Summary of Findings返回
The aim of the first part of the survey was to study the general public’s perception of the universities 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 universities 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 universities were assessed one by one with regard to their overall performance. |
|
A. Overall Performance of Universities |
|
To begin with, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of these universities 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 universities’ 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 7.50 as rated by 1,135 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.41 as rated by 1,167 respondents, whereas HKU ranked third with a mean score of 7.40 as rated by 1,187 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among seven universities remained the same. Among all the universities, the increment of rating of HKUST, HKU, PolyU, HKBU and OUHK were tested to be statistically significant at p=0.5 level (Table 3).
|
Table 3 - Overall Performance of Universities
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 university as rated by each sub-group, please refer to the tables below (Tables 4-5). |
Table 4 – Cross-tabulation Analyses: University’s 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[2] |
7.74 |
0.069 |
294 |
|
0.084 |
240 |
|
0.229 |
87 |
||
|
2. CUHK[2] |
7.59 |
0.073 |
299 |
|
0.093 |
250 |
|
0.222 |
87 |
||
|
3. HKU[2] |
7.47 |
0.102 |
300 |
|
0.094 |
251 |
6.78 |
0.251 |
90 |
||
|
4. PolyU[2] |
6.90 |
0.067 |
299 |
7.04 |
0.080 |
249 |
6.43 |
0.234 |
85 |
||
|
5. HKBU |
|
0.075 |
292 |
6.51 |
0.081 |
240 |
6.09 |
0.243 |
77 |
||
|
6. CityU[2] |
|
0.077 |
296 |
6.38 |
0.086 |
239 |
5.86 |
0.223 |
85 |
||
|
7. EdUHK[2] |
5.75 |
0.089 |
268 |
6.01 |
0.096 |
220 |
|
0.200 |
69 |
||
|
8. OUHK[2] |
|
0.090 |
282 |
5.73 |
0.097 |
232 |
|
0.194 |
75 |
||
|
9. HKSYU[2] |
|
0.086 |
278 |
5.71 |
0.093 |
231 |
|
0.225 |
69 |
||
|
10. LU |
|
0.079 |
285 |
5.67 |
0.095 |
230 |
5.46 |
0.223 |
83 |
||
| 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[3] |
|
0.171 |
97 |
|
0.109 |
165 |
||
|
2. CUHK[3] |
|
0.125 |
99 |
|
0.125 |
170 |
||
|
3. HKU[3] |
|
0.143 |
99 |
|
0.137 |
171 |
||
|
4. PolyU[3] |
6.86 |
0.129 |
99 |
7.22 |
0.121 |
167 |
||
|
5. HKBU |
|
0.116 |
89 |
6.47 |
0.124 |
159 |
||
|
6. CityU[3] |
|
0.121 |
94 |
6.07[4] |
0.110 |
150 |
||
|
7. EdUHK[3] |
5.93 |
0.146 |
92 |
6.07[4] |
0.127 |
130 |
||
|
8. OUHK[3] |
4.93 |
0.171 |
94 |
5.63 |
0.128 |
132 |
||
|
9. HKSYU[3] |
4.62 |
0.177 |
87 |
5.58 |
0.158 |
140 |
||
|
10. LU |
5.13 |
0.165 |
95 |
5.27 |
0.139 |
149 |
||
[4] In three decimal places, the rating of CityU and EdUHK are 6.075 and 6.069.
B. Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principals |
With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/President/Principal of each university, 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 7.76 as rated by 1,085 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 6.97, 6.74 and 6.58 as rated by 716, 1,005 and 692 respondents respectively. The next tier included Doctor Henry H.L. Hu of HKSYU, Professor Stephen Y.L. Cheung of EdUHK, Professor Roland T. Chin of HKBU and Professor Way Kuo of CityU who ranked fifth to eighth attaining a mean score of 6.44, 6.27, 6.21 and 6.06 respectively. The ninth and tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of OUHK and LU correspondingly, with respective average scores of 5.89 and 5.53. Eight 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 86.1% (Table 6).
|
Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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 |
7.77** |
0.05 |
7.74 |
0.05 |
7.64 |
0.05 |
7.76 |
0.05 |
1,085 |
86.1% |
||||
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
6.92 |
0.06 |
6.79 |
0.06 |
6.87 |
0.06 |
6.97 |
0.06 |
716 |
56.8% |
||||
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
6.78 |
0.06 |
6.95 |
0.07 |
6.65** |
0.06 |
6.74 |
0.06 |
1,005 |
79.8% |
||||
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG |
6.67 |
0.06 |
6.45* |
0.06 |
6.44 |
0.06 |
6.58 |
0.06 |
692 |
54.9% |
||||
|
5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[5] |
-N.A.- |
6.44 |
0.07 |
725 |
57.5% |
|||||||||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
6.23 |
0.06 |
6.13 |
0.07 |
6.14 |
0.06 |
6.27 |
0.06 |
604 |
47.9% |
||||
|
7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN[5] |
-N.A.- |
6.14 |
0.06 |
6.21 |
0.06 |
649 |
51.5% |
|||||||
|
8. CityU – Way KUO |
6.11 |
0.07 |
6.12 |
0.07 |
5.94 |
0.06 |
6.06 |
0.06 |
638 |
50.6% |
||||
|
9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG |
5.95 |
0.07 |
5.88 |
0.07 |
5.80 |
0.06 |
5.89 |
0.07 |
570 |
45.3% |
||||
|
10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG |
5.79 |
0.07 |
5.55* |
0.08 |
5.57 |
0.07 |
5.53 |
0.07 |
663 |
52.6% |
||||
[5] 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 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 |
7.80 |
0.110 |
230 |
7.73 |
0.065 |
514 |
7.76 |
0.085 |
338 |
|
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
|
0.150 |
136 |
7.03 |
0.078 |
343 |
6.90 |
0.095 |
234 |
|
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
|
0.148 |
202 |
6.75 |
0.078 |
485 |
6.75 |
0.096 |
316 |
|
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG[6] |
|
0.163 |
119 |
6.62 |
0.075 |
346 |
6.35 |
0.095 |
224 |
|
|
5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[6] |
|
0.157 |
141 |
6.37 |
0.094 |
360 |
6.16 |
0.108 |
222 |
|
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
|
0.155 |
106 |
6.34 |
0.087 |
286 |
6.08 |
0.098 |
210 |
|
|
7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN[6] |
|
0.146 |
125 |
6.26 |
0.080 |
313 |
5.95 |
0.102 |
208 |
|
|
8. CityU – Way KUO[6] |
6.39 |
0.163 |
112 |
6.09 |
0.095 |
303 |
5.85 |
0.105 |
221 |
|
|
9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG[6] |
6.33 |
0.168 |
97 |
6.00 |
0.090 |
286 |
5.49 |
0.120 |
185 |
|
|
10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[6] |
6.13 |
0.157 |
112 |
5.60 |
0.094 |
324 |
5.12 |
0.122 |
225 |
|
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] |
7.85 |
0.081 |
283 |
7.84 |
0.096 |
232 |
7.71 |
0.179 |
79 |
|
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
7.06 |
0.096 |
200 |
6.77 |
0.110 |
154 |
|
0.287 |
55 |
|
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
6.81 |
0.102 |
275 |
6.59 |
0.118 |
212 |
|
0.222 |
77 |
|
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG[7] |
6.52 |
0.092 |
194 |
6.40 |
0.105 |
160 |
|
0.244 |
51 |
|
|
5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[7] |
6.38 |
0.110 |
197 |
6.37 |
0.129 |
167 |
|
0.276 |
49 |
|
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
6.25 |
0.109 |
169 |
|
0.123 |
137 |
6.42 |
0.228 |
47 |
|
|
7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN |
6.13 |
0.110 |
179 |
|
0.112 |
152 |
6.36 |
0.263 |
48 |
|
|
8. CityU – Way KUO |
5.95 |
0.111 |
186 |
6.04[8] |
0.119 |
140 |
|
0.283 |
50 |
|
|
9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG |
5.68 |
0.123 |
163 |
6.04[8] |
0.135 |
139 |
|
0.276 |
43 |
|
|
10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[7] |
5.20 |
0.133 |
185 |
5.66 |
0.123 |
151 |
5.95 |
0.291 |
50 |
|
[8] In three decimal places, the rating of Professor Way Kuo of CityU and Professor Yuk-shan Wong of OUHK 6.043 are and 6.039.
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[9] |
7.29 |
0.182 |
92 |
7.88 |
0.100 |
152 |
||
|
2. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN |
6.81 |
0.154 |
68 |
|
0.165 |
86 |
||
|
3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON |
6.65 |
0.157 |
93 |
|
0.131 |
124 |
||
|
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG[9] |
6.13 |
0.176 |
66 |
6.70 |
0.143 |
83 |
||
|
5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[9] |
|
0.177 |
49 |
6.52 |
0.183 |
90 |
||
|
6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
|
0.165 |
53 |
6.42 |
0.159 |
69 |
||
|
7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN |
|
0.176 |
57 |
6.28 |
0.150 |
86 |
||
|
8. CityU – Way KUO |
|
0.198 |
56 |
|
0.216 |
73 |
||
|
9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG |
|
0.226 |
51 |
|
0.166 |
61 |
||
|
10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[9] |
5.42 |
0.202 |
62 |
5.37 |
0.229 |
75 |
||
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 “social / interpersonal skills” and “conduct, honesty” topped the list with 11% of respondents each citing it. “Work attitude” ranked third with 10%. Other commonly-cited qualities included “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, “independence”, “global prospect / foresight”, “emotion stability”, “social / work experience” and “commitment to society”, accounting for 5% to 9% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 17% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9). |
| Table 9 – Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong |
|
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
2017 Survey |
|||
|
% of total sample (Base = 1,199) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,218) |
Freq. |
% of total responses (Base = 1,892 responses from 1,255 respondents) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,255) |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Social / interpersonal skills |
13.8%* |
12.9% |
142 |
7.5% |
11.3% |
|
Conduct, honesty |
10.8%** |
9.1% |
140 |
7.4% |
11.1% |
|
Work attitude |
11.4%** |
14.5%* |
126 |
6.6% |
10.0%** |
|
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability |
11.3%** |
12.0% |
112 |
5.9% |
8.9%* |
|
Independence |
7.3% |
8.5% |
92 |
4.8% |
7.3% |
|
Global prospect / foresight |
8.9%* |
10.6% |
89 |
4.7% |
7.1%* |
|
Emotion stability |
3.7% |
6.6%** |
74 |
3.9% |
5.9% |
|
Social / work experience |
6.9%* |
5.4% |
70 |
3.7% |
5.6% |
|
Commitment to society |
4.6% |
5.8% |
59 |
3.1% |
4.7% |
|
Academic and professional knowledge |
5.5%* |
3.8%* |
56 |
3.0% |
4.5% |
|
Discipline, patience |
2.1% |
2.2% |
54 |
2.9% |
4.3%** |
|
Resources / opportunity |
2.6% |
4.6%** |
53 |
2.8% |
4.2% |
|
Civil awareness |
4.1% |
3.6% |
50 |
2.6% |
4.0% |
|
Creativity |
2.4% |
2.6% |
41 |
2.2% |
3.3% |
|
Self-confidence |
2.8% |
2.5% |
38 |
2.0% |
3.0% |
|
Job opportunity |
2.1% |
2.6% |
36 |
1.9% |
2.9% |
|
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua |
4.7% |
3.3% |
36 |
1.9% |
2.8% |
|
All-roundness |
4.0%* |
4.1% |
35 |
1.8% |
2.8% |
|
Patriotism |
4.1%* |
2.4%* |
35 |
1.8% |
2.8% |
|
Self-expectations / dreams |
2.1% |
2.9% |
33 |
1.7% |
2.6% |
|
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions |
1.5% |
2.4% |
31 |
1.7% |
2.5% |
|
Learning attitude |
1.9% |
2.7% |
28 |
1.5% |
2.2% |
|
Communication skills |
2.9% |
3.4% |
23 |
1.2% |
1.8%* |
|
Politeness |
1.2% |
0.8% |
23 |
1.2% |
1.8%* |
|
Maturity / stability |
1.2% |
1.1% |
20 |
1.1% |
1.6% |
|
Self-motivation, aggressiveness |
1.2% |
1.2% |
20 |
1.1% |
1.6% |
|
Egocentricity / selfishness |
1.3% |
2.3% |
20 |
1.0% |
1.6% |
|
Humble / sympathy |
1.2% |
0.9% |
14 |
0.7% |
1.1% |
|
Utilitarian / materialistic |
1.0% |
0.4% |
10 |
0.5% |
0.8% |
|
Social awareness |
0.7% |
0.6% |
10 |
0.5% |
0.8% |
|
Political awareness / participation |
1.4% |
0.7% |
9 |
0.5% |
0.7% |
|
Leadership skills |
0.1%* |
0.5%* |
2 |
0.1% |
0.2% |
|
Financial management |
0.4% |
1.0%* |
2 |
0.1% |
0.1%** |
|
Computer proficiency |
-- |
0.1% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Nothing |
4.6% |
5.4% |
41 |
2.1% |
3.2%** |
|
Others |
4.4% |
3.6% |
56 |
2.9% |
4.4% |
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
17.2%** |
14.9% |
214 |
11.3% |
17.1% |
|
Total |
1,892 |
100.0% |
|||
|
Base |
1,199 |
1,218 |
1,255 |
||
|
Missing case(s) |
2 |
4 |
5 |
||
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 13% of the total sample, i.e. 169 respondents had such authority in one way or another (Table 10). |
Table 10 - Involvement in Recruitment of New Staff (Teachers included) |
|
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
2017 Survey |
||
|
Percentage |
Percentage |
Percentage |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Yes |
16.2% |
16.3% |
15.9% |
169 |
13.5% |
|
No |
83.8% |
83.7% |
84.1% |
1088 |
86.5% |
|
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
1,257 |
100.0% |
|
Base |
1,218 |
1,201 |
1,222 |
1,260 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
0 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
|
These respondents were further asked which university’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. In this year, graduates of HKUST ranked first, as chosen by 20% of these employers whereas CUHK and PolyU came second and third with 17% and 13%. Meanwhile, graduates from HKU were preferred by 11% of this sub-sample. Another 24% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 4% 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 7.7 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11). |
Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates |
|
|
||||||
|
2014 Survey |
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
2017 Survey |
|||
|
% of potential employers (Base = 195) |
% of potential employers (Base = 195) |
% of potential employers (Base = 194) |
Freq. |
% of potential employers (Base = 168 ) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,260) |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
HKUST |
12.5% |
16.5% |
13.1% |
34 |
20.4% |
2.7% |
|
CUHK |
14.5% |
18.2% |
15.8% |
28 |
16.8% |
2.2% |
|
PolyU |
10.4%* |
7.3% |
13.5%* |
22 |
13.2% |
1.8% |
|
HKU |
19.8% |
13.8% |
10.1% |
18 |
10.6% |
1.4% |
|
|
|
|||||
|
CityU |
3.0% |
2.6% |
2.7% |
3 |
1.8% |
0.2% |
|
HKBU |
1.8% |
2.1% |
2.5% |
3 |
1.6% |
0.2% |
|
EdUHK |
0.5% |
0.9% |
0.9% |
3 |
1.5% |
0.2% |
|
HKSYU |
0.2%* |
1.0% |
0.4% |
1 |
0.7% |
0.1% |
|
LU |
0.5% |
1.7% |
-- |
1 |
0.3% |
<0.1% |
|
OUHK |
0.8% |
0.3% |
-- |
<1 |
0.1% |
<0.1% |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Other overseas universities |
1.3% |
1.5% |
0.7% |
1 |
0 .7 % |
0.1% |
|
Others |
-- |
1.5% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
|
||||||
|
No preference |
25.9%** |
23.4% |
37.0%** |
41 |
24.4 %** |
3.3% |
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
4.9% |
3.4% |
0.6% |
7 |
4.1%* |
0.5% |
|
Won’t employ graduates |
3.9% |
5.7% |
2.8% |
6 |
3.7 % |
0.5% |
|
|
||||||
|
Total |
168 |
100.0% |
||||
|
Valid Base |
197 |
196 |
194 |
169 |
||
|
Missing case(s) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
||
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. 4% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” and “reputation” of university came second and third with 25% and 20 % respectively (i.e. 2% each of the total sample). Graduates’ “good work attitude”, “diligence, motivation” and “good language ability” formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 12%, 6% and 6% (i.e. each accounted for 1% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like be “alumni” of the potential employers, “good social relationship”, “good moral character”, “good academic ability”, “good leadership” and “good connection with outside” were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12). |
Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular University |
|
2015 Survey |
2016 Survey |
2017 Survey |
||||
|
% of valid respondents (Base = 131) |
% of valid respondents (Base = 115) |
Freq. |
% of total responses
|
% of valid respondents (Base = 114 ) |
% of total sample (Base = 1,260) |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Good performance of previous graduates |
33.0% |
35.5% |
46 |
28.3% |
39.9% |
3.6% |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Good knowledge in job-related areas |
20.7% |
27.7% |
28 |
17.7% |
24.9% |
2.3% |
|
Reputation |
12.6% |
11.9% |
23 |
14.3% |
20.2% |
1.8% |
|
Good work attitude |
14.7% |
16.6% |
13 |
8.4% |
11.8% |
1.1% |
|
Diligent, motivated |
8.4% |
13.5% |
7 |
4.5% |
6.3% |
0.6% |
|
Good language ability |
3.5% |
7.5% |
7 |
4.2% |
5.9% |
0.5% |
|
Alumni |
8.3% |
6.0% |
6 |
3.9% |
5.5% |
0.5% |
|
Good social relationship |
4.4% |
9.9% |
6 |
3.6% |
5.1% |
0.5% |
|
Good moral character |
10.4% |
7.0% |
5 |
3.1% |
4.4% |
0.4% |
|
Good academic ability |
7.0% |
3.7% |
4 |
2.7% |
3.7% |
0.3% |
|
Good leadership |
1.5% |
1.8% |
2 |
1.4% |
2.0% |
0.2% |
|
Good connection with outside (e.g., a university’s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates) |
2.7% |
3.4% |
2 |
1.3% |
1.8% |
0.2% |
|
Salary matched with abilities |
1.7% |
1.8% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Others |
3.8% |
2.9% |
4 |
2.7% |
3.8% |
0.3% |
|
No specific reasons |
1.8% |
0.7% |
1 |
0.5% |
0.7% |
0.1% |
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
-- |
1.0% |
6 |
3.4% |
4.9% |
0.4% |
|
Total |
161 |
100.0% |
||||
|
Valid Base |
131 |
115 |
114 |
|||
|
Missing case(s) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|||
Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Universities, 2001-2017 |
