1in Hong Kong. Online resource, http://www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/household-income.pdf

• 4670
(PISA 2012) (HKLSA) • (Wave 1) 2013 • (Wave 2) 2014 • (Wave 3) 2015 • 2016 (HKLSA) • 2017 • (Wave 4) 2017

15
(2012)
16
(2013)
17
(2014)
18
(2015)
19
(2016)
20
(2017)





( H K L S A )

2. ?
(40-57%)
(30)

15 (2012)
(:4670) 51.4% 9.0% 5.2% 5.1% 3.4% 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 8.9% 14.5%
16 (2013)
(:3000) 56.7% 8.5% 6.0% 7.6% 2.6% 2.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 11.7% 3.5%
18 (2015)
(: 1552) 39.9% 4.6% 6.4% 6.6% 2.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 7.2% 31.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
(20122015)

• –
–
–
–
–
–
–

2012 2013 2015

• (16: 87.9%; 18: 86.3%)
• (16: 79.0%; 18: 75.6%)
• (16: 55.5%; 18: 54.6%)
84.5%
79.2%
74.6%
(8-14%)
(59-77%)
4:
PISA
9 20092012
() 20092012
2009 2012
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
-.108 .080 .898 -.204 * .085 .815 .422 *** .038 1.526 .458 *** .041 1.580 .129 .114 1.138 -.066 .118 .936 .595 *** .051 1.813 .465 *** .054 1.593 .364 *** .073 1.439 .442 *** .087 1.556 .158 * .074 1.171 .238 ** .084 1.269 * -.022 .052 .978 -.027 .053 .973 * -.018 .067 .982 -.135 .082 .874 * .005 .068 1.005 .044 .080 1.045 -.131 * .054 .878 .165 ** .056 1.180
()
20092012 B
S.E.
Exp(B)
-.154 ** .058 .858 .431 *** .038 1.538 .032 .082 1.033 .595 *** .051 1.813 .343 *** .070 1.409 .179 * .071 1.195 * -.026 .037 .974 * -.068 .052 .935 * .018 .051 1.018 .222 *** .051 1.248 * .023 .055 1.023 * -.137 .073 .872 * .122 .102 1.130 * .040 .102 1.040 -.096 * .046 .909
(2013)
// /
(2013) (2015)
// /
(2014) (2015)


// /
6 39 122 936 1103
12 102 266 1005 1385
(2013) (2013)
(ISEI) 0.008 0.018 ** 0.008 0.018 ** 0.010 0.019 *
(AAI) −0.004 0.099 *** −0.008 0.096 *** −0.012 0.096 ***
−0.134 0.060 0.089 0.472 * 0.000 0.849 *
(ISEI) −0.000 0.028 ** −0.002 0.027 ** −0.001 0.025 *
1.322 −12.852 *** 1.046 −13.938 *** 1.651 −15.326 ***
LR chi-square (10 df) 412.11 417.24 345.67
=1,094 =1,094 =874
#p<0.10, *p<0.01, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

(2013)
(ISEI) 0.008 0.015 * 0.008 0.015 * 0.010 0.015 #
(AAI) −0.004 0.117 *** −0.008 0.114 *** −0.012 0.110 ***
−0.135 0.091 −0.088 0.443 * 0.007 0.868 **
(ISEI) −0.000 0.029 ** −0.014 0.028 ** −0.001 0.026 *
1.328 −15.028 *** 1.060 −15.943 *** 1.648 −17.174 ***
LR Chi-square (10 df) 448.08 422.24 343.70
=1,008 =1,008 =817
#p<0.10, *p<0.01, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

(2)
(ISEI) 0.008 0.017 * 0.008 0.017 * 0.010 0.015 #
(AAI) −0.004 0.143 *** −0.008 0.141 *** −0.012 0.138 ***
−0.140 0.243 0.092 0.333 0.006 0.730 *
(ISEI) 0.000 0.034 *** −0.001 0.034 *** −0.001 0.036 **
1.341 −19.025 *** 1.067 −18.105 *** 1.664 −19.458 ***
LR chi-square (10 df) 439.00 437.80 355.63
=911 =911 =748
#p<0.10, *p<0.01, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

(3)
()(3)
• In general, parents’ educational expectations are higher than respondent’s own educational expectations. However, there is also a high degree of consistency between their expectations and their educational outcomes observed in Wave 3
• Aside from their consistencies, there are no systematic discrepancies for off- diagonal entries
• Factors important in predicting educational outcomes in Wave 3:
1. There is virtually no systematic difference between S6 and ADHD students;
2. For those students attending BA programs, father’s socioeconomic status (ISEI), academic ability, and occupational expectations are important; and
3. The coefficients for academic ability (AAI) are stronger whereas family background (father’s ISEI) are weaker among UGC-funded students suggesting that although the local tertiary system is meritocratic, students from well-to-do families have alternative venues to obtain further education, either via self-financed local or overseas higher education institutions
Conclusion (Prof. Wong)
• 2013/1438% 20122015
(40-57%) (1516) (18)7-12%
(2):
• PISA
(3):
• 20092012 2015
(4):
(5):
• • • • Mentorship