AN EXPLORATORY STUDY: STUDENTS PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF MBA PROGRAM OFFERED BY SELF-FINANCING ENGINEERING COLLEGES

Dr. S. Arun Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies, Saranathan College of Engineering, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India. Email: arun anthh!yahoo.co.in C. Naren Kumar IInd M"A Student, Department of Management Studies, Saranathan College of Engineering, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India. Email: umarnaren#!gmail.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this research $as to e%amine the importance of &arious dimensions of M"A education program'(uality perceptions as e%perienced )y students of self'financing engineering colleges and the e%tent to $hich perception of program (uality contri)uted to the o&erall satisfaction of students $ith their M"A program. A descripti&e approach $as used in the study. A sample of three institutions in Tiruchirapalli city $as selected for the study. Content &alidity $as done )y sho$ing the (uestionnaire to academicians, researchers and M"A Students, *umerical relia)ility tested , Thirty Self'administered (uestionnaires $ere distri)uted to the postgraduate M"A students for a pilot study, using pilot study data, sample si+e got determined scientifically using the sample estimation formula and then a final sample of ,## determined for the study. Self'administered (uestionnaires $ere distri)uted to M"A students of the selected three institutions using simple random sampling. Statistical tools namely multiple regression analysis and e%ploratory factor analysis applied for this study. SPSS -Statistical Pac age for Social Science. soft$are $as used to analy+e the data. The study re&eals that student perception on program (uality led to increase in student/s satisfaction $ith the M"A program. The study e%tracted specific dimensions and &aria)les of ser&ice (uality important in e&aluating the (uality of M"A program and also the specific &aria)les $hich estimate the o&erall satisfaction of the students to$ards the M"A program. Ke! "erm#: S"a"$#"$%a& 'a%(a)e *+r #+%$a& #%$en%e ,SPSS- Ser.$%e Qua&$"! an/ S"u/en"# Sa"$#*a%"$+n.

INTRODUCTION Deli&ering (uality products or ser&ices re(uired a )asis of understanding and good strategy of the critical dimensions and cues that consumer/s use to 0udge (uality. The same applies to self' financing engineering colleges offering M"A Programs as $ell. Self'financing engineering colleges offering M"A Programs need a $ell'defined and focused mission strategy that is customer'oriented in order to stay competiti&e. Competition among &arious self'financing engineering colleges offering M"A Programs has )ecome fiercer. 1ith the changing in demographics, declining go&ernment funding, and increasing competition many colleges ha&e de&eloped aggressi&e mar eting campaigns to attract ne$ students as $ell as maintain enrollments. Self'financing engineering colleges are e%amining their strengths and $ea nesses, analy+ing the en&ironment, including their competitors, suppliers, and customers through program selection, de&elopment, promotion and e&aluation. Therefore, it is appropriated and )eneficial to focus on the students/ needs $hen setting strategic direction for the organi+ation. 2or any organi+ation, the impro&ement of ser&ice (uality is a ma0or underta ing. This is certainly true in the educational organi+ations, $here the tas of de&eloping meaningful performance measures in educational organi+ations is far from complete. The pro)lem is compounded )y the fact that ser&ice (uality is a multifaceted construct, a)out $hich there is still no consensus in the literature on the num)er of facets and their interrelationships -Parasuraman, 3eithaml, and "erry 4556.. 7uality in tangi)le goods has )een descri)ed and measured )y mar eters, (uality in ser&ice is largely undefined and un'researched -Parasuraman, 3eithaml, and "erry 4589.. This is due to the difficulties in&ol&ed in delimiting and measuring the construct due to characteristics of ser&ices. As Parasuraman-458:. noted, there is fairly $idespread agreement in the literature concerning the characteristics $hich tend to differentiate ser&ices from goods. These characteristics are intangi)ility, heterogeneity, insepara)ility of production and consumption, and perisha)ility. Most ser&ices are intangi)le )ecause they are performances; therefore, they can/t )e seen, touched, counted or in&entoried in the $ay that goods can. The (uality and essence of ser&ices often &ary from one ser&ice pro&ider to another and from one customer to another. <astly, the insepara)ility )et$een ser&ice pro&iders and customers ma e (uality of ser&ices &ery difficult to e&aluate. 7uality occurs during the ser&ice deli&ery and customers ine&ita)le interact $ith ser&ice pro&iders during ser&ice. The a)stract nature of ser&ice causes pro)lems for )oth pro&iders and consumers. It is difficult for ser&ice pro&iders to differentiate their offerings from those of competitors, $hile it is e(ually difficult for consumers to e&aluate a ser&ice )efore it is ac(uired and consumed. =nli e physical goods, ser&ices are lasting only a short time, to the e%tent that can )e consumed only as long as the acti&ity or process continues. The ser&ice pro&ided )y a college is intangi)le. It is pro&ided )y many people such as staff, li)rarians, faculty, etc, and the time in&ol&ed is e%tensi&e. Moreo&er, the ser&ice attri)utes a&aila)le to students are constantly changing ->anson, 455?.. The outcome, therefore, cannot )e easily identified or measured, nor can the process )y $hich it is ac(uired )e easily assessed. In

mar eting terms, education is an e%ample of a credence ser&ice -3eithaml, 4584., $ith the student normally not a)le to e&aluate the product, e&en after the purchase has )een made )ecause the student rarely has the necessary technical e%pertise to do so -<icata and 2ran$ic , 455:.. In the past years, much research has )een done on the ser&ice (uality in &arious industries such as hotels, airlines, restaurants, and telephones )ut education industry needs more research in ser&ice (uality area. STATEMENT OF T0E PROBLEM As glo)ali+ation of the )usiness $orld continues, there is an increasing need for $or ers to o)tain an ad&anced education in )usiness so that they may stay ahead of the floc . The past fe$ decades ha&e $itnessed tremendous gro$th in the training of M"As. Demographic changes suggest that this gro$th $ill not continue in the future. Sensing a sha eout coming in the decade ahead, )usiness programs are competing strenuously to maintain the (uality of their programs as a means of sur&i&al. The mushroom gro$th of management education in India intensifies the competition among the institutes. *o$, the arts and science colleges, engineering colleges and )usiness schools ha&e started M.".A. programs apart from the reputed )usiness'schools li e Indian Institutes of management. E&en though, the degree offered )y the uni&ersity is the same, the (uality of the M.".A. graduates significantly &aries from one another. The (uality of M.".A. graduates highly rest on the institutes through $hich the students ha&e gone through their M.".A. programs. @ence, all management course offering institutes are trying to shape their courses according to the need of their customers -students. and also to )ring their student/s up to the glo)al e%pectations. The customers for the )usiness schools are not )othering the price they paid )ut they focus more on the ser&ice (uality offered )y the institutes. The ser&ice (uality of education in the management institutes plays a predominant role in selecting the institutes for their future study among the students, -<ou.1. et al., ,##4; Sahney et al., ,##6; Aoseph and Aoseph, 455B.. Consumers ha&e &arying e%pectations and perceptions due to their differing demographic setup, culture, &alues, life style, attitudes, and so on. It is important for education mar eters to recogni+e the importance of offering $hat the consumers needs and $ants -"erry, 45B?.. As @erman and @erman -4559. stated, customers are to )e pro&ided $ith an e&er impro&ing (uality of products and ser&ices, and feed)ac from these customers should )e utili+ed to de&elop the specifications of the (uality le&els to )e achie&ed for each product and each ser&ice. The results of this study may )e used )y uni&ersities, Self'2inancing Institutions, AICTE and =CC to determine $hat dimensions of program (uality are most desira)le and useful to students. This information $ould then aid in de&eloping (uality M"A programs aimed directly to the needs of students.

RESEARC0 OB1ECTI2E The o)0ecti&e of this study is to e%amine the importance of &arious dimensions of educational program'(uality perceptions as e%perienced )y students from Self'2inancing engineering Colleges in Tiruchirapalli. To identify those ser&ice (uality &aria)les determining the o&erall satisfaction of the M"A programs. To study the Demographic Profile of the M"A Students in&ol&ed in this study. RE2IE3 OF LITERATURE Customer Perceptions and Satisfaction Customer/s perceptions of ser&ice (uality are )ased on a comple% set of &aria)le including their o$n direct e%periences and relationships $ith the firm, information they ha&e read, seen, or heard a)out the firm, and $hat they no$ a)out other/s e%periences and relationships $ith the firm -"itner, 4554.. In addition, customer perceptions of ser&ice (uality are also influenced indirectly )y much )roader managerial issues such as organi+ational structure, philosophy, and corporate culture -"o$en and Schneider, 4588; Cronroos, 4586; @es ett,458B; <o&eloc ,4588; 3eithaml. "erry, and Parasuraman, 4588.. @o$ customers e&aluate these indi&idual encounters is one important ingredient in yheir o&erall perceptions of ser&ice (uality. In many cases, a lasting or e&en lifelong relationship $ith a customer or client may depend on the customer ha&ing e%perienced numerous instances of satisfaction in repeated ser&ice encounters $ith the firms. Thus, s illful management and control of indi&idual encounters )ecomes a primary concern to firms $anting to impro&e ser&ice (uality and )uild long'lasting customer relationships. Customer satisfaction is the degree of fit )et$een customer/s e%pectations of ser&ice (uality and the (uality of the ser&ice as percei&ed )y the customer -Cronroos, 4586; Aohnston, 458B..It is important to note that )oth the $eights and factors may change during the ser&ice. It should also )e noted that the customer/s satisfaction $ith the factors -S2. is a $eighted a&erage of the perception of those factors throughout the ser&ice. The $eights assigned )y each customer $ill differ resulting in a different satisfaction &alue for each customer. A customer satisfaction theory approach treats ser&ice (uality as a perceptual phenomenon identified through the eyes of the customer. The meaning, definition, and e&aluation of (uality e%ist in the customer/s mind. =ltimate (uality is the difference )et$een the ser&ice (uality e%pectation and the perception of the reality -Parasuraman, 3eithaml, and "erry, 4589.. This theory shifts focus from the production and output of the ser&ice to the customer. 1hereas, the attri)ute theory places primary importance on the technical aspects of production, the customer satisfaction theory places primary importance on customer perceptions. Background of Customer Satisfaction The concept of customer satisfaction occupies a central position in mar eting thought and practice. Satisfaction is the ma0or outcome of mar eting acti&ity and ser&es to lin processes

culminating in purchase and )rand loyalty. The centrality of the concept is reflected )y its inclusion in mar eting concept that profits are generated through the satiafaction of consumer needs and $ants. The need to translate the philosophical statement of the mar eting concept into pragmatic operational guidelines has directed attention to the de&elopment and measurement of customer satisfaction. Inputs and outputs used in the e&aluation of M"A Programs. Inputs into the education process may )e collected under four headings: academic staff student, school en&ironment, and physical plant. Academic staffs are supposed to help students ac(uire no$ledge and instill in them &alues that $ould )e useful in the future. It is generally assumed that those $ho ha&e good preparation, e%perience, and $ho are acti&e in research ma e )etter staff. Student inputs include e&erything the student )rings to the process -Perl, 45B:. such as hisDher time, current no$ledge, mental a)ility moti&ation, family )ac ground, tuition, etc. En&ironmental inputs may include a&erage intellectual a)ility of students, administrati&e policies and practices, the num)er and &ariety of courses offered, accessi)ility of academic staff and peer associations. 2inally, physical plan represents facilities such as li)raries, la)oratories, computers, classrooms and athletic facilities. Measuring educational inputs and outputs is often a difficult tas . Thus, a num)er of pro%y measures ha&e )een used in some studies. En the output side, t$o of the fre(uently used pro%y measures for no$ledge and s ills a student o)tains in college are starting salary and earning in su)se(uent years. Alternati&e pro%y measures also e%ist and include semester credit hours, ran and social status achie&ed )y graduates. 2or research output, num)er of citations a pu)lication recei&es, representation on editorial )oards and total rupees amount of the research grants recei&ed are some of the most fre(uently used measures. Pro%y measures for inputs into the education process are numerous. Considering M"A programs, for e%ample, academic staff input may )e measured )y a&erage salary. >esearch $as mentioned as an output measure in the pre&ious paragraph, )ut some researchers prefer to include research on the input side. Students inputs may )e measured )y test scored, such as graduate management admission tests -CMAT., Tamilnadu Common Entrance Test -TA*CET., Cumulati&e Crade Point A&erage -CCPA., 1or e%perience, etc. En&ironmental input measures may include e%penditure per student, academic staff'student ratio, num)er of students, num)er of courses offered, etc. physical facilities input is usually measured in terms of rupees spent for facilities. College (uality is a fre(uently encountered attri)ute in many studies. @o$e&er, there is no generally agreed definition of (uality. @amlen and south$ic -4585. focused on a (uestion mentioned earlier: if the uni&ersity adds &alue to a student, does one institution do a )etter 0o) than anotherF These authors studied the relationship )et$een measures of (uality for inputs and outputs and the (uality ran ings of M"A programs pro&ided in &arious pu)lications. @amlen and South$ic -4585. concluded that most ran ings are correlated $ith student input rather than &alue added and the current ran ing methods do not ser&e the students/ purposes in choosing an institution. Therefore, students should not 0udge the institution )y their ran ing alone; instead they should )ase their decisions in choosing an institution on the institutions/ &alue added.

Evaluation of Students Satisfaction Ef the $ide &ariety of studies of college students, relati&ely fe$ ha&e centered on students/ satisfaction $ith their college e%perience as a su)stanti&e area of in&estigation. It $ould seem desira)le to de&elop a )etter understanding of the factors related to students/ satisfaction $ith their college program. College students/ satisfaction $ith their academic and nonacademic e%periences is often cited as an important criterion for 0udging the success of a program -Astin,45B8.. Current discussion of the accounta)ility or the GoutputsH of higher education fre(uently o&erloo s student satisfaction. This study area co&ers the student/s su)0ecti&e e%periences during the college years and perceptions of the &alue of the educational e%perience. Ci&en the considera)le in&estment of time and energy that most students ma e in attending college, the students/ perception of &alue should )e gi&en su)stantial $eight. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that student satisfaction can )e legitimately su)ordinated to any other educational outcome. >eed, <ahey, and Do$ney -4586. defined students/ satisfaction as the students/ emotional reactions to college e%periences. Satisfaction can )e seen as su)0ecti&e, a personal e%perience, e&aluati&e in tone, and in&ol&ing affect or feeling on the part of the indi&idual. >esearch studies found that satisfaction interacts $ith and is a component of goal commitment, institutional commitment, student integration at )oth the academic and social le&els, students percei&ed &alue of their education, institutional characteristics, and student characteristics -Ait en, 458,; Ca)rera etal., 455,; pascarella,Smart, and Ethington, 458:.. 2eldman and *e$com) -45:5. stated that students differ greatly in their general personality characteristics, )ac grounds, and interests. Thus, it is reasona)le to as $hether students/ satisfaction $ith an academic program is associated $ith the attitudes and orientations students ha&e regarding the Gpurpose and processH of a college education. >esearch has indicated that academic achie&ement -CCPA., type of uni&ersity residence, and continuanceD$ithdra$al plans of students are related to students/ satisfaction -"et+, Ilingensimth, and Menne; "et++ et al.,45B4; starr, "et+, and Menne, 45B,.. Pre&ious research has e%amined students satisfaction as an outcome &aria)le in relation to student'en&ironment congruence. The definition of congruency, for e%ample, &aried from study to study. Some studies defined it according to prior meanings gi&en to indi&idual and en&ironment measures; others defined it empirically, )y means of de&iation measures. Per&in-45:B. and per&in and >u)in-45:B., using a semantic differential techni(ue, found that the )etter the GfitH )et$een an indi&idual and his college en&ironment, the more satisfied he $ould )e. 1alsh -45B?. indicated that students $ho $ere congruent $ith their en&ironment reported the highest degree of satisfaction compared $ith peers $ho $ere less congruent. *af+iger, @olland, and gottfredson -45B9. employed a specific typology of persons and en&ironments and found that student' college congruency $as related to students/ satisfaction $ith college. >and -45:8. pro&ided contradictory e&idence regarding the relationship )et$een satisfaction and student'en&ironment congruency. The results of his study cast serious dou)t on any simplistic notions of Ggoodness of fitH as related to satisfaction. The notion that students most similar or dissimilar to students at their chosen institution are more SatisfiedDdissatisfied

$as not supported. @e concluded that the relationship )et$een satisfaction and matching is at )est minimal and (uite comple%. In the institutional setting, faculty is pi&otal in determining the nature of courses, curricular, and the educational process of an institution. Stem -45B#. noted that this Gen&ironmentH as e&idenced )y faculty attitudes and )eha&ior in the curricular'instructional arena $ould )e a salient factors $hen considering students/ satisfaction $ith their academic program. Morstain-45BB. e%amined $hether student/ orientations regarding educational Gpurpose and processH and Grelati&e fitH $ith faculty orientation $ere associated $ith students/ satisfaction. @is study indicated that students $ho $ere congruent $ith their peers or faculty e%pressed more satisfaction $ith aspects of their college e%perience the peers $ho $ere less congruent. 1right -45:6. in&estigated certain facets of the integration of graduate students into the graduate school en&ironment, including things such as $hether student tal to faculty mem)ers a)out personal matters, $hether students tal to faculty mem)ers fre(uently outside the classroom; and $hether they counted some fello$ graduate students as close friends. @e found that social ad0ustments and integration into the department $ere consistently, and often significantly, related to academic success of students $hich $ould relate to the le&el of students/ satisfaction as $ell. The role of relations of graduate students $ith one another and $ith faculty $as e%amined )y "aird -45:5.. @is finding sho$ed that if the role relationships among students $ere competiti&e, students al$ays felt they $ere under stress no matter $hat the rest of their relations $ere li e. Students did not necessarily e%perience great tension $hen they $ere re(uired to meet &ery difficult standards, )ut they al$ays felt under stress $hen they $ere in a competiti&e situation. This role of relations could contri)ute in some $ay or another to students/ satisfaction. <e&ine and 1eit+ -45:8. performed a factor analysis on se&eral factor or items $ith $hich graduate students might )e satisfied or dissatisfied. A ma0or source of dissatisfaction in their study $as found to )e student &oice in influencing department policy, this ho$e&er &aried according to the gender of student. Satisfaction $ith faculty' student discussion $as found to )e more highly related to o&erall satisfaction for females than for males. Cregg -45B,. focused on t$o types of role relationship $ithin uni&ersity graduate departments: faculty'students relationships and student'student relationships. @is study re&ealed that collegiality of faculty' student relationships $as consistently found to )e positi&ely associated $ith student/s satisfaction. In addition students/ satisfaction $as focused to )e negati&ely associated $ith competiti&eness of student'student role relationship. Aaco)sen-455B. indicated that students satisfaction can )e influenced )y such &aria)les as teacher e%preesi&eness, gender, ran of professors, e%pected grade in course, and possi)ly the integration of technology into instruction. Cram-45:8. found that si+e of class made no difference in students satisfaction $ith class room en&ironment. Colleges and uni&ersities attempt to )e responsi&e to students/ dissatisfaction in an effort to increase their satisfaction. Satisfaction scales assume that le&els of satisfaction and dissatisfaction complete a full spectrum of a single construct. Danielson -4558. in&estigated the possi)ility that college students/ satisfaction and dissatisfaction $ere not opposites. The results suggested that $hen students e%pressed satisfaction $ith their college e%periences, these situations seemed to )e centred around in&ol&ement and contact $ith people. 1hen students e%pressed dissatisfaction, the

situations in&ol&ed their perceptions of unfair treatment and difficulties in maneu&ering through )ureaucratic academic and uni&ersity systems. @er+)erg -458B. de&eloped a theory of moti&ation and its relationship to 0o) satisfaction. @e suggested that there $as t$o factors associated $ith satisfaction and dissatisfaction: hygiene and moti&ators. @ygiene &aria)les relate to $or ing conditions, $ages, 0o) status, company policies, and super&isors. @e stated that in the $or place dissatisfaction results $hen these )asic needs are not ade(uately met. @o$e&er, if these needs are met, they reduce the dissatisfaction only for a time. Moti&ator &aria)les $hich affect the le&el of satisfaction include personal achie&ement, recognition, $or itself, responsi)ility, and ad&ancement in competence, and psychological gro$th. @er+)erg clarified that employers cannot offer moti&ation, )ut they can pro&ide the conditions for the employees to achie&e so that they $ill )ecome moti&ated. @er+)erg suggested that hygiene factors are preconditions for 0o) satisfaction $hich is similar to the concept of Maslo$/s hierarchy of needs. Although $or ers cannot )e satisfied )y ha&ing hygiene factors met, unfulfilled hygiene factors can pre&ent $or ers $hen their hygiene needs are fulfilled. Danielson-4558. suggested that the college e%perience could )e thought of in these same $ays. The )asic principles of this theory $ould )e: -4. students are satisfied through intrinsic and moti&ating factors; and -,. impro&ing issues underlying dissatisfaction $ill decrease the dissatisfaction, )ut $ill not necessarily result in satisfaction or ha&e a moti&ating effect on students. Therefore, many colleges and uni&ersities $ill find it necessary to )y more responsi&e to the needs and interests of their students/ constituency. Shim and morgan -455#. suggested that the concept of the student as a customer deri&es from a mar eting orientation that proposes that the prime $ay to achie&e organi+ational goals is to determine the needs and $ants of target mar ets and to deli&er the desired satisfaction effecti&ely and efficiently. To do this, an important step $ill )e to more directly assess the interests, characteristics, and educational orientations of ey participants in the educational enterprise, namely students and faculty. In other $ords, the institution should clarify, if not more narro$ly define, its purpose and mission, and not try Gto )e all things to all peopleH. Along $ith a su)stantial gro$th in the demand for management education, the gro$th of )usiness schools has also gone up. The challenge is to impro&e their (uality. <ou$ et al., -,##4. discussed this issue and also its implications. Sahney et al., -,##6. noted that the (uality of education has )ecome important as the productDoutput of the system has a direct impact on the (uality of their employer organi+ations. De)nath et al., -,##9. used the concept of >o)ust Parameter Design to model the (uality issues present in management education in India. Tagucthi and >a0esh -,###. and Tsui -455:; ,##4. proposed a ne$ model of Mahalano)is' Taguchi System -MTS. to measure the le&el of a)normality of a)normal items compared to a group of normal items. >oma et al., -,##9. used the MTS in the management education system The ser&ice (uality in education and management education $as done )y Sahid -,##4.; Cagandeep et al., -,##:., >a0u et al., -,##6. <in -,##,.; and Ihan et al. -,##B.. These studies attempted to )ring out the important dimensions of ser&ice (uality. The studies related to the importance and perception on the ser&ice (uality in management education as per the &ie$ of rural and semi'ur)an students ha&e not )een focused so far. @ence the present study focuses to fill up that research gap $ith specified o)0ecti&es.

RESEARC0 MET0ODOLOGY The methodology of this research used simple random sampling $ere sample si+e got determined using the standard de&iation score e%tracted out the pilot study ,the formula to estimate the sample si+e for the un no$n population si+e is determined using the )elo$ mentioned formula. N 4 ,5 6 # 7 e- 8 5 : the G3 G &alue represents the 3 scores from the standard normal distri)ution for the confidence le&el desired )y the researcher #: the G s G represents the population standard de&iation for a &aria)le $hich $e are trying to measure from the study e: the third &alue re(uired for calculating the sample si+e re(uired for the study is Je/ called tolera)le error in estimating the &aria)le in (uestion The content &alidity is tested using academicians, industrial e%perts and researchers for &alidating the items reflected in the ser&ice (uality construct. The cron)ach alpha &alue determines the relia)ility statistics of the ser&ice (uality -CK#.859, for ,: items.. The researcher determines a sample si+e of ,## scientifically, $here he uses random sampling techni(ues in collecting the data )y &isiting the top listed three colleges as per the Anna uni&ersity college performance list. Data collected among the M"A students from these representati&e colleges randomly. The data collected using measurement scale -(uestionnaire.. The (uestionnaire got refined using the inputs recei&ed during the pilot study. Certain demographic &aria)les got eliminated through the inputs recei&ed from the respondents. The demographic data got analy+ed using descripti&e statistics. E%ploratory factor analysis used to identify the respecti&e factors. >egression analysis used to estimate the impact of ser&ice (uality &aria)les on M"A students o&erall satisfaction. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS Dem+)ra'9$% .ar$a:&e# Gen/er A)e Ca"e)+r$e# Male 2emale 48',, ,?',9 N+. re#'+n/en"# 4,? BB 4,: 96 +* Per%en"a)e ;<.= ?8.9 ;> ,B

Re&$)$+n

,:',8 ,5'?# A)o&e ?# @indu Muslim Christian EC "C M"C SC ST Illiterate 4#th Diploma =g Pg Professional Illiterate 4#th Diploma =g Pg Professional *il "elo$ 4#### 4###4to,9### ,9##4to 6#### 6###4to9#### a)o&e 9#### *il "elo$ 4#### 4###4to,9### ,9##4to 6#### 6###4to9#### a)o&e 9#### Co&t Employee Pri&ate employee E$n )usiness Professional Politician Les *o Metropolitan

5 : 9 499 ,5 4: ,, 4,6 ?? 4B 6 ?8 89 ?5 ,9 9 8 8, B5 4# ,# : ? 46 64 B9 ,9 ,# ,9 495 46 48 9 4 ? 84 6? B4 6 4 5 454 4,

6.9 ?.# ,.9 ??.= 46.9 8 44 ;8 4:.9 8.9 , 45 A8.= 45.9 4,.9 ,.9 6 A< ?5.9 9 4# ? 4.9 B ,#.9 >?.= 4,.9 4# 4,.9 ?B.= B 5 ,.9 #.9 4.9 AC.= ,4.9 ?9.9 , #.9 6.9 B=.= :

Ca#"e

Fa"9er@# e/u%a"$+n

M+"9er@# e/u%a"$+n

Fa"9er@# $n%+me M+"9er#@ $n%+me

Paren"#@ +%%u'a"$+n

Par" "$me D+: Area +* &$.$n)

Qu+"a F$r#" /e)ree 9+&/er

>ural =r)an Management Co&ernment Les *o

54 5B 4,: B6 4#4 55 4#4 66 ,6 ,, ? : 4B 4? 98 B? 4 ,B 65 9, ,# 94 96 46: ? 4#5 :? 48 B 4: ,9 448 ?: 9 466 9: ,B 6?

69.9 AE.= ;> ?B =C.= 65.9 =C.= ,, 4, 44 4.9 ? 8.9 :.9 ,5 >;.= #.9 4?.9 ,6.9 8; 4# ,9.9 ,B ?> 4.9 =A.= ?4.9 5 ?.9 8 4,.9 =B 48 ,.9 ?8 ,8 4?.9 ,4.9

N+.+* /e)ree 9+&/er# 4 $n *am$&! , ? 6 9 : Tran#'+r"a"$+n "i e Car "us College )us Ethers D$#"an%e *r+m !+ur =p to 9 m 9+me : to 4# m 44 to ,# m ,4 to ,9 m ,9 m and a)o&e Re%e$.$n) Les #%9+&ar#9$' *o Pa!men" +* %+&&e)e Scholarship *ee# Parents sponsored "an loan Self earned Ethers E%+n+m$% &e.e& "9e <o$er class *am$&! <o$er middle class Middle class =pper middle class @igh class 0a.$n) an! #$:&$n)# Les *o Free "$me >eading )oo s Playing games

3+r( eF'er$en%e

1atching.t.& Surfing internet <istening musing Any others *il 4 year , to ? years ? to 6 years 6 to 9 years

69 6: ?, B 469 ,4 4: 49 , :# ?? :9 ,9 4: 4 99 89 ?B 45 6

,,.9 8> 4: ?.9 ?8.= 4#.9 8 B.9 4 ?# 4:.9 >8.= 4,.9 8 #.9 ,B.9 A8.= 48.9 5.9 ,

MBA MaD+r

2inance Mar eting @uman resources Systems Production Ethers EF'er$en%e nee/ *+r =p to 9 years a *a%u&"! mem:er : to 4# years 44 to 49 years 4: to ,9 years A)o&e ,9 years

FACTOR ANALYSIS: KMO an/ Bar"&e""G# Te#" Ka$#er-Me!er-O&($n Mea#ure +* Sam'&$n) A/eHua%!. "artlettMs Test of Appro%. Chi' Sphericity S(uare Df S$). Fa%"+r Ana&!#$# 2ar$a:&e# < C+m'u"er A%%e##$:$&$"! A''earan%e an/ C&ean&$ne## +* "9e :u$&/$n). Sa*e"! +* "9e Cam'u# EF'er$en"$a& 3+r( 3+r(# $n Gr+u'# C+m'e"$"$.ene## In#$/e "9e C&a## E&e%"$.e C+ur#e# .6:# .B,5 .65# .965 .:#6 .9:B 8 > Fa%"+r A = ; .6,6 .E<B ,#:8.?5? ?,9 .CCC

C+n%ern# an/ O'$n$+n# .9#6 Pr+*e##+r#@ Re#'+n#e# .649 N+n "ea%9$n) S"a** #@ .B4, Re#'+n#e# L$:rar$an#@ Re#'+n#e# .:?: Kn+I&e/)e +* "9e Pr+*e##+r# .B?# 3e&& +r)an$Je/ Pr+*e##+r# .5#, In"ere#"$n) Pr+*e##+r# .6B6 Fa$r $n Ra"$n) In/$.$/ua& A""en"$+n S+&.$n) Per#+na& Pr+:&em Career '&a%emen" Ser.$%e# Sem$nar# an/ Gue#" &e%"ure# P9!#$%a& Fa%$&$"$e# S!&&a:u# .94: S"u/en"# Nee/# Qua&$"! +* "9e Fa%u&"! C+m'a##$+n +* S"a**# .96# E%traction Method: Principal A%is 2actoring. >otation Method: Proma% $ith Iaiser *ormali+ation. a >otation con&erged in B iterations.

.:B4 .:,# .9?? .9,: .6,5 .B5? .:6, .:??

The a)o&e ta)le e%plains the unrestricted e%ploratory factor analysis, the data analy+ed using the correlation matri% to eliminate the non'contri)uting &aria)les. The method used to determine the num)er .of factors called Iaiser'criterion-$hich states the num)er of factors e(ual to the num)er of Eigen &alues of the correlation matri% that are greater than 4. Ade(uately the scree test states that the plot the Eigen &alues of the correlation matri% in descending order, and then use a num)er of factors e(ual to the num)er of Eigen &alues that occurs prior to the last ma0or drop in the Eigen &alue magnitude. In this analysis the researcher used the )est method of e%traction namely GPrincipal A%is 2actoringH here in this factor analysis among the t$o ma0or categories of rotations, orthogonal rotations -$hich produces the un'correlated factors. and o)li(ue rotations -$hich produces the correlated factors.. The researcher used proma% rotation and suppressed $ith Iaiser'normali+ation and small co'efficient $ith o)solete &alues )elo$ #.,. The GIME -Iaiser'Meyer'El in. test determines the sampling ade(uacy and )artlett/s test of sphericity $here the significance &alue determines the set of o)ser&ed &aria)les is ade(uate, and appropriate for using an E2A -E%ploratory 2actor Analysis.. The communality ta)le descri)es those &aria)les $hich are a)o&e the Eigen &alues of 4. 1here the >'&alues are good no$ )y e&aluating the pattern matri% the researcher concluded the num)er of factors and the respecti&e loading of &aria)les.

MULTIPLE RE RESSI!" #"#LI$SIS The &aria)les of student perception on (uality M"A program offered )y self'financing colleges are regressed $ith the o&erall satisfaction of the M"A program. Step $ise method of multiple regression analysis is used here.

M+/e& 4#

R .B??-0.

R SHuare .9?B

A/Du#"e/ SHuare .94B

R S"/. Err+r +* "9e E#"$ma"e .96B

The step$ise method a)le to e%tract a 4#th model )y e%cluding the non contri)uting &aria)les and enhances the r's(uare &alue $hich determines the mode REGRESSION CO-EFFICIENTS TABLE =nstandardi+ed coefficient " '.#95 =nstandardi+ed coefficient Std. Error .,89 standardi+ed coefficient "eta T '.,#B

Sig. .8?:

Model 4# -Constant.

2aculty mem)er/s response to the .<B> .#:4 .45: ?.48, .##, students/ concerns and opinions Ade(uacy in no. of )oo s, 0ournals and .8?> .#9# .,56 9.69B .### maga+ines/. E%periential $or s .<8E .#6: .49? ,.BB# .##: )y students Appearance and cleanliness of the .8<= .#9? .,?? 6.#?? .### campus )uildings Indi&idual attention .<;? .#9# .485 ?.?,B .##4 to e&ery student 2aculty/s ' >esponsi&eness to -.<;C .#6B '.48B .##4 ?.6#? the students dou)ts Competiti&e class .<CB .#6, .4?5 ,.:4# .#4# room en&ironment Seminars and placement ser&ices .CB? .#68 .4,# ,.#4? .#6: pro&ided )y the colleges Dependent &aria)le : E&erall Satisfaction on students perception a)out the M"A program. Multiple >K#.B??, 2'Nalue K?B.,B6, d.f -454,455., p'&alue O#.#4, > S(uare K#.9?B Y4C.C=BKC.<B>X<KC.8?>X8KC.<8EX>KC.8<=XAKC.<;?X=K,C.<;CX;-KC.<CBX?KC.CB? XE 1here LYM refers to the o&erall satisfaction a)out students perception on the M"A

program The a)o&e e(uation sho$s that the &aria)les li e faculty mem)ers/ response to the students concerns and opinions, ade(uate *um)er of )oo s, 0ournals and maga+ines, e%periential $or )y students, appearance of the campus )uildings, Indi&idual attention to e&ery student, 2aculty/s responsi&eness to the student dou)ts, Competiti&e class room en&ironment and Seminars and placement ser&ices pro&ided )y the colleges are highly influencing &aria)les to ha&e a (uality M"A program. En an a&erage if the &aria)le namely faculty mem)ers/ response to the students concerns and opinions change )y 4 unit there $ill )e increase of #.45? units in the o&erall satisfaction of the M"A program $hen other &aria)les are ept constant. More o&er the result of t'test confirms that the calculated partial regression co'efficient such as -#.,B?., -#.4,8., -#.,49.,-#.4:B., -'#.4:#., -#.4#5., -#.#5B. are highly significant at 4 percent le&el and 9 percent le&el. Similarly the multiple > of #.B?? sho$s there is a e%isting relationship of B?.? percent )et$een the &aria)les of student perception on (uality M"A program. The >'s(uare &alue of #.9?B e%hi)its that the &aria)les of (uality M"A program e%plained a &ariation of 9?.B percent on the o&erall satisfaction. 2rom the a)o&e analysis, it is inferred that the &aria)les of students perception on (uality M"A program namely faculty mem)ers/ response to the students concerns and opinions, ade(uate *um)er of )oo s, 0ournals and maga+ines, e%periential $or )y students, appearance of the campus )uildings, Indi&idual attention to e&ery student, 2aculty/ responsi&eness to the student needs, Competiti&e class room en&ironment and Seminars and placement ser&ices pro&ided )y the colleges are highly influencing factors to ha&e a (uality M"A program. CONCLUSION IMPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARC0

2rom the a)o&e study, the regression analysis concludes that the &aria)les namely faculty mem)ers/ response to the students concerns and opinions, ade(uate *um)er of )oo s, 0ournals and maga+ines, e%periential $or )y students, appearance of the campus )uildings, Indi&idual attention to e&ery student, 2aculty/s responsi&eness to the student needs, Competiti&e class room en&ironment and Seminars and placement ser&ices pro&ided )y the colleges are highly influencing a student to ha&e a (uality M"A program. The researcher concludes that the &aria)les of the factor one e%plains the o&erall &ariance of ,8.#8#P .@ence, The researcher recommends that institutions offering M"A program should ha&e to focus on the &aria)les namely, Appearance and cleanliness of the campus )uildings, Safety of the campus en&ironment, Ino$ledge of the professors, 1ell organi+ed professors, Interesting classes ta en )y the professors in order to satisfy the o&erall needs of students to ha&e a (uality M"A program. Implication for further research states that the researcher finds that there is a lot of scope for future researchers to add more &aria)les to the ser&ice (uality construct to ha&e a comprehensi&e construct and further the researcher can also increase the sample si+e and test

these measurement tool across Tamilnadu and India in order to get )etter relia)ility and &alidity.

REFERENCE: Ai ten, *.D. 458,. GCollege Student Performance, Satisfaction and >etention: Specification and Estimation of a Structural Model.H Aournal of @igher Education 9?:?,'9#. Astin, A.1. 45B8. 2our Critical Lears. San 2rancisco: Aossey'"ass "aird, <eonard. 45:5. G A Study of >ole >elations of Craduate StudentsH. Aournal of Educational Psychology :# -2e)ruary.: 49',4.

"erry, <eonard <. 45B?. GMar eting Continuing Education Programs.H "usiness Education 2orumm ,B,no.B, pp. 8'4#. "et+ et al. 45B4. GA Dimensional Analysis of College students Satisfaction.H Measurement and E&aluation in Cuidance 6: 55'4#:. "itner, Mary 0o. 4554. The E&olution of the ser&ices Mar eting Mi% and its >elationships to Ser&ice 7uality. Ser&ice 7uality: Multidisciplinary and Multinational Perspecti&e, pp.,?',9. "o$en, Da&id e., Schneider ,"en0amin.4588.ser&ice mar eting and managrment:implications for organisational )eha&iour. >esearch in organisational )eha&iour. Edited )y ).m.sta$ and l.l.cumming, Creen$ich,cl: 0ai press Ca)rera et.al.455,.Hthe con&ergence )et$een t$o theories of college persistence.H Aournal of higher education :?:46?'4:6. Cram, "rain *.45:8. An In&estigation of the influence of the class si+e upon academic attainment and the student satisfaction. Dissertation a)stract, ,5-6'A., 4##:. Danielson, Cherry. 4558. Is satisfying college students the same as decreasing their dissatisfactionF E>IC Document >eproduction ser&ice, ED 6,, 84, Education as an industry, pp.59'4?9. Edited )y 2room in. A.; Aammison, D.T.; and >adner, >.; Cam)ridge, MA: "allinger. 2eldman, I., and *e$ com), T. 45:5. The impact on college on students. Sanfrancisco: Aossey' "ass factors affecting graduate student/s satisfaction.H Aournal of higher Education 6?:68?'658. Cregg, 1ayne. 45B,. GSe&eral 2actors Affecting Craduate Student Satisfaction.H Aournal of @igher Education 6?: 68?'658. Cronroos, Christian. 4586. G A ser&ice 7uality model and its mar eting implicationsH. European 0ournal of mar eting. 48 :?:'66. @amlen, 1., Ar., snd South$ic , <.4585. G 7uality in the M"A/s Program : Inputs, outputs or &alue added F H Aournal of economic and social measurement 45 : 4',:. @erman, Aanice <., and @erman, Aerry A. 4559. G Total (uality management for educationH. Education technology ?9, no.?- MayD Aune. : 6' 48. @er+)erg, 2. 458B. Ene more time : @o$ do you moti&ate employees F @ara&ard "usiness >e&ie$ :9: 4#5'4,#. @es ett,Aames.458B. G <essons in the ser&ice sectorH. @ar&ad )usiness re&ie$ - March D April . : 448'4,:. Aaco)sen, Michele.455B. Instructional (uality, Student Satisfaction, Student success, And Student E&aluations of 2aculty: 1hat are the issues in higher educationF E>IC Document reproduction Ser&ice, ED 6,? B8:. Aohnston, >o)ert and <yth, Da&id. 4554. Implementing the integration of consumer e%pectations and operational capa)ility. Ser&ice (uality: Multidisciplinary and Multinational perspecti&es. Edited )y "ro$n, et al., Massachusetts: <e%ington )oo s. Aohnston, ro)ert. 458B. G A 2rame$or for de&eloping a (uality strategy in a customer processing operationH . International 0ournal of 7uality and relia)ility management 6 , no.6, pp.?B'6:. <e&ine, Ed$ard and 1eit+, Aoseph. 45:8. GAo) satisfaction among graduate students: intrinsic &ersus e%trinsic &aria)les.H Aournal of applied psychology 96-August.: ,:? to ,B4.

<icata, 0., and 2ranc $ic , C.<. 455:. G=ni&ersity Mar eting: A Professional Ser&ice Ergani+ation Perspecti&e.H Aournal of Mar eting for @igher Education, B, no.,, pp.4'4:. <o&e loc , Christopher @ 4588. Managing ser&ices: mar eting, operations and human resources. Eagle $ood cliffs, *A: Prentice @all. Morstain, "erry >.45BB. GA* analysis of student/s satisfaction $ith their academic programmer.H Aournal of higher education, no. 4, pp. 4'4:. *ef+iger, Dean @.; @olland, Aohn; and Cottfedsol, Cray. 45B9. GStudent'college congruency as a predictor of satisfaction.H Aournal of counseling psychology ,,: 4?,'4?5. Parasuraman etal., 4556. G>eassesment of E%pectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Ser&ice 7uality: Implications for 2uture >esearch.H Aournal of Mar eting 98 -Aanuary.: 444'4,6. Parasuraman, A.; 3eithaml, Nalarie A.; and "erry <eonard <. 4589. GA conceptual model of ser&ice (uality and its implications for future research.H Aournal of mar eting 65-fall.: 64'9#. Parasuraman, A.458:. Customer'Eriented Ergani+ational Culture: A ey to Successful Ser&ices Mar eting. Creati&ity in Ser&ices mar eting: 1hat/s *e$, 1hat/s 1or s, 1hat/s De&eloping, pp. B?'BB. Pascarella, E.T.; Smart, A.C.; and Ethington, C.A. 458:. G<ong term persistence of t$o year college Perl, <.A. 45B:. Craduation, Craduate school attendance and effects in the education industry. Per&in, <. 45:B. Satisfaction and percei&ed Self' en&ironment Similarity.H Aournal of PersonalityH. Per&in, <. and >u)in, D. 45:B. GStudent dissatisfaction $ith college and college dropout: A transactional Approach.H Aournal of social Psychology B,: ,89',59. >and, <.45:8. GEffect on College Choice Satisfaction of Matching Students and Colleges.HPersonnel and Cuidance Aournal 64:?6'?5. >anson, S.455?. GMar ets or Democracy for Education.H"ritish Aournal of Educational Studies 6, no.6, pp.???'?9,. >ead, Aeffery C.; <ahey, Mary; and Do$ney, >onald. 4586. GDe&elopment of the collegedescripti&e Inde%: A Measure of student Satisfaction.H Measurement and E&aluation in counseling and de&elopment -Auly.: :B'8,. Shim, S., and Morgan, C.A. 455#. GPredicting Students/ Attitudes and Satisfactions: Implications for Strategic Planning in @igher Education.H >esearch in @igher Education ,6. *o.?:,,?',:9. Starr, A.; "et+, E.; and Menne, A. 45B,. GDifference in college student satisfaction.H Aournal ofcounseling psychology 45:?48'?,,.StudentsH. >esearch in higher education ,6: 6B'B4. 1alsh, 1. 45B?. Theories of person' en&ironment intersection: Implications for the collegestudent. Io$a city, Io$a: American college testing program me. 1right, Charles. 45:6. GSuccess or failure in earning graduate degrees.H Sociology ofeducation ?8-fall.:B?'B5. 3eithaml, Nalarie A. 4584. @o$ Consumer E&aluation processes Differ "et$een Coods and Ser&ices. Mar eting of Ser&ices. 3eithaml, Nalarie A.; "erry <eonard <.; and Parasuraman A. 4558. GCommunication and Control Processes in the deli&ery of Ser&ice 7uality.H Aournal of Mar eting 9,-April.: ?9'68.