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 8.03 as rated by 1,134 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.72 as rated by 1,128 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.54 as rated by 1,079 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same while OUHK ranked last. Among all the institutions, the increment of rating of HKU was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level (Table 3).


Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

 

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1.HKU

8.07

0.04

8.19*

0.04

8.22

0.04

8.03**

0.04

1,134

94.3%

2.CUHK

7.64

0.04

7.55

0.04

7.77**

0.04

7.72

0.04

1,128

93.7%

3.HKUST

7.33

0.04

7.37

0.04

7.63**

0.04

7.54

0.04

1,079

89.7%

4.PolyU

6.90

0.04

6.89

0.04

6.92

0.04

6.98

0.04

1,106

91.9%

5.HKBU

6.34

0.04

6.30

0.04

6.30

0.04

6.35

0.04

1,068

88.8%

6.CityU

6.12*

0.04

6.22

0.04

6.21

0.04

6.22

0.04

1,043

86.7%

7.HKIEd

5.66

0.05

5.72

0.05

5.88*

0.05

5.75

0.05

970

80.7%

8.LU

5.51*

0.05

5.54

0.05

5.50

0.05

5.58

0.05

1,002

83.3%

9.HKSYU

5.42

0.05

5.45

0.05

5.44

0.05

5.50

0.05

968

80.5%

10.OUHK#

N.A.

5.43

0.05

5.34

0.05

961

79.9%

# 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

7.86

0.159

133

8.09

0.064

493

8.03

0.055

507

2.CUHK

7.62

0.138

136

7.68

0.062

484

7.77

0.052

507

3.HKUST^

7.22

0.169

111

7.50

0.068

471

7.65

0.056

495

4.PolyU^

6.95

0.161

121

7.02

0.064

484

6.94

0.054

500

5.HKBU^

6.48

0.170

110

6.42

0.064

465

6.26

0.056

493

6.CityU^

6.55

0.181

107

6.20

0.070

450

6.17

0.056

486

7.HKIEd^

6.12

0.205

84

5.85

0.078

420

5.59

0.066

466

8.LU^

5.91

0.212

95

5.63

0.077

437

5.46

0.064

468

9.HKSYU^

6.08

0.219

82

5.63

0.078

422

5.28

0.069

463

10.OUHK^

6.17

0.212

78

5.55

0.078

413

5.03

0.075

469

^ 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^

8.02

0.059

395

8.06

0.089

235

7.77

0.204

67

2.CUHK

7.73

0.059

392

7.73

0.080

234

7.43

0.176

69

3.HKUST^

7.65

0.063

390

7.42

0.091

225

7.22

0.182

69

4.PolyU

6.87

0.061

393

7.01

0.083

231

6.98

0.214

68

5.HKBU^

6.22

0.061

392

6.40

0.084

227

6.16

0.182

66

6.CityU

6.09

0.067

380

6.15

0.093

216

6.03

0.188

62

7.HKIEd^

5.58

0.070

366

5.77

0.101

211

5.76

0.228

54

8.LU^

5.42

0.076

371

5.58

0.104

210

5.59

0.192

62

9.HKSYU^

5.27

0.078

364

5.54

0.100

200

5.62

0.215

58

10.OUHK^

5.06

0.075

375

5.37

0.115

207

5.49

0.206

48

^ 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^

7.82

0.147

82

8.07

0.146

131

2.CUHK

7.83

0.147

82

7.64

0.144

126

3.HKUST^

7.41

0.154

80

7.53

0.165

116

4.PolyU

6.84

0.159

82

6.98

0.133

118

5.HKBU^

6.34

0.147

79

6.57

0.146

113

6.CityU

6.28

0.150

82

6.42

0.146

110

7.HKIEd^

5.95

0.172

76

5.99

0.181

89

8.LU^

5.32

0.162

76

5.84

0.178

97

9.HKSYU^

5.14

0.187

76

5.87

0.181

93

10.OUHK^

4.81

0.199

79

5.84

0.183

87

^ 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, Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list this year with an average score of 7.65 as rated by 1,015 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and third, with a respective mean score of 7.17 rated by 1,005 respondents and 6.96 rated by 622 respondents. The next tier included Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU, Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU and Professor Anthony B.L. CHEUNG who ranked forth to sixth attaining a mean score of 6.64, 6.46 and 6.32 respectively. The seventh to tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of HKBU, CityU, LU and OUHK correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 5.97 to 6.19. Most of the performance rating of the Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals registered decrease when compared to last year’s, if any. Only six 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 84% (Table 6).


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

 

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 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

7.65**

0.04

1,015

84.4%

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.58

0.05

7.67

0.05

7.73

0.05

7.17**

0.05

1,005

83.6%

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN#

-N.A.-

6.87

0.05

7.14

0.06

6.96*

0.06

622

51.7%

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.57

0.06

6.46

0.06

6.52

0.07

6.64

0.07

604

50.2%

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.59

0.06

6.50

0.06

6.61

0.06

6.46

0.06

575

47.8%

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG

6.28

0.05

6.16

0.05

6.34

0.05

6.32

0.06

776

64.5%

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN#

-N.A.-

6.29

0.06

6.19

0.07

615

51.1%

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.21

0.06

6.17

0.05

6.23

0.06

6.12

0.07

536

44.6%

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

6.07

0.06

6.07

0.06

6.04

0.07

6.04

0.07

516

42.9%

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG##

-N.A.-

5.96

0.07

5.97

0.07

496

41.2%

# 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

7.68

0.162

103

7.69

0.064

433

7.62

0.062

479

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI

7.44

0.173

105

7.22

0.080

423

7.07

0.074

476

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

7.20

0.255

42

7.09

0.090

254

6.83

0.084

325

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

7.41

0.282

51

6.54

0.103

254

6.58

0.094

298

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG

6.87

0.249

47

6.58

0.098

235

6.31

0.082

292

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.72

0.218

66

6.38

0.081

331

6.21

0.079

378

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN^

6.59

0.245

51

6.27

0.098

243

6.10

0.093

320

8.CityU – Way KUO

6.65

0.340

37

6.26

0.101

209

5.97

0.088

289

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^

6.87

0.342

38

6.05

0.099

215

5.91

0.100

263

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

6.53

0.364

37

6.04

0.102

206

5.84

0.102

251

^ 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

7.59

0.068

370

7.67

0.089

207

7.27

0.230

56

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

7.02

0.081

373

7.10

0.116

204

7.07

0.213

60

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

6.90

0.085

258

6.82

0.130

134

6.65

0.266

36

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.49

0.104

233

6.43

0.132

130

6.23

0.324

30

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.22

0.093

233

6.48

0.117

120

6.23

0.329

34

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.25

0.083

304

6.26

0.106

163

5.86

0.231

42

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN

6.09

0.104

248

6.24

0.132

134

5.96

0.254

34

8.CityU – Way KUO

5.94

0.096

229

6.13

0.142

118

5.71

0.241

31

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

5.89

0.104

212

6.01

0.140

106

5.90

0.309

29

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.77

0.112

206

6.12

0.119

106

5.74

0.297

28

^ 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

0.170

73

7.72

0.145

111

2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

6.49

0.209

74

7.41

0.166

101

3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

6.18

0.248

47

7.79

0.211

44

4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.07

0.272

40

7.12

0.237

53

5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.04

0.247

46

6.93

0.199

43

6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^

6.15

0.253

48

6.60

0.192

70

7.HKBU – Albert CHAN

5.90

0.238

46

6.33

0.252

51

8.CityU – Way KUO

5.97

0.256

43

6.56

0.287

37

9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

5.53

0.253

40

6.31

0.249

42

10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.36

0.283

36

6.51

0.243

40

^ 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 18% of respondents citing it. “Social/interpersonal skills” and “conduct, honesty” obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 13% and 10% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, “global prospect / foresight”, “commitment to society”, and “independence”, accounting for 8% to 10% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 20% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9).


Table 9 – Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

 

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,208)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 2,040 responses from
1,199 respondents)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,199)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work attitude

23.9%

19.3%**

216

10.6%

18.0%

Social/interpersonal skills

12.5%

11.9%

159

7.8%

13.3%

Conduct, honesty

10.7%

11.4%

122

6.0%

10.2%

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

8.8%

9.4%

114

5.6%

9.5%

Global prospect / foresight

8.7%

7.3%

106

5.2%

8.8%

Commitment to society

9.3%*

7.4%*

95

4.6%

7.9%

Independence

7.9%

8.9%

93

4.6%

7.8%

Communication skills

4.7%

5.1%

88

4.3%

7.3%*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social/work experience

5.8%

6.4%

81

4.0%

6.8%

Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua

9.1%**

8.0%

80

3.9%

6.7%

Academic and professional knowledge

4.7%**

4.9%

60

2.9%

5.0%

Self-confidence

5.1%

4.6%

58

2.8%

4.8%

Creativity

2.8%

3.4%

49

2.4%

4.1%

Emotion stability

3.0%

3.8%

47

2.3%

3.9%

Civil awareness

4.5%

3.7%

38

1.9%

3.2%

Self-expectations / dreams

2.7%

2.5%

36

1.7%

3.0%

Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions

2.5%

3.7%*

33

1.6%

2.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discipline, patience

--

4.7%

25

1.2%

2.1%**

All-roundness

3.5%

2.8%

24

1.2%

2.0%

Learning attitude

--

--

21

1.0%

1.7%

Self-motivation, aggressiveness

--

3.7%

18

0.9%

1.5%**

Utilitarian / materialistic

--

1.3%

17

0.8%

1.4%

Financial management

0.4%**

1.1%*

16

0.8%

1.3%

Egocentricity / selfishness

--

--

15

0.7%

1.3%

Patriotism

1.1%

0.6%

15

0.7%

1.2%

Social awareness

--

--

14

0.7%

1.2%

Resources / opportunity

--

1.7%

11

0.6%

1.0%

Maturity / stability

--

--

11

0.5%

0.9%

Political awareness / participation

--

--

10

0.5%

0.8%

Leadership skills

0.5%

0.5%

8

0.4%

0.7%

Humble / sympathy

--

2.0%

8

0.4%

0.7%**

Job opportunity

2.8%

2.3%

8

0.4%

0.7%**

Politeness

--

1.8%

5

0.3%

0.4%**

Cultural level / self-cultivation

2.2%

--

--

--

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing

3.9%

4.8%

51

2.5%

4.3%

Others

0.7%

2.6%**

43

2.1%

3.6%

Don’t know / hard to say

17.9%

16.9%

244

11.9%

20.3%*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

2,040

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,204

1,201

1,199

 

 

Missing case(s)

4

0

4

 

 

 

 


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 20% of the total sample, i.e. 240 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)

 

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

 

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

18.1%

17.3%

18.4%

240

20.0%

No

81.9%

82.7%

81.6%

962

80.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1,203

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,201

1,208

1,201

1,203

 

Missing case(s)

3

0

0

0

 


These respondents were further asked which institution’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For eleven consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 19% of these employers whereas CUHK and PolyU came second and third with 17% and 13% respectively. Meanwhile, graduates from HKUST were preferred by 11% of this sub-sample. Another 23% 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 6.5 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).


Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

 

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,213)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

Freq.

% of potential employers
(Base = 240)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,203)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HKU 

4.3%

3.6%

4.5%

46

19.2%

3.8%

CUHK 

1.8%

3.0%

2.6%

42

17.4%

3.5%

PolyU

2.8%

1.9%

2.5%

32

13.2%

2.6%

HKUST 

2.4%

1.4%

2.3%

27

11.4%

2.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HKIEd

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

4

1.5%

0.3%

CityU

0.2%

0.4%

0.3%

3

1.4%

0.3%

HKSYU

0.4%

0.3%

0.1%

3

1.2%

0.2%

HKBU 

0.2%

0.4%

0.2%

1

0.6%

0.1%

LU

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

1

0.5%

0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other overseas universities

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

5

2.0%

0.4%

Others

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

--

--

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No preference

2.5%

3.6%

3.3%

55

22.7%

4.5%

Don’t know / hard to say

1.9%

1.4%

1.2%

17

6.9%

1.4%

Won’t employ graduates

0.8%

0.5%

0.5%

5

2.0%

0.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

240

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

217

209

221

240

 

 

Missing case(s)

1

0

1

0

 

 



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. 5% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” came second with 23% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). “Reputation” of university, graduates’ “good work attitude”, their “diligence, motivation”, and being “alumni” of the potential employers formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 17%, 15%, 10% and 8% (i.e. each accounted for 1% to 2% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like “good language ability”, “good academic ability”, “good moral character” 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

 

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,208)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 241 responses from 164 respondents)

% of valid respondents (Base = 164)

% of total sample
(Base = 1,203)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good performance of previous graduates

3.5%

6.5%

65

26.8%

39.5%

5.4%

Good knowledge in job-related areas

3.8%

2.9%

38

15.8%

23.3%

3.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reputation

2.5%

1.9%

28

11.7%

17.2%

2.3%

Good work attitude

2.0%

2.1%

24

10.2%

15.0%

2.0%

Diligent, motivated

1.2%

1.5%

16

6.8%

10.0%

1.4%

Alumni

1.1%

0.8%

13

5.3%

7.8%

1.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good language ability

1.1%

1.2%

11

4.7%

6.9%

0.9%

Good academic ability
Good moral character

--

--

8

3.5%

5.1%

0.7%

Good moral character

--

--

8

3.5%

5.1%

0.7%

Good social relationship

1.0%

0.6%

7

3.1%

4.6%

0.6%

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

0.6%

0.5%

3

1.3%

2.0%

0.3%

Good leadership

0.5%

0.2%

3

1.2%

1.7%

0.2%

Salary matched with abilities

0.4%

0.5%

1

0.3%

0.5%

0.1%*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others

0.3%

0.8%

9

3.6%

5.2%

0.7%

Don’t know / hard to say

0.1%

0.1%

5

2.3%

3.4%

0.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

241

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

142

157

164

 

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

2

1

 

 

 


Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2012

 

Chart 2 - Most Preferred University Graduates, 2002-2012 (based on respective total sample)