Video summary

01直播LIVE|2026-07-14 DSE放榜2026.直播|今屆有無終極狀元?狀元及超級狀元數目揭曉|01新聞|DSE放榜|文憑試|放榜

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The video is a live press conference (01新聞) announcing results for the 2026 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) – Liberal Arts Examination. Media briefing covered overall performance, “super achievers,” exam procedures, and detected irregularities.

Overall entry and exam scale

  • Total candidature: 58,487 candidates, up by about 5.4% from the prior year.
  • Registered/self-reported figures are also described as increasing (including media figures); the speaker emphasizes an overall rise.
  • Performance metrics focus on the proportion meeting required levels for local degree admission.
  • The overall standard/average for key indicators is described as roughly flat, with some improvement in:
    • Civics and Social Development
    • Citizenship-related areas

Core subject results (high-level takeaways)

Speakers said core subjects are largely stable overall, not broadly “easier” or “harder,” but with subject-specific movements:

  • Mathematics (compulsory parts): grades described as rising across the board, with the proportion meeting higher attainment levels said to be steady or improved.
  • Civics and Social Development: achievement rates described as up compared with last year.
  • Chinese and English:
    • English: appears stable
    • Chinese: shows a slight decline, with speakers suggesting it may relate to student distribution/ability mix rather than a policy-driven change.
  • Applied learning / other categories: reported as around the same / slightly flat, with specific attainment proportions mentioned (including percentages achieving top or above-target outcomes).

“Top achievers”: number of “super/maximum” performers

The press conference uses a precise grading framework to define “super achievers” (e.g., involving five-star + additional five-star in specified components depending on the candidate path).

Reported headline figures:

  • 24 candidates achieving the highest “six-five-star” definition.
  • 11 candidates within that group meeting an additional “super” condition (as categorized by the speaker).
  • Distribution: these candidates are said to be spread across 15 schools for the “six-five-star” group.

Examination fairness and grading methodology

The Examination and Assessment Board described:

  • Multiple grading/evaluation centers (e.g., ten leveling/evaluation centers across districts).
  • A network/online version for score reporting/logins (described as enabling remote access where applicable).
  • A level-referenced standard:
    • Cut scores are calibrated using stable historical outcomes and multiple examinations to keep results comparable across cohorts.
  • A process to check “score adjustment”, so most schools remain within expected bands.

Cheating / irregularities (key reported actions)

  • The board reports a higher number of detected cheating cases than the prior year, while emphasizing these remain a small proportion of all candidates.
  • Zeroing actions:
    • A serious case in Visual Arts coursework: the work was judged plagiarism/copying, resulting in 0 marks for that coursework and related subject outcomes.
  • Violation categories mentioned included (examples):
    • Uploading photos / computer barcode-related behaviors
    • Mobile phone rule violations
    • Other exam-environment misconduct

Key assurances emphasized:

  • Strict supervision and procedural fairness.
  • Cheating detection and handling follow established exam committee guidelines.
  • No plan to change the overall exam location approach to the mainland (questioned by media); HK-based arrangements are described as continuing.

Candidate outcome release logistics (tomorrow)

The board explained how results will be released:

  • Online availability the next day in the morning.
  • A phone/portal inquiry and/or an official hotline window is mentioned.
  • SMS messages will be sent to candidates.
  • Weather and logistics reminders are briefly noted.

Q&A highlights from media

Difficulty adjustment

Speakers argued that exam standard is controlled through level referencing and grading calibration; fluctuations are attributed to differences in student cohorts and subject-specific factors.

AI cheating concerns / future response

They acknowledged AI-enabled cheating risks and said the board will consider expanded monitoring measures and reminders about electronic equipment and device rule compliance.

Geography controversy

A “geography” dispute was addressed:

  • An issue appeared to have been detected shortly after the exam opening.
  • The board said corrective action/measure was taken immediately.
  • Geography results are described as not showing negative impact (even improved in some metrics).

AI in internal learning and submission

The board stated:

  • AI tools may be used as learning aids.
  • Within rules requiring source disclosure / AI-generation disclosure and required transparency.
  • School-level supervision and documentation are emphasized.

International / China-region self-admission (GBA / non-local candidates)

Asked whether reforms changed numbers, the response emphasized that threshold requirements were not drastically changed, but year-to-year figures for different admission channels increased/shifted.

Chinese oral-related assessment change

Asked about a prior cancellation/withdrawal plan:

  • Speakers said it has been running as a practice since around 2024.
  • There is no short-term plan to re-cut/withdraw it.
  • Support/hotline assistance is available, though uptake/complaints are described as limited so far.

Presenters / contributors

  • Professor Yi-hsiung (representing the Hong Kong Municipal Assessment / Examination-related authority)
  • Secretary / official from the Hong Kong Municipal Assessment Department (name unclear from subtitles)
  • Mr. Shinlongshi (school flat supervisor / school-related representative)
  • Aju Sin Lin (supervisor of the school city assessment)
  • Miss (art/classmate representative who answered about plagiarism in Visual Arts coursework; name unclear from subtitles)
  • Additional board colleagues referenced during Q&A (not clearly named in subtitles)

Original video