Research Findings返回

The questionnaire comprised 7 key questions. First of all, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of the 9 institutions based on their perception of its overall performance using a scale of 0-10, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. Respondents were suggested to take into account the institution's local and international reputation, facilities, campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of its students, its learning atmosphere, as well as the diversification and degree of recognition for its courses. Survey results indicated that, in terms of principals' perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.49 as rated by 113 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.38 rated by 113 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.69 rated by 113 respondents (Table 2).

Table 2. Overall Performance of Each Institution

[Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each institution of higher education after taking into consideration its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of its courses, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following institutions?
	Average	Standard error	No of raters	Recognition
HKU	8.49	0.14	113	98.3%
CUHK	8.38	0.13	113	98.3%
HKUST	7.69	0.11	113	98.3%
PolyU	6.65	0.09	113	98.3%
HKBU	6.18	0.10	112	97.4%
CityU	5.99	0.09	112	97.4%
LU	5.46	0.12	111	96.5%
HKIEd	5.30	0.13	113	98.3%
HKSYU	4.83	0.14	105	91.3%

With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/President of each institution, taking into consideration one's local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU topped the list with an average score of 8.08 rated by 112 respondents. Professor Paul C.W. Chu of HKUST followed and attained a mean score of 8.04 rated by 114 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Chung-kwong Poon of PolyU became third scoring 7.23 and rated by 109 respondents. It is worth-noting that Professor Way Kuo who has just commenced his duty as President of CityU since May 2008 received a rather low recognition rate of 34%, thus his rating should be regarded as reference only (Table 3).

Table 3. Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellor / President

[Q2] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of Vice-Chancellor / President of each institution while taking his local and international reputation, approachability to the public, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following Vice-Chancellors / Presidents?
	Average	Standard error	No of raters	Recognition
HKU - Prof Lap-chee TSUI	8.08	0.15	112	97.4%
HKUST - Prof Paul C.W. CHU	8.04	0.13	114	99.1%
PolyU - Prof Chung-kwong POON	7.23	0.11	109	94.8%
CUHK - Prof Lawrence J. LAU	6.87	0.17	107	93.0%
HKSYU - Dr Chi-yung CHUNG	6.66	0.18	92	80.0%
HKIEd - Prof Anthony B.L. CHEUNG	6.40	0.14	87	75.7%
HKBU - Prof Ching-fai NG	6.22	0.13	110	95.7%
LU - Prof Yuk-shee CHAN	6.00	0.17	66	57.4%
CityU - Prof Way KUO	5.69	0.23	39	33.9%

The next question asked the respondents' opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results showed that "commitment to society" topped the list with 64% of respondents choosing it. "Work attitude" followed closely and was chosen by 63% of respondents. Qualities of the next tier included and "global prospect/foresight", "Cconduct, honesty", "social/interpersonal skills" and "proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua", accounting for 56%, 54%, 48% and 46% of valid respondents respectively. Without prompting (Tables 4 & 5).

Table 4. Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

[Q3] What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of? You may check as many choices as you like.
	Frequency	% of total responses (Base = 563 responses from 115 respondents)	% of valid respondents (Base = 115)
Commitment to society	73	13.0%	63.5%
Work attitude	72	12.8%	62.6%
Global prospect/foresight	64	11.4%	55.7%
Conduct, honesty	62	11.0%	53.9%
Social/interpersonal skills	55	9.8%	47.8%
Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua	53	9.4%	46.1%
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	42	7.5%	36.5%
Communication skills	30	5.3%	26.1%
Emotion stability	29	5.2%	25.2%
Creativity	23	4.1%	20.0%
Financial management	17	3.0%	14.8%
Social / work experience	14	2.5%	12.2%
Academic and professional knowledge	11	2.0%	9.6%
Self-confidence	10	1.8%	8.7%
Job opportunity	1	0.2%	0.9%
Others (see Table 5)	5	0.9%	4.3%
Nothing	2	0.4%	1.7%
Don't know / hard to say
Total	563	100.0%
Base	115
Missing case(s)	0

Table 5. Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong (Listing of "other answers")

1. Self-control

2.Political sense

3.Patience, carefulness

4.Respect of others and the environment

5.Ethics

Question 4 asked the respondents which institution they believed was the most supportive to local secondary schools. Survey results indicated that CUHK was the most popular with 48% of vote share and leading others with a wide margin. HKIEd came second with 19%, whereas HKU ranked third with 8%. In the meantime, 10% of the respondents either were undecided or had chosen more than one institution in this question. Without prompting (Table 6).

Table 6. Most Supportive Institution to Local Secondary Schools

[Q4] Which one of the following institutions do you think is the most supportive to local secondary schools? You can only choose one institution.
	Frequency	% of valid respondents (Base = 107)
CUHK	51	47.7%
HKIEd	20	18.7%
HKU	9	8.4%
HKBU	5	4.7%
HKUST	5	4.7%
PolyU	3	2.8%
CityU	2	1.9%
LU	1	0.9%
Chose more than one institution / Undecided	11	10.3%
Total	107	100.0%
Base	115
Missing case(s)	8

When being asked if they supported the continual running of Associate Degree programmes in Hong Kong, 60% were in favour of the idea while 26% opposed to it.

Table 7. Opinions / Suggestions from School Principals

[Q5] Do you support the continual running of Associate Degree programmes in Hong Kong?
	Frequency	% of valid respondents (Base = 113)
Support	68	60.2%
Do not support	29	25.7%
Don't know	16	14.2%
Total	113	100.0%
Base	115
Missing case(s)	2

Next, respondents were asked to rate their confidence in the Hong Kong education system led by the Education Bureau using a scale of 0 to 100 marks, in which higher marks indicated a higher level of confidence. Results showed that the mean score attained was 54.4 marks under a standard error of 1.69 marks (Table 8).

Table 8. Confidence in the Hong Kong education system

[Q6] Overall speaking, how confident are you in the education system led by the Education Bureau? Please rate your confidence in 0 to 100 marks, 0 represents not confident at all, 50 represents half-half and 100 represents very confident.
	Frequency	% of valid respondents (Base = 114)
0	1	0.9%
4	2	1.8%
10	3	2.6%
30	6	5.3%
40	14	12.3%
45	1	0.9%
48	1	0.9%
50	25	21.9%
55	4	3.5%
60	19	16.7%
65	6	5.3%
67	1	0.9%
70	13	11.4%
75	5	4.4%
80	9	7.9%
90	1	0.9%
Don't know	3	2.6%
Total	114	100.0%
Base	115

Mean	54.4
Median	55.0
Standard error of mean	1.69
Valid base	111

The last question was in open-end format that served to probe for respondents' in-depth opinions regarding the subject matter and/or the survey. Please refer to Table 9 below for the submissions received.

Table 9. Opinions / Suggestions from School Principals (in exact wordings)

[Q7] Is there any other opinion you would like to bring to the attention of the researchers? [open-end question]

1.Language Policy in secondary school - a lot of uncertainties. 2) Success of 3-3-4 system is still unknown especially the subject of liberal studies.

2. Allow school to exercise higher autonomy. Treat schools as partners & improve communication & achieve consensus!

3.Education policies are often incoherent, inconsistent and unsteady. The MOI issues are very disruptive. The problem rests with the teaching of English, not with MOI for other subjects.

4. Elaboration of Q6: I have no faith in the NSS. Policy-makers do not have a long-term policy and are not flexible. Such acts will only bring disastrous results to the students! or education system

5. I support the Associate Degree programmes, but the Government should try hard to give the students a REALISTIC expectation of their future careers.

6.Q6 設文太具政治色彩，不應在這類調查出現。而且跟問卷原設目標並沒有關係，請鍾教授留意。

7. Refer to Q4 每間大學均提供大量的課程資料、講座、大學參觀予中學，所以難以比較。

8. The tight control of medium of instruction in secondary school by the Education Bureau destroys the liveliness and flexibility of Hong Kong Education.

9. 印象分不科學, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6 四題與調查目的「大學排名」拉不上關係。

10. 教育局推介的分班語言政策 (MOI) 不宜推行；另外應取消縮班救校的政策。

11. 教育局應重視與學校的夥伴合作關係。很多教育重要政策，都只能從傳媒及報章得知，真是可悲！

12. 教育政策欠遠見與周詳，未能掌握實況而急進地推出各項措施。普及教育應是因材施教及有教無類的理念，但目前左搖加擺，當學生人口下降而強行語文政策，會令教育工作者人心惶惶。

13. 這份問卷沒有校對好（請看Q3，用字欠妥）。

14. 調查結果，並不真正反映事實，謹慎行事！