THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME (POP) Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 COMMISSIONED BY MEDIA EDUCATION INFO-TECH CO. LTD (Education 18.com) SURVEY REPORT Compiled by Chung Ting-yiu Robert, Pang Ka-lai Karie, Lee Wai-kin Frank and Ng Tsz-ying Clarence JULY 2010 Copyright of this report is held jointly by Media Education Info-Tech Co. Ltd and Public Opinion Programme, the University of Hong Kong
TABLE OF CONTENTS English Report Summary of Findings APPENDICES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Demographic Profile of Respondents Frequency Tables Other Answers Submitted (Chinese) Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) Questionnaire (Chinese & English) Note of Caution (Chinese & English)
THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME (POP) Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Commissioned by Media Education Info-Tech Co. Ltd. (Education 18.com) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Research Team Members Project Director : CHUNG Ting-yiu Robert Project Manager : PANG Ka-lai Karie Project Executive : LEE Wai-kin Frank Data Analyst : TAI Chit-fai Edward Copy Editor : NG Tsz-ying Clarence 22 July 2010 CONTACT INFORMATION Date of survey : 4-18/6/2010 Sample size : 1,208 successful cases Response rate : 64.6% Standard error : Less than 1.4% Target population : Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong of age 18 or above Survey method Sampling method : Telephone survey with interviewers : Standard POP telephone sampling method was used. Telephone numbers were selected randomly from residential telephone directories and mixed with additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected. Weighting method : The data reported have been adjusted according to the provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distributions of the Hong Kong population at the end of 2009. Everything in this publication is the work of individual researchers, and does not represent the stand of the University of Hong Kong. CHUNG Ting-yiu Robert is responsible for the work of the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of the University of Hong Kong.
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Preamble The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong was established in June 1991 to collect and study public opinion on topics which could be of interest to academics, journalists, policy-makers, and the general public. POP was at first under the Social Sciences Research Centre, a unit under the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong, and was transferred to the Journalism and Media Studies Centre in the University of Hong Kong in May 2000. In January 2002, POP was transferred back to the Faculty of Social Sciences in the University of Hong Kong. POP provides quality survey services to a wide range of public and private organizations, provided that they allow the POP Team to design and conduct the research independently, and to bear the final responsibilities. In May 2010, POP was commissioned, for the tenth time, by Media Education Info-tech Co. Ltd. (which owns Education 18.com ) to repeat the annual survey on the public s perceptions of the local institutions of higher education. The objective of this survey was basically the same as that of the previous years, i.e. to study the general public s perception of the eight institutions of higher education funded through University Grants Committee (UGC), with the inclusion of Hong Kong Shue Yan University upon the client s advice since 2008. According to our records, the very first study of this subject was designed and conducted in 2000 by the client using a different methodology. For this reason, any direct comparison between the results obtained from the first and subsequent surveys is not recommended. The questionnaires used in this and previous years surveys except that of 2000 were designed independently by the POP Team after consulting the client. Fieldwork, data analysis and interpretation were also carried out independently by the POP Team. Knowing that the results of this survey might be controversial, POP proceeded to design and conduct the survey anyway, because we take it to be our responsibility to engage in any opinion survey which requires our professional support. POP is fully responsible for all the opinion survey results released, we welcome any discussion on the fairness of the results. This year s telephone survey was conducted during the period of 4 to 18 June 2010. A total of 1,208 Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking residents of age 18 or above were successfully interviewed. The overall response rate was 64.6% and the standard error due to sampling was no more than 1.4 percentage points. That means at 95% confidence level, the sampling error of percentage figures was less than plus/minus 2.9 percentage points. However, some questions were only applicable to employers in the sample. Their valid sub-samples were much smaller, and the sampling errors for these questions became much bigger. 1
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Research Design The target population of this survey was Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong of age 18 or above. To minimize sampling bias, the following sampling technique was adopted: Telephone numbers were first drawn randomly from the residential telephone directories as seed numbers, from which another set of numbers was generated using the plus/minus one/two method, in order to capture the unlisted numbers. Duplicated numbers were then filtered, and the remaining numbers were mixed in random order to produce the final telephone sample. When telephone contact was successfully established with a target household, one person of age 18 or above was selected. If more than one qualified subject had been available, selection was made using the next birthday rule which selected the person who had his/her birthday next from all those present. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the demographic profile of the respondents. Telephone interviews were carried out between 4 and 18 June 2010. Data were collected by interviewers using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) system under close supervision. As shown from the detailed breakdown of the contact information, among the 16,133 telephone numbers sampled for the survey, 7,448 were confirmed ineligible, among them 764 were fax or data lines, 5,805 were invalid telephone numbers, 113 were call-forwarding numbers, while another 677 were non-residential numbers. Besides, 39 of them were invalidated due to special technological circumstances, while 50 cases were voided because no eligible respondents were available at the numbers provided. Meanwhile, a total of 4,327 telephone numbers were invalidated since the research team could not confirm their eligibility. Among them 292 were busy lines, 2,960 were no-answer calls, 113 cases were diverted to answering devices while 90 were blocked. In addition, 297 cases were treated as ineligible because of language problems, 565 interviews were terminated before the screening question, while 10 cases were voided for other problems. Of the remaining 4,358 eligible cases, 3,150 failed to complete the interview. Among them 34 rejected the interview immediately after their eligibility was confirmed, 3,006 were unfinished cases with appointment dates beyond the end of fieldwork period. Besides, 62 cases were incomplete due to unexpected termination of interviews, 48 were classified as miscellaneous due to other non-contact problems, and the remaining 1,208 were successful cases (Table 1). 2
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Table 1 Breakdown of contact information of the survey Frequency Percentage Telephone numbers ineligibility confirmed 7,448 46.2 Fax/data line 764 4.7 Invalid number 5,805 36.0 Call-forwarding/mobile/pager number 113 0.7 Non-residential number 677 4.2 Special technological circumstances 39 0.2 No eligible respondents 50 0.3 Telephone numbers or respondents eligibility not confirmed 4,327 26.8 Line busy 292 1.8 No answer 2,960 18.3 Answering device 113 0.7 Call-blocking 90 0.6 Language problem 297 1.8 Interview terminated before the screening question 565 3.5 Others 10 0.1 Telephone numbers eligibility confirmed, but failed to complete the interview 3,150 19.5 Household-level refusal 9 0.1 Known respondent refusal 25 0.2 Appointment date beyond the end of the fieldwork period 3,006 18.6 Partial interview 62 0.4 Miscellaneous 48 0.3 Successful cases 1,208 7.5 Total 16,133 100.0 3
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings To sum up, a total of 1,208 Hong Kong residents of age 18 or above were successfully interviewed in this survey. The overall response rate was 64.6% as shown in the following calculation. The standard error due to sampling was no more than 1.4 percentage points. Table 2 Calculation of overall response rate Overall response rate = [Successful cases / (Successful cases + Refusal cases + Incomplete cases)] 100% = [1,208 / (1,208 + 34 + 565 + 62)] 100% = 64.6% The data collected have been adjusted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population at the end of 2009. All analyses in this report are based on the weighted data. Statistical tests of difference-of-proportions and difference-of-means have been employed whenever applicable, in order to check for significant changes. Figures marked with single asterisk (*) denoted statistical significance at p=0.05 level whereas those with double asterisks (**) indicated that the variation has been tested to be statistically significant at p=0.01 level. The researcher is aware that the POP Team is part of the University of Hong Kong, which is one of the institutions rated by the respondents. As a precaution to eliminate any possible bias due to desirability effect, all respondents were explicitly told at the beginning of the interview that the POP Team was an independent research team, and the respondents should simply report honestly what they felt. 4
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings 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), 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 Hong Kong Shue Yan University (HKSYU) which was included for the third time since 2008. 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 First of all, 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 indicated that, in terms of public perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.19 as rated by 1,170 respondents, CUHK came second with an average score of 7.55 as rated by 1,166 respondents, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.37 as rated by 1,137 respondents. When compared to the findings obtained from last year s survey, the order of rankings among all institutions remained exactly the same. Among all the institutions, only the increment of HKU s rating was tested to be statistically significant at p=0.05 level (Table 3). Table 3 - Overall Performance of Institutions 2007 Survey 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error No. of raters Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample) 1. HKU 7.93 0.04 8.11 0.04 8.07 0.04 8.19* 0.04 1,170 96.8% 2. CUHK 7.25 0.05 7.67 0.04 7.64 0.04 7.55 0.04 1,166 96.6% 3. HKUST 7.16 0.05 7.38 0.04 7.33 0.04 7.37 0.04 1,137 94.1% 4. PolyU 6.79 0.04 7.00 0.04 6.90 0.04 6.89 0.04 1,148 95.1% 5. HKBU 6.28 0.04 6.42 0.04 6.34 0.04 6.30 0.04 1,126 93.2% 6. CityU 6.09 0.04 6.26 0.04 6.12* 0.04 6.22 0.04 1,105 91.4% 7. HKIEd 5.60 0.05 5.77 0.05 5.66 0.05 5.72 0.05 1,011 83.7% 8. LU 5.57 0.05 5.65 0.05 5.51* 0.05 5.54 0.05 1,053 87.1% 9. HKSYU# -N.A.- 5.57 0.05 5.42 0.05 5.45 0.05 995 82.4% # Newly added in 2008. 5
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings 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 Standard No. of Standard No. of No. of raters Average Average error error raters error raters 1. HKU 8.11 0.15 149 8.22 0.06 588 8.18 0.06 425 2. CUHK 7.25 0.16 153 7.54 0.06 580 7.67 0.06 426 3. HKUST^ 7.13 0.16 142 7.25 0.06 566 7.60 0.06 422 4. PolyU 6.89 0.13 148 6.91 0.06 574 6.88 0.06 422 5. HKBU 6.35 0.15 140 6.35 0.06 557 6.23 0.06 421 6. CityU 6.19 0.16 133 6.22 0.06 546 6.24 0.06 417 7. HKIEd^ 6.15 0.18 112 5.73 0.07 502 5.60 0.07 392 8. LU^ 6.04 0.18 119 5.51 0.06 526 5.45 0.06 401 9. HKSYU^ 5.70 0.17 103 5.60 0.08 494 5.21 0.07 393 ^ 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 Standard No. of Standard No. of No. of raters Average Average error error raters error raters 1. HKU 8.12 0.07 354 8.16 0.09 233 8.10 0.13 94 2. CUHK 7.52 0.07 353 7.56 0.09 233 7.56 0.13 95 3. HKUST 7.47 0.07 350 7.37 0.10 226 6.97 0.15 92 4. PolyU^ 6.77 0.07 353 7.02 0.08 229 6.73 0.14 95 5. HKBU 6.21 0.07 348 6.42 0.08 226 6.19 0.14 91 6. CityU^ 6.07 0.07 350 6.30 0.08 222 6.07 0.14 91 7. HKIEd^ 5.47 0.08 326 5.82 0.10 207 5.74 0.17 85 8. LU^ 5.44 0.07 335 5.45 0.09 210 5.52 0.16 91 9. HKSYU^ 5.24 0.08 324 5.63 0.10 206 5.63 0.19 83 ^ Differences among 8 12 sub-groups 0 07 tested to 354 be statistically 8 16 significant 0 09 at 95% 233 confidence 8level. 10 0 13 94 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 0.13 78 8.43 0.11 146 2. CUHK 7.69 0.13 79 7.73 0.13 146 3. HKUST 7.38 0.13 76 7.29 0.13 142 4. PolyU^ 7.00 0.13 78 6.82 0.13 142 5. HKBU 6.26 0.13 78 6.35 0.13 140 6. CityU^ 6.52 0.12 77 5.94 0.15 135 7. HKIEd^ 5.88 0.15 73 5.79 0.15 129 8. LU^ 5.59 0.14 75 5.53 0.14 128 9. HKSYU^ 5.27 0.15 75 5.40 0.17 116 ^ Differences among 7 95 sub-groups 0tested 13 to be statistically 78 significant 8 43 at 095% 11 confidence 146 level. 6
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings 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 Lap-chee Tsui of HKU topped the list this year with an average score of 7.67 as rated by 952 respondents. Newcomer Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came second and had attained a mean score of 6.87 as rated by 677 respondents. The next tier included Professor Timothy W. Tong of PolyU, Dr Chi-yung Chung of HKSYU and Professor Ching-fai Ng of HKBU who ranked third to fifth attaining a mean score of 6.50, 6.46 and 6.41 respectively. The sixth to ninth ranks fell to the Presidents/Principals of CityU, HKIEd, CUHK and LU correspondingly, with an average score ranging from 6.07 to 6.17. It is worth mentioning that the ranking of Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK has dropped significantly by five positions (-0.92 mark) compared with last year. Seven out of nine Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/ Principals had obtained recognition rates of 50% or above. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU received the highest recognition rate of 79% while Professor Lawrence J. Lau of CUHK followed closely behind, at 78% (Table 6). Table 6 - Overall Performance of Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principals 2007 Survey 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey Avg. Std. error Avg. Std. error Avg. Std. error Avg. Std. error No of raters Recognition (No. of raters/ total sample) 1. HKU Lap-chee TSUI 7.46 0.05 7.67 0.05 7.58 0.05 7.67 0.05 952 78.8% 2. HKUST Tony F. CHAN# -N.A.- 6.87 0.05 677 56.0% 3. PolyU Timothy W. TONG -N.A.- 6.59 0.06 6.50 0.06 643 53.2% 4. HKSYU Chi-yung CHUNG -N.A.- 6.61 0.07 6.57 0.06 6.46 0.06 646 53.5% 5. HKBU Ching-fai NG 6.54 0.05 6.66 0.05 6.51 0.05 6.41 0.05 776 64.2% 6. CityU Way KUO -N.A.- 6.23 0.07 6.21 0.06 6.17 0.05 601 49.7% 7. HKIEd Anthony B.L. CHEUNG -N.A.- 6.25 0.06 6.28 0.05 6.16 0.05 821 67.9% 8. CUHK Lawrence J. LAU 6.82 0.06 7.09 0.06 7.01 0.05 6.09** 0.07 940 77.8% 9. LU Yuk-shee CHAN -N.A.- 6.15 0.07 6.07 0.06 6.07 0.06 588 48.7% # No comparison made as the relevant post was taken up by another person then. When cross-tabulated by respondents education attainment and occupation, slight variations were obtained in terms of the respective rankings of the VCs/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 VC/President/Principal are shown in the following tables (Tables 7-8). 7
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Table 7 Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Education Attainment of Respondents Primary or below Secondary Tertiary or above Average Standard No. of Standard No. of Standard No. of Average Average error raters error raters error raters 1. HKU Lap-chee TSUI 7.79 0.15 103 7.72 0.07 474 7.55 0.07 370 2. HKUST Tony F. CHAN 6.91 0.21 65 6.94 0.08 324 6.78 0.07 284 3. PolyU Timothy W. TONG^ 6.59 0.21 59 6.63 0.08 328 6.33 0.08 252 4. HKSYU Chi-yung CHUNG 6.63 0.24 60 6.46 0.10 322 6.43 0.09 260 5. HKBU Ching-fai NG^ 6.75 0.19 73 6.45 0.08 395 6.28 0.07 304 6. CityU Way KUO 6.45 0.21 62 6.20 0.08 289 6.09 0.08 246 7. HKIEd Anthony B.L. CHEUNG 6.24 0.18 81 6.23 0.08 417 6.07 0.08 318 8. CUHK Lawrence J. LAU 6.41 0.22 101 6.17 0.10 469 5.91 0.11 366 9. LU Yuk-shee CHAN^ 6.63 0.23 56 6.11 0.08 290 5.89 0.08 237 ^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Table 8a Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Occupation of Respondents (I) Professionals and Clerk and service semi-professionals workers Production workers Average Standard No. of Standard No. of Standard No. of Average Average error raters error raters error raters 1. HKU Lap-chee TSUI^ 7.55 0.08 308 7.63 0.10 186 7.29 0.17 77 2. HKUST Tony F. CHAN 6.78 0.08 229 6.86 0.12 140 6.81 0.18 56 3. PolyU Timothy W. TONG 6.31 0.09 215 6.58 0.12 135 6.46 0.18 58 4. HKSYU Chi-yung CHUNG 6.34 0.10 219 6.44 0.15 129 6.27 0.23 57 5. HKBU Ching-fai NG 6.36 0.08 261 6.52 0.10 166 6.28 0.17 65 6. CityU Way KUO 6.10 0.08 202 6.22 0.12 128 6.12 0.19 54 7. HKIEd Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^ 5.98 0.09 271 6.09 0.12 163 6.27 0.17 70 8. CUHK Lawrence J. LAU 5.93 0.12 300 6.12 0.15 191 6.34 0.23 79 9. LU Yuk-shee CHAN 5.93 0.09 200 6.01 0.11 122 6.14 0.18 55 ^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Table 8b Cross-tabulation Analyses: VC/President/Principal Performance by Occupation of Respondents (II) Students Standard Average error No. of raters Housewives Standard No. of Average error raters 1. HKU Lap-chee TSUI^ 7.28 0.14 60 7.90 0.14 114 2. HKUST Tony F. CHAN 6.70 0.17 46 6.84 0.19 75 3. PolyU Timothy W. TONG 6.41 0.17 41 6.71 0.20 69 4. HKSYU Chi-yung CHUNG 6.54 0.21 40 6.45 0.21 75 5. HKBU Ching-fai NG 6.11 0.15 43 6.61 0.16 93 6. CityU Way KUO 6.17 0.17 40 6.03 0.20 58 7. HKIEd Anthony B.L. CHEUNG^ 6.05 0.17 45 6.20 0.17 93 8. CUHK Lawrence J. LAU 6.46 0.21 63 6.15 0.21 113 9. LU Yuk-shee CHAN 5.98 0.17 37 6.11 0.18 65 ^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level. 8
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings 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 24% of respondents citing it. Social/interpersonal skills and conduct, honesty obtained the second and third ranks and were mentioned by 13% and 11% of the total sample respectively. Other commonly-cited qualities included commitment to society, proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua, critical thinking and problem-solving ability and global prospect / foresight, each accounting for 9% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 18% of the respondents could not give a definite answer (Table 9). Table 9 Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey % of total sample (Base = 1,213) % of total sample (Base = 1,201) Freq. % of total responses (Base = 1,928 responses from 1,204 respondents) % of total sample (Base = 1,208) Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated) 16.6% 20.9%** 289 15.0% 23.9% Social/interpersonal skills 12.4% 11.7% 151 7.9% 12.5% Conduct, honesty 13.4%** 12.5% 129 6.7% 10.7% Commitment to society 7.7%* 7.0% 113 5.8% 9.3%* Proficiency in Chinese, English & Putonghua 16.2% 13.4% 109 5.7% 9.1%** Critical thinking and problem-solving ability 10.4% 8.1%* 106 5.5% 8.8% Global prospect / foresight 9.8% 10.2% 106 5.5% 8.7% Independence 0.5% 6.7%** 95 4.9% 7.9% Social/work experience 8.3% 7.3% 70 3.6% 5.8% Self-confidence 3.5%** 4.6% 61 3.2% 5.1% Academic and professional knowledge 6.4%** 9.2%* 57 3.0% 4.7%** Communication skills 3.7% 4.6% 57 3.0% 4.7% Civil awareness 0.4% 3.7%** 55 2.8% 4.5% All-roundness 0.9% 4.7%** 43 2.2% 3.5% Emotion stability 1.9% 2.7% 36 1.8% 3.0% Job opportunity 0.6% 2.3% 34 1.8% 2.8% Creativity 2.8% 3.6% 33 1.7% 2.8% Self-expectations / dreams 0.4% 1.6% 32 1.7% 2.7% Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions 0.7% 3.4%** 30 1.6% 2.5% Cultural level / self-cultivation 0.0% 0.0% 27 1.4% 2.2% Patriotism 2.3% 1.1% 13 0.7% 1.1% Leadership skills 0.3% 0.5% 6 0.3% 0.5% Financial management 0.9% 1.9% 4 0.2% 0.4% Nothing 4.0% 3.6% 47 2.5% 3.9% Others 2.8%** 2.4% 8 0.4% 0.7% Don t know / hard to say 24.5%* 15.8%** 216 11.2% 17.9% Total 1,928 100.0% Base 1,207 1,197 1,204 Missing case(s) 6 4 4 9
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings D. Preference for University Graduates The survey went on to study employers preference when selecting university graduates. To begin with, all respondents were asked if they were involved in any recruitment process of new staff in performing their office duties. Results showed that 17% of the total sample, i.e. 209 respondents had such authority in one way or another (Table 10). Table 10 - Involvement in Recruitment of New Staff (Teachers included) 2007 Survey 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey Percentage Percentage Percentage Frequency Percentage Yes 16.5% 16.0% 18.1% 209 17.3% No 83.5% 84.0% 81.9% 999 82.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,208 100.0% Base 1,210 1,212 1,201 1,208 Missing case(s) 0 1 3 0 These respondents were further asked which institution s graduates would be preferred when they looked for a new employee. For nine consecutive years, graduates of HKU ranked first in the row again, as chosen by 21% of these employers whereas CUHK came second with 18%. Meanwhile, graduates from PolyU and HKUST were preferred by 11% and 8% of this sub-sample respectively. Another 21% of these prospective employers said they had no particular preference and 8% 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 6.9 percentage points at 95% confidence level (Table 11). 10
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Table 11 - Most Preferred University Graduates 2007 Survey 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey % of % of % of % of % of potential total sample total sample total sample total sample Freq. employers (Base = (Base = 1,210) (Base = 1,213) (Base = 1,201) (Base = 209) 1,208) HKU 4.6% 3.8% 4.3% 43 20.7% 3.6% CUHK 2.4% 1.4% 1.8% 37 17.6% 3.0% PolyU 1.5% 2.5% 2.8% 23 11.2% 1.9% HKUST 1.4% 1.1% 2.4% 16 7.9% 1.4% CityU^ 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 5 2.4% 0.4% HKBU 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 5 2.2% 0.4% HKSYU N.A. 0.1% 0.4% 4 1.9% 0.3% HKIEd 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 3 1.5% 0.3% LU 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1 0.4% 0.1% Other overseas universities 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 4 1.8% 0.3% Others 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 1 0.4% 0.1% No preference 2.9% 3.3% 2.5% 44 21.1% 3.6% Don t know / hard to say 1.3% 1.8% 1.9% 17 8.2% 1.4% Won t employ graduates 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 6 2.7% 0.5% Total 209 100.0% Valid Base 200 194 217 209 Missing case(s) 0 0 1 0 ^ 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 knowledge in job-related areas was most frequently cited, by 32% of the sub-sample (i.e. 4% of the total sample). Good performance of previous graduates came second with 30% (i.e. 4% of the total sample) while the reputation of their university came third with 21% (i.e. 3% of the total sample). A respective of 17% and 11% (i.e. 2% and 1% of the total sample respectively) preferred certain graduates simply due to their good work attitude and being diligent/motivated. Other than these, reasons like alumni, good language ability and good social relationship were also mentioned by quite some, though not many, respondents (Table 12). 11
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Table 12 - Reasons for Preferring Graduates of a Particular Institution 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey % of total sample (Base = 1,213) % of total sample (Base = 1,201) Freq. % of total responses (Base = 218 responses from 142 respondents) % of valid respondents (Base = 142) % of total sample (Base = 1,208) Good knowledge in job-related areas 2.7% 3.4% 45 20.8% 32.1% 3.8% Good performance of previous graduates 3.6% 5.0% 42 19.4% 29.9% 3.5% Reputation 1.6% 2.6% 30 13.6% 21.0% 2.5% Good work attitude 1.0% 1.1% 24 10.9% 16.8% 2.0% Diligent, motivated 1.0% 1.1% 15 6.9% 10.7% 1.2% Alumni 0.6% 0.8% 14 6.3% 9.8% 1.1% Good language ability 1.3% 1.1% 14 6.2% 9.5% 1.1% Good social relationship 0.3% 0.6% 12 5.5% 8.5% 1.0% Good connection with outside (e.g., a university s extensive connection with 0.6% 0.3% 7 3.3% 5.0% 0.6% enterprises, companies, or industrial firms; large number of graduates) Good leadership 0.2% 0.1% 6 2.6% 4.0% 0.5% Salary matched with abilities 0.2% 0.1% 5 2.5% 3.8% 0.4% Others 1.2% 1.0% 4 1.6% 2.5% 0.3% Don t know / hard to say 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% Total 218 100% Valid Base 129 154 142 Missing case(s) 0 0 0 12
Public Opinion Programme, HKU Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Summary of Findings Chart - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2001-2010 Rating (0-10) 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 HKU CUHK HKUST PolyU HKBU CityU HKIEd LU HKSYU 4.5 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year 13
Appendix 1 Demographic Profile of Respondents
Appendix One Demographic Profile of Respondents Demographic Profile of Respondents All figures obtained have been adjusted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2009 year-end. 1. Gender Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Male 514 42.5% 557 46.1% Female 694 57.5% 651 53.9% Total 1,208 100.0% 1,208 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 0 0 2. Age Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 18-20 90 7.5% 55 4.5% 21-29 215 17.9% 183 15.2% 30-39 253 21.0% 227 18.9% 40-49 215 17.9% 258 21.4% 50-59 228 19.0% 224 18.6% 60 or above 202 16.8% 257 21.3% Total 1,203 100.0% 1,203 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 5 5 Appendix 1-1
Appendix One Demographic Profile of Respondents 3. Education attainment Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Primary or below 153 12.7% 171 14.2% Secondary 593 49.4% 600 50.0% Tertiary or above 455 37.9% 430 35.8% Total 1,201 100.0% 1,200 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 7 8 4. Occupation group Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Professionals and semi-professionals 347 29.2% 356 29.9% Clerk and service workers 248 20.8% 236 19.9% Production workers 91 7.6% 99 8.3% Students 114 9.6% 79 6.7% Housewives 162 13.6% 154 12.9% Others 228 19.2% 268 22.5% Total 1,190 100.0% 1,191 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 18 17 Appendix 1-2
Appendix One Demographic Profile of Respondents 5. Type of ownership of your house Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Self-purchased 702 59.2% 705 59.5% Rent 484 40.8% 481 40.5% Total 1,186 100.0% 1,186 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 22 22 6. House type Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Public housing estate 385 32.1% 383 32.0% Housing Authority subsidized sale flats 190 15.9% 185 15.4% Housing Society subsidized sale flats 13 1.1% 13 1.1% Private housing 540 45.1% 546 45.6% Village: villas / bungalows / modern village houses 33 2.8% 34 2.8% Village: simple stone structures / traditional village houses 27 2.3% 27 2.2% Staff quarters 4 0.3% 4 0.3% Others 6 0.5% 7 0.6% Total 1,198 100.0% 1,198 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 10 10 Appendix 1-3
Appendix One Demographic Profile of Respondents 7. Working in the academy [only for those who are professionals or associate professionals] Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Yes-Teaching staff of primary school (including teachers and principal) 7 3.6% 6 3.3% Yes-Teaching staff of secondary school (including teachers and 21 10.9% 22 11.6% principal) Yes-Teaching staff of university 12 6.3% 13 6.6% Others 23 12.0% 20 10.4% No 129 67.2% 132 68.1% Total 192 100.0% 193 100.0% Base 198 200 Missing 6 7 8. Having children who are studying in schools Raw sample Weighted sample Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Yes 399 33.1% 410 34.1% No 805 66.9% 794 65.9% Total 1,204 100.0% 1,204 100.0% Base 1,208 1,208 Missing 4 4 Appendix 1-4
Appendix 2 Frequency Tables
Appendix Two Frequency Tables Frequency Tables [Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each institution of higher education after taking into consideration its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of its courses, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following institutions? Average Standard error No of raters Recognition HKU 8.19 0.04 1,170 96.8% CUHK 7.55 0.04 1,166 96.6% HKUST 7.37 0.04 1,137 94.1% PolyU 6.89 0.04 1,148 95.1% HKBU 6.30 0.04 1,126 93.2% CityU 6.22 0.04 1,105 91.4% HKIEd 5.72 0.05 1,011 83.7% LU 5.54 0.05 1,053 87.1% HKSYU 5.45 0.05 995 82.4% [Q2] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of Vice-Chancellor / President of each institution while taking his local and international reputation, approachability to the public, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following Vice-Chancellors / Presidents? Average Standard error No of raters Recognition HKU Lap-chee TSUI 7.67 0.05 952 78.8% HKUST Tony F. CHAN 6.87 0.05 677 56.0% PolyU Timothy W. TONG 6.50 0.06 643 53.2% HKSYU Chi-yung CHUNG 6.46 0.06 646 53.5% HKBU Ching-fai NG 6.41 0.05 776 64.2% CityU Way KUO 6.17 0.05 601 49.7% HKIEd Anthony B.L. CHEUNG 6.16 0.05 821 67.9% CUHK Lawrence J. LAU 6.09 0.07 940 77.8% LU Yuk-shee CHAN 6.07 0.06 588 48.7% Appendix 2-1
Appendix Two Frequency Tables [Q3] What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of? (multiple responses allowed) Freq. % of total responses (Base = 1,928 responses from 1,204 respondents) % of valid respondents (Base = 1,204) % of total sample (Base = 1,208) Work attitude (e.g. serious, enthusiastic, diligent, responsible, motivated) 289 15.0% 24.0% 23.9% Social/interpersonal skills 151 7.9% 12.6% 12.5% Conduct, honesty 129 6.7% 10.7% 10.7% Commitment to society 113 5.8% 9.4% 9.3% Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua 109 5.7% 9.1% 9.1% Critical thinking and problem-solving ability 106 5.5% 8.8% 8.8% Global prospect / foresight 106 5.5% 8.8% 8.7% Independence 95 4.9% 7.9% 7.9% Social/work experience 70 3.6% 5.8% 5.8% Self-confidence 61 3.2% 5.1% 5.1% Academic and professional knowledge 57 3.0% 4.8% 4.7% Communication skills 57 3.0% 4.8% 4.7% Civil awareness 55 2.8% 4.6% 4.5% All-roundness 43 2.2% 3.5% 3.5% Emotion stability 36 1.8% 3.0% 3.0% Job opportunity 34 1.8% 2.8% 2.8% Creativity 33 1.7% 2.8% 2.8% Self-expectations / dreams 32 1.7% 2.7% 2.7% Alertness to risk / handling adverse conditions 30 1.6% 2.5% 2.5% Cultural level / self-cultivation 27 1.4% 2.2% 2.2% Patriotism 13 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% Leadership skills 6 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% Financial management 4 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% Nothing 47 2.5% 3.9% 3.9% Others 8 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% Don t know/ hard to say 216 11.2% 17.9% 17.9% Total 1,928 100.0% Base 1,204 Missing case(s) 4 Appendix 2-2
Appendix Two Frequency Tables [Q4] Under your job specifications, are you involved, in any way, in the recruitment process of new staff, including teachers? Frequency Percentage Yes 209 17.3% No 999 82.7% Total 1,208 100.0% Base 1,208 Missing case(s) 0 [Q5] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff] If you looked for a new employee, which institution s graduates would you prefer most? (single response only) Frequency % of potential employers (Base = 209) % of total sample (Base = 1,208) HKU 43 20.7% 3.6% CUHK 37 17.6% 3.0% PolyU 23 11.2% 1.9% HKUST 16 7.9% 1.4% CityU 5 2.4% 0.4% HKBU 5 2.2% 0.4% HKSYU 4 1.9% 0.3% HKIEd 3 1.5% 0.3% LU 1 0.4% 0.1% Other overseas universities 4 1.8% 0.3% Others - IVE 1 0.4% 0.1% No preference 44 21.1% 3.6% Don t know / hard to say 17 8.2% 1.4% Won t employ graduates 6 2.7% 0.5% Total 209 100.0% Valid base 209 Missing case(s) 0. Appendix 2-3
Appendix Two Frequency Tables [Q6] [Only for those who are involved in the recruitment process of new staff and have preference over a specific institution s graduates] Why would you prefer the graduates of the chosen institution? (multiple responses allowed) Frequency % of total responses (Base = 218 responses from 142 respondents) % of valid respondents (Base = 142) % of total sample (Base = 1,208) Good knowledge in job-related areas 45 20.8% 32.1% 3.8% Good performance of previous graduates 42 19.4% 29.9% 3.5% Reputation 30 13.6% 21.0% 2.5% Good work attitude 24 10.9% 16.8% 2.0% Diligent, motivated 15 6.9% 10.7% 1.2% Alumni 14 6.3% 9.8% 1.1% Good language ability 14 6.2% 9.5% 1.1% Good social relationship 12 5.5% 8.5% 1.0% Good connection with outside (e.g., a university s extensive connection with enterprises, companies, or industrial 7 3.3% 5.0% 0.6% firms; large number of graduates) Good leadership 6 2.6% 4.0% 0.5% Salary matched with abilities 5 2.5% 3.8% 0.4% Others 4 1.6% 2.5% 0.3% Don t know / hard to say 1 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% Total 218 100.0% Valid base 142 Missing case(s) 0 Appendix 2-4
Appendix 3 Other Answers Submitted (Chinese)
Appendix Three Other Answers Submitted (Chinese) Other answers submitted by respondents (in Chinese) Table 1 lack of? What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students Frequency 良好學習環境 2 公眾認受性 1 現代行為分析 1 整體質素下降 1 應做好自己本份, 讀好書, 而不是社會運動 1 濫用民主, 為我獨專, 大聲迫壓人行為似黑社會 1 Table 2 Why would you prefer the graduates of the chosen institution? Frequency 比較現實 1 地點較方便 1 宗教背景同被訪者相同 1 Appendix 3-1
Appendix 4 Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English)
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 港人眼中的大專院校排名調查 2010 常見答問 Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2010 Frequently-asked Questions 註 : 以下是關於大專院校排名調查的常見問題和答案, 我們歡迎各界人士提出其他問題, 以便我們不斷增加及更新問答項目 請把提問以電郵方式傳至 <urank@hkupop.hku.hk>, 我們會盡快答覆, 及把問題與答案上載到本網頁 Note: Below are some frequently-asked questions, as well as their answers concerning the Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities. We welcome the public to submit other questions, so that we can keep on increasing and revising our questions and answers. Please email your questions to <urank@hkupop.hku.hk>. We will reply to them as soon as possible, and have them uploaded to our website. 問 1: 香港大學民意研究計劃隸屬香港大學, 進行大專院校排名調查有否角色衝突? Q1: HKU Public Opinion Programme is affiliated to the University of Hong Kong, is there a conflict of roles when conducting an opinion survey on the public ranking of universities? 答 1: 為了確保被訪者不受此因素影響評分, 我們的訪員歷年來都在訪問的引言中強調民意研究計劃是中立的研究組織, 並提醒被訪者切勿因為我們屬於香港大學而影響其本意 如果不是有獨立機構委託我們進行獨立調查, 我們也不會主動進行有關研究 反過來說, 如果因為我們屬於香港大學而不應進行有關調查, 推而廣之, 則所有院校和學者也不應進行類似調查, 或者參與任何院校排名, 而所有政府部門也不應進行關於自己的民意調查了 當情況無可避免, 申報利益是最好的保證 A1: In order to ensure the interviewers are not affected by the above-mentioned factor, our interviewers have throughout the years emphasized that HKU Public Opinion Programme is a neutral research body, and reminded the respondents not to make any decisions based on the fact that we are affiliated to the University of Hong Kong. Should we have not been commissioned by any independent organization to carry out this research independently, we would not take the initiative to conduct any survey of related kind. On the other hand, if we did not carry out the surveys because of our affiliation with the University of Hong Kong, which means in a broader sense, all tertiary institutions and academic staff should not conduct similar kind of survey, or to participate in any universities ranking, and all government departments should not carry out their own public opinion survey too. Therefore, when this is inevitable, the best way is to declare our interests in conducting this survey. Appendix 4-1
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 問 2: 理想的大專院校排名調查應該由誰執行? Q2: Most ideally, who should be in charge of the survey on the public ranking of universities? 答 2: 最理想的調查當然是由最有公信力的機構進行 如果各間院校能夠共同合作, 以科學方法進行聯合調查, 當然是最好不過 可是, 環顧各地, 有關調查似乎都是由獨立媒體進行者居多 如果香港能夠發展出一套完善的院校排名機制, 我們樂意把我們的數據和經驗, 全數轉交有關研究組織 A2: The most ideal research, of course, should be carried out by the most credible organization. It would be the best if all tertiary institutions can collaborate and apply scientific method to carry out a joint survey. However, it seems that the majority of similar type of surveys was usually conducted by independent bodies in many countries. If Hong Kong can develop a better system to rank the tertiary institutions, we are very pleased to pass on all of our data and experience to related research organizations. 問 3: 理想的大專院校排名調查應否包括民意調查成份? Q3: Should the most ideal survey on the public ranking of universities include public opinion components? 答 3: 這是見仁見智的問題 我們從 2001 年開始調查巿民對大專院校的觀感, 因為我們認為有關數據具參考價值 學術機構向來以專業知識監察社會, 亦應同樣接受社會監察 至於其他機構, 包括我們的夥伴香港專業教育網如何把民意數據引用到他們的專業排名, 不是我們的責任, 也不是我們的專長 2001 年以前, 香港專業教育網已經多次進行院校排名, 我們相信他們的經驗和智慧, 我們沒有參與 亦不會評論他們的排名方法 A3: That really depends. We started conducting surveys on public perception of tertiary institutions in 2001, because we think related statistics is valuable as a reference. Academic organizations always used professional knowledge to monitor the society, but they should also be monitored by the society. Whereas for other organizations, including our partner, Education 18.com, it is neither our responsibility nor strength to understand how they apply the survey data in their professional ranking. Before 2001, Education 18.com have conducted ranking of universities for many times, and we trust their experience and talent, we never participate in or comment on their ranking methodology. Appendix 4-2
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 問 4: 不同院校可以互相比較嗎? Q4: Can different universities be compared? 答 4: 不同院校有不同的特色, 既可比較亦不能完全比較 不論是民意調查或者是專業評審, 比較的單位可以是學校 學院 學系 學科 學生 學位課程 甚至是各自的目標成效等 不過, 如果硬說存在差異而不能比較, 亦不合理 有人說, 橙和蘋果不能比較 可是, 兩者不都是生果嗎? 如果有某君說喜歡蘋果多於橙, 不也就是比較後的結果嗎? 如果橙和蘋果永遠不能比較, 那末, 紅蘋果也不能和青蘋果比較 牛奶蕉也不能和過山蕉比較了 其實, 任何事物都可以比較, 只是意義的輕重罷了 如果巿民認為院校的比較有意義, 那就是意義所在了 A4: Different universities have different characteristics; it can be compared but not fully compared. No matter it is public opinion poll or professional rating; comparable units include schools, faculties, departments, subjects, students, courses, or even individual objective-oriented efficiency, etc. However, if we only say differences exist but they are not comparable, it is not reasonable at all. Someone says, orange and apples cannot be compared. But they are both fruits, aren t they? If someone says he/she prefers apple to orange, this is a result of comparison, isn t it? If orange and apple can never be compared, that means red apple cannot be compared with green apple, and milky bananas and wild bananas cannot be compared too. In fact, everything can be compared, it depends on the weight of its meanings. If people think comparing universities is meaningful, that s it. 問 5: 以民意調查結果進行院校排名, 世界各地有否例子? Q5: Are there any examples to conduct universities ranking by public opinion polls around the world? 答 5: 美國蓋洛普調查公司在 1999 年 8 月及 2003 年 7 月, 與不同媒體合作進行有關美國大學排名的電話民意調查, 每次訪問略多於 1000 人 兩次調查結果都是哈佛大學遙遙領先, 美國有線電視新聞網絡亦有廣泛報導 以下是蓋洛普網站關於兩次調查的報導 : http://www.gallup.com/poll/3634/harvard-tops-gallup-poll-list-best-university.aspx (1999 年調查 ) http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx (2003 年調查 ) 蓋洛普強調, 國民意見調查結果跟一些專業評審結果不同, 但就代表了美國國民的直接感受, 是蓋洛普的主要工作 A5: US Gallup Poll collaborated with different medias to conduct a telephone survey related to US universities ranking in August 1999 and July 2003. They interviewed more than 1000 respondents in each survey. Both survey polls suggested that Harvard University is always the top university in the US, and this is also widely reported by the CNN. The follow websites cover the news about the two polls. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3634/harvard-tops-gallup-poll-list-best-university.aspx(1999 survey) http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx (2003 survey) Gallup Poll emphasized, results obtained from public opinion survey would be different from professional ratings. But this represents how the US citizens perceive, and this is also part of Gallup Poll s job. Appendix 4-3
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 問 6: 調查樣本中有很多人沒有讀過大學, 要求他們對各大專院校和校長作出評分, 是否合適? Q6: In the survey sample, many respondents have never studied in the university before, do you think it is appropriate for these people to rate the universities or the Vice-Chancellor/President/Principal? 答 6: 沒有機會入讀大學的人未必對大學一無所知 例如, 年長父母可以透過其子女或親屬了解不同大學的優劣 ; 亦有不少家長為了子女升學而花了不少時間悉心比較院校的優劣 他們的意見當然未必與專家一樣, 但他們也有表達意見的自由, 一如所有巿民都可以對政府官員或政策表達意見, 那怕他們的認識膚淺, 甚至一無所知 A6: People who have never entered the university do not mean that they know nothing about the universities. For example, elders or parents can understand the good and bad things about the universities through their children or relatives. Many parents have spent a lot of time to compare the universities for the sake of their children. Their opinions would not be the same as the experts, but they still have the freedom to express their opinions. This is exactly the same when the general public can express their opinions about government officials or social policies, although these people may have superficial knowledge, or they know nothing at all. 問 7: 普羅市民不是專家, 他們的意見有什麼意義? Q7: The general people are not experts, what is the meaning of their opinions? 答 7: 顧名思義, 港人眼中的大專院校排名調查 是為了反映普羅市民對各大專院校的主觀評價, 並非專業評審結果 不過, 政府如是 公營和私營機構如是, 都應該不斷了解普羅市民對自己的評價 不足之處, 有則改之, 無則嘉勉 事實上, 眾多院校都不時為了內部參考而進行公眾形象調查 如果院校可以根據這些調查的結果修正形象, 為什麼獨立機構不能進行同類調查, 把有關數據變成公共資訊? A7: As reflected from the name, Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong aims to reflect the general public s subjective appraisal of all the universities in Hong Kong. It is not professional assessments. However, the government and those privately or publicly owned organizations should always understand their own standing through evaluation of the general public. Shortcomings should be fixed whereas strengths should be rewarded. In fact, many universities have conducted public perceptions surveys for internal references. If universities can seek improvements on their public image according to these survey results, why shouldn t an independent organization carry out similar surveys and release the data as public information? Appendix 4-4
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 問 8: 如果民意調查顯示不同階層的市民, 對院校排名有顯著分別, 我們應該怎樣解讀結果? Q8: If the survey results revealed that the ranking of universities had remarkable variations among people from different levels, how should we interpret the results? 答 8: 我們的調查顯示, 不同階層市民對院校的評分的確存在顯著差異, 顯示他們用了不同的評分準則 例如, 學歷較高的巿民採用的分譜往往比較寬闊, 顯示他們的分辨能力較高 不過, 以排名次序計, 各間院校的名次差不多完全沒有改變, 顯示相對名次其實非常穩定可靠 A8: Our survey revealed that, people from different levels did rate the universities differently, showing that they have not used the same criterion in the rating questions. For example, people with higher education level usually adopt a wider spectrum due to their stronger analytical abilities. However, in terms of the order of ranks, those of the universities have remained almost the same, reflecting the extremely stable and reliable relative rankings. 問 9: 為什麼不進行一個以教育界人士為對象的排名調查? Q9: Why don t we conduct a ranking survey targeting at people working in the education sector? 答 9: 我們完全歡迎這些調查, 從多角度探討問題 事實上, 自 2007 年開始, 在進行公眾意見調查的同時, 香港專業教育網 (Education18.com) 亦要求我們設計和進行一項以本地中學校長為對象的大專院校排名調查, 調查和分析由民研計劃負責, 至於如何使用有關結果, 則由香港專業教育網 (Education18.com) 負責, 與我們無關 此外, 我們亦歡迎在整個教育界進行有關意見調查, 唯須小心處理利益衝突的問題, 尤其是本身任職大專院校的教育界人士 A9: We definitely welcome this kind of survey so as to examine this topic in various angles. As a matter of fact, along with the public opinion survey, Education18.com has also requested us to design and conduct an opinion survey of local secondary school principals on the university rankings since 2007. POP was responsible for designing the questionnaire and processing the data, while Education18.com would decide on how to use the findings, entirely on its own without any input from POP. On the other hand, we also welcome similar surveys targeting at the entire education sector. However, we need to be very careful in handling any conflict of interest, especially among those who are working in the tertiary institutions. Appendix 4-5
Appendix Four Frequently-Asked Questions (Chinese & English) 問 10: 由院校職員或同學自己評價自己院校的調查有沒有問題? Q10: Are there any problems with the survey when staff or students have to assess their own universities? 答 10: 評價任何意見調查, 都要先審視有關調查的抽樣方法 回應比率和問卷設計等, 不能一概而論 如果資料不全, 則只能姑妄言之 姑妄聽之 整體而論, 職員或同學自評調查的缺陷, 在於不同院校的成員對自己院校的要求不同, 而該等不同, 又可能建基於成員背景的不同, 互為因果 舉例說, 某校學生由於成績驕人而對自己學校要求甚高, 其對自己學校的評價亦可能會相應偏低, 反之亦如是 此外, 如果院校成員因顧慮到調查結果會影響校譽而不從實回答, 結果便會出現另類偏差 A10: One have to first examine the survey s details, like the sampling method, response rate and questionnaire design, in order to comment on the survey, and therefore no simple conclusion could be drawn here. Overall speaking, it is possible that members from different institutions will have different demands on their own institutions, while those variations may be due to the different backgrounds of members. For example, students with excellent results from a certain university may have higher demands on their university, and therefore will tend to give less positive appraisal to it, and vice versa. Besides, if members from a university do not answer honestly as they worry the survey results will affect the university s reputation, there will be another kind of deviation. This is the shortcoming. 問 11: 有評論認為我們的調查問卷中提及一些市民難以了解的項目, 例如大學教職員的資歷 學術研究表現 校長的領導能力等, 問卷設計是否出現問題? Q11: Some comments suggesting that in our questionnaire, there are some items which are hard to be understood by the public, such as qualification of the universities teaching staff, academic research performance and leadership abilities of Vice-Chancellors/ Presidents/Principals. Are there problems with the design of the questionnaire? 答 11: 這又是見仁見智的問題, 適宜由獨立專業人士作出判斷 我們多年來採用的問卷, 關鍵提問部份是要求被訪者 用 0-10 分形容你對 XXXX 的整體評價,0 分代表極差,10 分代表極佳,5 分代表一半半, 這是香港和西方慣用的尺度之一 在問題中提及的一些項目, 例如大學教職員的資歷和學術研究表現 校長的領導能力和洞察力等, 都是屬於協助被訪者全面思考的附加提示, 既無誤導成份, 亦沒有在實踐過程中碰到問題, 反而可以沖淡院校的名牌效應 由於所有院校的提問完全相同, 所以就算有所影響, 亦屬公平 A11: This is another subjective question which should be judged by independent professionals. For key questions in our previous questionnaires, respondents were asked to use a scale of 0-10, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half, to describe your overall assessment towards XXX. This is a frequently-used scale in Hong Kong and the Western countries. Items mentioned in the questions, such as qualification of the universities teaching staff, academic research performance, leadership abilities and vision of Vice-Chancellors/Presidents/Principals, in fact were just hints to assist the respondents to give comprehensive thoughts to the questions, as well as diluting the labeling effect of the universities. Since the phrasing of questions was exactly the same for all institutions, it should be fair even though the respondents answers were influenced. Appendix 4-6