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 Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK), 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). 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, HKUST received the highest mean score of 7.33 as rated by 1,142 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.30 as rated by 1,169 respondents, whereas HKU ranked third with a mean score of 7.20 as rated by 1,180 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among six institutions remained exactly the same while HKUST and HKU, and HKBU and CityU were swapped. HKUST topped the list for the first time. For HKU, its drop in rating were tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level (Table 3).
|
Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. HKUST [4] |
7.45 |
0.089 |
301 |
7.42 |
0.091 |
267 |
7.39 |
0.165 |
101 |
|
|
2. CUHK [4] |
7.44 [5] |
0.088 |
302 |
7.23 |
0.093 |
265 |
|
0.168 |
100 |
|
|
3. HKU [4] |
7.44 [5] |
0.108 |
302 |
7.11 |
0.101 |
267 |
|
0.182 |
105 |
|
|
4. PolyU |
6.79 |
0.076 |
301 |
6.78 |
0.087 |
256 |
6.88 |
0.138 |
100 |
|
|
5. HKBU |
6.14 |
0.083 |
300 |
|
0.099 |
254 |
6.29 |
0.151 |
93 |
|
|
6. CityU |
6.07 |
0.081 |
299 |
|
0.085 |
257 |
6.28 |
0.144 |
95 |
|
|
7. EdUHK |
5.76 |
0.098 |
282 |
5.73 |
0.104 |
247 |
6.01 |
0.175 |
91 |
|
|
8. HKSYU |
5.32 |
0.100 |
283 |
5.61 |
0.090 |
237 |
5.53 [6] |
0.138 |
88 |
|
|
9. LU |
5.23 |
0.088 |
296 |
|
0.093 |
258 |
5.53 [6] |
0.150 |
91 |
|
|
10. OUHK [4] |
5.19 |
0.100 |
289 |
|
0.097 |
252 |
5.37 |
0.120 |
95 |
|
[5] In four decimal places, the rating of CUHK and HKU are 7.4362 and 7.4360.
[6] In four decimal places, the rating of HKSYU and LU are 5.5302 and 5.5300
| 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. HKUST [7] |
|
0.117 |
104 |
7.40 |
0.129 |
125 |
||
|
2. CUHK [7] |
|
0.098 |
104 |
7.16 |
0.155 |
133 |
||
|
3. HKU [7] |
|
0.104 |
104 |
7.07 |
0.159 |
133 |
||
|
4. PolyU |
6.91 |
0.104 |
104 |
6.80 |
0.128 |
129 |
||
|
5. HKBU |
6.36 |
0.094 |
104 |
6.41 |
0.133 |
129 |
||
|
6. CityU |
6.24 |
0.109 |
104 |
6.25 |
0.138 |
123 |
||
|
7. EdUHK |
6.00 |
0.134 |
102 |
6.12 |
0.144 |
109 |
||
|
8. HKSYU |
|
0.141 |
100 |
|
0.149 |
109 |
||
|
9. LU |
|
0.113 |
102 |
|
0.136 |
119 |
||
|
10. OUHK [7] |
5.20 |
0.118 |
100 |
6.00 |
0.176 |
105 |
||
[8] In four decimal places, the rating of HKSYU and LU are 5.6625 and 5.6629.
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 J.Y. Sung of CUHK again topped the list this year with an average score of 7.64 as rated by 1,084 respondents. Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST, Professor Peter MATHIESON of HKU and Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU came second to fourth, with mean scores of 6.87, 6.65 and 6.44 as rated by 752, 978 and 685 respondents respectively. The next tier included Professor Roland T. Chin of HKBU and Professor Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG of EdUHK who ranked fifth and sixth attaining a mean score of 6.14 each. The seventh to ninth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of CityU, OUHK and LU correspondingly, with respective average scores of 5.94, 5.80 and 5.57. Eight out of nine 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 89% (Table 6).
|
Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals |
|
2013 Survey |
2014 Survey [9] |
2015 Survey [9] |
2016 Survey [9] |
|||||||
|
Avg. |
Std. error |
Avg. |
Std. error |
Avg. |
Std. error |
Avg. |
Std. error |
No of raters |
Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample) |
|
|
1. CUHK – Joseph J.Y. SUNG |
7.94** |
0.04 |
7.77** |
0.05 |
7.74 |
0.05 |
7.64 |
0.05 |
1,084 |
88.7% |
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
6.97 |
0.06 |
6.92 |
0.06 |
6.79 |
0.06 |
6.87 |
0.06 |
752 |
61.5% |
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON[10] |
-N.A.- |
6.78 |
0.06 |
6.95 |
0.07 |
6.65 ** |
0.06 |
978 |
80.0% |
|
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG |
6.61 |
0.06 |
6.67 |
0.06 |
6.45* |
0.06 |
6.44 |
0.06 |
685 |
56.1% |
|
5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin[10] |
-N.A.- |
6.14 [11] |
0.06 |
682 |
55.8% |
|||||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG[10] |
-N.A.- |
6.23 |
0.06 |
6.13 |
0.07 |
6.14 [11] |
0.06 |
690 |
56.5% |
|
|
7. CityU – Way KUO |
6.03 |
0.07 |
6.11 |
0.07 |
6.12 |
0.07 |
5.94 |
0.06 |
664 |
54.3% |
|
8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG[10] |
-N.A.- |
5.95 |
0.07 |
5.88 |
0.07 |
5.80 |
0.06 |
600 |
49.1% |
|
|
9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[10] |
-N.A.- |
5.79 |
0.07 |
5.55* |
0.08 |
5.57 |
0.07 |
747 |
61.1% |
|
[9] The position of Principal for HKSYU was vacant during the survey period, so the respective question was dropped in 2014 to 2016.
[10] No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.
[11] In three decimal places, the rating of Professor Albert Chan of HKBU and Professor Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG of EdUHK are 6.145 and 6.144. Thus, they are ranked fifth and sixth this time.
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. 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 J.Y. SUNG |
7.74 |
0.140 |
221 |
7.54 |
0.072 |
527 |
7.75 |
0.080 |
330 |
|||
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
7.16 |
0.195 |
109 |
6.87 |
0.077 |
394 |
|
0.093 |
244 |
|||
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON [12] |
|
0.174 |
191 |
6.46 |
0.082 |
474 |
|
0.093 |
308 |
|||
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG [12] |
|
0.200 |
116 |
6.38 |
0.081 |
346 |
6.16 |
0.105 |
221 |
|||
|
5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin [12] |
6.81 |
0.180 |
121 |
|
0.082 |
340 |
|
0.100 |
216 |
|||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
|
0.193 |
106 |
|
0.080 |
358 |
|
0.096 |
224 |
|||
|
7. CityU – Way KUO [12] |
|
0.199 |
109 |
5.88 |
0.078 |
331 |
5.82 |
0.102 |
222 |
|||
|
8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG [12] |
|
0.224 |
84 |
5.86 |
0.076 |
317 |
5.57 |
0.111 |
195 |
|||
|
9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG [12] |
|
0.199 |
138 |
5.63 |
0.078 |
366 |
5.11 |
0.119 |
239 |
|||
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 J.Y. SUNG |
7.50 |
0.094 |
295 |
7.68 |
0.107 |
242 |
|
0.195 |
88 |
|||
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
6.72 |
0.101 |
227 |
6.86 |
0.117 |
173 |
|
0.219 |
66 |
|||
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
6.65 |
0.112 |
279 |
6.78 |
0.114 |
212 |
|
0.196 |
87 |
|||
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG |
6.16 |
0.109 |
198 |
6.48 |
0.125 |
160 |
|
0.241 |
57 |
|||
|
5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin |
|
0.103 |
194 |
|
0.111 |
156 |
|
0.244 |
54 |
|||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
|
0.098 |
211 |
|
0.121 |
158 |
|
0.235 |
60 |
|||
|
7. CityU – Way KUO |
5.78 |
0.105 |
198 |
|
0.109 |
158 |
6.00 |
0.248 |
46 |
|||
|
8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG |
5.61 |
0.121 |
174 |
|
0.099 |
149 |
5.74 |
0.223 |
50 |
|||
|
9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG [13] |
5.27 |
0.121 |
219 |
5.74 |
0.126 |
179 |
5.35 |
0.236 |
54 |
|||
[14] In three decimal places, the rating of Professor Joseph J.Y. Sung of CUHK and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST are 7.298 and 7.303.
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 J.Y. SUNG |
7.61 |
0.116 |
101 |
7.88 |
0.159 |
119 |
||
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
|
0.112 |
78 |
6.82 |
0.204 |
74 |
||
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
|
0.113 |
93 |
|
0.232 |
95 |
||
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG |
6.39 |
0.143 |
71 |
|
0.235 |
71 |
||
|
5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin |
|
0.152 |
65 |
|
0.190 |
71 |
||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
|
0.139 |
71 |
|
0.211 |
66 |
||
|
7. CityU – Way KUO |
|
0.128 |
69 |
6.17 |
0.223 |
68 |
||
|
8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG |
5.95 |
0.143 |
69 |
5.90 |
0.210 |
56 |
||
|
9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG [15] |
5.60 |
0.173 |
70 |
5.68 |
0.237 |
74 |
||
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 showed that “work attitude” topped the list with 14% of respondents citing it. “Social / interpersonal skills”, “critical thinking and problem-solving ability” and “global prospect / foresight” obtained the second to fourth ranks and were mentioned by 13%, 12%, and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included “conduct, honesty”, “independence”, “emotion stability”, “commitment to society”, “social / work experience” and “resources / opportunity”, accounting for 5% to 9% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 15% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9). |
| Table 9 – Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong |
|
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
|||
|
% of total sample (Base = 1,216) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,199) |
Freq. |
% of total responses (Base = 1,975 responses from 1,218 respondents) |
% of total sample (Base = 1, 218 ) |
|
|
Work attitude |
15.3% |
11.4%** |
177 |
8.9% |
14.5% * |
|
Social / interpersonal skills |
10.5%* |
13.8%* |
157 |
7.9% |
12.9% |
|
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability |
6.9% |
11.3%** |
147 |
7.4% |
12.0% |
|
Global prospect / foresight |
6.3% |
8.9%* |
129 |
6.5% |
10.6% |
|
Conduct, honesty |
6.5%* |
10.8%** |
111 |
5.6% |
9.1% |
|
Independence |
7.5%* |
7.3% |
104 |
5.3% |
8.5% |
|
Emotion stability |
3.2% |
3.7% |
81 |
4.1% |
6.6%** |
|
Commitment to society |
6.1% |
4.6% |
71 |
3.6% |
5.8% |
|
Social / work experience |
4.9%** |
6.9%* |
66 |
3.3% |
5.4% |
|
Resources / opportunity |
2.9% |
2.6% |
56 |
2.8% |
4.6%** |
|
All-roundness |
2.4% |
4.0%* |
50 |
2.5% |
4.1% |
|
Academic and professional knowledge |
3.6% |
5.5%* |
46 |
2.3% |
3.8%* |
|
Civil awareness |
2.9% |
4.1% |
44 |
2.2% |
3.6% |
|
Communication skills |
3.8%* |
2.9% |
42 |
2.1% |
3.4% |
|
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua |
5.9% |
4.7% |
41 |
2.1% |
3.3% |
|
Self-expectations / dreams |
2.5% |
2.1% |
35 |
1.8% |
2.9% |
|
Learning attitude |
1.4% |
1.9% |
33 |
1.7% |
2.7% |
|
Job opportunity |
2.1% |
2.1% |
32 |
1.6% |
2.6% |
|
Creativity |
3.3% |
2.4% |
31 |
1.6% |
2.6% |
|
Self-confidence |
3.5% |
2.8% |
30 |
1.5% |
2.5% |
|
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions |
2.6% |
1.5% |
30 |
1.5% |
2.4% |
|
Patriotism |
2.4%* |
4.1%* |
29 |
1.5% |
2.4%* |
|
Egocentricity / selfishness |
1.2% |
1.3% |
28 |
1.4% |
2.3% |
|
Discipline, patience |
2.0% |
2.1% |
26 |
1.3% |
2.2% |
|
Self-motivation, aggressiveness |
1.7% |
1.2% |
14 |
0.7% |
1.2% |
|
Maturity / stability |
0.6% |
1.2% |
14 |
0.7% |
1.1% |
|
Financial management |
0.5%* |
0.4% |
13 |
0.6% |
1.0%* |
|
Humble / sympathy |
0.7% |
1.2% |
11 |
0.6% |
0.9% |
|
Politeness |
1.0% |
1.2% |
9 |
0.5% |
0.8% |
|
Political awareness / participation |
1.2% |
1.4% |
9 |
0.4% |
0.7% |
|
Social awareness |
0.9% |
0.7% |
8 |
0.4% |
0.6% |
|
Leadership skills |
0.6% |
0.1%* |
6 |
0.3% |
0.5%* |
|
Utilitarian / materialistic |
0.6% |
1.0% |
5 |
0.2% |
0.4% |
|
Computer proficiency |
-- |
-- |
1 |
0.1% |
0.1% |
|
Nothing |
4.2% |
4.6% |
66 |
3.4% |
5.4% |
|
Others |
4.3% |
4.4% |
44 |
2.2% |
3.6% |
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
25.2% |
17.2%** |
181 |
9.2% |
14.9% |
|
Total |
1,975 |
100.0% |
|||
|
Base |
1,216 |
1,199 |
1,218 |
||
|
Missing case(s) |
2 |
2 |
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 16% of the total sample, i.e. 194 respondents had such authority in one way or another. This percentage is nearly the same as last year (Table 10). |
Table 10 - Involvement in Recruitment of New Staff (Teachers included) |
|
2013 Survey |
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
|
|
Percentage |
Percentage |
Percentage |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
18.6% |
16.2% |
16.3% |
194 |
15.9% |
No |
81.4% |
83.8% |
83.7% |
1025 |
84.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
1,218 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
1,218 |
1,218 |
1,201 |
1,222 |
|
Missing case(s) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
|
These respondents were further asked which institution’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. In this year, graduates of CUHK ranked first, as chosen by 16% of these employers whereas PolyU and HKUST came second and third with 13% each. Meanwhile, graduates from HKU were preferred by 10% of this sub-sample. Another 37% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 1% 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 7.2 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11). |
Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates |
2013 Survey |
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
|||
% of potential employers (Base = 226) |
% of potential employers (Base = 195) |
% of potential employers (Base = 195) |
Freq. |
% of potential employers (Base = 194 ) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,222) |
|
CUHK |
19.4% |
14.5% |
18.2% |
31 |
15.8 % |
2.5% |
PolyU |
16.3% |
10.4%* |
7.3% |
26 |
13.5 %* |
2.1% |
HKUST |
11.8% |
12.5% |
16.5% |
25 |
13.1 % |
2.1% |
HKU |
19.2% |
19.8% |
13.8% |
20 |
10.1 % |
1.6% |
|
||||||
CityU |
2.3% |
3.0% |
2.6% |
5 |
2.7 % |
0.4% |
HKBU |
2.0% |
1.8% |
2.1% |
5 |
2.5 % |
0.4% |
EdUHK[16] |
0.5% |
0.5% |
0.9% |
2 |
0 .9 % |
0.1% |
HKSYU |
2.0% |
0.2%* |
1.0% |
1 |
0 .4 % |
0.1% |
LU |
0.8% |
0.5% |
1.7% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OUHK |
-- |
0.8% |
0.3% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
||||||
Other overseas universities |
1.2% |
1.3% |
1.5% |
1 |
0 .7 % |
0.1% |
Others |
0.5% |
-- |
1.5% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
|
||||||
No preference |
12.9%** |
25.9%** |
23.4% |
72 |
37.0 %** |
5.9% |
Don’t know / hard to say |
8.2% |
4.9% |
3.4% |
1 |
0 .6 % |
0.1% |
Won’t employ graduates |
2.9% |
3.9% |
5.7% |
5 |
2.8 % |
0.4% |
|
||||||
Total |
194 |
100.0% |
||||
Valid Base |
226 |
197 |
196 |
194 |
||
Missing case(s) |
0 |
2 |
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 36% of the sub-sample (i.e. 3% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” and “good work attitude” of university came second and third with 28% and 17% respectively (i.e. 3% and 2% of the total sample respectively). Graduates’ “diligence, motivation”, “reputation” and “good social relationship” formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 13%, 12% and 10% (i.e. each accounted for 1% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like “good language ability”, “good moral character”, be “alumni” of the potential employers, “good academic ability”, “good connection with outside”, “good leadership” and “salary matched with abilities” were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12). |
Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular Institution |
|
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
|||
|
% of valid respondents (Base = 127) |
% of valid respondents (Base = 131) |
Freq. |
% of total responses |
% of valid respondents (Base = 115) |
% of total sample |
Good performance of previous graduates |
36.3% |
33.0% |
41 |
23.5% |
35.5% |
3.4% |
Good knowledge in job-related areas |
19.9% |
20.7% |
32 |
18.4% |
27.7% |
2.6% |
Good work attitude |
10.3% |
14.7% |
19 |
11.0% |
16.6% |
1.6% |
Diligent, motivated |
6.1% |
8.4% |
16 |
8.9% |
13.5% |
1.3% |
Reputation |
14.7% |
12.6% |
14 |
7.9% |
11.9% |
1.1% |
Good social relationship |
3.7% |
4.4% |
11 |
6.6% |
9.9% |
0.9% |
Good language ability |
5.5% |
3.5% |
9 |
5.0% |
7.5% |
0.7% |
Good moral character |
13.6% |
10.4% |
8 |
4.6% |
7.0% |
0.7% |
Alumni |
10.7% |
8.3% |
7 |
4.0% |
6.0% |
0.6% |
Good academic ability |
4.4% |
7.0% |
4 |
2.4% |
3.7% |
0.3% |
Good connection with outside (e.g., a university’s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates) |
6.5% |
2.7% |
4 |
2.2% |
3.4% |
0.3% |
Good leadership |
1.4% |
1.5% |
2 |
1.2% |
1.8% |
0.2% |
Salary matched with abilities |
-- |
1.7% |
2 |
1.2% |
1.8% |
0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Others |
3.2% |
3.8% |
3 |
1.9% |
2.9% |
0.3% |
No specific reasons |
-- |
1.8% |
1 |
0.4% |
0.7% |
0.1% |
Don’t know / hard to say |
-- |
-- |
1 |
0.7% |
1.0% |
0.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
174 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valid Base |
127 |
131 |
115 |
|
|
|
Missing case(s) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2016 |
