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 third time since 2011. 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 8.07 as rated by 1,165 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.75 as rated by 1,158 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.44 as rated by 1,114 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 (Table 3).

Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

	2010 Survey		2011 Survey		2012 Survey		2013 Survey
	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample)
1.HKU	8.19*	0.04	8.22	0.04	8.03**	0.04	8.07	0.05	1,165	95.6%
2.CUHK	7.55	0.04	7.77**	0.04	7.72	0.04	7.75	0.05	1,158	95.1%
3.HKUST	7.37	0.04	7.63**	0.04	7.54	0.04	7.44	0.05	1,114	91.4%
4.PolyU	6.89	0.04	6.92	0.04	6.98	0.04	6.99	0.04	1,136	93.2%
5.HKBU	6.30	0.04	6.30	0.04	6.35	0.04	6.29	0.05	1,087	89.2%
6.CityU	6.22	0.04	6.21	0.04	6.22	0.04	6.21	0.05	1,090	89.5%
7.HKIEd	5.72	0.05	5.88*	0.05	5.75	0.05	5.84	0.05	997	81.8%
8.LU	5.54	0.05	5.50	0.05	5.58	0.05	5.47	0.05	1,040	85.4%
9.HKSYU	5.45	0.05	5.44	0.05	5.50	0.05	5.41	0.06	982	80.6%
10.OUHK^#	-N.A.-		5.43	0.05	5.34	0.05	5.34	0.05	971	79.8%

# 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

8.20

0.172

127

8.09

0.066

536

8.02

0.065

500

2.CUHK

7.96

0.180

122

7.70

0.065

533

7.74

0.065

501

3.HKUST

7.57

0.177

111

7.33

0.072

507

7.52

0.063

493

4.PolyU^

7.43

0.171

119

7.00

0.064

518

6.87

0.057

496

5.HKBU^

6.66

0.198

106

6.36

0.070

497

6.14

0.062

482

6.CityU

6.49

0.209

106

6.16

0.073

493

6.20

0.063

489

7.HKIEd^

6.45

0.225

6.01

0.081

448

5.57

0.071

459

8.LU

6.10

0.229

5.51

0.080

471

5.29

0.073

470

9.HKSYU^

5.96

0.242

5.57

0.086

439

5.15

0.074

455

10.OUHK^

6.05

0.238

5.53

0.079

428

5.05

0.073

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

7.99

0.070

373

7.98

0.098

225

8.06

0.203

2.CUHK

7.78

0.069

371

7.62

0.099

225

7.81

0.219

3.HKUST

7.52

0.072

364

7.24

0.104

216

7.27

0.238

4.PolyU

6.87

0.066

368

6.97

0.097

220

6.81

0.211

5.HKBU^

6.08

0.074

362

6.26

0.100

211

6.34

0.219

6.CityU

6.06

0.077

362

6.19

0.095

209

6.10

0.232

7.HKIEd^

5.55

0.086

342

5.91

0.109

195

6.18

0.252

8.LU

5.22

0.086

351

5.48

0.120

201

5.66

0.247

9.HKSYU^

5.15

0.091

337

5.47

0.114

189

5.73

0.292

10.OUHK^

5.04

0.087

348

5.43

0.107

189

5.96

0.238

^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

7.93

0.130

8.26

0.129

157

2.CUHK

7.77

0.124

7.85

0.118

152

3.HKUST

7.41

0.134

7.62

0.142

140

4.PolyU

6.91

0.128

7.24

0.126

145

5.HKBU^

6.37

0.139

6.67

0.137

137

6.CityU

6.30

0.139

6.35

0.165

135

7.HKIEd^

5.68

0.156

6.24

0.154

122

8.LU^

5.33

0.157

5.61

0.157

123

9.HKSYU^

5.21

0.168

5.65

0.173

10.OUHK^

5.05

0.145

5.63

0.157

103

^ 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 again topped the list this year with an average score of 7.94 as rated by 1,024 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and third, with a respective mean score of 7.47 rated by 996 respondents and 6.97 rated by 685 respondents. The next tier included Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU, Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU, and Professor Albert Chan of HKBU who ranked forth to sixth attaining a mean score of 6.61, 6.33 and 6.22 respectively. The seventh to tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of CityU, HKIEd, OUHK and LU correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 5.85 to 6.03. Only two out of ten Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals had obtained recognition rates of 60% or above. Of which, Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK received the highest recognition rate of 84%, while Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed closely with 82% (Table 6).

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

	2010 Survey		2011 Survey		2012 Survey		2013 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	7.94**	0.04	1,024	84.1%
2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.67	0.05	7.73	0.05	7.17**	0.05	7.47**	0.05	996	81.8%
3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.87	0.05	7.14	0.06	6.96*	0.06	6.97	0.06	685	56.3%
4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	6.50	0.06	6.61	0.06	6.46	0.06	6.61	0.06	670	55.0%
5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.46	0.06	6.52	0.07	6.64	0.07	6.33**	0.07	609	50.0%
6. HKBU – Albert CHAN#	-N.A.-		6.29	0.06	6.19	0.07	6.22	0.06	724	59.4%
7. CityU – Way KUO	6.17	0.05	6.23	0.06	6.12	0.07	6.03	0.07	628	51.6%
8. HKIEd – Yin-cheong CHENG#	-N.A.-						5.94	0.07	569	46.7%
9. OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG##	-N.A.-		5.96	0.07	5.97	0.07	5.87	0.07	566	46.5%
10. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	6.07	0.06	6.04	0.07	6.04	0.07	5.85*	0.07	646	53.0%

#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. 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^

8.25

0.161

110

7.93

0.064

459

7.88

0.061

454

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

8.00

0.177

7.47

0.078

450

7.36

0.070

447

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN ^

7.58

0.245

7.05

0.092

294

6.80

0.079

330

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

7.48

0.267

6.59

0.091

303

6.45

0.081

305

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.90

0.266

6.43

0.106

260

6.14

0.105

296

6. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

7.11

0.248

6.29

0.088

324

5.98

0.094

334

7. CityU – Way KUO^

6.64

0.283

6.05

0.105

275

5.89

0.092

297

8. HKIEd – Yin-cheong CHENG^

6.90

0.322

6.02

0.113

238

5.70

0.091

280

9. OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

6.56

0.301

5.96

0.099

240

5.69

0.095

279

10. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^

6.70

0.265

5.89

0.096

287

5.65

0.093

299

^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^

7.83

0.075

339

7.88

0.099

198

7.83

0.218

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

7.29

0.083

336

7.36

0.119

192

7.56

0.251

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN ^

6.74

0.091

241

6.86

0.135

141

7.02

0.304

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.30

0.094

233

6.78

0.128

137

6.83

0.295

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.09

0.131

215

6.26

0.137

120

6.87

0.298

6. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

5.84

0.111

255

6.35

0.120

143

6.78

0.267

7. CityU – Way KUO^

5.76

0.117

224

5.89

0.134

124

6.54

0.286

8. HKIEd – Yin-cheong CHENG^

5.65

0.112

211

5.99

0.153

108

6.45

0.292

9. OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.59

0.112

212

6.05

0.134

111

6.52

0.330

10. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^

5.57

0.110

221

5.77

0.138

122

6.45

0.279

^ 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^

7.73

0.139

8.31

0.113

127

2. HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^

7.00

0.139

7.65

0.153

116

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN ^

6.91

0.130

7.44

0.184

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^

6.48

0.139

6.60

0.241

5. HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^

6.06

0.148

6.67

0.227

6. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

6.06

0.166

6.64

0.174

7. CityU – Way KUO^

6.11

0.147

6.22

0.262

8. HKIEd – Yin-cheong CHENG^

5.94

0.157

6.19

0.246

9. OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^

5.69

0.158

5.97

0.212

10. LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^

5.55

0.168

6.10

0.196

^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 16% of respondents citing it. “Social / interpersonal skills” and “independence” obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 14% and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included “conduct, honesty”, “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, “global prospect / foresight”, “social/work experience” and “commitment to society”, accounting for 8% to 10% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 15% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9).

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

	2011 Survey	2012 Survey	2013 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,199)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 2,045 responses from 1,210 respondents)	% of total sample (Base = 1,210)
Work attitude	19.3%**	18.0%	190	9.3%	15.7%
Social / interpersonal skills	11.9%	13.3%	164	8.0%	13.5%
Independence	8.9%	7.8%	131	6.4%	10.8%*
Conduct, honesty	11.4%	10.2%	121	5.9%	10.0%
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	9.4%	9.5%	120	5.9%	9.9%
Global prospect / foresight	7.3%	8.8%	104	5.1%	8.6%
Social / work experience	6.4%	6.8%	95	4.6%	7.8%
Commitment to society	7.4%*	7.9%	93	4.6%	7.7%

Communication skills	5.1%	7.3%*	71	3.5%	5.9%
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua	8.0%	6.7%	71	3.5%	5.9%
Academic and professional knowledge	4.9%	5.0%	64	3.1%	5.3%
Emotion stability	3.8%	3.9%	54	2.7%	4.5%
Civil awareness	3.7%	3.2%	52	2.5%	4.3%
Self-confidence	4.6%	4.8%	50	2.5%	4.1%
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions	3.7%*	2.8%	44	2.2%	3.6%
Creativity	3.4%	4.1%	39	1.9%	3.2%
All-roundness	2.8%	2.0%	39	1.9%	3.2%
Self-expectations / dreams	2.5%	3.0%	35	1.7%	2.9%

Learning attitude	--	1.7%	25	1.2%	2.1%
Discipline, patience	4.7%	2.1%**	23	1.1%	1.9%
Job opportunity	2.3%	0.7%**	20	1.0%	1.7%*
Resources / opportunity	1.7%	1.0%	20	1.0%	1.7%
Patriotism	0.6%	1.2%	19	0.9%	1.6%
Political awareness / participation	--	0.8%	19	0.9%	1.5%
Financial management	1.1%*	1.3%	16	0.8%	1.3%
Self-motivation, aggressiveness	3.7%	1.5%**	13	0.6%	1.1%
Maturity / stability	--	0.9%	13	0.6%	1.1%
Politeness	1.8%	0.4%**	12	0.6%	1.0%
Utilitarian / materialistic	1.3%	1.4%	12	0.6%	1.0%
Egocentricity / selfishness	--	1.3%	11	0.6%	0.9%
Social awareness	--	1.2%	9	0.4%	0.8%
Humble / sympathy	2.0%	0.7%**	7	0.4%	0.6%
Leadership skills	0.5%	0.7%	7	0.3%	0.6%

Nothing	4.8%	4.3%	59	2.9%	4.9%
Others	2.6%**	3.6%	41	2.0%	3.4%
Don’t know / hard to say	16.9%	20.3%*	183	9.0%	15.2%

Total			2,045	100.0%

Base	1,201	1,199	1,210
Missing case(s)	0	4	8

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 19% of the total sample, i.e. 226 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)

	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey	2013 Survey
	Percentage	Percentage	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage

Yes	17.3%	18.4%	20.0%	226	18.6%
No	82.7%	81.6%	80.0%	991	81.4%

Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	1,217	100.0%

Base	1,208	1,201	1,203	1,218
Missing case(s)	0	0	0	1

These respondents were further asked which institution’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. In this year, graduates of CUHK and HKU both topped the list, as each chosen by 19% of these employers whereas PolyU came third with 16%. Meanwhile, graduates from HKUST were preferred by 12% of this sub-sample. Another 13% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 8% 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

	2010 Survey	2011 Survey	2012 Survey	2013 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,203)	Freq.	% of potential employers (Base = 226)	% of total sample (Base = 1,218)

CUHK	3.0%	2.6%	3.5%	44	19.4%	3.6%
HKU	3.6%	4.5%	3.8%	43	19.2%	3.6%
PolyU	1.9%	2.5%	2.6%	37	16.3%	3.0%
HKUST	1.4%	2.3%	2.3%	27	11.8%	2.2%

CityU	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	5	2.3%	0.4%
HKBU	0.4%	0.2%	0.1%	5	2.0%	0.4%
HKSYU	0.3%	0.1%	0.2%	4	2.0%	0.4%
LU	0.1%	0.3%	0.1%	2	0.8%	0.1%
HKIEd	0.3%	0.2%	0.3%	1	0.5%	0.1%

Other overseas universities	0.3%	0.3%	0.4%	3	1.2%	0.2%
Others	0.1%	0.1%	--	1	0.5%	0.1%

No preference	3.6%	3.3%	4.5%	29	12.9%**	2.4%
Don’t know / hard to say	1.4%	1.2%	1.4%	19	8.2%	1.5%
Won’t employ graduates	0.5%	0.5%	0.4%	6	2.9%	0.5%

Total				226	100.0%

Valid Base	209	221	240	226
Missing case(s)	0	1	0	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 38% of the sub-sample (i.e. 5% of the total sample). “Good work attitude” and “good knowledge in job-related areas” came second and third with 18% each (i.e. each 3% of the total sample). Graduates’ “diligence, motivation”, “reputation” of university, their “good moral character”, and “good language ability” formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 13%, 13%, 10% and 8% (i.e. each accounted for 1% to 2% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like being “alumni” of the potential employers, “good social relationship”, “good academic ability”, “good connection with outside” and “good leadership” were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12).

Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular Institution

	2011 Survey	2012 Survey	2013 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,203)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 247 responses from 172 respondents)	% of valid respondents (Base = 172)	% of total sample (Base = 1,218)

Good performance of previous graduates	6.5%	5.4%	64	26.1%	37.6%	5.3%

Good work attitude	2.1%	2.0%	32	12.8%	18.4%	2.6%
Good knowledge in job-related areas	2.9%	3.2%	31	12.4%	18.0%	2.5%
Diligent, motivated	1.5%	1.4%	23	9.3%	13.5%	1.9%
Reputation	1.9%	2.3%	23	9.3%	13.5%	1.9%
Good moral character	--	0.7%	16	6.6%	9.5%	1.3%
Good language ability	1.2%	0.9%	14	5.5%	7.9%	1.1%

Alumni	0.8%	1.1%	11	4.6%	6.6%	0.9%
Good social relationship	0.6%	0.6%	11	4.5%	6.5%	0.9%
Good academic ability Good moral character	--	0.7%	8	3.2%	4.7%	0.7%
Good connection with outside (e.g., a university’s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)	0.5%	0.3%	7	2.7%	3.9%	0.5%
Good leadership	0.2%	0.2%	2	0.8%	1.2%	0.2%
Salary matched with abilities	0.5%	0.1%*	--	--	--	--

Others	0.8%	0.7%	2	1.0%	1.4%*	0.2%
No specific reasons	--	--	3	1.2%	1.7%	0.2%
Don’t know / hard to say	0.1%	0.5%	--	--	--	--

Total			247	100.0%

Valid Base	157	164	172
Missing case(s)	2	1	0

Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2013

Chart 2 - Most Preferred University Graduates, 2002-2013 (based on respective total sample)