Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofOpinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofUniversities in Hong Kong 2009Universities in Hong Kong 2009

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

By Karie PangBy Karie Pang27 July 200927 July 2009

• Background information• Demographic profile of respondents• Ratings of universities and their heads• Public perception of graduates• Conclusion

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 9th survey in the row.

• Key objective is to gauge the general public’s perception of eight institutions of higher education funded through University Grants Committee (UGC) while Hong Kong Shue Yan University is included for the second time this year, as well as their opinions on qualities of university students.

• 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.

Contact InformationContact Information

Date of survey: May 25 – June 15, 2009Target population: Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong of age 18 or aboveSurvey method: Telephone survey with interviewers Sample size: 1,201 successful casesResponse rate: 65.2%Sampling error: Less than 1.4% Weighting method: Data adjusted according to the gender-age distribution of HK population at the end 2008

Notes of CautionNotes of Caution• Findings only reflect general public perception of the nine

institutions 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 each 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 nine 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

Female54%

Male46%

Valid samples ： 1,201

Age DistributionAge Distribution

18-20 yrs old5% 21-29 yrs old

15%

30-39 yrs old19%

40-49 yrs old22%

50-59 yrs old18%

60+ yrs old21%

Valid samples ： 1,187

Education AttainmentEducation Attainment

Primary orbelow16%Tertiary or

above36%

Secondary48%

Valid samples ： 1,195

OccupationOccupation

Housewives15%

Professionals andsemi-professionals

30%

Students7% Production workers

10%

Others20%

Clerk and serviceworkers

19%

Valid samples ： 1,183

Public Ratings of UniversitiesPublic Ratings of Universitiesand their Headsand their Heads

Overall Performance of UniversityOverall Performance of University

8.07

7.64

7.33

6.90

6.346.12

5.665.51

5.42

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

HKU CUHK HKUST PolyU HKBU CityU HKIEd LU HKSYU#

2006200720082009

Valid samples (2009) ： 1,005-1,142

95% 94% 92% 94% 91% 90% 84% 87% 84% ** Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample# Added in 2008 survey^ Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

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

8.028.05 8.11

7.447.57

7.78

7.34

7.11

7.61

7.116.88

6.84 6.80

6.326.21 6.166.08

6.13 6.14

5.73

5.44

5.91

5.54

5.34

5.87

5.465.23

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

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

Primary or below

Secondary

Tertiary 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

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

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

Professionals andsemi-professionalsClerk and serviceworkersProduction workers

Students

Housewives

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

8.07 8.11 8.07

7.98 8.02 7.817.66 7.42 7.59 7.76 7.46 7.08

7.41 7.22 7.24 7.28

6.89 6.786.82 6.81

6.42 6.64 6.18 6.30 6.22

6.20 5.93 6.33 6.22 6.08

6.12 5.63 5.51 5.79

5.38

5.90 5.32 5.55 5.515.34

5.49 5.74 5.01 5.43 5.25

Public Ratings of University HeadsPublic Ratings of University Heads

7.64 7.58

7.01

6.59 6.57 6.516.28 6.21

6.07

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKUST –Paul C.W.

CHU

HKU – Lap-chee

TSUI

CUHK –Lawrence J.

LAU

PolyU –Timothy W.

TONG

HKSYU –Chi-yungCHUNG

HKBU –Ching-fai

NG

HKIEd –Anthony

B.L.CHEUNG

CityU – Way KUO

LU – Yuk-sheeCHAN

2006200720082009

Valid samples (2009) ： 580 – 926

77% 73% 69% 50% 55% 63% 66% 48% 49% *•Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample

Cross-tabulation Analyses: Cross-tabulation Analyses: Ratings of University Heads vs Education AttainmentRatings of University Heads vs Education Attainment

7.597.43

7.91

7.687.48

7.67

7.217.01

6.946.82

6.626.47

6.86

6.596.44

6.74

6.466.49 6.54

6.34

6.12

6.356.24

6.13

6.36

6.066.00

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKUST –Paul C.W.

CHU^

HKU –Lap-chee

TSUI

CUHK –Lawrence J.

LAU

PolyU –Timothy W.

TONG

HKSYU –Chi-yungCHUNG

HKBU –Ching-fai

NG

HKIEd –Anthony

B.L.CHEUNG^

CityU –Way KUO

LU – Yuk-shee CHAN

Primary or belowSecondaryTertiary or above

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

Cross-tabulation Analyses: Cross-tabulation Analyses: Ratings of University Head vs Respondents’ OccupationRatings of University Head vs Respondents’ Occupation

7.86

7.327.46

7.37

7.48 7.67

7.327.477.40

7.63

6.946.90

6.77

7.007.26

6.51

6.53

6.566.44

6.89

6.42

6.596.37

6.41

6.83

6.536.46

6.65

6.39

6.65

6.096.18

6.336.31

6.61

6.186.26

5.89

6.23

6.44

5.936.11

5.996.02

6.46

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0Professionals and semi-professionals

Clerk and service workers

Production workers

Students

Housewives

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

HKUST – PHKUST – Paul C.W. Chaul C.W. Ch

u^u^

HKU – HKU – Lap-chee TsLap-chee Ts

uiui

CUHK – CUHK – Lawrence Lawrence

J. LauJ. Lau

PolyU – PolyU – Timothy W. Timothy W.

TongTong

HKSYU – HKSYU – Chi-yung Chi-yung

ChungChung

HKBU – HKBU – Ching-fai Ching-fai

NgNg

HKIEd – HKIEd – Anthony B.L. Anthony B.L.

Cheung^Cheung^

CityU – CityU – Way KuoWay Kuo

LU – LU – Yuk-sheeYuk-shee

Chan Chan

Public PerceptionPublic Perceptionof University Students and Graduatesof University Students and Graduates

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

21%

13%13%

12%10%

9%8%

7% 7% 7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2006200720082009

Total samples (2009)： 1,201^ Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

ConductConductand and

honestyhonesty

Work Work Attitude^Attitude^

Proficiency Proficiency in Chi, in Chi,

Eng Eng and PTHand PTH

Social / Social / interpersonal interpersonal

SkillsSkills

GlobalGlobalprospect /prospect /foresightforesight

Critical Critical thinking thinking

andandproblem-problem-solvingsolvingability^ability^

AcademicAcademicandand

professionalprofessionalKnowledge^Knowledge^

CommitmentCommitmentto societyto society

Social / Social / workwork

experienceexperienceIndependence^Independence^

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

5% 5% 5%4% 4% 3% 4%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% 2006

20072008

2009

Total samples (2009)： 1,201Note: Attributes registering less than 3% for this year are not shown here.

Self-Self-confidenceconfidence

Communication Communication skillsskills

Civil Civil awareness^awareness^

Alertness to Alertness to risk/risk/

handling handling adverse adverse

conditions^conditions^

NothingNothing Don’t know^Don’t know^CreativityCreativityAll-All-roundness^roundness^

^ Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

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

24%

16%

13%

10%

2% 2%1% 1%

1% 2%1%

14%

11%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2006

2007

2008

2009

Valid samples (2009): 216Standard error (for 2009 at 95% confidence level): +/-6.8%

Involved18%

Not involved82%

HKU CUHKPolyU HKUST CityULUHKIEd Overseas universities

Others No preference

Don’t know

Won’t employHKSYU HKBU

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

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

39%

27%

21%

9%8% 8%

6%5%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2006200720082009

Note: Reasons registering less than 5% for this year are not shown here.

Valid samples (2009): 154Standard error (for 2009 at 95% confidence level): +/-8.1%

Good Good performance performance

of of previous previous graduatesgraduates

Good Good knowledge knowledge

in job-related in job-related areasareas

ReputationReputation Good work Good work attitudeattitude

Diligent /Diligent /motivatedmotivated

Good Good language language

abilityability

AlumniAlumni OthersOthers

Involved18%

Not involved82%

Good social Good social relationshiprelationship

ConclusionConclusion

ConclusionConclusion

• Between 2001 and 2009, HKU continues to be perceived by the public as the best performing university, with CUHK & HKUST consistently taking the 2nd and 3rd ranks.

• Professor Paul Chu of HKUST has replaced Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU to become the best performing university head this year.

• “Work attitude”, “language proficiency” and “conduct, honesty” are perceived to be important qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of.

• Of the 217 potential employers interviewed, most preferred employing HKU, PolyU, HKUST and CUHK graduates, while 14% had no special preference. Main reasons for their choice were “good performance of previous graduates” and “good knowledge in job-related areas” of the graduates.

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 PresentationThank you!Thank you!