• Like
A Study of Factors Influencing Selection of Management Colleges in India - A Case at Christ University, Bangalore
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

A Study of Factors Influencing Selection of Management Colleges in India - A Case at Christ University, Bangalore

  • 84 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
84
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. By Group 04 M2 ARYA KUMAR SEN 1220212 RAVI SHANKAR 1220230 SUSAN KOSHY 1220260 MOHAMMED HUSSAIN 1220321 VISHWANATH SONNAD 1220343 Market Research:
  • 2. Title A study of factors Influencing Selection of Management Colleges in India (A Case of CUIM, Bangalore)
  • 3. Objectives • To analyze the choices made by students in selecting management colleges. • To determine the factors which are most important in selecting a B School.
  • 4. Research Methodology • Sample Size: 44 • Respondents: Students of Christ University • Place of Study: Christ University Kengeri Campus
  • 5. Research Methodology • Type of questions: Structured & Unstructured • No. of variables 14 • Sampling: Convenience Sampling • Decision of Variable selection: Focus group discussion
  • 6. Demographics Male 36 82% Female 8 18% Gender Pie Chart 1 Interpretation: As we can see from the above pie chart 82% of respondents are males which form the majority. From chart 18% of respondents are females and minority.
  • 7. 20-22 18 42% 23-25 24 56% 26-28 1 2% Above 28 0 0% Age Pie Chart 2 Interpretation: As we can see from the above pie chart 56% of respondents are aged between 23 and 25. From chart 42% of respondents are aged between 20 and 22 and 2% between 26 to 28. We can say that majority of about 98% respondents are aged between 20 and 25.
  • 8. 23, 57% 12, 30% 2, 5% 2, 5% 0, 0% 1, 3% Education Background B.Tech B.Com BBA B.Sc BA Other Pie Chart 3 Interpretation: As we can see from the above pie chart 58% of respondents have studied engineering. From chart 30% of respondents have studied B.com. 5% of respondents have studied BBA and B.SC each. So there is a overall representation of all degrees.
  • 9. 5, 12% 12, 28% 13, 30% 13, 30% Annual Household Income Up to 3 Lakhs 3-5 Lakhs 5-8 Lakhs Above 8 Lakhs Doughnut Chart 1 Interpretation: As we can see from the above chart 30% of respondents have annual household income between 5 to 8 Lakhs and Above 8 Lakhs each. From the chart 28% of respondents have annual income between 3 to 5 Lakhs and 12% upto 3 Lakhs. So there is a overall representation of respondents have annual household income above 3 Lakhs with 88% representation.
  • 10. Gender * Age Cross tabulation Count Age Total 20-22 23-25 26-28 Above 28 Gender Male 37.14285714 % 57.14285714 % 2.9 % 2.9 % 35 Female 62.5 % 37.5 % 0 % 0 % 8 Total 18 23 1 1 43 Interpretation: This cross tabulation shows the various combinations of values of gender types i.e. male & female and Age categories i.e. 20-22. 23-25, 26-28 & above 28. For example: Females under “Above 28 age category” are 2.9 % of total females i.e. 35.
  • 11. Gender * Education * Age Cross tabulation Count Age Education Total B. Tech B. Com BBA B. Sc 20-22 Gender Male 33.333 % 50 % 8.333 % 8.333 % 12 Female 20 % 60 % 20 % 0 % 5 Total 5 9 2 1 17 23-25 Gender Male 73.684 % 10.53 % 10.53 % 5.263 % 19 Female 66.667 % 0 % 0 % 33.33 % 3 Total 16 2 2 2 22 26-28 Gender Male 100 % 1 Total 1 1 Above 28 Gender Male 100 % 1 Total 1 1 Total Gender Male 60.606 % 24.24 % 9.091 % 6.061 % 33 Female 37.5 % 37.5 % 12.5 % 12.5 % 8 Total 23 11 4 3 41 Interpretation: Table b shows “Gender * Education * Age Cross tabulation” . It is being used to show the various counts of different combinations of a person from a particular gender, from a particular Age and from a particular Educational Background. For example: Under 20-22 Age category, male persons who have studied B. tech are 33.33 % of total 12 male persons.
  • 12. Factor Analysis Why????? To determine the factors Influencing Selection of Management Colleges in India .
  • 13. Variables Industry Exposure Location Alumni Network Accommodation Diversity of students selected Ranking Fees Co curriculum Placements Courses available/ subjects Faculty qualification Infrastructure Quality of students
  • 14. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .735 .733 13 Table 1 > 0.6 Consistency As it can observed from the table 1.a below the Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.746 is greater than 0.6. This indicates satisfactory internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire. So, factor analysis can be done on the responses for the analysis.
  • 15. KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .562 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 181.642 df 78 Sig. .000 Table 2 Interpretation of the test: As the KMO value (.562) is greater than 0.5 and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (0.00) is significant i.e. less than 0.5, factor analysis can be used to do the data reduction of the given set of data values.
  • 16. Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5 Industry Exposure .648 Location .841 Alumni Network .876 Accommodation .737 Diversity of students selected Ranking .548 Fees -.791 Co curriculum .752 Placements .745 Courses available/ subjects .622 Faculty qualification .662 Infrastructure .702 Quality of students .823 Total 2.961 2.253 1.511 1.259 1.250 % of Variance 22.775 17.331 11.623 9.688 9.613 Cumulative % 22.775 40.105 51.728 61.416 71.030 Table 3
  • 17. Naming of Factors Factors Variables Factor Loadings Curriculum and image Accommodation .737 Ranking .548 Co curriculum .752 Courses available/ subjects .622 Infrastructure .702 Intellectual level and placements Placements .662 Faculty qualification .745 Quality of students .823 Investment and exposure Industry Exposure .648 Fees -.791 Alumni Network Alumni Network .876 Table 4
  • 18. • Interpretation: The eigen values are 2.961, 2.253, 1.511, 1.259 and 1.250. The percentages of variance showed by these factors are 22.775, 17.331, 11.623, 9.688 and 9.613 respectively. Overall 71.030 % of variation among the variables has been captured by these major 5 factors.
  • 19. Association of demographics & the factors
  • 20. ANOVA To identify the degree of association between demographic variables and identified factors.
  • 21. ANOVA Gender vs Factors
  • 22. Table 6 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Between Groups .001 1 .001 .002 .969 Within Groups 16.052 40 .401 Total 16.053 41 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Between Groups 1.143 1 1.143 1.324 .257 Within Groups 35.410 41 .864 Total 36.553 42 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Between Groups .007 1 .007 .019 .890 Within Groups 14.689 40 .367 Total 14.696 41 ALUMNI NETWORK Between Groups 1.536 1 1.536 3.360 .074 Within Groups 18.743 41 .457 Total 20.279 42 LOCATION Between Groups .168 1 .168 .172 .680 Within Groups 40.018 41 .976 Total 40.186 42
  • 23. • Interpretation: • As we can see from the above ANOVA table the significance values for all the factors are greater than 0.05. • So the there is no significant difference between the responses on gender variable. • We can say that both the males and females have responded in similar way.
  • 24. Gender Table 5 Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Male 34 3.8235 .64737 .11102 3.5977 4.0494 2.33 5.00 Female 8 3.8333 .56344 .19920 3.3623 4.3044 2.67 4.67 Total 42 3.8254 .62573 .09655 3.6304 4.0204 2.33 5.00 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Male 35 3.0857 .96115 .16246 2.7555 3.4159 1.00 4.67 Female 8 2.6667 .75593 .26726 2.0347 3.2986 1.00 3.33 Total 43 3.0078 .93290 .14227 2.7206 3.2949 1.00 4.67 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Male 34 3.4706 .61473 .10543 3.2561 3.6851 2.00 4.50 Female 8 3.4375 .56300 .19905 2.9668 3.9082 2.50 4.00 Total 42 3.4643 .59871 .09238 3.2777 3.6509 2.00 4.50 ALUMNI NETWORK Male 35 4.4857 .65849 .11131 4.2595 4.7119 3.00 5.00 Female 8 4.0000 .75593 .26726 3.3680 4.6320 3.00 5.00 Total 43 4.3953 .69486 .10597 4.1815 4.6092 3.00 5.00 LOCATION Male 35 3.7143 1.01667 .17185 3.3650 4.0635 2.00 5.00 Female 8 3.8750 .83452 .29505 3.1773 4.5727 2.00 5.00 Total 43 3.7442 .97817 .14917 3.4432 4.0452 2.00 5.00
  • 25. • Interpretation: • As we have found from ANOVA test there was no significant difference between responses on gender variables. • We can also observe the means of both male and females are in the same range for all 5 factors which justifies no significant difference.
  • 26. ANOVA Age vs Factors
  • 27. Table 8 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Between Groups 1.693 3 .564 1.493 .232 Within Groups 14.360 38 .378 Total 16.053 41 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Between Groups 1.075 3 .358 .394 .758 Within Groups 35.478 39 .910 Total 36.553 42 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Between Groups .309 3 .103 .272 .845 Within Groups 14.387 38 .379 Total 14.696 41 ALUMNI NETWORK Between Groups .523 3 .174 .344 .794 Within Groups 19.756 39 .507 Total 20.279 42 LOCATION Between Groups .273 3 .091 .089 .966 Within Groups 39.913 39 1.023 Total 40.186 42
  • 28. • Interpretation: • As we can see from the above ANOVA table the the significance values for all the factors are greater than 0.05. • So the there is no significant difference between the responses on age variable. • We can say that all age groups have responded in similar way.
  • 29. Age Table 7 Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound CURRICULUM AND IMAGE 20-22 17 3.9608 .52549 .12745 3.6906 4.2310 2.67 5.00 23-25 23 3.7971 .67224 .14017 3.5064 4.0878 2.33 5.00 26-28 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00 Above 28 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00 Total 42 3.8254 .62573 .09655 3.6304 4.0204 2.33 5.00 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS 20-22 18 3.0000 .97014 .22866 2.5176 3.4824 1.00 4.67 23-25 23 3.0580 .94094 .19620 2.6511 3.4649 1.00 4.67 26-28 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00 Above 28 1 2.0000 . . . . 2.00 2.00 Total 43 3.0078 .93290 .14227 2.7206 3.2949 1.00 4.67 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE 20-22 17 3.5294 .51450 .12478 3.2649 3.7939 2.50 4.50 23-25 23 3.4348 .67931 .14165 3.1410 3.7285 2.00 4.50 26-28 1 3.5000 . . . . 3.50 3.50 Above 28 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00 Total 42 3.4643 .59871 .09238 3.2777 3.6509 2.00 4.50 ALUMNI NETWORK 20-22 18 4.3889 .77754 .18327 4.0022 4.7756 3.00 5.00 23-25 23 4.3913 .65638 .13686 4.1075 4.6751 3.00 5.00 26-28 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00 Above 28 1 5.0000 . . . . 5.00 5.00 Total 43 4.3953 .69486 .10597 4.1815 4.6092 3.00 5.00 LOCATION 20-22 18 3.6667 .97014 .22866 3.1842 4.1491 2.00 5.00 23-25 23 3.7826 1.04257 .21739 3.3318 4.2335 2.00 5.00 26-28 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00 Above 28 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00 Total 43 3.7442 .97817 .14917 3.4432 4.0452 2.00 5.00
  • 30. • Interpretation: • As we have found from ANOVA test there was no significant difference between responses on age variables. • We can also observe the means of various age categories are in the same range for all 5 factors which justifies no significant difference.
  • 31. ANOVA Education Background vs Factors
  • 32. Table 09 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Between Groups 4.708 3 1.569 5.687 .003 Within Groups 9.934 36 .276 Total 14.642 39 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Between Groups 1.566 3 .522 .637 .596 Within Groups 30.326 37 .820 Total 31.892 40 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Between Groups .525 3 .175 .459 .713 Within Groups 13.719 36 .381 Total 14.244 39 ALUMNI NETWORK Between Groups .066 3 .022 .041 .989 Within Groups 19.690 37 .532 Total 19.756 40 LOCATION Between Groups .779 3 .260 .248 .862 Within Groups 38.782 37 1.048 Total 39.561 40
  • 33. • Interpretation: • As we can see from the above ANOVA table the the significance values for all the factors except Curriculum and Image are greater than 0.05. • So for Curriculum and Image there is significant difference between the responses on Education variable.
  • 34. Education Background Table 09 Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound CURRICULUM AND IMAGE B.Tech 23 3.5797 .55247 .11520 3.3408 3.8186 2.33 4.33 B. Com 11 4.2727 .51247 .15452 3.9284 4.6170 3.67 5.00 BBA 3 4.4444 .50918 .29397 3.1796 5.7093 4.00 5.00 B. Sc 3 3.8889 .19245 .11111 3.4108 4.3670 3.67 4.00 Total 40 3.8583 .61272 .09688 3.6624 4.0543 2.33 5.00 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS B.Tech 23 3.0435 .88366 .18426 2.6614 3.4256 1.00 4.33 B. Com 11 3.3030 .86223 .25997 2.7238 3.8823 2.33 4.67 BBA 4 2.5833 1.06719 .53359 .8852 4.2815 1.00 3.33 B. Sc 3 3.1111 1.07152 .61864 .4493 5.7729 2.33 4.33 Total 41 3.0732 .89291 .13945 2.7913 3.3550 1.00 4.67 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE B.Tech 23 3.5652 .62712 .13076 3.2940 3.8364 2.00 4.50 B. Com 10 3.4000 .61464 .19437 2.9603 3.8397 2.50 4.00 BBA 4 3.5000 .70711 .35355 2.3748 4.6252 2.50 4.00 B. Sc 3 3.1667 .28868 .16667 2.4496 3.8838 3.00 3.50 Total 40 3.4875 .60434 .09555 3.2942 3.6808 2.00 4.50 ALUMNI NETWORK B.Tech 23 4.3913 .72232 .15061 4.0790 4.7037 3.00 5.00 B. Com 11 4.3636 .80904 .24393 3.8201 4.9072 3.00 5.00 BBA 4 4.5000 .57735 .28868 3.5813 5.4187 4.00 5.00 B. Sc 3 4.3333 .57735 .33333 2.8991 5.7676 4.00 5.00 Total 41 4.3902 .70278 .10976 4.1684 4.6121 3.00 5.00 LOCATION B.Tech 23 3.8261 .98406 .20519 3.4005 4.2516 2.00 5.00 B. Com 11 3.5455 .82020 .24730 2.9944 4.0965 2.00 5.00 BBA 4 3.7500 1.25831 .62915 1.7478 5.7522 2.00 5.00 B. Sc 3 4.0000 1.73205 1.00000 -.3027 8.3027 2.00 5.00 Total 41 3.7561 .99450 .15531 3.4422 4.0700 2.00 5.00
  • 35. • Interpretation: • As we have found from ANOVA test there was significant difference between responses on education variables. • We can see the mean value of respondents who choose BBA as their educational background is 4.44 which is more than other category respondents. • So respondents have favorably responded towards BBA on education variable.
  • 36. ANOVA Annual Household Income vs Factors
  • 37. Table 11 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Between Groups 1.570 3 .523 1.339 .276 Within Groups 14.457 37 .391 Total 16.027 40 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Between Groups 1.812 3 .604 .663 .580 Within Groups 34.622 38 .911 Total 36.434 41 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Between Groups .614 3 .205 .577 .634 Within Groups 13.130 37 .355 Total 13.744 40 ALUMNI NETWORK Between Groups 1.028 3 .343 .682 .568 Within Groups 19.091 38 .502 Total 20.119 41 LOCATION Between Groups 1.505 3 .502 .494 .689 Within Groups 38.614 38 1.016 Total 40.119 41
  • 38. • Interpretation: • As we can see from the above ANOVA table the the significance values for all the factors are greater than 0.05. • So the there is no significant difference between the responses on Income variable. • We can say that all income groups have responded in similar way.
  • 39. Annual Household Income Table 10 Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound CURRICULUM AND IMAGE Up to 3 Lakhs 5 4.1333 .96032 .42947 2.9409 5.3257 2.67 5.00 3-5 lakhs 12 4.0278 .50168 .14482 3.7090 4.3465 3.00 5.00 5-8 Lakhs 12 3.6667 .61955 .17885 3.2730 4.0603 2.33 4.67 Above 8 Lakhs 12 3.6667 .58603 .16917 3.2943 4.0390 2.67 4.67 Total 41 3.8293 .63299 .09886 3.6295 4.0291 2.33 5.00 INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND PLACEMENTS Up to 3 Lakhs 5 2.8000 1.69312 .75719 .6977 4.9023 1.00 4.67 3-5 lakhs 12 3.1944 .75823 .21888 2.7127 3.6762 2.00 4.67 5-8 Lakhs 12 2.7500 1.05529 .30464 2.0795 3.4205 1.00 4.33 Above 8 Lakhs 13 3.1795 .61787 .17137 2.8061 3.5529 2.33 4.33 Total 42 3.0159 .94267 .14546 2.7221 3.3096 1.00 4.67 INVESTMENT AND EXPOSURE Up to 3 Lakhs 5 3.4000 .65192 .29155 2.5905 4.2095 2.50 4.00 3-5 lakhs 11 3.6818 .51346 .15481 3.3369 4.0268 3.00 4.50 5-8 Lakhs 12 3.3750 .71111 .20528 2.9232 3.8268 2.00 4.50 Above 8 Lakhs 13 3.4615 .51887 .14391 3.1480 3.7751 2.50 4.00 Total 41 3.4878 .58617 .09154 3.3028 3.6728 2.00 4.50 ALUMNI NETWORK Up to 3 Lakhs 5 4.6000 .54772 .24495 3.9199 5.2801 4.00 5.00 3-5 lakhs 12 4.3333 .65134 .18803 3.9195 4.7472 3.00 5.00 5-8 Lakhs 12 4.5833 .66856 .19300 4.1586 5.0081 3.00 5.00 Above 8 Lakhs 13 4.2308 .83205 .23077 3.7280 4.7336 3.00 5.00 Total 42 4.4048 .70051 .10809 4.1865 4.6231 3.00 5.00 LOCATION Up to 3 Lakhs 5 3.8000 1.09545 .48990 2.4398 5.1602 2.00 5.00 3-5 lakhs 12 3.9167 .90034 .25990 3.3446 4.4887 2.00 5.00 5-8 Lakhs 12 3.8333 1.02986 .29729 3.1790 4.4877 2.00 5.00 Above 8 Lakhs 13 3.4615 1.05003 .29123 2.8270 4.0961 2.00 5.00 Total 42 3.7381 .98920 .15264 3.4298 4.0464 2.00 5.00
  • 40. • Interpretation: • As we have found from ANOVA test there was no significant difference between responses on income variable. • We can also observe the means of all the income groups are in the same range for all 5 factors which justifies no significant difference.
  • 41. Thankyou.........