Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010

Summary of Findings

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 8.22 as rated by 1,158 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.77 as rated by 1,153 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.63 as rated by 1,117 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year’s survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same while the newcomer OUHK ranked last. Among all the institutions, the increments of rating of CUHK and HKUST were tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level, while that of HKIEd was significant at p=0.05 level (Table 3).

Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions

	2008 Survey		2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 Survey
	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample)

1.HKU	8.11	0.04	8.07	0.04	8.19*	0.04	8.22	0.04	1,158	96.4%
2.CUHK	7.67	0.04	7.64	0.04	7.55	0.04	7.77**	0.04	1,153	96.0%
3.HKUST	7.38	0.04	7.33	0.04	7.37	0.04	7.63**	0.04	1,117	93.0%
4.PolyU	7.00	0.04	6.90	0.04	6.89	0.04	6.92	0.04	1,134	94.4%
5.HKBU	6.42	0.04	6.34	0.04	6.30	0.04	6.30	0.04	1,119	93.2%
6.CityU	6.26	0.04	6.12*	0.04	6.22	0.04	6.21	0.04	1,093	91.0%
7.HKIEd	5.77	0.05	5.66	0.05	5.72	0.05	5.88*	0.05	1,017	84.7%
8.LU	5.65	0.05	5.51*	0.05	5.54	0.05	5.50	0.05	1,054	87.7%
9.HKSYU	5.57	0.05	5.42	0.05	5.45	0.05	5.44	0.05	1,023	85.2%
10.OUHK#	N.A.						5.43	0.05	1,001	83.4%

# 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	8.35	0.134	155	8.19	0.059	557	8.23	0.056	443
2.CUHK	7.78	0.129	147	7.70	0.058	559	7.85	0.055	443
3.HKUST^	7.63	0.159	137	7.46	0.068	537	7.83	0.056	439
4.PolyU^	7.34	0.134	142	6.85	0.060	547	6.88	0.053	440
5.HKBU^	6.79	0.132	136	6.24	0.064	538	6.25	0.055	441
6.CityU^	6.73	0.147	128	6.07	0.063	522	6.23	0.057	440
7.HKIEd^	6.55	0.175	105	5.96	0.070	491	5.61	0.066	417
8.LU^	5.97	0.170	120	5.54	0.071	511	5.34	0.065	419
9.HKSYU^	6.17	0.177	115	5.50	0.077	487	5.18	0.066	417
10.OUHK^	6.11	0.194	96	5.57	0.070	486	5.12	0.069	415

^ 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^	8.35	0.061	353	8.01	0.087	212	7.97	0.158	96
2.CUHK	7.86	0.061	354	7.54	0.086	212	7.75	0.146	96
3.HKUST^	7.82	0.066	348	7.31	0.103	209	7.40	0.173	91
4.PolyU	6.85	0.063	351	6.83	0.095	210	6.98	0.130	93
5.HKBU^	6.11	0.070	352	6.25	0.091	209	6.35	0.124	91
6.CityU	6.20	0.065	346	6.14	0.099	208	6.04	0.132	87
7.HKIEd^	5.67	0.076	328	5.78	0.109	193	5.79	0.142	87
8.LU^	5.32	0.078	335	5.55	0.108	198	5.65	0.183	85
9.HKSYU^	5.22	0.079	332	5.29	0.113	192	5.55	0.165	81
10.OUHK^	5.22	0.079	332	5.56	0.110	193	5.65	0.156	79

^ 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^	7.95	0.124	92	8.26	0.133	141
2.CUHK	7.89	0.121	92	7.72	0.130	141
3.HKUST^	7.46	0.130	92	7.77	0.141	130
4.PolyU	6.88	0.119	91	6.96	0.130	138
5.HKBU^	6.43	0.121	91	6.33	0.137	131
6.CityU	6.18	0.141	92	6.21	0.132	127
7.HKIEd^	5.67	0.156	85	6.09	0.162	120
8.LU^	5.34	0.160	89	5.50	0.137	127
9.HKSYU^	5.15	0.159	88	5.58	0.161	115
10.OUHK^	5.08	0.175	87	5.31	0.163	117

^ 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, newcomer Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list this year with an average score of 7.84 as rated by 990 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and third, with a respective mean score of 7.73 rated by 877 respondents and 7.14 rated by 635 respondents. The next tier included Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU, Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU and Professor Anthony B.L. CHEUNG who ranked forth to sixth attaining a mean score of 6.61, 6.52 and 6.34 respectively. The seventh to tenth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of HKBU, CityU, LU and OUHK correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 5.96 to 6.29. Most of the performance rating of the Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principals registered increase when compared to last year’s, if any. Yet, only four 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 82% (Table 6).

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

	2008 Survey		2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 Survey
	2008 Survey		2009 Survey		2010 Survey		2011 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	990	82.5%
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	7.67	0.05	7.58	0.05	7.67	0.05	7.73	0.05	877	73.1%
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN#	-N.A.-				6.87	0.05	7.14	0.06	635	52.9%
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	-N.A.-		6.59	0.06	6.50	0.06	6.61	0.06	545	45.4%
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.61	0.07	6.57	0.06	6.46	0.06	6.52	0.07	564	47.0%
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG	6.25	0.06	6.28	0.05	6.16	0.05	6.34	0.05	734	61.1%
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN#	-N.A.-						6.29	0.06	530	44.1%
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.23	0.07	6.21	0.06	6.17	0.05	6.23	0.06	533	44.4%
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	6.15	0.07	6.07	0.06	6.07	0.06	6.04	0.07	512	42.6%
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG##	-N.A.-						5.96	0.07	504	42.0%

# 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, 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	7.94	0.175	117	7.79	0.066	471	7.86	0.066	401
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI	8.00	0.167	99	7.71	0.071	407	7.68	0.067	371
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	7.26	0.218	57	7.19	0.089	296	7.08	0.081	281
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG	7.02	0.243	41	6.65	0.093	255	6.50	0.076	248
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG	6.85	0.252	57	6.46	0.107	261	6.52	0.096	245
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.80	0.203	75	6.34	0.079	343	6.23	0.080	314
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN^	6.82	0.252	48	6.34	0.089	255	6.12	0.082	226
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.57	0.234	42	6.21	0.100	242	6.20	0.080	248
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN^	6.61	0.280	47	6.02	0.101	246	5.95	0.088	217
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	6.66	0.316	43	6.04	0.097	239	5.76	0.099	221

^ 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	7.92	0.072	319	7.75	0.105	182	7.77	0.188	70
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	7.73	0.073	293	7.52	0.118	159	7.41	0.214	65
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	7.16	0.088	225	6.93	0.147	116	7.05	0.203	50
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^	6.54	0.089	199	6.41	0.165	97	6.79	0.210	39
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^	6.56	0.116	187	6.03	0.161	113	5.96	0.248	36
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.28	0.089	264	6.10	0.126	137	5.94	0.194	59
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN	6.25	0.090	176	6.19	0.144	110	6.26	0.244	35
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.10	0.102	187	6.13	0.142	96	5.97	0.207	38
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.92	0.104	169	5.96	0.147	111	6.27	0.289	38
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	5.76	0.116	174	5.93	0.158	103	5.81	0.218	37

^ 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	0.155	79	7.96	0.150	122
2.HKU – Lap-chee TSUI^	7.30	0.143	67	7.77	0.157	98
3.HKUST – Tony F. CHAN	6.82	0.171	51	7.26	0.221	60
4.PolyU – Timothy W. TONG^	6.43	0.179	44	6.60	0.190	57
5.HKSYU – Chi-yung CHUNG^	6.30	0.200	44	6.83	0.207	61
6.HKIEd – Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^	6.09	0.189	45	6.44	0.165	76
7.HKBU – Albert CHAN	6.18	0.173	41	6.31	0.193	59
8.CityU – Way KUO	6.37	0.155	49	6.31	0.214	57
9.LU – Yuk-shee CHAN	5.87	0.218	41	6.31	0.228	55
10.OUHK – John C.Y. LEONG^	5.62	0.246	35	6.31	0.210	57

^ 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 19% of respondents citing it. “Social/interpersonal skills” and “conduct, honesty” obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 12% and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, “independence”, and “proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua”, accounting for 8% 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

	2009 Survey	2010 Survey	2011 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 2,026 responses from 1,201 respondents)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)
Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated)	20.9%**	23.9%	232	11.4%	19.3%**
Social/interpersonal skills	11.7%	12.5%	143	7.1%	11.9%
Conduct, honesty	12.5%	10.7%	137	6.8%	11.4%
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	8.1%*	8.8%	113	5.6%	9.4%
Independence	6.7%**	7.9%	107	5.3%	8.9%
Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua	13.4%	9.1%**	96	4.8%	8.0%

Commitment to society	7.0%	9.3%*	89	4.4%	7.4%*
Global prospect / foresight	10.2%	8.7%	87	4.3%	7.3%
Social/work experience	7.3%	5.8%	76	3.8%	6.4%
Communication skills	4.6%	4.7%	62	3.0%	5.1%
Academic and professional knowledge	9.2%*	4.7%**	59	2.9%	4.9%
Discipline, patience	-	--	57	2.8%	4.7%
Self-confidence	4.6%	5.1%	55	2.7%	4.6%
Emotion stability	2.7%	3.0%	45	2.2%	3.8%
Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions	3.4%**	2.5%	45	2.2%	3.7%*
Civil awareness	3.7%**	4.5%	44	2.2%	3.7%
Self-motivation, aggressiveness	-	--	44	2.2%	3.7%
Creativity	3.6%	2.8%	41	2.0%	3.4%

All-roundness	4.7%**	3.5%	34	1.7%	2.8%
Self-expectations / dreams	1.6%	2.7%	30	1.5%	2.5%
Job opportunity	2.3%	2.8%	28	1.4%	2.3%
Humble / sympathy	-	--	24	1.2%	2.0%
Politeness	-	--	22	1.1%	1.8%
Resources / opportunity	-	--	21	1.0%	1.7%
Utilitarian / materialistic	-	--	16	0.8%	1.3%
Financial management	1.9%	0.4%**	13	0.6%	1.1%*
Patriotism	1.1%	1.1%	8	0.4%	0.6%
Leadership skills	0.5%	0.5%	6	0.3%	0.5%
Cultural level / self-cultivation	0.0%	2.2%	--	--	--

Nothing	3.6%	3.9%	58	2.8%	4.8%
Others	2.4%	0.7%	32	1.6%	2.6%**
Don’t know / hard to say	15.8%**	17.9%	203	10.0%	16.9%

Total			2,026	100.0%

Base	1,197	1,204	1,201
Missing case(s)	4	4	0

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 18% of the total sample, i.e. 221 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)

	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey	2011 Survey
	Percentage	Percentage	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage

Yes	16.0%	18.1%	17.3%	221	18.4%
No	84.0%	81.9%	82.7%	980	81.6%

Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	1,201	100.0%

Base	1,212	1,201	1,208	1,201
Missing case(s)	1	3	0	0

These respondents were further asked which institution’s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For ten consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 25% of these employers whereas CUHK and PolyU came second and third with 14% each. Meanwhile, graduates from HKUST were preferred by 12% of this sub-sample. Another 18% 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 6.7 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11).

Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates

	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey	2011 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,213)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)	Freq.	% of potential employers (Base = 220)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)
HKU	3.8%	4.3%	3.6%	55	24.8%	4.5%
CUHK	1.4%	1.8%	3.0%	31	14.2%	2.6%
PolyU	2.5%	2.8%	1.9%	30	13.5%	2.5%
HKUST	1.1%	2.4%	1.4%	27	12.4%	2.3%

CityU^	0.0%	0.2%	0.4%	4	1.8%	0.3%
LU	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%	3	1.5%	0.3%
HKBU	0.4%	0.2%	0.4%	2	1.1%	0.2%
HKIEd	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	2	0.9%	0.2%
HKSYU	0.1%	0.4%	0.3%	1	0.5%	0.1%

Other overseas universities	0.5%	0.3%	0.3%	3	1.6%	0.3%
Others	0.4%	0.1%	0.1%	1	0.4%	0.1%

No preference	3.3%	2.5%	3.6%	40	18.0%	3.3%
Don’t know / hard to say	1.8%	1.9%	1.4%	15	6.7%	1.2%
Won’t employ graduates	0.3%	0.8%	0.5%	6	2.7%	0.5%

Total				220	100.0%

Valid Base	194	217	209	221
Missing case(s)	0	1	0	1

^ No respondent opted for these categories in respective survey.

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 50% of the sub-sample (i.e. 7% of the total sample). “Good knowledge in job-related areas” came second with 22% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). Graduates’ “good work attitude”, “reputation” of university and their “diligence, motivation” formed the next tier, with a respective proportion of 16%, 14% and 12% (i.e. each accounted for 2% of the total sample). Other than these, reasons like “good language ability”, “alumni” 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

	2008 Survey	2009 Survey	2010 Survey
	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)	% of total sample (Base = 1,208)	Freq.	% of total responses (Base = 236 responses from 157 respondents)	% of valid respondents (Base = 157)	% of total sample (Base = 1,201)

Good performance of previous graduates	5.0%	3.5%	79	33.3%	50.0%	6.5%
Good knowledge in job-related areas	3.4%	3.8%	35	14.7%	22.1%	2.9%

Good work attitude	1.1%	2.0%	25	10.8%	16.2%	2.1%
Reputation	2.6%	2.5%	22	9.5%	14.2%	1.9%
Diligent, motivated	1.1%	1.2%	18	7.7%	11.5%	1.5%
Good language ability	1.1%	1.1%	14	6.1%	9.1%	1.2%
Alumni	0.8%	1.1%	10	4.1%	6.1%	0.8%
Good social relationship	0.6%	1.0%	7	2.9%	4.3%	0.6%

Good connection with outside (e.g., a university’s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates)	0.3%	0.6%	7	2.8%	4.2%	0.5%
Salary matched with abilities	0.1%	0.4%	7	2.8%	4.2%	0.5%
Good leadership	0.1%	0.5%	2	0.8%	1.2%	0.2%

Others	1.0%	0.3%	10	4.1%	6.1%	0.8%
Don’t know / hard to say	0.0%	0.1%	1	0.5%	0.8%	0.1%

Total			236	100.0%

Valid Base	154	142	157
Missing case(s)	0	0	2

Chart - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2011