Summary of FindingsBack


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 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), plus Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK) which was included for the first time. 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, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.22 as rated by 1,158 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.77 as rated by 1,153 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.63 as rated by 1,117 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year』s survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same while the newcomer OUHK ranked last. Among all the institutions, the increments of rating of CUHK and HKUST were tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level, while that of HKIEd was significant at p=0.05 level (Table 3).


Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

 

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.HKU

8.11

0.04

8.07

0.04

8.19*

0.04

8.22

0.04

1,158

96.4%

2.CUHK

7.67

0.04

7.64

0.04

7.55

0.04

7.77**

0.04

1,153

96.0%

3.HKUST

7.38

0.04

7.33

0.04

7.37

0.04

7.63**

0.04

1,117

93.0%

4.PolyU

7.00

0.04

6.90

0.04

6.89

0.04

6.92

0.04

1,134

94.4%

5.HKBU

6.42

0.04

6.34

0.04

6.30

0.04

6.30

0.04

1,119

93.2%

6.CityU

6.26

0.04

6.12*

0.04

6.22

0.04

6.21

0.04

1,093

91.0%

7.HKIEd

5.77

0.05

5.66

0.05

5.72

0.05

5.88*

0.05

1,017

84.7%

8.LU

5.65

0.05

5.51*

0.05

5.54

0.05

5.50

0.05

1,054

87.7%

9.HKSYU

5.57

0.05

5.42

0.05

5.45

0.05

5.44

0.05

1,023

85.2%

10.OUHK#

N.A.

5.43

0.05

1,001

83.4%

# Newly added in 2011.

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.HKU

8.35

0.134

155

8.19

0.059

557

8.23

0.056

443

2.CUHK

7.78

0.129

147

7.70

0.058

559

7.85

0.055

443

3.HKUST^

7.63

0.159

137

7.46

0.068

537

7.83

0.056

439

4.PolyU^

7.34

0.134

142

6.85

0.060

547

6.88

0.053

440

5.HKBU^

6.79

0.132

136

6.24

0.064

538

6.25

0.055

441

6.CityU^

6.73

0.147

128

6.07

0.063

522

6.23

0.057

440

7.HKIEd^

6.55

0.175

105

5.96

0.070

491

5.61

0.066

417

8.LU^

5.97

0.170

120

5.54

0.071

511

5.34

0.065

419

9.HKSYU^

6.17

0.177

115

5.50

0.077

487

5.18

0.066

417

10.OUHK^

6.11

0.194

96

5.57

0.070

486

5.12

0.069

415

^ 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.HKU^

8.35

0.061

353

8.01

0.087

212

7.97

0.158

96

2.CUHK

7.86

0.061

354

7.54

0.086

212

7.75

0.146

96

3.HKUST^

7.82

0.066

348

7.31

0.103

209

7.40

0.173

91

4.PolyU

6.85

0.063

351

6.83

0.095

210

6.98

0.130

93

5.HKBU^

6.11

0.070

352

6.25

0.091

209

6.35

0.124

91

6.CityU

6.20

0.065

346

6.14

0.099

208

6.04

0.132

87

7.HKIEd^

5.67

0.076

328

5.78

0.109

193

5.79

0.142

87

8.LU^

5.32

0.078

335

5.55

0.108

198

5.65

0.183

85

9.HKSYU^

5.22

0.079

332

5.29

0.113

192

5.55

0.165

81

10.OUHK^

5.22

0.079

332

5.56

0.110

193

5.65

0.156

79

^ 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.HKU^

7.95

0.124

92

8.26

0.133

141

2.CUHK

7.89

0.121

92

7.72

0.130

141

3.HKUST^

7.46

0.130

92

7.77

0.141

130

4.PolyU

6.88

0.119

91

6.96

0.130

138

5.HKBU^

6.43

0.121

91

6.33

0.137

131

6.CityU

6.18

0.141

92

6.21

0.132

127

7.HKIEd^

5.67

0.156

85

6.09

0.162

120

8.LU^

5.34

0.160

89

5.50

0.137

127

9.HKSYU^

5.15

0.159

88

5.58

0.161

115

10.OUHK^

5.08

0.175

87

5.31

0.163

117

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

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, newcomer Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list this year with an average score of 7.84 as rated by 990 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and third, with a respective mean score of 7.73 rated by 877 respondents and 7.14 rated by 635 respondents. The next tier included Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU, Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU and Professor Anthony B.L. CHEUNG who ranked forth to sixth attaining a mean score of 6.61, 6.52 and 6.34 respectively. The seventh to tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of HKBU, CityU, LU and OUHK correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 5.96 to 6.29. Most of the performance rating of the Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals registered increase when compared to last year』s, if any. Yet, only four 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 82% (Table 6).

Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals

 

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 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 S.Y. SUNG#

-N.A.-

7.84

0.05

990

82.5%

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.67

0.05

7.58

0.05

7.67

0.05

7.73

0.05

877

73.1%

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN#

-N.A.-

6.87

0.05

7.14

0.06

635

52.9%

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

-N.A.-

6.59

0.06

6.50

0.06

6.61

0.06

545

45.4%

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.61

0.07

6.57

0.06

6.46

0.06

6.52

0.07

564

47.0%

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG

6.25

0.06

6.28

0.05

6.16

0.05

6.34

0.05

734

61.1%

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN#

-N.A.-

6.29

0.06

530

44.1%

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.23

0.07

6.21

0.06

6.17

0.05

6.23

0.06

533

44.4%

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

6.15

0.07

6.07

0.06

6.07

0.06

6.04

0.07

512

42.6%

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG##

-N.A.-

5.96

0.07

504

42.0%

# No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.
## Newly added in 2011.


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, though many scores fluctuated within error margins. 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 S.Y. SUNG

7.94

0.175

117

7.79

0.066

471

7.86

0.066

401

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

8.00

0.167

99

7.71

0.071

407

7.68

0.067

371

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

7.26

0.218

57

7.19

0.089

296

7.08

0.081

281

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

7.02

0.243

41

6.65

0.093

255

6.50

0.076

248

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.85

0.252

57

6.46

0.107

261

6.52

0.096

245

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.80

0.203

75

6.34

0.079

343

6.23

0.080

314

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN^

6.82

0.252

48

6.34

0.089

255

6.12

0.082

226

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.57

0.234

42

6.21

0.100

242

6.20

0.080

248

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^

6.61

0.280

47

6.02

0.101

246

5.95

0.088

217

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

6.66

0.316

43

6.04

0.097

239

5.76

0.099

221

^ 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 S.Y. SUNG

7.92

0.072

319

7.75

0.105

182

7.77

0.188

70

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

7.73

0.073

293

7.52

0.118

159

7.41

0.214

65

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

7.16

0.088

225

6.93

0.147

116

7.05

0.203

50

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.54

0.089

199

6.41

0.165

97

6.79

0.210

39

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.56

0.116

187

6.03

0.161

113

5.96

0.248

36

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.28

0.089

264

6.10

0.126

137

5.94

0.194

59

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN

6.25

0.090

176

6.19

0.144

110

6.26

0.244

35

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.10

0.102

187

6.13

0.142

96

5.97

0.207

38

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

5.92

0.104

169

5.96

0.147

111

6.27

0.289

38

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.76

0.116

174

5.93

0.158

103

5.81

0.218

37

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

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 S.Y. SUNG

7.46

0.155

79

7.96

0.150

122

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

7.30

0.143

67

7.77

0.157

98

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

6.82

0.171

51

7.26

0.221

60

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.43

0.179

44

6.60

0.190

57

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.30

0.200

44

6.83

0.207

61

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.09

0.189

45

6.44

0.165

76

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN

6.18

0.173

41

6.31

0.193

59

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.37

0.155

49

6.31

0.214

57

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

5.87

0.218

41

6.31

0.228

55

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.62

0.246

35

6.31

0.210

57

^ 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 have consistently showed that 「work attitude」 topped the list with 19% of respondents citing it. 「Social/interpersonal skills」 and 「conduct, honesty」 obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 12% and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included 「critical thinking and problem-solving ability」, 「independence」, and 「proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua」, accounting for 8% 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

 

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,208)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 2,026 responses from
1,201 respondents)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated)

20.9%**

23.9%

232

11.4%

19.3%**

Social/interpersonal skills

11.7%

12.5%

143

7.1%

11.9%

Conduct, honesty

12.5%

10.7%

137

6.8%

11.4%

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

8.1%*

8.8%

113

5.6%

9.4%

Independence

6.7%**

7.9%

107

5.3%

8.9%

Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua

13.4%

9.1%**

96

4.8%

8.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitment to society

7.0%

9.3%*

89

4.4%

7.4%*

Global prospect / foresight

10.2%

8.7%

87

4.3%

7.3%

Social/work experience

7.3%

5.8%

76

3.8%

6.4%

Communication skills

4.6%

4.7%

62

3.0%

5.1%

Academic and professional knowledge

9.2%*

4.7%**

59

2.9%

4.9%

Discipline, patience

-

--

57

2.8%

4.7%

Self-confidence

4.6%

5.1%

55

2.7%

4.6%

Emotion stability

2.7%

3.0%

45

2.2%

3.8%

Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions

3.4%**

2.5%

45

2.2%

3.7%*

Civil awareness

3.7%**

4.5%

44

2.2%

3.7%

Self-motivation, aggressiveness

-

--

44

2.2%

3.7%

Creativity

3.6%

2.8%

41

2.0%

3.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

All-roundness

4.7%**

3.5%

34

1.7%

2.8%

Self-expectations / dreams

1.6%

2.7%

30

1.5%

2.5%

Job opportunity

2.3%

2.8%

28

1.4%

2.3%

Humble / sympathy

-

--

24

1.2%

2.0%

Politeness

-

--

22

1.1%

1.8%

Resources / opportunity

-

--

21

1.0%

1.7%

Utilitarian / materialistic

-

--

16

0.8%

1.3%

Financial management

1.9%

0.4%**

13

0.6%

1.1%*

Patriotism

1.1%

1.1%

8

0.4%

0.6%

Leadership skills

0.5%

0.5%

6

0.3%

0.5%

Cultural level / self-cultivation

0.0%

2.2%

--

--

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing

3.6%

3.9%

58

2.8%

4.8%

Others

2.4%

0.7%

32

1.6%

2.6%**

Don』t know / hard to say

15.8%**

17.9%

203

10.0%

16.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

2,026

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,197

1,204

1,201

 

 

Missing case(s)

4

4

0

 

 


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 18% of the total sample, i.e. 221 respondents had such authority in one way or another. This percentage has remained rather stable in the past few years (Table 10).

Table 10 - Involvement in Recruitment of New Staff (Teachers included)

 

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

 

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

16.0%

18.1%

17.3%

221

18.4%

No

84.0%

81.9%

82.7%

980

81.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1,201

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,212

1,201

1,208

1,201

 

Missing case(s)

1

3

0

0

 


These respondents were further asked which institution』s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For ten consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 25% of these employers whereas CUHK and PolyU came second and third with 14% each. Meanwhile, graduates from HKUST were preferred by 12% of this sub-sample. Another 18% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 7% 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 6.7 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).

Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

 

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,213)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,208)

Freq.

% of potential employers
(Base = 220)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

HKU 

3.8%

4.3%

3.6%

55

24.8%

4.5%

CUHK 

1.4%

1.8%

3.0%

31

14.2%

2.6%

PolyU

2.5%

2.8%

1.9%

30

13.5%

2.5%

HKUST 

1.1%

2.4%

1.4%

27

12.4%

2.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CityU^

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

4

1.8%

0.3%

LU

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

3

1.5%

0.3%

HKBU 

0.4%

0.2%

0.4%

2

1.1%

0.2%

HKIEd

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

2

0.9%

0.2%

HKSYU

0.1%

0.4%

0.3%

1

0.5%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other overseas universities

0.5%

0.3%

0.3%

3

1.6%

0.3%

Others

0.4%

0.1%

0.1%

1

0.4%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No preference

3.3%

2.5%

3.6%

40

18.0%

3.3%

Don』t know / hard to say

1.8%

1.9%

1.4%

15

6.7%

1.2%

Won』t employ graduates

0.3%

0.8%

0.5%

6

2.7%

0.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

220

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

194

217

209

221

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

1

0

1

 

 

^ No respondent opted for these categories in respective survey.

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 50% of the sub-sample (i.e. 7% of the total sample). 「Good knowledge in job-related areas」 came second with 22% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). Graduates』 「good work attitude」, 「reputation」 of university and their 「diligence, motivation」 formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 16%, 14% and 12% (i.e. each accounted for 2% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like 「good language ability」, 「alumni」 and 「good social relationship」 were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12).

Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular Institution

 

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,208)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 236 responses from 157 respondents)

% of valid respondents (Base = 157)

% of total sample
(Base = 1,201)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good performance of previous graduates

5.0%

3.5%

79

33.3%

50.0%

6.5%

Good knowledge in job-related areas

3.4%

3.8%

35

14.7%

22.1%

2.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good work attitude

1.1%

2.0%

25

10.8%

16.2%

2.1%

Reputation

2.6%

2.5%

22

9.5%

14.2%

1.9%

Diligent, motivated

1.1%

1.2%

18

7.7%

11.5%

1.5%

Good language ability

1.1%

1.1%

14

6.1%

9.1%

1.2%

Alumni

0.8%

1.1%

10

4.1%

6.1%

0.8%

Good social relationship

0.6%

1.0%

7

2.9%

4.3%

0.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good connection with outside (e.g., a university』s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)

0.3%

0.6%

7

2.8%

4.2%

0.5%

Salary matched with abilities

0.1%

0.4%

7

2.8%

4.2%

0.5%

Good leadership

0.1%

0.5%

2

0.8%

1.2%

0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others

1.0%

0.3%

10

4.1%

6.1%

0.8%

Don』t know / hard to say

0.0%

0.1%

1

0.5%

0.8%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

236

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

154

142

157

 

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

0

2

 

 

 


Chart - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2011