Competence and professionalism, usually going by the names of expertise, the rule of law or good governance, are worthy and important objectives, yet at some point societies should strive for the best possible: most individuals will fail to attain this goal of excellence, but they will be better for the attempt.

While excellence is not the exclusive preserve of universities, universities are nevertheless the places where excellence can first be nurtured. As Hong Kong's universities ponder whether to move to a four-year from a three-year curriculum, whether or not to merge, and - indeed - what the purpose (or purposes) of universities are in the Hong Kong of the 21st century, those interested or concerned could do worse than read a forthcoming book by Harry Lewis, former dean of Harvard College, entitled (somewhat ominously), Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education.

While Lewis clearly has an American or even Harvard-centric agenda, the issues, if not their historical genesis, are relevant to educators in any country. "The great universities," he writes, "the universities that educate a disproportionate share of the nation's future industrial, political, and judicial leaders, struggle to explain the overall point of the education they offer."

In the interests of disclosure I should note that Lewis was one of the readers of my senior honors thesis, and his course on the theory of computation that I took almost 30 years ago has informed my life ever since. He had, even then, a (well-deserved) reputation as one of Harvard's best teachers.

Harvard has been through something of a rough patch recently, with a controversial president being forced out after the shortest tenure since the mid- 1800s, a scandal involving alleged fraud during consultations to the Russian government and, less seriously perhaps, but nevertheless indicative of the attention that Harvard generates, a student whose highly publicized book deal collapsed just last month following allegations of plagiarism.

But the problems that Lewis writes about go back further; indeed, even when I attended the college, there were questions about the quality of the teaching and the lack of student-faculty contact.

Lewis discusses a wide range of issues, from grades to athletics, in considerable technical and historical detail, but underlying this discussion is a clear view of what tertiary education is for: "Education," he writes, "is not the teaching of dates and formulas and laws and names and places. Education, in fact, is not mere classroom teaching at all." Lewis quotes another Harvard professor, Jorge Dominguez, that: "A liberal education is what remains after you have forgotten the facts that were first learned while becoming educated."

I used to think of being educated as having "learned how to learn." But Lewis also sees a particular social purpose and responsibility that, ironically, might not seem entirely out of place emanating from a communist education ministry: "To transform teenagers, whose lives have been structured by their families and high schools, into adults with the learning and wisdom to take responsibility for their own lives and for civil society."

There is much food for thought for those concerned about Hong Kong's institutions. "The relationship of the student to the college is increasingly that of a consumer to a vendor of expensive goods and services. Yet colleges can and once did have a very different view of their role with students, a role in helping them set standards of personal behavior for themselves, or helping them learn to live up to an honorable ideal of personal integrity... Simply put, colleges no longer do a good job of helping students grow up."

Hong Kong cannot rely on overseas institutions to educate its future leaders: too many of the best graduates will not return.

Even if Hong Kong's universities do a good job in teaching skills in law or medicine, do they, as Lewis accuses Harvard, "teach them but [do] not make them wise" or "indulge students' inclinations to learn more of what they know already?" One need not agree with all of Lewis' views - and many will not, I suspect, given his contrarian positions on a number of topics - to benefit from this intelligent and straight-talking discussion of the challenges facing American education and, by extension, the challenges facing universities worldwide, including here in Hong Kong

Regardless of Harvard's possible failings, however, one of the glories of the American university system is someone can write a book this critical and remain employed. Could that happen here?