此網頁為2015年的香港大學民意研究計劃檔案網頁,不會再作更新。若需瀏覽最新資料,請到網址 http://hkupop.hku.hk
This is the archived webpage of HKU POP SITE of the year 2015 and no longer updated. For latest information, please visit http://hkupop.hku.hk.

Summary of Findings返回


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 fifth 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 7.58 as rated by 1,110 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.35 as rated by 1,099 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.24 as rated by 1,049 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among eight institutions remained exactly the same while CityU and HKBU were swapped. Yet, all the university ratings dropped and except for CityU, their respective drops were tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level (Table 3).

 


Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

 

2012 Survey

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2014 Survey

 

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1.HKU

8.03**

0.04

8.07

0.05

7.81**

0.05

7.58**

0.06

1,110

92.4%

2.CUHK

7.72

0.04

7.75

0.05

7.54**

0.05

7.35**

0.05

1,099

91.5%

3.HKUST

7.54

0.04

7.44

0.05

7.42

0.05

7.24**

0.05

1,049

87.4%

4.PolyU

6.98

0.04

6.99

0.04

6.97

0.04

6.76**

0.05

1,085

90.4%

5.CityU

6.22

0.04

6.21

0.05

6.28

0.05

6.15

0.05

1,019

84.8%

6.HKBU

6.35

0.04

6.29

0.05

6.42

0.05

6.10**

0.05

1,048

87.3%

7.HKIEd

5.75

0.05

5.84

0.05

6.09*

0.05

5.82**

0.05

954

79.4%

8.HKSYU

5.50

0.05

5.41

0.06

5.89**

0.06

5.59**

0.05

950

79.1%

9.LU

5.58

0.05

5.47

0.05

5.74**

0.05

5.45**

0.05

997

83.0%

10.OUHK#

5.34

0.05

5.34

0.05

5.66**

0.06

5.43**

0.06

934

77.8%

# 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^

7.22

0.152

236

7.51

0.081

540

7.96

0.073

333

2.CUHK^

6.95

0.124

229

7.24

0.078

537

7.81

0.070

332

3.HKUST^

6.96

0.131

204

7.12

0.072

518

7.61

0.064

327

4.PolyU

6.66

0.135

224

6.70

0.071

528

6.92

0.065

331

5.CityU^

5.97

0.117

191

6.12

0.072

500

6.30

0.069

327

6.HKBU^

5.70

0.138

204

6.17

0.078

516

6.23

0.072

326

7.HKIEd

5.79

0.141

164

5.88

0.076

478

5.73

0.081

311

8.HKSYU^
5.77

0.145

172

5.66

0.078

465

5.36

0.087

312

9.LU
5.54

0.147

179

5.49

0.077

499

5.34

0.087

319

10.OUHK^

5.55

0.156

150

5.57

0.078

468

5.16

0.089

315

^ 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^

7.91

0.084

300

7.71

0.126

191

7.33

0.183

121

2.CUHK^

7.70

0.082

299

7.37

0.127

192

7.11

0.155

111

3.HKUST^

7.45

0.080

294

7.35

0.107

186

6.92

0.180

104

4.PolyU^

6.76

0.080

301

6.82

0.111

192

6.73

0.166

111

5.CityU

6.15

0.082

294

6.15

0.114

184

5.93

0.174

96

6.HKBU^

6.19

0.082

294

6.00

0.132

182

6.09

0.205

99

7.HKIEd

5.74

0.093

280

5.74

0.119

164

5.96

0.193

92

8.HKSYU^

5.36

0.097

276

5.56

0.119

166

5.59

0.209

88

9.LU

5.37

0.096

288

5.51

0.124

180

5.54

0.176

96

10.OUHK^

5.29

0.102

280

5.37

0.132

160

5.37

0.195

85

^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^

8.00

0.097

110

7.57

0.148

151

2.CUHK^

7.87

0.103

111

7.01

0.141

150

3.HKUST

7.17

0.135

108

7.16

0.126

134

4.PolyU^

7.11

0.092

110

6.83

0.138

136

5.CityU

6.43

0.106

109

6.30

0.123

129

6.HKBU^

6.53

0.109

109

6.26

0.133

145

7.HKIEd

5.66

0.120

106

6.08

0.136

123

8.HKSYU^

5.46

0.133

104

5.83

0.140

120

9.LU

5.53

0.134

107

5.51

0.132

130

10.OUHK^

5.28

0.120

108

5.76

0.158

116

^ 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 J.Y. Sung of CUHK again topped the list this year with an average score of 7.74 as rated by 1,015 respondents. Professor Peter MATHIESON of HKU, Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST and Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU came second to fourth, with mean scores of 6.95, 6.79 and 6.45 as rated by 803, 656 and 637 respondents respectively. The next tier included Professor Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG of HKIEd, Professor Way KUO of CityU and Professor Albert Chan of HKBU who ranked fifth to seventh attaining a mean score of 6.13, 6.12 and 6.10 respectively. The eighth and ninth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of OUHK and LU correspondingly, with respective average scores of 5.88 and 5.55. Seven out of nine 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 85% (Table 6).

 


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

 

 

 

2012 Survey

2013 Survey

2014 Survey##

2015Survey##

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

Avg.

Std.
error

No of raters

Recognition
(No. of raters/
total sample)

1. CUHK – Joseph J.Y. SUNG

7.65**

0.04

7.94**

0.04

7.77**

0.05

7.74

0.05

1,015

84.5%

2. HKU – Peter MATHIESON#

-N.A.-

6.78

0.06

6.95

0.07

803

66.9%

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

6.96*

0.06

6.97

0.06

6.92

0.06

6.79

0.06

656

54.7%

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.46

0.06

6.61

0.06

6.67

0.06

6.45*

0.06

637

53.0%

5. HKIEd – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG #

-N.A.-

6.23

0.06

6.13

0.07

610

50.8%

6. CityU – Way KUO

6.12

0.07

6.03

0.07

6.11

0.07

6.12

0.07

592

49.3%

7. HKBU – Albert CHAN

6.19

0.07

6.22

0.06

6.31

0.06

6.10*

0.07

712

59.3%

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG#

-N.A.-

5.95

0.07

5.88

0.07

542

45.2%

9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG#

-N.A.-

5.79

0.07

5.55*

0.08

669

55.7%

#No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then.
## The position of Principal for HKSYU was vacant during the survey period, so the respective question was dropped in 2014 and 2015.


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 J.Y. SUNG^

7.50

0.126

193

7.59

0.080

504

8.13

0.077

317

2. HKU – Peter MATHIESON^

7.23

0.171

134

6.80

0.100

394

7.04

0.093

275

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN

7.00

0.175

103

6.69

0.093

332

6.84

0.096

220

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.67

0.163

113

6.47

0.098

317

6.30

0.096

206

5. HKIEd – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG^

6.66

0.170

98

6.15

0.100

308

5.85

0.113

203

6. CityU – Way KUO^

6.64

0.187

101

6.14

0.107

286

5.84

0.112

204

7. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

6.61

0.171

99

6.15

0.092

367

5.84

0.110

245

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG^

6.37

0.187

82

5.96

0.098

278

5.53

0.125

181

9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG^

6.00

0.165

100

5.64

0.108

339

5.21

0.136

229

^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 J.Y. SUNG^

8.03

0.091

286

7.82

0.114

173

7.45

0.156

96

2. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

7.08

0.113

251

6.73

0.150

131

6.76

0.207

83

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN^

6.89

0.107

201

6.60

0.148

109

6.66

0.246

66

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.33

0.109

201

6.63

0.163

100

6.33

0.237

68

5. HKIEd – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

5.99

0.126

199

6.07

0.164

97

6.18

0.219

63

6. CityU – Way KUO^

5.91

0.133

183

6.24

0.173

97

5.98

0.241

62

7. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

5.89

0.125

225

6.20

0.164

117

6.25

0.205

71

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG^

5.65

0.136

175

5.99

0.172

84

5.70

0.228

61

9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG^

5.37

0.146

216

5.46

0.197

108

5.69

0.195

67

^ 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 J.Y. SUNG^

7.88

0.135

106

7.43

0.167

135

2. HKU – Peter MATHIESON

7.04

0.152

90

7.12

0.225

83

3. HKUST – Tony F. CHAN^

6.39

0.166

74

6.90

0.187

68

4. PolyU – Timothy W. TONG

6.36

0.149

73

6.78

0.160

70

5. HKIEd – Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

5.95

0.166

63

6.52

0.165

67

6. CityU – Way KUO^

6.05

0.179

69

6.66

0.172

65

7. HKBU – Albert CHAN^

5.68

0.166

79

6.45

0.186

80

8. OUHK – Yuk-shan WONG^

5.80

0.165

67

6.28

0.200

58

9. LU – Leonard K. CHENG^

5.01

0.223

80

5.89

0.188

75

^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 “social / interpersonal skills” topped the list with 14% of respondents citing it. “Work attitude”, “critical thinking and problem-solving ability” and “conduct, honesty” obtained the second to forth ranks and were mentioned by 11% each of the total sample. Other commonly-cited qualities included “global prospect / foresight”, “independence”, “social / work experience”, “academic and professional knowledge”, “proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua” and “commitment to society”, accounting for 5% 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

 

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

 

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,210)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,216)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 1,886 responses from
1,199 respondents)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,199)

Social / interpersonal skills

13.5%

10.5%*

166

8.8%

13.8%*

Work attitude

15.7%

15.3%

137

7.3%

11.4%**

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

9.9%

6.9%

136

7.2%

11.3%**

Conduct, honesty

10.0%

6.5%*

129

6.8%

10.8%**

Global prospect / foresight

8.6%

6.3%

107

5.7%

8.9%*

Independence

10.8%*

7.5%*

88

4.7%

7.3%

Social / work experience

7.8%

4.9%**

82

4.4%

6.9%*

Academic and professional knowledge

5.3%

3.6%

65

3.5%

5.5%*

Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua

5.9%

5.9%

57

3.0%

4.7%

Commitment to society

7.7%

6.1%

55

2.9%

4.6%

Civil awareness

4.3%

2.9%

49

2.6%

4.1%

Patriotism

1.6%

2.4%*

49

2.6%

4.1%*

All-roundness

3.2%

2.4%

48

2.5%

4.0%*

Emotion stability

4.5%

3.2%

44

2.4%

3.7%

Communication skills

5.9%

3.8%*

35

1.9%

2.9%

Self-confidence

4.1%

3.5%

33

1.8%

2.8%

Resources / opportunity

1.7%

2.9%

31

1.7%

2.6%

Creativity

3.2%

3.3%

28

1.5%

2.4%

Job opportunity

1.7%*

2.1%

25

1.3%

2.1%

Discipline, patience

1.9%

2.0%

25

1.3%

2.1%

Self-expectations / dreams

2.9%

2.5%

25

1.3%

2.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning attitude

2.1%

1.4%

23

1.2%

1.9%

Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions

3.6%

2.6%

18

1.0%

1.5%

Political awareness / participation

1.5%

1.2%

16

0.9%

1.4%

Egocentricity / selfishness

0.9%

1.2%

15

0.8%

1.3%

Politeness

1.0%

1.0%

15

0.8%

1.2%

Self-motivation, aggressiveness

1.1%

1.7%

14

0.8%

1.2%

Maturity / stability

1.1%

0.6%

14

0.8%

1.2%

Humble / sympathy

0.6%

0.7%

14

0.8%

1.2%

Utilitarian / materialistic

1.0%

0.6%

13

0.7%

1.0%

Social awareness

0.8%

0.9%

9

0.5%

0.7%

Financial management

1.3%

0.5%*

4

0.2%

0.4%

Leadership skills

0.6%

0.6%

1

<0.1%

0.1%*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing

4.9%

4.2%

56

2.9%

4.6%

Others

3.4%

4.3%

53

2.8%

4.4%

Don’t know / hard to say

15.2%

25.2%

206

10.9%

17.2%**

Total

 

 

1,886

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,210

1,216

1,199

 

 

Missing case(s)

8

2

2

 

 

 

 


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 16% of the total sample, i.e. 196 respondents had such authority in one way or another. This percentage is nearly the same as last year (Table 10).


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

 

2012 Survey

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

 

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

20.0%

18.6%

16.2%

196

16.3%

No

80.0%

81.4%

83.8%

1,004

83.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1,200

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base

1,203

1,218

1,218

1,201

 

Missing case(s)

0

1

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 ranked first, as chosen by 18% of these employers whereas HKUST and HKU came second and third with 17% and 14% respectively. Meanwhile, graduates from PolyU were preferred by 7% of this sub-sample. Another 23% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 3% 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 7.2 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).


Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

 

2012 Survey

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

 

% of potential employers
(Base = 240)

% of potential employers
(Base = 226)

% of potential employers
(Base = 195)

Freq.

% of potential employers
(Base = 195)

% of
total sample
(Base = 1,201)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CUHK

17.4%

19.4%

14.5%

35

18.2%

2.9%

HKUST

11.4%

11.8%

12.5%

32

16.5%

2.7%

HKU

19.2%

19.2%

19.8%

27

13.8%

2.2%

PolyU

13.2%

16.3%

10.4%*

14

7.3%

1.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CityU

1.4%

2.3%

3.0%

5

2.6%

0.4%

HKBU

0.6%

2.0%

1.8%

4

2.1%

0.3%

LU

0.5%

0.8%

0.5%

3

1.7%

0.3%

HKSYU

1.2%

2.0%

0.2%*

2

1.0%

0.2%

HKIEd

1.5%

0.5%

0.5%

2

0.9%

0.1%

OUHK

--

--

0.8%

1

0.3%

<0.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other overseas universities

2.0%

1.2%

1.3%

3

1.5%

0.3%

Others

--

0.5%

--

3

1.5%

0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No preference

22.7%

12.9%**

25.9%**

46

23.4%

3.8%

Don’t know / hard to say

6.9%

8.2%

4.9%

7

3.4%

0.6%

Won’t employ graduates

2.0%

2.9%

3.9%

11

5.7%

0.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

195

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

240

226

197

196

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

0

2

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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 33% of the sub-sample (i.e. 4% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” and “good work attitude” of university came second and third with 21% and 15% respectively (i.e. each 2% of the total sample). Graduates’ “reputation”, “good moral character”, “diligence, motivation”, being “alumni” of the potential employers and “good academic ability” formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 13%, 10%, 8%, 8% and 7% (i.e. each accounted for 1% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like “good social relationship”, “good language ability”, “good connection with outside”, “salary matched with abilities” 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

 

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015Survey

 

% of valid respondents (Base = 172)

% of valid respondents (Base = 127)

Freq.

% of total responses
(Base = 176 responses from 131 respondents)

% of valid respondents (Base = 131)

% of total sample
(Base = 1,201

Good performance of previous graduates

37.6%

36.3%

43

24.5%

33.0%

3.6%

Good knowledge in job-related areas

18.0%

19.9%

27

15.4%

20.7%

2.3%

Good work attitude

18.4%

10.3%

19

10.9%

14.7%

1.6%

Reputation

13.5%

14.7%

17

9.4%

12.6%

1.4%

Good moral character

9.5%

13.6%

14

7.8%

10.4%

1.1%

Diligent, motivated

13.5%

6.1%

11

6.3%

8.4%

0.9%

Alumni

6.6%

10.7%

11

6.2%

8.3%

0.9%

Good academic ability

4.7%

4.4%

9

5.2%

7.0%

0.8%

Good social relationship

6.5%

3.7%

6

3.3%

4.4%

0.5%

Good language ability

7.9%

5.5%

5

2.6%

3.5%

0.4%

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

3.9%

6.5%

4

2.0%

2.7%

0.3%

Salary matched with abilities

--

--

2

1.3%

1.7%

0.2%

Good leadership

1.2%

1.4%

2

1.1%

1.5%

0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others

1.4%*

3.2%

5

2.8%

3.8%

0.4%

No specific reasons

1.7%

--

2

1.3%

1.8%

0.2%

Don’t know / hard to say

--

--

--

--

--

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

176

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Base

172

127

131

 

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

0

1

 

 

 


Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2015