Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2006 Presentation of Findings

Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofOpinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofUniversities in Hong Kong 2006Universities in Hong Kong 2006

Presentation of FindingsPresentation of Findings

香港大學民意研究計劃香港大學民意研究計劃The University of Hong KongThe University of Hong KongPublic Opinion ProgrammePublic Opinion Programme

Dr Robert CHUNG Ting-yiuDr Robert CHUNG Ting-yiu27 July 200627 July 2006

• Background information• Demographic profile of respondents• Ratings of universities and their heads• Public perception of graduates• Opinions on selected education policies• Conclusion and FAQs• Q & A session

Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation

BackgroundBackground

HistoryHistory

• Commissioned by Media Education Info-tech Co. Ltd. (MEIT, which owns “Education18.com”) since 2001, this is the 6th survey in the row.

• Key objective is to gauge the general public’s perception of local universities and their opinions on selected education issues.

• The survey questionnaire was designed by HKU POP after consulting MEIT.

• Fieldwork and data analysis conducted independently by POP, but final rankings wholly or partly based on perception figures are compiled independently by MEIT.

• Survey reports of public opinion surveys for all years are available at HKU POP SITE (http://hkupop.hku.hk) for public consumption.

Contact InformationContact Information

Date of survey: May 30 – June 12, 2006Target population: Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong of age 18 or aboveSurvey method: Telephone survey with interviewers Sample size: 1,509 successful casesResponse rate: 58.9%Sampling error: Less than 1.3% Weighting method: Data adjusted according to the gender-age distribution of population at the end 2005

Notes of CautionNotes of Caution• Findings only reflect general public perception of local

universities and their leaders, they are not results of objective appraisals or professional assessments.

• Absolute ratings (i.e. 0-10) are used in the key questions, they are methodologically more powerful than relative rankings, because the score received by an institution in any one year is independent of the scores of other institutions, or its own score in another years.

• Sequence of prompting respondents with the name of eight institutions was randomly rotated to avoid possible bias.

• All respondents have been told at the beginning of the interview that POP was an independent research body.

Demographic ProfileDemographic Profileof Respondentsof Respondents

GenderGender

Female53%

Male47%

Valid samples ： 1,509

Age DistributionAge Distribution

18-20 yrs old5%

50-59 yrs old17%

> 60 yrs old19%

40-49 yrs old24%

30-39 yrs old21%

21-29 yrs old15%


Education AttainmentEducation Attainment

Primary orbelow14%Tertiary or

above35%

Secondary51%


OccupationOccupation

Housewives14%

Professionals andsemi-professionals

28%

Students7%

Production workers10%

Others20%

Clerk and serviceworkers

22%


Public Ratings of UniversitiesPublic Ratings of Universitiesand their Headsand their Heads

Overall Performance of UniversityOverall Performance of University7.94

7.56

7.21

6.81

6.19 6.04

5.55

5.41

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKU CUHK HKUST PolyU HKBU CityU HKIEd LU

2003200420052006

Valid samples (2006) ： 1,192 - 1,419

94% 93% 89% 92% 88% 86% 79% 83% *

* Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample

Cross-tabulation Analyses: Cross-tabulation Analyses: University Ratings vs Respondents’ Education AttainmentUniversity Ratings vs Respondents’ Education Attainment

7.85

7.93 7.99

7.36

7.527.69

7.057.09

7.41

6.91

6.786.81

6.42

6.24

6.04 6.036.07

5.995.87

5.72

5.24

5.445.54

5.22

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKU CUHK^ HKUST^ PolyU HKBU^ CityU HKIEd^ LU^

Primary or belowSecondaryTertiary or above

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

Cross-tabulation Analyses: Cross-tabulation Analyses: University Ratings vs Respondents’ Occupational BackgroundUniversity Ratings vs Respondents’ Occupational Background

7.987.88

7.747.94

7.86

7.69

7.47

7.14

7.79

7.61

7.327.087.01

7.207.22

6.806.71

6.69

6.826.84

6.086.14

6.43

6.146.28

5.996.00

6.136.06

5.85

5.25

5.595.62

5.37

5.74

5.26

5.43

5.63

5.23

5.39

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKU CUHK^ HKUST PolyU HKBU CityU HKIEd^ LU^

Professionals andsemi-professionalsClerk and serviceworkersProduction workers

Students

Housewives

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

Public Ratings of University HeadsPublic Ratings of University Heads

7.57^

7.37

7.09^

6.68

6.35 6.346.24

5.95

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKUST -Paul Chu

HKU - LCTsui

CUHK -Lawrence

Lau

PolyU - CKPoon

HKBU - CFNg

LU - EdwardChen

CityU - HKChang

HKIEd - PaulMorris

2003200420052006

Valid samples (2006) ： 755 – 1,097

73% 72% 62% 65% 62% 71% 57% 50% ** Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample

^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Public PerceptionPublic Perceptionof University Students and Graduatesof University Students and Graduates

Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (I)Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (I)

18% ^17% 16% ^

11% ^ 11%10% 9% ^

8% 8% ^

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%C

ondu

ct/h

ones

ty

Wor

k at

titud

e

Prof

icie

ncy

in C

hi,

Eng

and

PTH

Glo

bal

pros

pect

/fore

sight

Soci

al/in

terp

erso

nal

skill

s

Aca

dem

ic/p

rofe

ssio

nal

know

ledg

e

Com

mitm

ent t

oso

ciet

y

Cri

tical

thin

king

/pro

blem

-so

lvin

g ab

ility

Soci

al/w

ork

expe

rien

ce

2003200420052006

Valid samples (2006) ： 1,499


Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (II)Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (II)

4% ^ 4% ^ 3% 3%1% 1%

5%7%

18% ^

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%Se

lf-co

nfid

ence

Cre

ativ

ity

Com

mun

icat

ion

skill

s

Fina

ncia

lm

anag

emen

t

Emot

ion

stab

ility

Job

oppo

rtun

ity

Oth

ers

Not

lack

of

anyt

hing

DK

/HS

2003200420052006

Valid samples (2006) ： 1,499Note: Attributes registering less than 1% for all years are not shown here.


Most Preferred University GraduatesMost Preferred University Graduates[Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs][Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs]

23%

17%

13% 13%

3% 3%

0% 0%2%

3%

6%

16%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

HKU CUHK PolyU HKUST HKBU CityU LU HKIEd OverseasUniversities

Others DK/HS Nopreference

Won'temploy

graduates

2003200420052006

Valid samples (2006): 225Standard error (for 2006 at 95% confidence level): +/-6.7%

Involved15% Not involved

85%

Reasons for Graduate PreferencesReasons for Graduate Preferences [Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs [Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs

and with preferences on university graduates]and with preferences on university graduates]

23%

21%

13%

7% 7%4% 4% 4%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Goodperformanceof previousgraduates

Goodknowledge

in job-related areas

Reputation Good workattitude

Goodlanguage

ability

Diligent/motivated

Alumni Good socialrelationship

Others

2003200420052006

Note: Reasons registering less than 4% for all years are not shown here.

Involved15% Not involved

85%

Valid samples (2006): 168Standard error (for 2006 at 95% confidence level): +/-7.7%

Opinions on SelectedOpinions on SelectedEducation PoliciesEducation Policies

Existing Quota for Associate DegreeExisting Quota for Associate Degreeand Higher Diploma Studiesand Higher Diploma Studies

Appropriate37%

DK/HS18%

Too much35%

Too little10%


Government Tuition Subsidy Government Tuition Subsidy for Sub-degree Programme Studentsfor Sub-degree Programme Students

Should be more35%

DK/HS13%

Should be the same36%

Should be less17%


Establishment of Private UniversitiesEstablishment of Private Universities

No29%

Yes65%

DK/HS6%


Naming of Faculties and Schools after the DonorsNaming of Faculties and Schools after the Donors

No26%

Yes66%

DK/HS8%


Awareness of “Qualifications Framework”Awareness of “Qualifications Framework”

Heard before39%

Never heard of60%

DK/HS1%


Implementation of “Qualifications Framework”Implementation of “Qualifications Framework”

DK/HS6%

Disagree30%

Agree55%

Half-half9%


ConclusionConclusion

ConclusionConclusion

• Between 2001 and 2006, HKU continue to be perceived by the public as the best performing university, with CUHK & HKUST consistently taking the 2nd and 3rd ranks.

• Professors Paul Chu of HKUST, Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Lawrence Lau of CUHK are perceived as the best performing university heads.

• “Conduct, honesty”, “work attitude” and “language proficiency” are perceived to be important qualities which most Hong Kong university graduates lack of.

• Of the 225 employers interviewed, most preferred employing HKU, CUHK and PolyU graduates, main reasons for their preference being “good performance of previous graduates” and “good knowledge in job-related areas”.

Public Enquiry WelcomePublic Enquiry Welcome

• To enhance more rational discussions on university ranking surveys, local and non-local, a special on-line feature page entitled “university ranking surveys” has been set up at the HKU POP Site at http://hkupop.hku.hk to serve as an information hub and one-stop service point for the public.

• The feature page also contains a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and model answers, first prepared in 2005. One print copy of all FAQs have been distributed to the press.

• Journalists and members of the general public are welcome to contribute questions to the FAQ list, all questions and answers will be open to the general public.

End of PresentationEnd of Presentation

Documents

Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2006 Presentation of Findings