Summary of FindingsBack

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), Lingnan University (LU), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), The Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), and The University of Hong Kong (HKU), order 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 University

First of all, 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 indicated that, in terms of public perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 7.93 as rated by 1,141 respondents, CUHK came 2nd with an average score of 7.25 rated by 1,136 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked 3rd with a mean score of 7.16 rated by 1,089 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from the last survey, no difference was observed in terms of their respective rankings regarding the overall performance of the eight institutions. But for CUHK, the drop in its rating was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level (Table 3).

Same as last year, our cross-tabulation analyses showed that, within each sub-group, the respective rankings of the universities were basically the same regardless of their education attainment and occupation. Only some insignificant differences were observed which were highlighted in square brackets. For actual ratings obtained by each institution as rated by each sub-group, please refer to the tables below (Tables 4-5).

B. Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellor/President

With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/President of each institution, taking into consideration one's local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, it is worth mentioning that all the current Vice-Chancellors/ Presidents rated in this year's survey had obtained recognition rates of over 60% (ranging from 61% to 73%), except for Professor Richard Y.K. Ho of CityU, whose recognition rate was 44% only. Results also revealed that Professor Paul C.W. Chu of HKUST, who came 1st in 2002-04 and 2006, topped the list again with an average score of 7.51 rated by 886 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed behind, who also came 2nd last year, and attained a mean score of 7.46 rated by 867 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Chung-kwong Poon of PolyU, who came 4th last year, became 3rd at 6.83 and rated by 770 respondents. The increase of Professor Poon's score was also tested to be statistically significant at p=0.05 level. The 4th to 8th ranks fell to the Vice-Chancellors/Presidents of CUHK, LU, HKBU, CityU and HKIEd correspondingly, with their average scores ranging from 6.82 to 5.69. Ratings of LU's Professor Edward K.Y. Chen and HKBU's Professor Ching-fai Ng both achieved a statistically significant improvement from 2006 at p=0.01 level, while the drop in the ratings of Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK and Professor Paul Morris of HKIEd were found statistically significant at p=0.01 level. When compared to last year's rankings, the positions of LU and HKBU were swapped (Table 6).

When cross-tabulated by respondent's education attainment and occupation, it is found that slight variations were obtained in terms of the respective rankings of the VCs/Presidents within each sub-group, though most of them fluctuated within the standard error margins. They were highlighted in square brackets for easy identification. Actual ratings obtained by each VC/President as rated by each sub-group can be found from the tables below (Tables 7-8).

C. Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

Same as last year's survey design, a question was then asked to gauge respondents' opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results of this year showed that "conduct, honesty" continued to top the list with 17% of respondents citing it. In the meantime, "work attitude" and "proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua" were also frequently mentioned, by 17% and 14% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included "social / interpersonal skills", "global prospect / foresight" and "critical thinking and problem-solving ability", accounting for 13%, 12% and 12% of the total sample respectively, 20% of the respondents did not give a definite answer (Table 9).

^ In 2005 survey, the wording "university graduates" was used.
^^ No respondent opted for "Computer proficiency" in this survey.
# Expressed in two-decimal places, those who answered "Academic and professional knowledge" should be 123.47, while those who answered "Commitment to society" should be 123.39.

D. Preference for University Graduates

The survey went on to study employers' preference when selecting university graduates. To begin with, all respondents were asked if they were involved in any recruitment process of new staff in performing their office duties. Results showed that 17% of the total sample, i.e. 200 respondents had such authority in one way or another (Table 10).

These respondents were further asked which institution's graduates they would prefer most when they looked for a new employee. Graduates of HKU topped the list once again this year, as chosen by 28% of these employers. Meanwhile, graduates from CUHK, PolyU and HKUST were preferred by 15%, 9% and 9% of this sub-sample respectively. Yet, 17% of these respondents said they had no particular preference and 8% did not give a definite answer. No significant differences were observed, but it has to be noted that because of the small sub-sample, the standard error has increased accordingly to less than plus/minus 3.5 percentage points, i.e. less than plus/minus 7.1 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).

These respondents were then asked to provide some reasons for their specific choices. "Good performance of previous graduates" was most frequently cited by 24% of the sub-sample (i.e. 4% of the total sample). A respective of 15% and 14% (i.e. 3% and 2% of the total sample) preferred certain graduates simply due to the "good knowledge in job-related areas" of the graduates and "reputation" of their university. Other than these, reasons like "good work attitude", "being diligent/motivated" and "good social relationship" were mentioned by some although fewer respondents. These results were fairly similar to those obtained last year (Table 12).