在國立政治大學英外語檢定門檻案中，最高行政法院107年判字第488號判決提出「大學以教學為目的」做為畢業條件是否逾越釋字第563號「合理及必要範圍」的判斷準則。本文以此為論證前提，從《憲法》第11條詮釋畢業條件的《憲法》意涵，揭示大學所制定之畢業條件首先須在「合理及必要之範圍」通過「大學以教學為目的」的檢驗，並符合「內容應合理妥適」及「章則訂定及執行自應遵守正當程序」這兩個平行要件；前者為上位概念，因而與後二者在階序上建構出一個「品」字圖形的法理標準，且彰顯出大學在教學品質與教育品格上的責任。本文並循此框架重新檢驗最高行政法院107年判字第488號判決。在政策意涵上，大學應以本文所建構之「品字標準」審慎檢驗其畢業條件，教育部等主管機關於制定教育政策時亦應參照此一準繩。

In the case against National Chengchi University’s English benchmark for graduation, the Highest Administrative Court Judgment No. 107-Pan-488 draws on “universities’ purpose is teaching” as a guideline to determine whether a specific requirement for a university degree violates the condition “to the extent reasonable and necessary” set by the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 563. Under this premise, this paper further interprets Article 11 of the Constitution in relation to the qualifications and conditions for a university degree. We conclude that any such requirement must first pass the test “universities’ purpose is teaching” and thus be “to the extent reasonable and necessary”, and then meet two additional parallel conditions: “its content must be reasonable and appropriate” and “the enactment and enforcement of the regulations and rules must follow due process of law”. The former and the latter two thus form a constitutional hierarchy of the shape of the 品 “pin” character, which also incidentally highlights a university’s responsibility on the quality and character of the education it provides. The paper then employs this legal framework to critically examine the several decisions in the Highest Administrative Court Judgment No. 107-Pan-488. In terms of policy implications, universities should apply the “pin”-character standard established in this study to scrutinize their degree requirements, and the competent authorities such as the MOE should likewise consult this standard in implementing educational policies.