某位多年前中大經濟系學生的公開信（節錄）：

很多文科，甚至理科的同學從一開始就被QUANTATIVE METHOD I 打得意志消沉，再對大學學習生涯提不起興趣。也許可以說成為我們入學的同學質素不夠高，但是否我們應從一開始就說明經濟學與艱深的微積分等是不可分割，讓我們有此心理準備？很多同學在選擇經濟系作為首選時，是未曾想及數學理解才是經濟研究院的主要考慮，和數學良好是不用太理會其他經濟常識，導至有很多同學都怨聲載道，感到非常失望。......我們明白在學術界打滾，技術是最重要的一環，但我們都希望將來的學弟妹能在入學前就明白這道理，而不是以三年光陰去學懂。

再者，收生成績每況愈下是甚麼原因？我相信如我一位同中學的師姐等對中大經濟系的評語(中七時，該師姐在選學講座以過來人身份對我說，中大經濟很沉，很悶，就業差，唔好揀)，居功不少。我亦相信大部份畢業生都會有類似評語。

課程方面，分開的那幾個如金融等主修令人不明所以。從我所見，經濟系內一大部份同學都是選金融經濟學作為主修。我敢肯定，即使完成了整個課程，大部份同學對金融的知識是近乎零! 這很大程度是課程本身的缺點(聽過幾方面意見，如經濟系及非經濟系的同學，甚至老師)。我們所被教的，很大程度都是理論分析，而又因我們都不是太聰明，所教的理論都很淺易。

問題就是，既然是理論分析，我們又不太聰明，我們又怎能夠將課堂所學的再套用會現實生活？很多同學都是一頭霧水，將那幾條公式硬塞入腦袋去答卷就算，事後當然對那十多個星期的課程原封不動的交回老師。亦因為所教的很淺易，對我們金融方面的知識幫助不大。筆者縱使成績不俗，甚至找到一份很多經濟研究生投身的工作，但還是被另一位念工管的朋友訕笑到" 你配稱為讀金融嗎？"

上述的說話或許有點偏激，但讓我舉多個現實的例子就會明白。我一位朋友，成績也是不俗，也是以金融作為主修。但他竟然有一天問我道，究竟高油價對香港經濟有甚麼影響，他說除了交通費上升外甚麼也想不到!

每次經濟系想出版甚麼應屆畢業生出路的時候，總是見到很自豪地說我們大部份畢業生投身銀行與金融界，就業率近乎百分之一百!

這是事實，卻是取巧的事實。就以我的片面資料，除了成績好的那些大都避進研究院外，其他的畢業生都是徬徨地在就業市場遊蕩。我們大部份人都討厭做保險，做理財策劃，因為我們認為既為中大畢業生，不大用淪落到要做SALES，還要是社會地位甚低，人見人怕的SALES! 可憐的是，我們只要寫上是中大經濟系畢業，已經有一些工作是連機會也不給，與工管的是兩回事。即使我們有機會，在我們的學術生涯中因為甚少需要 PRESENTATION(尤幸現在有改變)，所以面試時我們總比其他學系的人比下去。到最後，所有比較好的工作，已經輪不到我們，而我們卻只好向這些起初我們討厭的工作埋首。對銀行業有所認識的人都知道，保險，理財策劃等行業都無甚晉升前景，管理層只會不停地施加壓力，但奈何這是我們的唯一選擇，而經濟系卻樂孜孜地形容我們為投身甚有前途的金融業。更甚者，對有些同學面對就業困境，接了一些中五程度的工作，但我們卻像六四般，絕不會公開提及。

技術對普遍學生就業並無幫助(至少以我經驗而言)，反而普通經濟常識更能協助學生就業。我的哥哥是美國一州際大學數學系畢業，回港都是失業收場。

我只是希望，在講座時，能夠對未來的同學好好說明我們是教技術重於經濟(再舉一例，我們同學學罷中級宏觀經濟學，又有多少個能從此增加宏觀經濟學的認識？)，那麼就不用這麼多同學在進入經濟系後，就不停地怨自己被騙(每年的新生，都有很大比率有這種怨言)，然後憤而嘗試轉系。

以下是中大經濟系宋恩榮教授的回應（以下粗體係我自己加，原文應該無粗體）：

QUALITY OF OUR FINANCE CONCENTRATION: Finance is a technical subject, and most students in finance (in the CU Finance Dept, in CU Quantitative Finance program, or in the HKUST Finance Program, which is for science students) are good at Maths. Our students are not good at Maths, and as a result, our finance courses are less Maths-oriented than those in other finance programs. It is to be expected that our students would learn less. You cannot complain that we teach too much Maths on the one hand, and complain that you learn too little about finance on the other hand. In fact, the reason that our students learn too little about finance is because we lower the Maths requirement of our finance courses for the benefit of our students who are not good at Maths. While it is very difficult to teach finance to students who are not good at Maths, I think we have done a good job given the severe constraints we face. Our course on Financial Data Analysis is not heavily Maths-oriented, and it is very useful and popular. Many students from the Business Faculty are also taking the course because they don't have it in their department.

JOB HUNTING: Economics (in HK and overseas) is not a professional subject (unlike medical school, law, accounting, and engineering), and it is to be expected that the knowledge learned in economics would not find much direct application in work. In the admission talk this year, I told prospective students that, in job hunting, good English and common sense would be much more important than knowledge of economics. By the way, the same holds true for students with a BBA degree. Other than accounting, which is a professional subject, students of marketing, management, or international business would find that good English and common sense are more important in job hunting than knowledge of marketing or management or international business. It so happen that the majority of BBA students have better English and common sense than our's, but that is because the best students in HK choose BBA rather than economics; not because the study of marketing or international business leads to better English or common sense. In fact, during my years at the CUHK, a few CU BBA students have applied for our M.Phil. program because they found that they didn't learn much in the Business Faculty. Business studies are not intellectually challenging and can be quite boring. Their graduates nevertheless found better work than ours, because they have better English and common sense even before they enter CU. If you look at our department's most successfual graduates (those who got to be A.O. or employed in good jobs by major employers), they are NOT the most maths-oriented (who tend to go to grad school). Our most successful graduates are good at English. They are disciplined and are eager to learn. They have good common sense. Given our constraints, I believe that we have not done badly. As an economics department, our job is not to teach English, but we have switched the medium of instruction of many courses to English and have encourged students to write papers, work on group projects, and make presentations in English. I am one of the first teachers in our Department to switch the medium of instruction to English, and to ask students to write papers and work on projects even though it is very unpopular with many of our students. Recently, a graduate of the LSE, the London School of Economics (the best econ program in UK) told me that our dept cares much more about students' job hunting than the LSE. The LSE does not have anything like our STOT. The LSE does not invite past students to come to talk about job hunting. We do. The LSE does not have a mentorship program. Our Colleges do. Lately, I have been trying to arrange summer internship for our undergrads with the General Chamber of Commerce. While good internship opportunities are scarce, I hope to make some headway. I think it is better for you to come to talk with me. Wrting long essays for several hours is not a good use of your time and mine. I don't have the opportunity to talk with students a lot, especially students who don't agree with me and may have important ideas to offer. My office is open. I want to know you as a person, and learn whatever ideas you may offer. Best of luck in your job-hunting.