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 third time since 2008. 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 Institutions

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 8.19 as rated by 1,170 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.55 as rated by 1,166 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.37 as rated by 1,137 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year's survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same. Among all the institutions, only the increment of HKU's rating was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.05 level (Table 3).

Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

	2007 Survey		2008 Survey		2009 Survey		2010 Survey
	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample)

1.HKU	7.93	0.04	8.11	0.04	8.07	0.04	8.19*	0.04	1,170	96.8%
2.CUHK	7.25	0.05	7.67	0.04	7.64	0.04	7.55	0.04	1,166	96.6%
3.HKUST	7.16	0.05	7.38	0.04	7.33	0.04	7.37	0.04	1,137	94.1%
4.PolyU	6.79	0.04	7.00	0.04	6.90	0.04	6.89	0.04	1,148	95.1%
5.HKBU	6.28	0.04	6.42	0.04	6.34	0.04	6.30	0.04	1,126	93.2%
6.CityU	6.09	0.04	6.26	0.04	6.12*	0.04	6.22	0.04	1,105	91.4%
7.HKIEd	5.60	0.05	5.77	0.05	5.66	0.05	5.72	0.05	1,011	83.7%
8.LU	5.57	0.05	5.65	0.05	5.51*	0.05	5.54	0.05	1,053	87.1%
9.HKSYU#	N.A.		5.57	0.05	5.42	0.05	5.45	0.05	995	82.4%

# Newly added in 2008.

Same as last year, our cross-tabulation analyses showed that, within each sub-group of the sample, the order of 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 the 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	8.11	0.15	149	8.22	0.06	588	8.18	0.06	425
2. CUHK	7.25	0.16	153	7.54	0.06	580	7.67	0.06	426
3. HKUST^	7.13	0.16	142	7.25	0.06	566	7.60	0.06	422
4. PolyU	6.89	0.13	148	6.91	0.06	574	6.88	0.06	422
5. HKBU	6.35	0.15	140	6.35	0.06	557	6.23	0.06	421
6. CityU	6.19	0.16	133	6.22	0.06	546	6.24	0.06	417
7. HKIEd^	6.15	0.18	112	5.73	0.07	502	5.60	0.07	392
8. LU^	6.04	0.18	119	5.51	0.06	526	5.45	0.06	401
9. HKSYU^	5.70	0.17	103	5.60	0.08	494	5.21	0.07	393

^ 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	8.12	0.07	354	8.16	0.09	233	8.10	0.13	94
2. CUHK	7.52	0.07	353	7.56	0.09	233	7.56	0.13	95
3. HKUST	7.47	0.07	350	7.37	0.10	226	6.97	0.15	92
4. PolyU^	6.77	0.07	353	7.02	0.08	229	6.73	0.14	95
5. HKBU	6.21	0.07	348	6.42	0.08	226	6.19	0.14	91
6. CityU^	6.07	0.07	350	6.30	0.08	222	6.07	0.14	91
7. HKIEd^	5.47	0.08	326	5.82	0.10	207	5.74	0.17	85
8. LU^	5.44	0.07	335	5.45	0.09	210	5.52	0.16	91
9. HKSYU^	5.24	0.08	324	5.63	0.10	206	5.63	0.19	83

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

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	7.95	0.13	78	8.43	0.11	146
2. CUHK	7.69	0.13	79	7.73	0.13	146
3. HKUST	7.38	0.13	76	7.29	0.13	142
4. PolyU^	7.00	0.13	78	6.82	0.13	142
5. HKBU	6.26	0.13	78	6.35	0.13	140
6. CityU^	6.52	0.12	77	5.94	0.15	135
7. HKIEd^	5.88	0.15	73	5.79	0.15	129
8. LU^	5.59	0.14	75	5.53	0.14	128
9. HKSYU^	5.27	0.15	75	5.40	0.17	116

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

B. Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principals

With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/President/Principal 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 this year with an average score of 7.67 as rated by 952 respondents. Newcomer Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and had attained a mean score of 6.87 as rated by 677 respondents. The next tier included Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU, Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU and Professor Ching-fai Ng of HKBU who ranked third to fifth attaining a mean score of 6.50, 6.46 and 6.41 respectively. The sixth to ninth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of CityU, HKIEd, CUHK and LU correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 6.07 to 6.17. It is worth mentioning that the ranking of Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK has dropped significantly by five positions (-0.92 mark) compared with last year. Seven out of nine Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/ Principals had obtained recognition rates of 50% or above. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU received the highest recognition rate of 79% while Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK followed closely behind, at 78% (Table 6).

Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principals

	2006 Survey		2007 Survey		2008 Survey		2009 Survey
	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. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.46	0.05	7.67	0.05	7.58	0.05	7.67	0.05	952	78.8%
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN#	-N.A.-						6.87	0.05	677	56.0%
3. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	-N.A.-				6.59	0.06	6.50	0.06	643	53.2%
4. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	-N.A.-		6.61	0.07	6.57	0.06	6.46	0.06	646	53.5%
5. HKBU – Ching-fai NG	6.54	0.05	6.66	0.05	6.51	0.05	6.41	0.05	776	64.2%
6. CityU – Way KUO	-N.A.-		6.23	0.07	6.21	0.06	6.17	0.05	601	49.7%
7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG	-N.A.-		6.25	0.06	6.28	0.05	6.16	0.05	821	67.9%
8. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU	6.82	0.06	7.09	0.06	7.01	0.05	6.09**	0.07	940	77.8%
9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	-N.A.-		6.15	0.07	6.07	0.06	6.07	0.06	588	48.7%

# No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.

When cross-tabulated by respondents' education attainment and occupation, slight variations were obtained in terms of the respective rankings of the VCs/Presidents/Principals as rated by different sub-groups, though many scores fluctuated within error margins. They were enclosed in squares for easy reference. Actual ratings obtained by each VC/President/Principal are shown in the 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. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.79	0.15	103	7.72	0.07	474	7.55	0.07	370
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.91	0.21	65	6.94	0.08	324	6.78	0.07	284
3. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^	6.59	0.21	59	6.63	0.08	328	6.33	0.08	252
4. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.63	0.24	60	6.46	0.10	322	6.43	0.09	260
5. HKBU – Ching-fai NG^	6.75	0.19	73	6.45	0.08	395	6.28	0.07	304
6. CityU – Way KUO	6.45	0.21	62	6.20	0.08	289	6.09	0.08	246
7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG	6.24	0.18	81	6.23	0.08	417	6.07	0.08	318
8. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU	6.41	0.22	101	6.17	0.10	469	5.91	0.11	366
9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^	6.63	0.23	56	6.11	0.08	290	5.89	0.08	237

^ 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. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	7.55	0.08	308	7.63	0.10	186	7.29	0.17	77
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.78	0.08	229	6.86	0.12	140	6.81	0.18	56
3. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	6.31	0.09	215	6.58	0.12	135	6.46	0.18	58
4. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.34	0.10	219	6.44	0.15	129	6.27	0.23	57
5. HKBU – Ching-fai NG	6.36	0.08	261	6.52	0.10	166	6.28	0.17	65
6. CityU – Way KUO	6.10	0.08	202	6.22	0.12	128	6.12	0.19	54
7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	5.98	0.09	271	6.09	0.12	163	6.27	0.17	70
8. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU	5.93	0.12	300	6.12	0.15	191	6.34	0.23	79
9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.93	0.09	200	6.01	0.11	122	6.14	0.18	55

^ 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. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	7.28	0.14	60	7.90	0.14	114
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.70	0.17	46	6.84	0.19	75
3. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	6.41	0.17	41	6.71	0.20	69
4. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.54	0.21	40	6.45	0.21	75
5. HKBU – Ching-fai NG	6.11	0.15	43	6.61	0.16	93
6. CityU – Way KUO	6.17	0.17	40	6.03	0.20	58
7. HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.05	0.17	45	6.20	0.17	93
8. CUHK – Lawrence J. LAU	6.46	0.21	63	6.15	0.21	113
9. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.98	0.17	37	6.11	0.18	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. This year's results have consistently showed that 「work attitude」 topped the list with 24% of respondents citing it. 「Social/interpersonal skills」 and 「conduct, honesty」 obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 13% and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included 「commitment to society」, 「proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua」, 「critical thinking and problem-solving ability」 and 「global prospect / foresight」, each accounting for 9% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 18% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9).

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

	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,213)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 1,928 responses from 1,204 respondents)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)
Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated)	16.6%	20.9%**	289	15.0%	23.9%
Social/interpersonal skills	12.4%	11.7%	151	7.9%	12.5%
Conduct, honesty	13.4%**	12.5%	129	6.7%	10.7%

Commitment to society	7.7%*	7.0%	113	5.8%	9.3%*
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua	16.2%	13.4%	109	5.7%	9.1%**
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	10.4%	8.1%*	106	5.5%	8.8%
Global prospect / foresight	9.8%	10.2%	106	5.5%	8.7%
Independence	0.5%	6.7%**	95	4.9%	7.9%

Social/work experience	8.3%	7.3%	70	3.6%	5.8%
Self-confidence	3.5%**	4.6%	61	3.2%	5.1%
Academic and professional knowledge	6.4%**	9.2%*	57	3.0%	4.7%**
Communication skills	3.7%	4.6%	57	3.0%	4.7%
Civil awareness	0.4%	3.7%**	55	2.8%	4.5%
All-roundness	0.9%	4.7%**	43	2.2%	3.5%

Emotion stability	1.9%	2.7%	36	1.8%	3.0%
Job opportunity	0.6%	2.3%	34	1.8%	2.8%
Creativity	2.8%	3.6%	33	1.7%	2.8%
Self-expectations / dreams	0.4%	1.6%	32	1.7%	2.7%
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions	0.7%	3.4%**	30	1.6%	2.5%
Cultural level / self-cultivation	0.0%	0.0%	27	1.4%	2.2%
Patriotism	2.3%	1.1%	13	0.7%	1.1%
Leadership skills	0.3%	0.5%	6	0.3%	0.5%
Financial management	0.9%	1.9%	4	0.2%	0.4%

Nothing	4.0%	3.6%	47	2.5%	3.9%
Others	2.8%**	2.4%	8	0.4%	0.7%
Don't know / hard to say	24.5%*	15.8%**	216	11.2%	17.9%

Total			1,928	100.0%

Base	1,207	1,197	1,204
Missing case(s)	6	4	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 17% of the total sample, i.e. 209 respondents had such authority in one way or another (Table 10).

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

	2007 Survey	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey
	Percentage	Percentage	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage

Yes	16.5%	16.0%	18.1%	209	17.3%
No	83.5%	84.0%	81.9%	999	82.7%

Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	1,208	100.0%

Base	1,210	1,212	1,201	1,208
Missing case(s)	0	1	3	0

These respondents were further asked which institution's graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For nine consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 21% of these employers whereas CUHK came second with 18%. Meanwhile, graduates from PolyU and HKUST were preferred by 11% and 8% of this sub-sample respectively. Another 21% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 8% could not give a definite answer. It has to be noted that because of the small sub-sample, the maximum sampling error has increased to plus/minus 6.9 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).

Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

	2007 Survey	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,210)	% of total sample (Base = 1,213)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of potential employers (Base = 209)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)
HKU	4.6%	3.8%	4.3%	43	20.7%	3.6%
CUHK	2.4%	1.4%	1.8%	37	17.6%	3.0%
PolyU	1.5%	2.5%	2.8%	23	11.2%	1.9%
HKUST	1.4%	1.1%	2.4%	16	7.9%	1.4%

CityU^	0.4%	0.0%	0.2%	5	2.4%	0.4%
HKBU	0.5%	0.4%	0.2%	5	2.2%	0.4%
HKSYU	N.A.	0.1%	0.4%	4	1.9%	0.3%
HKIEd	0.1%	0.3%	0.3%	3	1.5%	0.3%
LU	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	1	0.4%	0.1%

Other overseas universities	0.6%	0.5%	0.3%	4	1.8%	0.3%
Others	0.4%	0.4%	0.1%	1	0.4%	0.1%

No preference	2.9%	3.3%	2.5%	44	21.1%	3.6%
Don't know / hard to say	1.3%	1.8%	1.9%	17	8.2%	1.4%
Won't employ graduates	0.3%	0.3%	0.8%	6	2.7%	0.5%

Total				209	100.0%

Valid Base	200	194	217	209
Missing case(s)	0	0	1	0

^ No respondent opted for these categories in respective survey.

These potential employers were then asked to provide some reasons for their specific choices. Same as previous years, 「good knowledge in job-related areas」 was most frequently cited, by 32% of the sub-sample (i.e. 4% of the total sample). 「Good performance of previous graduates」 came second with 30% (i.e. 4% of the total sample) while the 「reputation」 of their university came third with 21% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). A respective of 17% and 11% (i.e. 2% and 1% of the total sample respectively) preferred certain graduates simply due to their 「good work attitude」 and 「being diligent/motivated」. Other than these, reasons like 「alumni」, 「good language ability」 and 「good social relationship」 were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12).

Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular Institution

	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,213)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 218 responses from 142 respondents)	% of valid respondents (Base = 142)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)

Good knowledge in job-related areas	2.7%	3.4%	45	20.8%	32.1%	3.8%
Good performance of previous graduates	3.6%	5.0%	42	19.4%	29.9%	3.5%
Reputation	1.6%	2.6%	30	13.6%	21.0%	2.5%

Good work attitude	1.0%	1.1%	24	10.9%	16.8%	2.0%
Diligent, motivated	1.0%	1.1%	15	6.9%	10.7%	1.2%
Alumni	0.6%	0.8%	14	6.3%	9.8%	1.1%
Good language ability	1.3%	1.1%	14	6.2%	9.5%	1.1%
Good social relationship	0.3%	0.6%	12	5.5%	8.5%	1.0%

Good connection with outside (e.g., a university's extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)	0.6%	0.3%	7	3.3%	5.0%	0.6%
Good leadership	0.2%	0.1%	6	2.6%	4.0%	0.5%
Salary matched with abilities	0.2%	0.1%	5	2.5%	3.8%	0.4%

Others	1.2%	1.0%	4	1.6%	2.5%	0.3%
Don't know / hard to say	0.0%	0.0%	1	0.4%	0.6%	0.1%

Total			218	100%

Valid Base	129	154	142
Missing case(s)	0	0	0

Chart - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2010