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

1. 香港大學民意研究計劃 The University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking ofUniversities in Hong Kong 2006Presentation of Findings Dr Robert CHUNG Ting-yiu 27 July 2006

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

3. Background

4. History • Commissioned by Media Education Info-tech Co. Ltd. (MEIT, which owns “Education18.com”) since 2001, this is the 6th survey in the row. • Key objective is to gauge the general public’s perception of local universities and their opinions on selected education issues. • The survey questionnaire was designed by HKU POP after consulting MEIT. • Fieldwork and data analysis conducted independently by POP, but final rankings wholly or partly based on perception figures are compiled independently by MEIT. • Survey reports of public opinion surveys for all years are available at HKU POP SITE (http://hkupop.hku.hk) for public consumption.

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

6. Notes of Caution • Findings only reflect general public perception of local universities and their leaders, they are not results of objective appraisals or professional assessments. • Absolute ratings (i.e. 0-10) are used in the key questions, they are methodologically more powerful than relative rankings, because the score received by an institution in any one year is independent of the scores of other institutions, or its own score in another years. • Sequence of prompting respondents with the name of eight institutions was randomly rotated to avoid possible bias. • All respondents have been told at the beginning of the interview that POP was an independent research body.

7. Demographic Profile of Respondents

8. Gender Valid samples：1,509

9. Age Distribution Valid samples：1,503

10. Education Attainment Valid samples：1,506

11. Occupation Valid samples：1,497

12. Public Ratings of Universities and their Heads

13. Overall Performance of University * 94% 93% 89% 92% 88% 86% 79% 83% * Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample Valid samples (2006)：1,192 - 1,419

14. Cross-tabulation Analyses: University Ratings vs Respondents’ Education Attainment ^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

15. Cross-tabulation Analyses: University Ratings vs Respondents’ Occupational Background ^ Differences among sub-groups tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

16. Public Ratings of University Heads ^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level. * 73% 72% 62% 65% 62% 71% 57% 50% * Recognition rate = No. of raters/total sample Valid samples (2006)：755 – 1,097

17. Public Perception of University Students and Graduates

18. Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (I) ^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Valid samples (2006)：1,499

19. Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (II) ^Changes being statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Valid samples (2006)：1,499 Note: Attributes registering less than 1% for all years are not shown here.

20. Most Preferred University Graduates[Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs] Valid samples (2006): 225 Standard error (for 2006 at 95% confidence level): +/-6.7%

21. Reasons for Graduate Preferences[Only for respondents involved in recruiting new staffs and with preferences on university graduates] Valid samples (2006): 168 Standard error (for 2006 at 95% confidence level): +/-7.7% Note: Reasons registering less than 4% for all years are not shown here.

22. Opinions on Selected Education Policies

23. Existing Quota for Associate Degree and Higher Diploma Studies Valid samples：1,500

24. Government Tuition Subsidy for Sub-degree Programme Students Valid samples：1,498

25. Establishment of Private Universities Valid samples：1,507

26. Naming of Faculties and Schools after the Donors Valid samples：1,503

27. Awareness of “Qualifications Framework” Valid samples：1,509

28. Implementation of “Qualifications Framework” Valid samples：1,502

29. Conclusion

30. Conclusion • Between 2001 and 2006, HKU continue to be perceived by the public as the best performing university, with CUHK & HKUST consistently taking the 2nd and 3rd ranks. • Professors Paul Chu of HKUST, Lap-chee Tsui of HKU and Lawrence Lau of CUHK are perceived as the best performing university heads. • “Conduct, honesty”, “work attitude” and “language proficiency” are perceived to be important qualities which most Hong Kong university graduates lack of. • Of the 225 employers interviewed, most preferred employing HKU, CUHK and PolyU graduates, main reasons for their preference being “good performance of previous graduates” and “good knowledge in job-related areas”.

31. Public 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.

32. End of Presentation