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), Hong Kong Shue Yan University (HKSYU), 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 Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK) which was included for the first time. 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

To begin with, 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 of this year indicated that, in terms of public perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.03 as rated by 1,134 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.72 as rated by 1,128 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.54 as rated by 1,079 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same while OUHK ranked last. Among all the institutions, the increment of rating of HKU was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level (Table 3).

Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

	2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 Survey		2012 Survey
	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample)
1.HKU	8.07	0.04	8.19*	0.04	8.22	0.04	8.03**	0.04	1,134	94.3%
2.CUHK	7.64	0.04	7.55	0.04	7.77**	0.04	7.72	0.04	1,128	93.7%
3.HKUST	7.33	0.04	7.37	0.04	7.63**	0.04	7.54	0.04	1,079	89.7%
4.PolyU	6.90	0.04	6.89	0.04	6.92	0.04	6.98	0.04	1,106	91.9%
5.HKBU	6.34	0.04	6.30	0.04	6.30	0.04	6.35	0.04	1,068	88.8%
6.CityU	6.12*	0.04	6.22	0.04	6.21	0.04	6.22	0.04	1,043	86.7%
7.HKIEd	5.66	0.05	5.72	0.05	5.88*	0.05	5.75	0.05	970	80.7%
8.LU	5.51*	0.05	5.54	0.05	5.50	0.05	5.58	0.05	1,002	83.3%
9.HKSYU	5.42	0.05	5.45	0.05	5.44	0.05	5.50	0.05	968	80.5%
10.OUHK#	N.A.				5.43	0.05	5.34	0.05	961	79.9%

# Newly added in 2011.

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	7.86	0.159	133	8.09	0.064	493	8.03	0.055	507
2.CUHK	7.62	0.138	136	7.68	0.062	484	7.77	0.052	507
3.HKUST^	7.22	0.169	111	7.50	0.068	471	7.65	0.056	495
4.PolyU^	6.95	0.161	121	7.02	0.064	484	6.94	0.054	500
5.HKBU^	6.48	0.170	110	6.42	0.064	465	6.26	0.056	493
6.CityU^	6.55	0.181	107	6.20	0.070	450	6.17	0.056	486
7.HKIEd^	6.12	0.205	84	5.85	0.078	420	5.59	0.066	466
8.LU^	5.91	0.212	95	5.63	0.077	437	5.46	0.064	468
9.HKSYU^	6.08	0.219	82	5.63	0.078	422	5.28	0.069	463
10.OUHK^	6.17	0.212	78	5.55	0.078	413	5.03	0.075	469

^ 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^	8.02	0.059	395	8.06	0.089	235	7.77	0.204	67
2.CUHK	7.73	0.059	392	7.73	0.080	234	7.43	0.176	69
3.HKUST^	7.65	0.063	390	7.42	0.091	225	7.22	0.182	69
4.PolyU	6.87	0.061	393	7.01	0.083	231	6.98	0.214	68
5.HKBU^	6.22	0.061	392	6.40	0.084	227	6.16	0.182	66
6.CityU	6.09	0.067	380	6.15	0.093	216	6.03	0.188	62
7.HKIEd^	5.58	0.070	366	5.77	0.101	211	5.76	0.228	54
8.LU^	5.42	0.076	371	5.58	0.104	210	5.59	0.192	62
9.HKSYU^	5.27	0.078	364	5.54	0.100	200	5.62	0.215	58
10.OUHK^	5.06	0.075	375	5.37	0.115	207	5.49	0.206	48

^ 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^	7.82	0.147	82	8.07	0.146	131
2.CUHK	7.83	0.147	82	7.64	0.144	126
3.HKUST^	7.41	0.154	80	7.53	0.165	116
4.PolyU	6.84	0.159	82	6.98	0.133	118
5.HKBU^	6.34	0.147	79	6.57	0.146	113
6.CityU	6.28	0.150	82	6.42	0.146	110
7.HKIEd^	5.95	0.172	76	5.99	0.181	89
8.LU^	5.32	0.162	76	5.84	0.178	97
9.HKSYU^	5.14	0.187	76	5.87	0.181	93
10.OUHK^	4.81	0.199	79	5.84	0.183	87

^ 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 Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list this year with an average score of 7.65 as rated by 1,015 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and third, with a respective mean score of 7.17 rated by 1,005 respondents and 6.96 rated by 622 respondents. The next tier included Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU, Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU and Professor Anthony B.L. CHEUNG who ranked forth to sixth attaining a mean score of 6.64, 6.46 and 6.32 respectively. The seventh to tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of HKBU, CityU, LU and OUHK correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 5.97 to 6.19. Most of the performance rating of the Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals registered decrease when compared to last year’s, if any. Only six out of ten Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals had obtained recognition rates of 50% or above. Of which, Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK received the highest recognition rate of 84% (Table 6).

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

	2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 Survey		2012 Survey
	2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 Survey		2012 Survey
	Avg.	Std. error	Avg.	Std. error	Avg.	Std. error	Avg.	Std. error	No of raters	Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample)
1.CUHK – Joseph S.Y. SUNG#	-N.A.-				7.84	0.05	7.65**	0.04	1,015	84.4%
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.58	0.05	7.67	0.05	7.73	0.05	7.17**	0.05	1,005	83.6%
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN#	-N.A.-		6.87	0.05	7.14	0.06	6.96*	0.06	622	51.7%
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	6.57	0.06	6.46	0.06	6.52	0.07	6.64	0.07	604	50.2%
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.59	0.06	6.50	0.06	6.61	0.06	6.46	0.06	575	47.8%
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG	6.28	0.05	6.16	0.05	6.34	0.05	6.32	0.06	776	64.5%
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN#	-N.A.-				6.29	0.06	6.19	0.07	615	51.1%
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.21	0.06	6.17	0.05	6.23	0.06	6.12	0.07	536	44.6%
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	6.07	0.06	6.07	0.06	6.04	0.07	6.04	0.07	516	42.9%
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG##	-N.A.-				5.96	0.07	5.97	0.07	496	41.2%

# No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.
## Newly added in 2011.

When cross-tabulated by respondents’ education attainment and occupation, slight variations were obtained in terms of the respective rankings of the Vice-Chancellors / 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 Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals are shown in the following tables (Tables 7-8).

Table 7 – Cross-tabulation Analyses: Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals 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.CUHK – Joseph S.Y. SUNG	7.68	0.162	103	7.69	0.064	433	7.62	0.062	479
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.44	0.173	105	7.22	0.080	423	7.07	0.074	476
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	7.20	0.255	42	7.09	0.090	254	6.83	0.084	325
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	7.41	0.282	51	6.54	0.103	254	6.58	0.094	298
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.87	0.249	47	6.58	0.098	235	6.31	0.082	292
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.72	0.218	66	6.38	0.081	331	6.21	0.079	378
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN^	6.59	0.245	51	6.27	0.098	243	6.10	0.093	320
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.65	0.340	37	6.26	0.101	209	5.97	0.088	289
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^	6.87	0.342	38	6.05	0.099	215	5.91	0.100	263
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	6.53	0.364	37	6.04	0.102	206	5.84	0.102	251

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

Table 8a – Cross-tabulation Analyses: Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals 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.CUHK – Joseph S.Y. SUNG	7.59	0.068	370	7.67	0.089	207	7.27	0.230	56
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	7.02	0.081	373	7.10	0.116	204	7.07	0.213	60
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.90	0.085	258	6.82	0.130	134	6.65	0.266	36
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^	6.49	0.104	233	6.43	0.132	130	6.23	0.324	30
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^	6.22	0.093	233	6.48	0.117	120	6.23	0.329	34
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.25	0.083	304	6.26	0.106	163	5.86	0.231	42
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN	6.09	0.104	248	6.24	0.132	134	5.96	0.254	34
8.CityU – Way KUO	5.94	0.096	229	6.13	0.142	118	5.71	0.241	31
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.89	0.104	212	6.01	0.140	106	5.90	0.309	29
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	5.77	0.112	206	6.12	0.119	106	5.74	0.297	28

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

Table 8b – Cross-tabulation Analyses: Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals Performance by Occupation of Respondents (II)

	Students			Housewives
	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Average	Standard error	No. of raters
1.CUHK – Joseph S.Y. SUNG	7.46	0.170	73	7.72	0.145	111
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	6.49	0.209	74	7.41	0.166	101
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.18	0.248	47	7.79	0.211	44
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^	6.07	0.272	40	7.12	0.237	53
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^	6.04	0.247	46	6.93	0.199	43
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.15	0.253	48	6.60	0.192	70
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN	5.90	0.238	46	6.33	0.252	51
8.CityU – Way KUO	5.97	0.256	43	6.56	0.287	37
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.53	0.253	40	6.31	0.249	42
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	5.36	0.283	36	6.51	0.243	40

^ 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 18% of respondents citing it. “Social/interpersonal skills” and “conduct, honesty” obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 13% and 10% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, “global prospect / foresight”, “commitment to society”, and “independence”, accounting for 8% to 10% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 20% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9).

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

	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 2,040 responses from 1,199 respondents)	% of total sample (Base = 1,199)

Work attitude	23.9%	19.3%**	216	10.6%	18.0%
Social/interpersonal skills	12.5%	11.9%	159	7.8%	13.3%
Conduct, honesty	10.7%	11.4%	122	6.0%	10.2%
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	8.8%	9.4%	114	5.6%	9.5%
Global prospect / foresight	8.7%	7.3%	106	5.2%	8.8%
Commitment to society	9.3%*	7.4%*	95	4.6%	7.9%
Independence	7.9%	8.9%	93	4.6%	7.8%
Communication skills	4.7%	5.1%	88	4.3%	7.3%*

Social/work experience	5.8%	6.4%	81	4.0%	6.8%
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua	9.1%**	8.0%	80	3.9%	6.7%
Academic and professional knowledge	4.7%**	4.9%	60	2.9%	5.0%
Self-confidence	5.1%	4.6%	58	2.8%	4.8%
Creativity	2.8%	3.4%	49	2.4%	4.1%
Emotion stability	3.0%	3.8%	47	2.3%	3.9%
Civil awareness	4.5%	3.7%	38	1.9%	3.2%
Self-expectations / dreams	2.7%	2.5%	36	1.7%	3.0%
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions	2.5%	3.7%*	33	1.6%	2.8%

Discipline, patience	--	4.7%	25	1.2%	2.1%**
All-roundness	3.5%	2.8%	24	1.2%	2.0%
Learning attitude	--	--	21	1.0%	1.7%
Self-motivation, aggressiveness	--	3.7%	18	0.9%	1.5%**
Utilitarian / materialistic	--	1.3%	17	0.8%	1.4%
Financial management	0.4%**	1.1%*	16	0.8%	1.3%
Egocentricity / selfishness	--	--	15	0.7%	1.3%
Patriotism	1.1%	0.6%	15	0.7%	1.2%
Social awareness	--	--	14	0.7%	1.2%
Resources / opportunity	--	1.7%	11	0.6%	1.0%
Maturity / stability	--	--	11	0.5%	0.9%
Political awareness / participation	--	--	10	0.5%	0.8%
Leadership skills	0.5%	0.5%	8	0.4%	0.7%
Humble / sympathy	--	2.0%	8	0.4%	0.7%**
Job opportunity	2.8%	2.3%	8	0.4%	0.7%**
Politeness	--	1.8%	5	0.3%	0.4%**
Cultural level / self-cultivation	2.2%	--	--	--	--

Nothing	3.9%	4.8%	51	2.5%	4.3%
Others	0.7%	2.6%**	43	2.1%	3.6%
Don’t know / hard to say	17.9%	16.9%	244	11.9%	20.3%*

Total			2,040	100.0%

Base	1,204	1,201	1,199
Missing case(s)	4	0	4

D. Preference for University Graduates

The survey went on to study employers’ preference when selecting university graduates. To identify the prospective employers from the sample, all respondents were asked if they were involved in any recruitment process of new staff in performing their office duties. Results showed that 20% of the total sample, i.e. 240 respondents had such authority in one way or another. This percentage has remained rather stable in the past few years (Table 10).

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

	2009 Survey	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey
	Percentage	Percentage	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage

Yes	18.1%	17.3%	18.4%	240	20.0%
No	81.9%	82.7%	81.6%	962	80.0%

Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	1,203	100.0%

Base	1,201	1,208	1,201	1,203
Missing case(s)	3	0	0	0

These respondents were further asked which institution’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For eleven consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 19% of these employers whereas CUHK and PolyU came second and third with 17% and 13% respectively. Meanwhile, graduates from HKUST were preferred by 11% of this sub-sample. Another 23% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 7% 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 6.5 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).

Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

	2009 Survey	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,213)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of potential employers (Base = 240)	% of total sample (Base = 1,203)

HKU	4.3%	3.6%	4.5%	46	19.2%	3.8%
CUHK	1.8%	3.0%	2.6%	42	17.4%	3.5%
PolyU	2.8%	1.9%	2.5%	32	13.2%	2.6%
HKUST	2.4%	1.4%	2.3%	27	11.4%	2.3%

HKIEd	0.3%	0.3%	0.2%	4	1.5%	0.3%
CityU	0.2%	0.4%	0.3%	3	1.4%	0.3%
HKSYU	0.4%	0.3%	0.1%	3	1.2%	0.2%
HKBU	0.2%	0.4%	0.2%	1	0.6%	0.1%
LU	0.2%	0.1%	0.3%	1	0.5%	0.1%

Other overseas universities	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	5	2.0%	0.4%
Others	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	--	--	--

No preference	2.5%	3.6%	3.3%	55	22.7%	4.5%
Don’t know / hard to say	1.9%	1.4%	1.2%	17	6.9%	1.4%
Won’t employ graduates	0.8%	0.5%	0.5%	5	2.0%	0.4%

Total				240	100.0%

Valid Base	217	209	221	240
Missing case(s)	1	0	1	0

These potential employers were then asked to provide some reasons for their specific choices. Same as previous years, “good performance of previous graduates” was most frequently cited, by 40% of the sub-sample (i.e. 5% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” came second with 23% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). “Reputation” of university, graduates’ “good work attitude”, their “diligence, motivation”, and being “alumni” of the potential employers formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 17%, 15%, 10% and 8% (i.e. each accounted for 1% to 2% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like “good language ability”, “good academic ability”, “good moral character” 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

	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 241 responses from 164 respondents)	% of valid respondents (Base = 164)	% of total sample (Base = 1,203)

Good performance of previous graduates	3.5%	6.5%	65	26.8%	39.5%	5.4%
Good knowledge in job-related areas	3.8%	2.9%	38	15.8%	23.3%	3.2%

Reputation	2.5%	1.9%	28	11.7%	17.2%	2.3%
Good work attitude	2.0%	2.1%	24	10.2%	15.0%	2.0%
Diligent, motivated	1.2%	1.5%	16	6.8%	10.0%	1.4%
Alumni	1.1%	0.8%	13	5.3%	7.8%	1.1%

Good language ability	1.1%	1.2%	11	4.7%	6.9%	0.9%
Good academic ability Good moral character	--	--	8	3.5%	5.1%	0.7%
Good moral character	--	--	8	3.5%	5.1%	0.7%
Good social relationship	1.0%	0.6%	7	3.1%	4.6%	0.6%
Good connection with outside (e.g., a university’s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)	0.6%	0.5%	3	1.3%	2.0%	0.3%
Good leadership	0.5%	0.2%	3	1.2%	1.7%	0.2%
Salary matched with abilities	0.4%	0.5%	1	0.3%	0.5%	0.1%*

Others	0.3%	0.8%	9	3.6%	5.2%	0.7%
Don’t know / hard to say	0.1%	0.1%	5	2.3%	3.4%	0.5%

Total			241	100.0%

Valid Base	142	157	164
Missing case(s)	0	2	1

Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2012

Chart 2 - Most Preferred University Graduates, 2002-2012 (based on respective total sample)