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

 

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

2016 Survey

2017 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1.HKUST

7.42

0.05

7.24

0.05

7.33

0.05

7.50*

0.04

1,135

90.1%

2.CUHK

7.54**

0.05

7.35**

0.05

7.30

0.06

7.41

0.05

1,167

92.6%

3.HKU

7.81**

0.05

7.58**

0.06

7.20**

0.06

7.40*

0.06

1,187

94.2%

4.PolyU

6.97

0.04

6.76**

0.05

6.78

0.04

6.94*

0.04

1,159

92.0%

5.HKBU

6.42

0.05

6.10**

0.05

6.22

0.05

6.35*

0.04

1,099

87.2%

6.CityU

6.28

0.05

6.15

0.05

6.15

0.05

6.25

0.04

1,109

88.0%

7.EdUHK

6.09*

0.05

5.82**

0.05

5.85

0.05

5.94

0.05

972

77.1%

8.OUHK

5.66**

0.06

5.43**

0.06

5.39

0.05

5.54*

0.05

1,027

81.5%

9.HKSYU

5.89**

0.05

5.59**

0.05

5.47

0.05

5.47

0.05

1,022

81.1%

10.LU

5.74*

0.05

5.45**

0.05

5.41

0.05

5.45

0.05

1,067

84.7%


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

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 [1]

7.39

0.120

231

7.42

0.065

555

7.71

0.062

343

2. CUHK [1]

7.23

0.125

244

7.32

0.068

570

7.69

0.065

345

3. HKU [1]

7.13

0.148

263

7.38

0.080

569

7.62

0.080

347

4. PolyU

7.01

0.123

246

6.94

0.058

557

6.89

0.061

347

5. HKBU [1]

6.56

0.130

219

6.31

0.059

533

6.27

0.066

338

6. CityU

6.17

0.127

222

6.23

0.061

539

6.33

0.067

342

7. EdUHK [1]

6.35

0.153

156

5.90

0.065

485

5.80

0.080

326

8. OUHK [1]

6.00

0.129

168

5.67

0.069

517

5.09

0.082

335

9. HKSYU[1]

5.83

0.153

194

5.49

0.073

493

5.22

0.080

329

10. LU

5.58

0.152

205

5.45

0.064

520

5.36

0.075

335

[1] 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. HKUST[2]

7.74

0.069

294

7.60

0.084

240

6.81

0.229

87

2. CUHK[2]

7.59

0.073

299

7.52

0.093

250

6.95

0.222

87

3. HKU[2]

7.47

0.102

300

7.64

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

6.27

0.075

292

6.51

0.081

240

6.09

0.243

77

6. CityU[2]

6.35

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

5.49

0.200

69

8. OUHK[2]

5.38

0.090

282

5.73

0.097

232

5.78

0.194

75

9. HKSYU[2]

5.35

0.086

278

5.71

0.093

231

5.74

0.225

69

10. LU

5.41

0.079

285

5.67

0.095

230

5.46

0.223

83

[2] 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. HKUST[3]

7.22

0.171

97

7.43

0.109

165

2. CUHK[3]

7.69

0.125

99

7.34

0.125

170

3. HKU[3]

7.68

0.143

99

7.60

0.137

171

4. PolyU[3]

6.86

0.129

99

7.22

0.121

167

5. HKBU

6.18

0.116

89

6.47

0.124

159

6. CityU[3]

6.64

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

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

2014 Survey
2015 Survey
2016 Survey
2017 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 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

6.89

0.150

136

7.03

0.078

343

6.90

0.095

234

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

6.69

0.148

202

6.75

0.078

485

6.75

0.096

316

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG[6]

6.91

0.163

119

6.62

0.075

346

6.35

0.095

224

5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[6]

7.05

0.157

141

6.37

0.094

360

6.16

0.108

222

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.44

0.155

106

6.34

0.087

286

6.08

0.098

210

7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN[6]

6.48

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

[6] 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]

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

6.89

0.287

55

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

6.81

0.102

275

6.59

0.118

212

6.61

0.222

77

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG[7]

6.52

0.092

194

6.40

0.105

160

7.02

0.244

51

5. HKSYU - Henry H.L. HU[7]

6.38

0.110

197

6.37

0.129

167

6.70

0.276

49

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.25

0.109

169

6.18

0.123

137

6.42

0.228

47

7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN

6.13

0.110

179

6.21

0.112

152

6.36

0.263

48

8. CityU – Way KUO

5.95

0.111

186

6.04[8]

0.119

140

6.21

0.283

50

9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG

5.68

0.123

163

6.04[8]

0.135

139

6.28

0.276

43

10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[7]

5.20

0.133

185

5.66

0.123

151

5.95

0.291

50

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

6.88

0.165

86

3. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

6.65

0.157

93

7.05

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]

5.51

0.177

49

6.52

0.183

90

6. EdUHK – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.00

0.165

53

6.42

0.159

69

7. HKBU – Roland T. CHIN

5.97

0.176

57

6.28

0.150

86

8. CityU – Way KUO

5.87

0.198

56

5.90

0.216

73

9. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG

5.64

0.226

51

5.99

0.166

61

10. LU – Leonard K. CHENG[9]

5.42

0.202

62

5.37

0.229

75

[9] 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 “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
(Base = 161 responses from 114 respondents)

% 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