Lingnan University's Criticisms of the Opinion Survey on the Public Ranking of Universities in Hong Kong 2006

Lingnan University ("Lingnan" or "the University") regrets that the opinion survey released today by Education18.com on the public ranking of higher institutions in Hong Kong 2006 ("2006 ranking") was conducted unprofessionally, giving the public a misleading perception on the understanding of the higher education sector in Hong Kong.

The survey was conducted by Education18.com and the University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Programme ("POP").  The survey caused much controversy over the years primarily on the methodology over the past years.  Despite regrets received along the years, Education18.com continued with the survey without any review and improvement in the methodology.

The University's trenchant criticisms about the 2006 ranking are not made on grounds of the ranking of the institutions itself, but on the research process and the methods adopted.   

On the information and methodologies released by Education18.com and POP, Lingnan raised three major points of concern:

1)   Respondents of the survey were largely "un-informed respondents" randomly drawn from the public, who either know little or do not have direct experience and knowledge about the universities.  Findings from these un-informed respondents represent primarily the general perception of the group, which when combining them with other academic indices, will lead to misperception to the public if it formulates the base of the overall ranking for local universities.  

2)   Basic faults were found in several key factors used in the 2006 ranking, such as "Successful Rate of Research Grants Application and Allocated Funds", "Research Output" and "Admissions Grades".  For example, the figures of "Successful Rate of Research Grants Application and Allocated Funds" were the total amount of research funds received, but not per capita figures, and the two basic AS-level language subjects were not counted in the calculation of the "Admission Grades".  All these faults would definitely affect the creditability of the survey results.

3)   The performance of graduates based on telephone survey, and largely to a group of "un-informed respondents" is misleading to the public. The results captured from the survey deviates also substantially from those obtained from a number of other surveys targeted to employers.

Based on above, Lingnan strongly denounces the survey on the unprofessional methodology employed, and regrets Education18.com and the University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Program who carried out the survey neither review nor take into account views expressed by the higher education institutions on the survey methodology over the past years.