; results will be announced publicly on-site.
- Groups will enter the online discussion rooms according to the announced results. The use of electronic products must strictly follow the above-mentioned digital tool usage norms. The entire process of the online interview must clearly display the applicant's on-site situation from multiple angles as required.
- Cross-group communication and premature discussion of the activity theme are strictly prohibited prior to the official start of the activity.
Step 2 Opening Remarks & Theme Release (15 minutes)
- The host will deliver opening remarks and randomly select one domain from the five listed above as the unified theme for all groups and randomly generate a “stakeholder” keyword using the GenAI tool.
- Staff will formally present the full activity procedures, Digital Tools Usage Policy, and code of conduct etc. to all applicants.
Step 3 Project Initiation Phase (45 minutes)
(i) Theme Discussion (15 minutes)
Groups conduct an in-depth discussion on the assigned "domain + keyword", based on the needs of stakeholders in their respective field scenarios. Each member shares insights on industry trends, potential use cases, and real-world problems, for example: the domain is Intelligent Industrialization, and the keyword is Frontline Workers. Based on the understanding of industrial intelligent upgrading, specific practical issues or potential predicaments such as the matching of workers' skills and human-machine symbiosis can be sorted out.
Important: Groups must record key pain points on the whiteboard of online discussion room and reach an initial consensus. GenAI tools use is strictly prohibited during this phase.
(ii) Problem Definition (15 minutes)
Groups refine their discussion to extract a pain point that is compatible with the actual application scenario. GenAI tools may be used, but only to analyze, supplement, or refine the problem definition. At this stage, the direct use of GenAI tools to generate pain points or solutions is not allowed.
(iii) Solution Ideation (15 minutes)
Groups shortlist three alternative solutions based on the defined core pain point, then determine a single final solution through discussion and vote and assign team roles. Core elements including pain point description, solution framework, and role breakdown, must be recorded on the whiteboard of online discussion room. Solutions generated by GenAI tools are not allowed to be directly adopted at this stage.
Step 4 Prototyping Phase (60 minutes)
Each group must create prototypes on the online discussion partition whiteboard. They can also use their own laptops to complete the digital prototype creation (such as UI interface hand-drawn drafts, system flowcharts, and solution visualization PPTs can be adopted to present the solutions). The group prototype shall comprise 3–6 core modules, with each member independently responsible for at least one module on-site.
Important: When there are only 5 minutes left until the deadline, each group must stop making, organize the materials and wait to move on to the next stage.
Step 5 Challenge & Response Phase (35 minutes)
(i) Pairing & Prototype Review (15 minutes)
Groups draw lots for random pairing. Each group visits its paired group's station to review the prototype (5 minutes per visit, timed by the host group), documenting the core logic and identifying potential flaws or areas for improvement.
(ii) Challenge Question Design (10 minutes)
Groups return to their own discussion rooms and discuss the observed weaknesses in their paired group's solution (logic gaps, poor scenario fit, low feasibility, potential risks), then formulate a challenge question. Each group can independently choose to use the GenAI tool to assist in optimizing the pertinence, rigor, etc. of the questions, but it is strictly prohibited to directly GenAI-generate challenge questions.
(iii) Question Exchange & Response Development (10 minutes)
Paired groups exchange challenge questions. Each group holds a closed internal discussion to formulate responses. GenAI is solely allowed to check content completeness or add supplementary information, while direct AI generation of answers is prohibited. Groups may draw inspiration from other unrelated groups for brainstorming without altering physical prototypes. All adopted external ideas and the reasoning behind their incorporation must be clearly stated in presentations.
Important: If there are only two groups in this event, they will be paired by default. If the number of groups is less than two, the evaluators will directly pose challenging questions, and the groups will respond to them.
Step 6 Project Conclusion Phase (25 minutes)
(i) Team Presentation (maximum 15 minutes)
All group members participate in the presentation to the evaluators. The required content shall include problem definition, solution design, core prototype features, challenge questions with corresponding replies, as well as individual member contributions. GenAI-generated scripts are strictly prohibited in this session.
(ii) Evaluator Q&A (approximately 10 minutes)
Evaluators pose questions on solution design, individual contributions, and disciplinary understanding, directed at the group or individual members as appropriate. GenAI tools use for answering questions is strictly prohibited in this session.
(iii) Intra-Group Peer Evaluation
Upon completion of all presentations and Q&A sessions, applicants complete peer evaluations as instructed. Results will be submitted to the Selection & Interview Committee for consideration during final review.
III. Scoring Rubric
Each evaluator scores independently. Maximum total: 21 points.
Section 1: Project Initiation Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-1 | Did the applicant propose at least one specific user pain point or insight that was recognized and partially or fully incorporated into the subsequent problem definition? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-2 | Regarding the problem definition, did the applicant define at least one pain point or optimization suggestion that was fully or partially adopted into the final problem definition? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-3 | In terms of developing solutions, did the applicant propose at least one specific solution or concept that was fully or partially accepted and became one of the three alternative solutions? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-4 | When differing opinions arose during team discussions, did the applicant demonstrate leadership or coordination skills to resolve disagreements and drive the group toward consensus? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-5 | In the decision-making process for the final solution, did the applicant play a key role in analyzing, prioritizing, or integrating solutions to reach the final decision? | 1 | 0 |
Section 2: Prototyping Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-1 | Did the applicant complete the assigned module in accordance with the final solution and role breakdown? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-2 | When teammates encountered difficulties, did the applicant proactively take over or assist with module development, and was the resulting module adopted by the team? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-3 | Did the applicant propose at least one risk mitigation suggestion that was adopted by the team? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-4 | Did the applicant identify more than one team issue during the production process or, when the team encountered difficulties (including but not limited to time delays, collaboration issues, technical problems, etc.), and proposed at least one solution that was recognized and accepted by the team? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-5 | Did the applicant act as a leader or coordinator to reallocate tasks, adjust workflows, manage time that improves overall production efficiency? | 1 | 0 |
Section 3: Challenge & Response Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-1 | During the discussion, did the applicant identify at least two flaws in the paired group's prototype, as recognized by the team? (If the number of groups is insufficient, it will be defaulted to 0 points.) | 1 | 0 |
| 3-2 | Did the applicant lead the challenge question design process and propose targeted questions addressing core weaknesses, fully or partially adopted by the team? (If the number of groups is insufficient, it will be defaulted to 0 points.) | 1 | 0 |
| 3-3 | After receiving the challenge task, did the applicant propose at least one targeted response to the challenge question, fully or partially adopted by the team? | 1 | 0 |
| 3-4 | Did the applicant proactively integrate strengths from other groups through cross-group communication or research, transforming them into response strategies that were included in the final response plan? (If the number of groups is insufficient, it will be defaulted to 0 points.) | 1 | 0 |
| 3-5 | In addressing the challenge, did the applicant act as a leader or coordinator to drive efficient decision-making, including information synthesis, summarization, and conflict resolution? | 1 | 0 |
Section 4: Project Conclusion Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-1 | Did the applicant clearly articulate personal contributions and outcomes during the presentation; delivery was fluent and self-contained, without needing reminders or additions from others? | 1 | 0 |
| 4-2 | Did the applicant present content aligned with the team solution and the assigned "domain + keyword" within the allotted time? | 1 | 0 |
| 4-3 | Did the applicant understand and respond to evaluator questions, maintain eye contact, and address at least one question? | 1 | 0 |
| 4-4 | Did the applicant actively listen to teammates during Q&A, supplement missing information, and strengthen the overall response? | 1 | 0 |
| 4-5 | Did the applicant connect different individual modules to explain solution interdependencies, demonstrating systemic thinking? | 1 | 0 |
Section 5: General Performance
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-1 | Did the applicant demonstrate exceptional leadership (e.g., proactively taking on the risk of failure and supporting teammates), team coordination abilities (e.g., calming others' emotions and resolving conflicts among teammates), communication skills, and proficiency in using tools, throughout the activity? | 1 | 0 |
| 5-2 | Did the applicant commit violations or exhibit severely passive behavior (e.g., unauthorized digital tools use, disruption, non-compliance, sustained silence, refusal to collaborate, negative conduct, or seeking external assistance)? | -1 | 0 |
IV. Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Rating Description |
|---|---|
| 18 points or above | Outstanding potential; excellent overall competence across all dimensions. |
| 14–17 points | Strong potential; solid performance across phases with only minor gaps. |
| 10–13 points | Moderate potential; notable deficiencies in key competencies such as communication, teamwork, or adaptability. |
| Below 10 points | Limited potential; significant shortcomings observed across all phases. |
V. Important Notes
- The guidelines are only applicable to international applicants of foreign nationality. All applicants must conduct their interviews entirely in English.
- The organizer may conduct audio/video recording or photography on-site based on actual needs for official archiving purposes. All participants are required to cooperate.
- Late arrival, absence, or failure to comply with the code of conduct (including disruptive or inappropriate behavior) will result in immediate disqualification.
- The event will be held in designated online areas on the campus of HKUST(GZ).
- After the event, each group must leave the venue as instructed.
- HKUST (GZ) reserves the final right of interpretation over all rules and regulations.
Part II Individual Interview
I. Interview Format
(i) Panel Composition
Each applicant will be interviewed by a panel of at least three evaluators.
(ii) 5-Minute Oral Presentation
Applicants must select one of the following five core domains and deliver a pre-prepared PPT presentation explaining their motivation for pursuing a master's degree in that field:
- Future Healthcare Technology
- Sustainable Living
- Intelligent Industrialization
- Low-Altitude Economy
- Marine Technology & Economy
(iii) 10-Minute Q&A Session
Applicants must respond to one randomly selected mandatory question. Evaluators may interrupt, follow up, or extend questioning at any time. The mandatory question bank is as follows:
- Question 1: Following admission to the Red Bird MPhil Program, you plan to lead or join a cross-disciplinary team based on an existing proposal. Outline three specific follow-up actions and provide justification for each.
- Question 2: In a cross-disciplinary team, your professional solution conflicts with the majority view and the deadline is imminent. Describe your immediate actions and provide a contingency plan for each step should it fail.
- Question 3: The evaluators consider your presented innovation to be entirely unfeasible. Provide three counterarguments or outline an alternative solution.
(iv) Language Requirements
All applicants must conduct their interviews entirely in English. The written language is standard English.
II. Scoring Rubric
Each evaluator scores independently. Maximum total: 16 points.
Section 1: Presentation Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-1 | Did the applicant select one of the five core domain for the thematic presentation, and is there a clear presentation structure that begins with a problem (e.g., "Introduction - Body - Conclusion")? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-2 | Did the applicant identify at least one specific, contextualized cross-disciplinary problem or pain point with reference to time, location, target group, or scenario. | 1 | 0 |
| 1-3 | Did the applicant propose at least one cross-disciplinary innovation with a minimum of three concrete implementation steps? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-4 | Did the applicant proactively addressed the limitations or potential risks of the proposed solution and articulate mitigation strategies? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-5 | Did the applicant complete the presentation within the 5-minute limit; was the delivery fluent and natural, without script-reading or significant pauses? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-6 | Is the PPT concise and neatly structured (no dense text or overcrowded visuals), well-aligned with the presentation content, and free of obvious errors or formatting issues? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-7 | Did the applicant maintain sustained eye contact with different evaluators, and use natural body language without signs of nervousness such as trembling hands or feet, stuttering or impatience)? | 1 | 0 |
| 1-8 | Did the applicant accurately describe the innovative features of the Red Bird MPhil program and articulate a clear and well-reasoned motivation for applying? | 1 | 0 |
Section 2: Q&A Phase
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-1 | When answering mandatory questions, did the applicant quickly respond using specific examples or data, clearly employing a structured answering method such as "first, second, third"? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-2 | When answering the evaluators' questions, did the applicant maintain eye contact, refrain from interrupting the evaluators, avoid speaking over them, and take a brief moment to think (e.g., ≤ 3 seconds) before answering? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-3 | Did the applicant address the core question directly without deflection or off-topic responses? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-4 | Did the applicant adapt responses appropriately to follow-up questions or critical challenges, including clarifying positions, correcting errors, or acknowledging limitations? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-5 | Did the applicants reference at least one real personal experience (including time, location, and outcome) with relevant teamwork details and reflections? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-6 | Did the applicant provide at least one specific example to objectively assess personal strengths and weaknesses, as well as areas for improvement? | 1 | 0 |
| 2-7 | Throughout the Q&A phase, did the applicant maintain emotional stability and confidence, without signs of trembling, frequent apologies, or blaming others? | 1 | 0 |
Section 3: General Performance
| No. | Evaluation Criterion | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-1 | Did the applicant demonstrate exceptional communication skill, logical persuasion, or creative problem-solving ability, for example, responding to sharp criticism with a compelling new perspective? | 1 | 0 |
| 3-2 | Did the applicant commit severe violations, out-of-control behaviors, or obvious instances of deception or fabrication (e.g., verbal abuse, disruption, sustained silence, premature departure, or fabrication of experiences or data)? | -1 | 0 |
III. Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Rating Description |
|---|---|
| 13 points or above | Outstanding potential; excellent overall competence. |
| 10–12 points | Strong potential; solid performance with only minor gaps. |
| 7–9 points | Moderate potential; notable deficiencies in key competency areas. |
| Below 7 points | Limited potential; significant shortcomings across all phases. |
IV. Important Notes
- This guideline is only applicable to international applicants of foreign nationality.
- On-site audio/video recording and photography may be conducted for official documentation purposes. All participants are required to cooperate.
- Late arrival, absence, or failure to comply with the code of conduct will result in immediate disqualification.
- The event will be held in designated online areas on the campus of HKUST (GZ).
- After the event, each group must leave the venue as instructed.
- HKUST (GZ) reserves the final right of interpretation over all rules and regulations.
-
Release date
1 7 月 2026
-
Topics
招生录取