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

 

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

2016 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1.HKUST

7.44

0.05

7.42

0.05

7.24**

0.05

7.33

0.05

1,142

93.4%

2.CUHK

7.75

0.05

7.54**

0.05

7.35**

0.05

7.30

0.05

1,169

95.7%

3.HKU

8.07

0.05

7.81**

0.05

7.58**

0.06

7.20**

0.06

1,180

96.6%

4.PolyU

6.99

0.04

6.97

0.04

6.76**

0.05

6.78

0.04

1,139

93.2%

5.HKBU

6.29

0.05

6.42

0.05

6.10**

0.05

6.22

0.05

1,120

91.6%

6.CityU

6.21

0.05

6.28

0.05

6.15

0.05

6.15

0.05

1,115

91.3%

7.EdUHK[1]

5.84

0.05

6.09*

0.05

5.82**

0.05

5.85

0.05

1,029

84.2%

8.HKSYU

5.41

0.06

5.89**

0.05

5.59**

0.05

5.47

0.05

1,035

84.7%

9.LU

5.47

0.05

5.74**

0.05

5.45**

0.05

5.41

0.05

1,086

88.9%

10.OUHK

5.34

0.05

5.66**

0.06

5.43**

0.06

5.39

0.05

1,037

84.8%

[1] On 27 May 2016, HKIEd was formally renamed The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK). Therefore, in this survey, “HKIEd” was used during the survey period of 12 to 26 May while “EdUHK” was used on 27 May.

 



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. HKUST [2]

7.18

0.141

232

7.25

0.067

569

7.58

0.069

336

2. CUHK [2]

7.09

0.138

255

7.16

0.070

570

7.67

0.070

339

3. HKU [2]

6.77

0.169

263

7.14

0.075

571

7.64

0.076

340

4. PolyU

6.81

0.133

242

6.76

0.060

553

6.80

0.063

338

5. HKBU

6.25

0.153

236

6.21

0.060

545

6.20 [3]

0.072

334

6. CityU [2]

6.36

0.145

228

6.05

0.059

547

6.20 [3]

0.069

336

7. EdUHK

5.97

0.165

182

5.91

0.069

519

5.68

0.086

323

8. HKSYU [2]

5.75

0.148

206

5.55

0.069

500

5.18

0.084

324

9. LU

5.59

0.152

211

5.42

0.065

541

5.28

0.078

330

10. OUHK [2]

5.72

0.173

174

5.51

0.067

528

5.03

0.083

329

[2] Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
[3] In three decimal places, the rating of HKBU and CityU are 6.196 and 6.204.

 


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

7.25

0.168

100

3. HKU [4]

7.44 [5]

0.108

302

7.11

0.101

267

7.33

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

6.18

0.099

254

6.29

0.151

93

6. CityU

6.07

0.081

299

6.30

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

5.54

0.093

258

5.53 [6]

0.150

91

10. OUHK [4]

5.19

0.100

289

5.59

0.097

252

5.37

0.120

95

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

7.35

0.117

104

7.40

0.129

125

2. CUHK [7]

7.70

0.098

104

7.16

0.155

133

3. HKU [7]

7.59

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

5.37

0.141

100

5.66 [8]

0.149

109

9. LU

5.55

0.113

102

5.66 [8]

0.136

119

10. OUHK [7]

5.20

0.118

100

6.00

0.176

105

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

6.72

0.093

244

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON [12]

6.93

0.174

191

6.46

0.082

474

6.74

0.093

308

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG [12]

7.11

0.200

116

6.38

0.081

346

6.16

0.105

221

5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin [12]

6.81

0.180

121

6.05

0.082

340

5.91

0.100

216

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.26

0.193

106

6.12

0.080

358

6.12

0.096

224

7. CityU – Way KUO [12]

6.36

0.199

109

5.88

0.078

331

5.82

0.102

222

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG [12]

6.06

0.224

84

5.86

0.076

317

5.57

0.111

195

9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG [12]

6.24

0.199

138

5.63

0.078

366

5.11

0.119

239

[12] 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 J.Y. SUNG

7.50

0.094

295

7.68

0.107

242

7.30 [14]

0.195

88

2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

6.72

0.101

227

6.86

0.117

173

7.30 [14]

0.219

66

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

6.65

0.112

279

6.78

0.114

212

6.51

0.196

87

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.16

0.109

198

6.48

0.125

160

6.66

0.241

57

5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin

5.99

0.103

194

6.01

0.111

156

6.08

0.244

54

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.10

0.098

211

6.06

0.121

158

6.34

0.235

60

7. CityU – Way KUO

5.78

0.105

198

5.97

0.109

158

6.00

0.248

46

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG

5.61

0.121

174

5.99

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

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

6.69

0.112

78

6.82

0.204

74

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

6.80

0.113

93

6.44

0.232

95

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.39

0.143

71

6.68

0.235

71

5. HKBU –Roland T. Chin

6.18

0.152

65

6.19

0.190

71

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.14

0.139

71

6.31

0.211

66

7. CityU – Way KUO

6.20

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

[15] 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 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

   
[16] On 27 May 2016, HKIEd was formally renamed The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK). Therefore, in this survey, “HKIEd” was used during the survey period of 12 to 26 May while “EdUHK” was used on 27 May.

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
(Base = 174 responses from 115 respondents)

% of valid respondents (Base = 115)

% of total sample
(Base = 1,222

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