opinion survey on the public ranking of universities in hong kong 2008 presentation of findings

Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofOpinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofUniversities in Hong Kong 2008Universities in Hong Kong 2008

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 Pang28 July 200828 July 2008

• 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 8th 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 first 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: June 26 – July 4, 2008Target population: Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong of age 18 or aboveSurvey method: Telephone survey with interviewers Sample size: 1,213 successful casesResponse rate: 65.5%Sampling error: Less than 1.4% Weighting method: Data adjusted according to the gender-age distribution of HK population at the end 2007

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 ： 1,213

Age DistributionAge Distribution

18-20 yrs old5% 21-29 yrs old

15%

30-39 yrs old19%

40-49 yrs old23%

50-59 yrs old18%

60+ yrs old20%


Education AttainmentEducation Attainment

Primary orbelow16%Tertiary or

above36%

Secondary48%


OccupationOccupation

Housewives14%

Professionals andsemi-professionals

30%

Students8% Production workers

8%

Others19%

Clerk and serviceworkers

21%


Public Ratings of UniversitiesPublic Ratings of Universitiesand their Headsand their Heads

Overall Performance of UniversityOverall Performance of University

8.11

7.67

7.38

7.00

6.426.26

5.775.65 5.57

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#

2005200620072008

Valid samples (2008) ： 926-1,098

90% 91% 86% 88% 85% 84% 78% 80% 76% ** Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample# Newly added in 2008 survey

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

8.228.14

8.03

7.547.657.73

7.46

7.24

7.507.31

7.07

6.826.95

6.50

6.18

6.60

6.246.18

6.68

5.89

5.44

6.22

5.73

5.40

6.02

5.67

5.34

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


8.07 8.20 8.09

7.99 8.07 7.847.71 7.73 7.64 7.56 7.48 7.34

7.30 7.17 7.26

6.95 7.04 6.966.92 6.89

6.63 6.65 6.45 6.35 6.22

6.56 6.42 6.18 6.20 6.13

6.29 6.01 5.80

5.71

5.49

6.11

5.82 5.44 5.58

5.47

6.11

5.61 5.47 5.38 5.40

Public Ratings of University HeadsPublic Ratings of University Heads

7.67^ 7.67^

7.09

6.98

6.66 6.61

6.25 6.236.15

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKU – Lap-chee

TSUI

HKUST –Paul C.W.

CHU

CUHK –Lawrence J.

LAU

PolyU –Chung-kwongPOON

HKBU –Ching-fai

NG

HKSYU –Chi-yungCHUNG

HKIEd –Anthony

B.L.CHEUNG

CityU – Way KUO

LU – Yuk-sheeCHAN

2005200620072008

Valid samples (2008) ： 439 – 813

64% 67% 55% 58% 55% 46% 54% 36% 42% ** Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample^ In 3-decimal places, HKU – LC Tsui scores 7.671 while HKUST – Paul Chu scores 7.665

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

7.687.70

7.637.49

7.58

7.78

7.01

7.19

6.97

7.20

6.986.91 6.85

6.72

6.54

7.06

6.526.58

6.93

6.216.15

6.93

6.24

6.05

6.81

6.136.02

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

HKU –Lap-chee

TSUI

HKUST –Paul C.W.

CHU

CUHK –Lawrence J.

LAU

PolyU –Chung-kwongPOON

HKBU –Ching-fai

NG

HKSYU –Chi-yungCHUNG

HKIEd –Anthony

B.L.CHEUNG^

CityU –Way KUO^

LU – Yuk-shee

CHAN^

Primary or belowSecondaryTertiary or above


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

7.667.48

7.747.51

7.75

7.767.51

7.69

7.437.44

6.976.99

7.19

7.027.05

6.876.90

6.84

6.926.94

6.576.60

6.82

6.626.62

6.59

6.20

7.01

6.606.37

6.056.06

6.266.39

6.24

5.996.12

6.446.37

6.37

6.075.96

6.61

6.38

6.08

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


HKU – HKU – Lap-chee TsLap-chee Ts

uiui

HKUST – HKUST – Paul C.W. CPaul C.W. C

huhu

CUHK – CUHK – Lawrence Lawrence

J. LauJ. Lau

PolyU – PolyU – Chung-kwong Chung-kwong

PoonPoon

HKBU – HKBU – Ching-fai Ching-fai

NgNg

HKSYU – HKSYU – Chi-yungChi-yung Chung^ Chung^

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

CheungCheung

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)

17% 16%

13%12%

10%10%

8%8%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2005200620072008

Total samples (2008) ： 1,213

^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

ConductConductand and

honesty^honesty^

Work Work attitudeattitude

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-solvingsolvingabilityability

AcademicAcademicandand

professionalprofessionalKnowledge^Knowledge^

CommitmentCommitmentto society^to society^

Social / Social / workwork

experienceexperience

* The question wording used for the 2005 survey was “university graduates” instead of “university students”, so comparison could only be made on a rough basis.

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

4% 4%3% 2% 2% 1%

4%3%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30% 2005

2006

2007

2008

Total samples (2008) ： 1,213Note: Attributes registering less than 1% for all years are not shown here.

^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Self-Self-Confidence^Confidence^

Communication Communication skillsskills

CreativityCreativity EmotionalEmotionalstabilitystability

FinancialFinancialmanagementmanagement

NothingNothing Others^Others^ Don’t know^Don’t know^

* The question wording used for the 2005 survey was “university graduates” instead of “university students”, so comparison could only be made on a rough basis.

PatriotismPatriotism

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%

9%

7%

3%2%

1% 1% 0%

3% 3%

21%

11%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2005

2006

2007

2008

Valid samples (2008): 194Standard error (for 2008 at 95% confidence level): +/-7.1%

Involved16%

Not involved84%

HKU CUHKPolyU HKUST HKBU CityULUHKIEd Oversea universitiesOthers No

preferenceDon’t know

Won’t employ

HKSYU

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]

34%

26%

15%

12%9% 9%

6% 6%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2005200620072008

Note: Reasons registering less than 6% for all years are not shown here.

Involved16%

Not involved84%

Valid samples (2008): 129Standard error (for 2008 at 95% confidence level): +/-7.1%

Good Good performance performance of previous of previous graduatesgraduates

Good Good knowledge knowledge

in job-related in job-related areasareas

ReputationReputation Good work Good work attitudeattitude

Diligent /Diligent /motivatedmotivated

Good Good connection connection

with outsidewith outside

Good Good language language

abilityability

AlumniAlumni OthersOthers

ConclusionConclusion

ConclusionConclusion

• Between 2001 and 2008, HKU continues to be perceived by the public as the best performing university, with CUHK & HKUST consistently taking the 2nd and 3rd ranks.

• Professors Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Paul Chu of HKUST are perceived as the best performing university heads 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 194 potential employers interviewed, most preferred employing HKU, PolyU, CUHK and HKUST graduates, while 21% 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!

opinion survey on the public ranking of universities in hong kong 2008 presentation of findings

Documents