Frequency TablesBack
[Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each university in Hong Kong while taking its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, overall performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of the courses into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate (eight universities in rotation)?
| Average | Standard error | No. of raters | Recognition(No. of raters/ total sample) | |
| 1. HKU | 7.89 | 0.05 | 746 | 72.8% |
| 2. CUHK | 7.55 | 0.05 | 747 | 72.9% |
| 3. HKUST | 7.14 | 0.05 | 694 | 67.7% |
| 4. PolyU | 6.83 | 0.05 | 720 | 70.2% |
| 5. HKBU | 6.31 | 0.05 | 682 | 66.5% |
| 6. CityU | 6.04 | 0.05 | 660 | 64.4% |
| 7. HKIEd | 5.82 | 0.06 | 601 | 58.6% |
| 8. Lingnan | 5.57 | 0.06 | 633 | 61.8% |
[Q2] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the level of transparency of each university while taking its performance in consulting its students and teaching staff, releasing information to the mass media as well as explaining to the public and collecting public opinions when carrying out new policies and reforms into consideration, with 0 representing absolutely non-transparent, 10 representing absolutely transparent and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the level of transparency of (eight universities in rotation)?
| Average | Standard error | No. of raters | Recognition(No. of raters/ total sample) | |
| 1. HKU | 6.63 | 0.07 | 635 | 62.0% |
| 2. CUHK | 6.59 | 0.07 | 626 | 61.1% |
| 3. HKUST | 6.25 | 0.07 | 595 | 58.0% |
| 4. PolyU | 6.23 | 0.06 | 599 | 58.4% |
| 5. HKBU | 5.90 | 0.06 | 576 | 56.2% |
| 6. CityU | 5.84 | 0.06 | 575 | 56.1% |
| 7. HKIEd | 5.60 | 0.07 | 523 | 51.0% |
| 8. Lingnan | 5.58** | 0.07 | 547 | 53.4% |
[Q3] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the contribution made by the teaching staff of each university to society while taking their academic research performance, efforts in promoting university image and upgrading its international ranking, participation in social charities as well as their response and commitment to the needs of society into consideration, with 0 representing minimal contribution, 10 representing maximal contribution and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the contribution made by the teaching staff of (eight universities in rotation)?
| Average | Standard error | No. of raters | Recognition(No. of raters/ total sample) | |
| 1. HKU | 7.26 | 0.06 | 661 | 64.5% |
| 2. CUHK | 7.12 | 0.06 | 651 | 63.5% |
| 3. HKUST | 6.82 | 0.07 | 626 | 61.1% |
| 4. PolyU | 6.57 | 0.06 | 625 | 61.0% |
| 5. HKBU | 6.09 | 0.06 | 595 | 58.0% |
| 6. CityU | 6.00 | 0.06 | 601 | 58.6% |
| 7. HKIEd | 5.90 | 0.07 | 561 | 54.7% |
| 8. Lingnan | 5.66* | 0.07 | 562 | 54.8% |
[Q4] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of Vice-Chancellor/President of each university while taking his/her local and international reputation, approachability to the public, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the Vice-chancellors/Presidents of (eight universities in rotation)?
| Average | Standard error | No. of raters | Recognition(No. of raters/ total sample) | |
| 1. HKUST - Paul C.W. CHU | 7.22 | 0.06 | 597 | 58.2% |
| 2. HKU - Lap-chee TSUI# | 7.16 | 0.06 | 566 | 55.2% |
| 3. CUHK - Ambrose Y.C. KING# | 6.87 | 0.06 | 528 | 51.5% |
| 4. PolyU - Chung-kwong POON | 6.64 | 0.06 | 541 | 52.8% |
| 5. Lingnan - Edward K.Y. CHEN | 6.48 | 0.07 | 590 | 57.6% |
| 6. HKBU - Ching-fai NG | 6.33 | 0.06 | 531 | 51.8% |
| 7. CityU - H.K. CHANG | 6.18 | 0.07 | 488 | 47.6% |
| 8. HKIEd - Paul MORRIS# | 6.07 | 0.07 | 430 | 42.0% |
[Q5] What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university graduates lack of? (Did not read out the answers, multiple responses allowed)
| Frequency | % of total responses (Base = 1,392 responses from 1,008 respondents) | % of total sample (Base = 1,025) | |
| Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua | 190 | 13.7% | 18.5% |
| Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated) | 171 | 12.3% | 16.7% |
| Academic and professional knowledge | 102 | 7.3% | 10.0% |
| Social skills / interpersonal skills | 98 | 7.1% | 9.6% |
| Critical thinking and problem-solving ability | 98 | 7.0% | 9.6% |
| Work experience | 90 | 6.5% | 8.8% |
| Conduct, honesty | 86 | 6.1% | 8.4% |
| Communication skills | 38 | 2.8% | 3.7% |
| Self-confidence | 36 | 2.6% | 3.5% |
| Commitment to society | 33 | 2.4% | 3.2% |
| Global prospect / foresight | 23 | 1.7% | 2.2% |
| Emotion stability | 17 | 1.2% | 1.7% |
| Creativity | 14 | 1.0% | 1.4% |
| Computer proficiency | 4 | 0.3% | 0.4% |
| Others | 92 | 6.6% | 9.0% |
| Don't know/ hard to say | 299 | 21.5% | 29.2% |
| Total | 1,392 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 1,008 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 17 |
[Q6] Apart from the existing subvented tertiary institutions, do you consider the local demand for other private tertiary institutions (such as Hong Kong Shue Yan College or Chui Hai College), or external programmes offered by overseas universities to be high, half-half or low?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| High | 457 | 44.8% |
| Half-half | 115 | 11.2% |
| Low | 215 | 21.1% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 233 | 22.9% |
| Total | 1,019 | 100.0% |
| Base | 1,025 | |
| Missing case(s) | 6 |
[Q7] Under your job specifications, are you involved, in any way, in the recruitment process of new staff?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 192 | 18.9% |
| No | 825 | 81.1% |
| Total | 1,017 | 100.0% |
| Base | 1,025 | |
| Missing case(s) | 8 |
[Q8] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff] Then, have you ever recruited university graduates via the career centre or counseling centre?
| Frequency | Percentage | % of total sample(Base = 1,025) | |
| Yes | 35 | 18.3% | 3.4% |
| No | 157 | 81.7% | 15.3% |
| Total | 192 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 192 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 0 |
[Q9] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff] If you looked for a new employee, which university's graduates would you prefer most? (Did not read out the answers, single response only)
| Frequency | Percentage | % of total sample(Base = 1,025) | |
| HKU | 44 | 23.5% | 4.3% |
| CUHK | 27 | 14.5% | 2.6% |
| PolyU | 23 | 12.0% | 2.2% |
| HKUST | 20 | 10.8% | 2.0% |
| HKBU | 6 | 2.9% | 0.6% |
| Lingnan | 4 | 2.0% | 0.4%* |
| CityU | 1 | 0.7% | 0.1% |
| HKIEd | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Other overseas universities | 3 | 1.6% | 0.3% |
| Others (please specify) | 2 | 1.3% | 0.2% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 22 | 11.8% | 2.1% |
| No preference | 36 | 18.9% | 3.5% |
| Total | 189 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 192 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 3 |
[Q10] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff] Why would you prefer the graduates of the chosen university? (Did not read out the answers, multiple responses allowed)
| Frequency | Percentage | % of total sample(Base = 1,025) | |
| Good performance of previous graduates | 51 | 31.0% | 5.0% |
| Good knowledge in job-related areas | 25 | 15.6% | 2.4% |
| Reputation | 20 | 12.3% | 2.0% |
| Good language ability | 14 | 8.6% | 1.4% |
| Good work attitude | 12 | 7.2% | 1.2% |
| Diligent, motivated | 11 | 6.7% | 1.1% |
| Alumni | 7 | 4.0% | 0.7% |
| Good connection with outside (e.g., a university's extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates) | 3 | 2.0% | 0.3% |
| Good social relationship | 3 | 1.9% | 0.3% |
| Good leadership | 1 | 0.6% | 0.1% |
| Salary matched ability | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Others (please specify) | 14 | 8.4% | 1.4% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 3 | 1.7% | 0.3% |
| Total | 163 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 192 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 64 |
[Q11] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff] If you looked for a new employee, which would you prefer, Hong Kong graduates or Mainland graduates?
| Frequency | Percentage | % of total sample (Base = 1,025) | |
| Hong Kong Graduates | 105 | 55.0% | 10.2% |
| Mainland Graduates | 30 | 15.5% | 2.9% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 23 | 11.9% | 2.2% |
| No preference | 34 | 17.7% | 3.3% |
| Total | 192 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 192 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 0 |
[Q12] [Only for those who chose "Hong Kong graduates" in Q11] Why? (Did not read out the answers, multiple responses allowed)
| Frequency | % of total responses (Base = 137 responses from 104 respondents) | % of total sample (Base = 1,025) | |
| Preference for "HongKonger" | 59 | 43.0% | 5.8% |
| Better job-related knowledge | 17 | 12.3% | 1.7% |
| More able to bear a global prospect | 15 | 11.0% | 1.5% |
| Higher English proficiency | 12 | 8.5% | 1.2% |
| More familiar with the Hong Kong situation | 9 | 6.4% | 0.9% |
| Better work attitude | 8 | 5.6% | 0.8% |
| More diligent and motivated | 4 | 2.7% | 0.4% |
| Others | 13 | 9.7% | 1.3% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 1 | 0.8% | 0.1% |
| Total | 137 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 105 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 1 |
[Q13] [Only for those who chose "Mainland graduates" in Q11] Why? (Did not read out the answers, multiple responses allowed)
| Frequency | % of total responses (Base = 53 responses from 30 respondents) | % of total sample (Base = 1,025) | |
| More diligent and motivated | 19 | 36.1% | 1.9% |
| Better work attitude | 12 | 23.0% | 1.2% |
| Better language ability and higher Putonghua proficiency | 6 | 11.6% | 0.6% |
| Better performance than Hong Kong graduates | 5 | 8.9% | 0.5% |
| Lower salary | 3 | 6.4% | 0.3% |
| Better job-related knowledge | 1 | 2.2% | 0.1% |
| More familiar with the Mainland situation | 1 | 2.0% | 0.1% |
| Deserves giving a chance to | 1 | 1.9% | 0.1% |
| Others | 4 | 8.0% | 0.4% |
| Don't know / hard to say | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total | 53 | 100.0% | |
| Base | 30 | ||
| Missing case(s) | 0 |
