Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2007 Presentation of Findings - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2007 Presentation of Findings PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 12ca79-YWQyN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2007 Presentation of Findings

Description:

Demographic profile of respondents. Ratings of universities and their heads ... Sequence of prompting respondents with the name of eight institutions was ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: Lee289
Learn more at: http://hkupop.hku.hk
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2007 Presentation of Findings


1
Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking
ofUniversities in Hong Kong 2007 Presentation
of Findings
?????????? The University of Hong Kong Public
Opinion Programme
By Karie Pang 26 July 2007
2
Outline of Presentation
  • Background information
  • Demographic profile of respondents
  • Ratings of universities and their heads
  • Public perception of graduates
  • Conclusion

3
  • Background

4
History
  • Commissioned by Media Education Info-tech Co.
    Ltd. (MEIT, which owns Education18.com) since
    2001, this is the 7th survey in the row.
  • Key objective is to gauge the general publics
    perception of eight institutions of higher
    education which are funded through the University
    Grants Committee (UGC) and 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.

5
Contact Information
Date of survey May 25 June 1, 2007 Target
population Cantonese-speaking population of
Hong Kong of age 18 or above Survey
method Telephone survey with interviewers
Sample size 1,210 successful cases Response
rate 60.9 Sampling error Less than 1.4
Weighting method Data adjusted according to the
gender-age distribution of HK population at the
end 2006
6
Notes of Caution
  • Findings only reflect general public perception
    of the eight 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 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 samples1,210
9
Age Distribution
Valid samples1,195
10
Education Attainment
Valid samples1,203
11
Occupation
Valid samples1,187
12
  • Public Ratings of Universities
  • and their Heads

13
Overall Performance of University
Changes being statistically significant at 95
confidence level.

94 94 90 93 89 86 81 85
Recognition rate No. of raters/total sample
Valid samples (2007)981-1,141
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
8.20
7.93
7.87
7.79
7.78
7.49
7.24
7.23
7.34
7.26
7.22
7.01
7.15
7.22
6.99
6.82
6.84
6.71
6.71
6.70
6.35
6.36
6.35
6.13
6.26
6.18
6.09
6.02
5.94
5.95
5.96
5.92
5.54
5.38
5.71
5.66
5.63
5.45
5.42
5.30
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 64 65 70 61 44 67
Recognition rate No. of raters/total sample
Valid samples (2007)526 886
17
Cross-tabulation Analyses Ratings of University
Heads vs Education Attainment
7.73
7.67
7.59
7.57
7.49
7.41
7.34
7.33
7.02
6.81
6.97
6.75
6.76
6.72
6.58
6.74
6.53
6.46
6.48
6.23
5.93
5.94
5.79
5.51
Differences among sub-groups tested to be
statistically significant at 95 confidence level.
18
Cross-tabulation Analyses Ratings of University
Head vs Respondents Occupation
7.88
7.62
7.51
7.42
7.47
7.39
7.41
7.26
7.39
7.19
7.11
7.05
7.00
7.01
6.86
6.85
6.82
6.79
6.72
6.69
6.70
6.64
6.75
6.64
6.38
6.48
6.56
6.56
6.44
6.37
6.27
6.30
5.92
6.00
5.85
5.89
5.80
5.84
5.67
5.50
HKUST Paul Chu
HKU LC Tsui
PolyU CK Poon
CUHK Lawrence Lau
Lingnan Edward Chen
HKBU CF Ng
CityU Richard Ho
HKIEd Paul Morris
Differences among sub-groups tested to be
statistically significant at 95 confidence level.
19
  • Public Perception
  • of University Students and Graduates

20
Perceived Deficiencies of University Students (I)
Changes being statistically significant at 95
confidence level.
17
17
14
13
12
12
10
10
8
Conduct and Honesty
Work Attitude
Proficiency in Chi, Eng and PTH
Social / interpersonal Skills
Global prospect / foresight
Critical thinking and problem- solving ability
Academic and professional knowledge
Commitment to society
Social / work experience
The question wording used for the 2004-05
surveys was university graduates instead of
university students, so comparison could only
be made on a rough basis.
Total samples (2007)1,210
21
Perceived Deficiencies of University Students
(II)
Changes being statistically significant at 95
confidence level.
20
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
1
Self- confidence
Communication skills
Emotional stability
Financial management
Job opportunity
Creativity
Nothing
Others
DK/HS
Note Attributes registering less than 1 for all
years are not shown here.
Total samples (2007)1,210
The question wording used for the 2004-05
surveys was university graduates instead of
university students, so comparison could only
be made on a rough basis.
22
Most Preferred University GraduatesOnly for
respondents involved in recruiting new staff
Oversea universities
No preference
Wont employ
DK/HS
HKU
CUHK
PolyU
HKUST
HKBU
CityU
LU
HKIEd
Others
Valid samples (2007) 200 Standard error (for
2007 at 95 confidence level) /-7.1
23
Reasons for Graduate Preferences Only for
respondents involved in recruiting new staff and
with preferences on university graduates
Good performance of previous graduates
Good knowledge in job-related areas
Reputation
Good work attitude
Diligent / motivated
Good social relationship
Good language ability
Alumni
Others
Valid samples (2007) 140 Standard error (for
2007 at 95 confidence level) /-8.5
Note Reasons registering less than 7 for all
years are not shown here.
24
Conclusion
25
Conclusion
  • Between 2001 and 2007, HKU continues 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 and Lap-chee Tsui of
    HKU are perceived as the best performing
    university heads this year.
  • Conduct, honesty, work attitude and language
    proficiency are perceived to be important
    qualities which most Hong Kong university
    students lack of.
  • Of the 200 potential employers interviewed, most
    preferred employing HKU, CUHK, PolyU and HKUST
    graduates, main reasons for their preference
    being good performance of previous graduates,
    good knowledge in job-related areas and
    reputation.

26
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.

27
End of Presentation Thank you!
About PowerShow.com