Summary of Findings返回

The aim of the first part of the survey was to study the general public's perception of the higher institutions funded through UGC, namely, City University of Hong Kong (CityU), Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU), Lingnan University (LU), the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd), the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) and the University of Hong Kong (HKU), plus Hong Kong Shue Yan University (HKSYU) which was included for the second time since last year. The order of these institutions was rotated randomly in different questionnaires in order to eliminate possible bias due to ordering. By means of a rating scale from 0-10, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half, these institutions were assessed one by one with regard to their overall performance.


A. Overall Performance of University


First of all, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of these 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 public perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.07 as rated by 1,142 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.64 rated by 1,131 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.33 rated by 1,106 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from the last survey, the mean score of all nine institutions surveyed dropped, but their respective rankings remained the same. For CityU and LU, their respective drop in rating was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.05 level (Table 3).


Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

 

2006 Survey

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.HKU

7.94

0.04

7.93

0.04

8.11

0.04

8.07

0.04

1,142

95.1%

2.CUHK

7.56

0.04

7.25**

0.05

7.67

0.04

7.64

0.04

1,131

94.2%

3.HKUST

7.21

0.04

7.16

0.05

7.38

0.04

7.33

0.04

1,106

92.1%

4,PolyU

6.81

0.04

6.79

0.04

7.00

0.04

6.90

0.04

1,123

93.5%

5.HKBU

6.19

0.04

6.28

0.04

6.42

0.04

6.34

0.04

1,091

90.8%

6.CityU

6.04

0.04

6.09

0.04

6.26

0.04

6.12*

0.04

1,078

89.8%

7.HKIEd

5.55

0.05

5.60

0.05

5.77

0.05

5.66

0.05

1,005

83.7%

8.LU

5.41

0.04

5.57*

0.05

5.65

0.05

5.51*

0.05

1,039

86.5%

HKSYU#

N.A.

5.57

0.05

5.42

0.05

1,011

84.2%

# Newly added in 2008.

Same as last year, our cross-tabulation analyses showed that, within each sub-group of the sample, the respective rankings of the universities were basically the same regardless of respondents' education attainment and occupation. Only some insignificant differences were observed which are enclosed in squares below. For actual ratings obtained by each institution as rated by each sub-group, please refer to the tables below (Tables 4-5).


Table 4 - Cross-tabulation Analyses: Institution Performance by Education Attainment of Respondents

 

Primary or below

Secondary

Tertiary or above

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

1. HKU

8.02

0.15

161

8.05

0.06

549

8.11

0.05

426

2. CUHK^

7.44

0.14

159

7.57

0.06

543

7.78

0.06

424

3. HKUST^

7.34

0.15

147

7.11

0.06

533

7.61

0.06

420

4. PolyU

7.11

0.13

158

6.88

0.06

539

6.84

0.06

420

5. HKBU^

6.80

0.14

146

6.32

0.07

523

6.21

0.06

416

6. CityU

6.16

0.14

138

6.08

0.07

519

6.13

0.06

416

7. HKIEd^

6.14

0.18

119

5.73

0.07

482

5.44

0.07

399

8. LU^

5.91

0.17

131

5.54

0.07

504

5.34

0.07

399

9. HKSYU^

5.87

0.18

123

5.46

0.07

481

5.23

0.07

401

^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Table 5a - Cross-tabulation Analyses: Institution Performance by Occupation of Respondents (I)

 

Professionals and semi-professionals

Clerk and service workers

Production workers

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

1. HKU

8.07

0.06

345

7.98

0.09

215

8.11

0.15

99

2. CUHK

7.66

0.07

343

7.59

0.09

215

7.42

0.17

98

3. HKUST

7.46

0.07

340

7.22

0.09

212

7.08

0.17

94

4. PolyU^

6.82

0.07

342

6.89

0.09

215

6.78

0.16

95

5. HKBU

6.22

0.07

337

6.30

0.08

213

6.42

0.17

92

6. CityU

6.08

0.07

337

6.22

0.09

210

5.93

0.18

90

7. HKIEd^

5.38

0.09

319

5.79

0.10

201

5.51

0.16

86

8. LU^

5.34

0.08

322

5.55

0.09

206

5.51

0.18

85

9. HKSYU^

5.25

0.08

316

5.43

0.09

202

5.49

0.21

84

Table 5b - Cross-tabulation Analyses: Institution Performance by Occupation of Respondents (II)

 

Students

Housewives

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

1. HKU

8.02

0.10

85

8.07

0.12

155

2. CUHK

7.81

0.10

85

7.76

0.12

151

3. HKUST

7.41

0.11

84

7.24

0.13

143

4. PolyU^

6.81

0.11

85

7.28

0.11

150

5. HKBU

6.18

0.11

84

6.64

0.13

141

6. CityU

6.20

0.13

85

6.33

0.13

140

7. HKIEd^

5.63

0.14

83

6.12

0.15

121

8. LU^

5.32

0.15

83

5.90

0.14

132

9. HKSYU^

5.01

0.14

83

5.74

0.15

122

^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

B. Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellor/President


With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellors/ Presidents/Principal of each institution, taking into consideration one's local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, Professor Paul C.W. Chu of HKUST this year had surpassed Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU to top the list with an average score of 7.64 as rated by 926 respondents by a small margin. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed closely and had attained a mean score of 7.58 as rated by 882 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Lawrence J. LAU of CUHK continued to rank third with 7.01 as rated by 831 respondents. The new President of PolyU, Professor Timothy W. Tong captured the fourth position with a mean score of 6.59 as rated by 598 respondents. The fifth to ninth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principal of HKSYU, HKBU, HKIEd, CityU and LU correspondingly, with their average scores ranging from 6.07 to 6.57. It is worth mentioning that six current Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principal had obtained recognition rates of over 50%. Professor Paul C.W. Chu of HKUST was recognized by 77% of the respondents while Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU had received a recognition rate of 73%. The recognition rates of Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK, Professor Anthony B.L. Cheung of HKIEd, Professor Ching-fai Ng of HKBU and Professor Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU were 69%, 66%, 63% and 55% respectively (Table 6).


Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellor/President

 

2006 Survey

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

No of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1. HKUST – Paul C.W. CHU

7.57**

0.04

7.51

0.05

7.67^

0.05

7.64

0.05

926

77.1%

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.37

0.05

7.46

0.05

7.67^

0.05

7.58

0.05

882

73.4%

3. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU

7.09*

0.04

6.82**

0.06

7.09

0.06

7.01

0.05

831

69.2%

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG#

-N.A.-

6.59

0.06

598

49.8%

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

-N.A.-

6.61

0.07

6.57

0.06

656

54.6%

6. HKBU – Ching-fai NG

6.35

0.05

6.54**

0.05

6.66

0.05

6.51

0.05

760

63.3%

7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG

-N.A.-

6.25

0.06

6.28

0.05

788

65.6%

8. CityU – Way KUO

-N.A.-

6.23

0.07

6.21

0.06

580

48.3%

9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

-N.A.-

6.15

0.07

6.07

0.06

592

49.3%

# No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.
^ Remark: Expressed in three-decimal places, the average rating of 「HKU – Lap-chee TSUI」 was 7.671, while that of 「HKUST – Paul C.W. CHU」 was 7.665. Thus, Lap-chee TSUI of HKU ranked first while Paul C.W. CHU of HKUST ranked second in 2008 survey


When cross-tabulated by respondents' education attainment and occupation, slight variations were obtained in terms of the respective rankings of the VCs/Presidents/Principal within each sub-group, although differences of many scores fluctuated within error margins. They were enclosed in squares for easy reference. Actual ratings obtained by each VC/President/Principal as rated by each sub-group are shown in following tables (Tables 7-8).


Table 7 - Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Education Attainment of Respondents

 

Primary or below

Secondary

Tertiary or above

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. HKUST – Paul C.W. CHU^

7.59

0.17

115

7.43

0.07

448

7.91

0.07

358

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.68

0.18

105

7.48

0.08

420

7.67

0.07

352

3. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU

7.21

0.18

97

7.01

0.07

401

6.94

0.08

329

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.82

0.19

78

6.62

0.08

281

6.47

0.08

235

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.86

0.21

76

6.59

0.09

308

6.44

0.09

267

6. HKBU – Ching-fai NG

6.74

0.19

95

6.46

0.08

366

6.49

0.07

294

7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.54

0.18

96

6.34

0.08

384

6.12

0.07

303

8. CityU – Way KUO

6.35

0.23

70

6.24

0.09

271

6.13

0.08

236

9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

6.36

0.23

65

6.06

0.08

282

6.00

0.08

243

^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Table 8a - Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Occupation of Respondents (I)

 

Professionals and semi-professionals

Clerk and service workers

Production workers

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. HKUST – Paul C.W. CHU^

7.86

0.07

303

7.32

0.11

174

7.46

0.20

73

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.67

0.07

292

7.32

0.12

164

7.47

0.20

74

3. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU

6.94

0.09

274

6.90

0.11

153

6.77

0.21

69

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.51

0.09

187

6.53

0.12

118

6.56

0.23

50

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.42

0.10

207

6.59

0.12

130

6.37

0.28

52

6. HKBU – Ching-fai NG

6.53

0.08

245

6.46

0.11

148

6.65

0.21

62

7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.09

0.09

257

6.18

0.12

149

6.33

0.18

73

8. CityU – Way KUO

6.18

0.08

197

6.26

0.13

112

5.89

0.27

47

9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

5.93

0.09

192

6.11

0.09

117

5.99

0.23

46

^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Table 8b - Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Occupation of Respondents (II)

 

Students

Housewives

 

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. HKUST – Paul C.W. CHU^

7.37

0.14

71

7.48

0.14

114

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.40

0.14

67

7.63

0.15

103

3. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU

7.00

0.17

62

7.26

0.15

96

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.44

0.15

51

6.89

0.19

66

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.41

0.18

53

6.83

0.18

78

6. HKBU – Ching-fai NG

6.39

0.13

51

6.65

0.16

93

7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.31

0.15

53

6.61

0.15

87

8. CityU – Way KUO

6.23

0.15

45

6.44

0.21

61

9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

6.02

0.16

49

6.46

0.19

65

^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

C. Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong


The next question was to gauge respondents' opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Latest results again showed that 「work attitude」 topped the list with 21% of all respondents citing it. 「Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua」, 「conduct, honesty」 and 「social/interpersonal skills」 obtained the same second to fourth ranks as in last year's survey, and were mentioned by 13%, 13% and 12% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included 「global prospect / foresight」, 「 academic and professional knowledge」 and 「critical thinking and problem-solving ability」, accounting for a respective of 10%, 9% and 8% of the total sample. Nevertheless, 16% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9).


Table 9 - Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

 

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,210)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,213)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 1,979 responses from
1,197 respondents)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated)

16.6%

16.6%

251

12.7%

20.9%**

Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua

14.1%

16.2%

161

8.2%

13.4%

Conduct, honesty

17.3%

13.4%**

150

7.6%

12.5%

Social/interpersonal skills

12.9%

12.4%

141

7.1%

11.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global prospect / foresight

12.0%

9.8%

123

6.2%

10.2%

Academic and professional knowledge

10.2%

6.4%**

110

5.6%

9.2%*

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

11.8%**

10.4%

97

4.9%

8.1%*

Social/work experience

8.1%

8.3%

88

4.5%

7.3%

Commitment to society

10.2%

7.7%*

85

4.3%

7.0%

Independence

--

0.5%

80

4.0%

6.7%**

 

 

 

 

 

 

All-roundness

--

0.9%

56

2.9%

4.7%**

Communication skills

4.3%

3.7%

56

2.8%

4.6%

Self-confidence

5.8%*

3.5%**

55

2.8%

4.6%

Civil awareness

0.1%

0.4%

44

2.2%

3.7%**

Creativity

2.7%

2.8%

44

2.2%

3.6%

Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions

--

0.7%

41

2.1%

3.4%**

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emotion stability

1.7%

1.9%

32

1.6%

2.7%

Job opportunity

1.1%

0.6%

28

1.4%

2.3%

Financial management

1.2%**

0.9%

23

1.2%

1.9%

Self-expectations / dreams

--

0.4%

20

1.0%

1.6%

Patriotism

--

2.3%

14

0.7%

1.1%

Utilitarian

0.6%

0.0%

11

0.5%

0.9%

Leadership skills

--

0.3%

6

0.3%

0.5%

Computer proficiency

0.0%

0.1%

2

0.1%

0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing

3.9%**

4.0%

44

2.2%

3.6%

Others

5.3%

2.8%**

29

1.5%

2.4%

Don't know / hard to say

20.3%

24.5%*

189

9.6%

15.8%**

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

1,979

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,206

1,207

1,197

 

 

Missing case(s)

4

6

4

 

 



D. Preference for University Graduates


The survey went on to study employers' preference when selecting university graduates. To begin with, all respondents were asked if they were involved in any recruitment process of new staff in performing their office duties. Results showed that 18% of the total sample, i.e. 217 respondents had such authority in one way or another (Table 10).


Table 10 - Involvement in Recruitment of New Staff (Teachers included)

 

2006 Survey

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

14.9%

16.5%

16.0%

217

18.1%

No

85.1%

83.5%

84.0%

981

81.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1,198

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,509

1,210

1,212

1,201

 

Missing case(s)

1

0

1

3

 

 


These respondents were further asked which institution's graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. Graduates of HKU topped the list again this year, chosen by 24% of these employers. Meanwhile, graduates from PolyU, HKUST and CUHK were preferred by 16%, 13% and 10% of this sub-sample respectively. Another 14% of these respondents said they had no particular preference and 11% did not give a definite answer. No significant difference was observed between this and the last survey, but it has to be noted that because of the small sub-sample, the maximum sampling error has increased to plus/minus 6.8 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).


Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

 

2006 Survey

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base =1,509)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,210)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,213)

Freq.

% of potential employers
(Base = 216)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HKU 

3.4%

4.6%

3.8%

51

23.6%

4.3%

PolyU

1.9%

1.5%

2.5%

34

15.7%

2.8%

HKUST 

1.9%

1.4%

1.1%

29

13.2%

2.4%

CUHK 

2.5%

2.4%

1.4%

21

9.7%

1.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HKSYU

N.A.

0.1%

5

2.2%

0.4%

HKIEd^

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

4

1.8%

0.3%

LU^

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

2

0.9%

0.2%

CityU^

0.4%

0.4%

0.0%

2

0.9%

0.2%

HKBU 

0.4%

0.5%

0.4%

2

0.9%

0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other overseas universities

0.3%

0.6%

0.5%

4

1.7%

0.3%

Others

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

2

0.8%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No preference

2.3%

2.9%

3.3%

30

13.9%

2.5%

Don't know / hard to say

0.9%

1.3%

1.8%

23

10.5%

1.9%

Won't employ graduates

0.4%

0.3%

0.3%

9

4.3%

0.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

216

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

225

200

194

217

 

 

Missing case(s)

1

0

0

1

 

 

^ No respondent opted for these categories in respective survey.

These respondents were then asked to provide some reasons for their specific choices. Same as in previous years, 「good performance of previous graduates」 was most frequently cited, by 39% of the sub-sample (i.e. 5% of the total sample). 「Good knowledge in job-related areas」 came second with 27% (i.e. 3% of the total sample) while the 「reputation」 of their university came third with 21% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). A respective of 9%, 8% and 8% (i.e. 1% of the total sample each) preferred certain graduates simply due to 「being diligent/motivated」, 「good language ability」 and 「good work attitude」 of the graduates. Other than these, reasons like 「alumni」 and 「good social relationship」 were mentioned by some although quite fewer respondents (Table 12).


Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular University

 

2007 Survey

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,210)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,213)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 211 responses from 154 respondents)

% of valid respondents (Base = 154)

% of total sample
(Base = 1,201)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good performance of previous graduates

4.2%

3.6%

60

28.5%

39.0%

5.0%

Good knowledge in job-related areas

2.6%

2.7%

41

19.6%

26.8%

3.4%

Reputation

2.4%

1.6%

32

15.0%

20.6%

2.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diligent, motivated

1.2%

1.0%

13

6.4%

8.7%

1.1%

Good language ability

0.9%

1.3%

13

6.1%

8.4%

1.1%

Good work attitude

1.6%

1.0%

13

6.0%

8.2%

1.1%

Alumni

0.8%

0.6%

10

4.5%

6.2%

0.8%

Good social relationship

1.0%

0.3%

7

3.4%

4.7%

0.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good connection with outside (e.g., a university's extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)

0.1%

0.6%

4

2.0%

2.7%

0.3%

Good leadership

0.1%

0.2%

1

0.5%

0.7%

0.1%

Salary matched with abilities

0.1%

0.2%

1

0.4%

0.5%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others

2.0%

1.2%

12

5.5%

7.5%

1.0%

No specific reasons

0.2%

0.4%

4

2.0%

2.7%

0.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

211

100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

140

129

154

 

 

 

Missing case(s)

6

0

0

 

 

 

 

Chart - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2009