A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of …...Sham Hormusji Sachinwala PhD Synopsis Gujarat Technological University Page 2 of 16 Management B. Brief Description on the state of the

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

PhD Synopsis

A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi

Criterion Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

Sham Hormusji Sachinwala

(Enrollment Number: 119997392031)

Supervisor: Dr. Pravin H. Bhathawala, Professor& Ex- Head

Department of Mathematics, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat

Co-Supervisor: Dr. PolonaTominc, Professor

University of Maribor, Slovenia.

DPC Members:

Dr. Vinod Patel

Professor & Dean

Department of Industrial & Business

Management,

Veer Narmad South Gujarat University,

Surat

Dr. Manish Sidhpuria

Professor

Department of Industrial & Business

Management,

Veer Narmad South Gujarat University,

Surat

Sham Hormusji Sachinwala PhD Synopsis

Gujarat Technological University Page 1 of 16 Management

A. Title of the thesis and abstract:

Title: A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi Criterion

Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process.

Abstract:

Universities Rankings are carried out worldwide by different bodies but the criteria of

evaluation and weights given are different. Also the ranking system may not be suited to

Indian Universities as the parameters and weights are non universal and non uniform. This

call for a need to have an indigenous model to be developed based on local stake holder’s

parameters and localized views. This will help in evaluation and comparison of Indian

Universities and Higher Learning Institutes and selection of the same.

The study focuses on preferences and viewpoints of four sets of stake holders, viz. students,

faculties, university administrators and prospective employers. Further, the sub criteria to

judge a university from viewpoint of different stakeholders are mapped.

The preferences of the stakeholders obtained from the primary survey through questionnaires

then are formulated as an Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem (AHP).Analytical Hierarchy

Process is a Multi Criteria Decision making model developed by Thomas Saaty. AHP

attempts to simplify a complex decision making problem by using pair wise comparison of

criteria’s using Saaty’s Scale.

The outcome of the study will be an AHP Model with ranked order criteria which reflects the

preferences or feelings of local stake holders for evaluation of higher learning institutes. The

study also shows the homogeneity and consensus percentage of the group. Higher consensus

shows that the model is applicable universally for local evaluation of institutes.

This will benefit the students, faculties, employers and the universities administrator to select

the higher learning institute based on the local choices available to them. Also it will serve as

a local or regional ranking of universities from a set of universities.

Key Words: Analytical Hierarchy Process, Higher Learning Institutes, Multiple Criterion

Decision Making, Universities.



B. Brief Description on the state of the art of the research topic

The evaluation of universities and institutes of higher learning has been the topic of recurrent

discussions in the scenario of multiple streams and institutes to choose from.These

evaluations manifests in the form of rankings. Indian Education Sector (IES) is by far the

largest capitalized space in India with (3.7% of GDP; at global average).In India,

National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a methodology adopted by the Ministry of

Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, to rank allinstitutions of

higher education in India has been developed. The Framework was approved by the MHRD

and launched by Minister of Human Resource Development on 29 September 2015. Several

world ranking bodies publishes the ranking data on world universities. “Rankings serve a

variety of purposes, good and bad … and are also inevitable in the era of massification”

(Altbach, 2006). The rankings have been based on a number of parameters that focus the

institutional performance in a variety of perspectives.

Joao E. Steinerused The Principal Component Analysis- PCA, a multivariate procedure in

which a set of correlated variables is transformed into a set of uncorrelated variables (called

Principal Components) that are ordered by reducing variability (Murtag and Heck, 1987) for

world universities ranking.

(Alice C. Stewart and Julie Carpenter, 2001) used the balanced score card (Kaplan & Norton,

1996) for assessment of performance of higher education institute.

(Y.J. Fenga, H. Lua and K. Bib, 2003) developed a better tool for the assessment of the

management performance of research and development (R&D) activities in research-oriented

universities.A combination of analysis hierarchical process (AHP) and data envelopment

analysis (DEA) is was used for the assessment of the efficiency of R&D management

activities in universities.

(Van Raan, 2005) stated that when dealing with institutions of a large number of countries,

uniformity becomes an issue One faces the problem of heterogeneity of criteria, languages

and cultures. Even more problematic may be the form of establishing weights for the distinct

parameters.The choices of both, parameters and weights, may represent cultural, political or

economic perspectives that could introduce non-universal values and, therefore, should be

regarded with caution.



(TorbenDrewes, and Christopher Michael, 2006) studied set of micro data on university

applications to examine the role played by institutional attributes in choices made by

graduating high school students between the 17 universities in the Province of Ontario,

Canada by using rank-ordered LOGIT model.

(MihirGokhale, 2007)used the Analytic Hierarchy Process for University Strategy Planning

in his thesis at University of Missouri, where strategic planning objectives like enriching the

students experience, broadening the academic portfolio and increasing enrollment, enhancing

research performance and securing resources from external constituencies and the criteria for

the same were evaluated by using AHP.

(RebekaLukman, DamjanKrajnc and Peter Glavic, 2008) demonstrate the application of AHP

to rank the 35 top universities from the ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities)

and Times ranking tables for developing a new ranking table from sustainability point of

view

(Ruth A. Pagell,2009) focused on synthesizing current international and national policies and

accountability initiatives with the history of research rankings and the use of biblio-metrics to

produce 21st century university research rankings.

(Toma C.M, Cuza I., Popa G., 2010) highlighted how important it is for the university

members to be aware of theevaluation criteria for the research projects they undertake

(Rodica, Dan &Rodica,2010) emphasized that higher education institution should enjoy the

acceptance, involvement and support of the community, to which, in return, delivers expected

benefits, i.e., trust building and providing inspiration. A sustainable university should become

a brand that speaks by itself. It does not beg for support, rather proves itself important to

society and invites support. The sustainable university is the higher education institution that,

by responsibly and honestly assuming the duty to perform its mission as efficiently as

possible, for an indefinite period, is a contributor to society’s sustainable development.



C. Definition of the problem:

The doctoral work addresses the following problems.

1) Are the World Higher Education Rankings published by various ranking bodies suited

to Indian Universitiesand relevant to local stakeholders like students, faculties and

employers?

2) Does the ranking criteria of world ranking bodies’ matches with the local preferences

of the stakeholders and what is the usefulness of the same?

3) Can we develop a relative evaluation and comparison model for Higher Education

Institutions based on the preferences of students, faculties, employers and university

administrators, which can be used to select a particular institute from the choice set

instead of absolute ranks?

The study systematically takes each aspects of the problem to suggest the solution.

D. Objective and Scope of work:

Objectives:

1) To study the ranking criteria and methodology used by various ranking bodies for

universities and higher learning institutes.

2) To find out the preferences and priorities of different stake holders about their criteria to

judge and select the universities or Higher Education Institutions.

3) To develop a model based on Analytical Hierarchy Process to evaluate and compare

universities or higher education institutes based on the criteria which the stake holders

have found relevant and from within their choice set.

4) To calculate the diversity, homogeneity & consensus of the responses from multiple

respondents from heterogeneous streams.

Scope of the work:The present doctoral work addresses each objective by application of

Analytical Hierarchy Process, a popular Multi Criteria Decision Making methodology

developed by Thomas Saaty. The study is limited to four stake holders, namely students,

faculties, employers and institute administrators and their preferences. It studies the weights

of different criteria by using AHP for different stakeholders and checks the validity of the

responses by using consistency ratio. Also the study uses Shannon diversity indices to work

out the homogeneity and the consensus percentage amongst multiple respondents for the final

weights.



E. Original contribution by the thesis:

The original contribution made by the study is manifested by creation of a relative evaluation

and comparison model for students, faculty, employers and administrators to evaluate the

higher learning institutes which they have in their consideration set. The model will

supplement the absolute ranking of institutes rated by ranking bodies. This provides the stake

holders a framework to arrive at a systematic and logical decision in selecting the education

institute of their choice.

F. Methodology of Research, Results / Comparisons

Research Design:The methodology involves descriptive research design along with

modeling.

Sample Design: Non-probability convenience sampling was used.

Target Population: Four stakeholders connected with higher education, viz.

undergraduate & post graduate students, teaching faculties of colleges, industries

managers who recruits students and administrators of universities which includes

directors, principals, head of the departments and deans.

Target Group:Representative members from the above target population from

commerce, management, engineering, computer science and medical streams.

Sample size: 110 students, 50 teaching faculties, 25 business organizations and 5

administrators.

Data Collection: The study includes both primary and secondary data. The primary

data was collected from all four stake holders by using four different structured

questionnaires to collect pair wise preferences on multiple criteria using Saaty’s

measurement scale. Secondary data related to ranking methodology and ranks of

ranking bodies were taken from the websites of ranking bodies.

Models used: Analytic Hierarchy Model for priority and ranking of criteria, Shannon

diversity measures (α – entropy, β – entropy & γ – entropy) and Mac Arthur

Homogeneity (M)were used to work out the AHP consensus. The entire model was

formulated using MS Excel.



Flow of Research:

Results / Comparisons

The following results were derived out of the study of secondary data

1) Prominent ranking bodies of world universities are

a. The Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings (THES-QS)

b. Academic Ranking of World Universities by SJTU (ARWU)

c. Top 100 Global Universities by Newsweek

d. Webometrics: World Universities’ Ranking on the Web by Cybermetrics Lab

e. G-Factor International University Rankings by Google Search

f. Professional Ranking of World Universities by MINES Paris Tech

g. Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities by HEEACT

h. Global University Ranking by Wuhan University, China

2) Ranking Criteria used by the above bodies

THES – QS ARWU HEEACT

Research Quality Quality of Education Research Productivity

Graduate Employability Quality of faculty Research Impact

International Outlook Research Output Research Excellence

Teaching Quality Size of Institution

Webometrics

Size : No. of pages recovered from four search engines

Visibility: The no. of total unique external in-links received.

Rich Files: No. of relevant academic publications

Scholars: No. of papers and citations for each academic domain



Newsweek (collates the following from SJTU & THES)

Number of highly cited researchers in various academic fields

Number of articles in Nature and Science Journal

Number of articles listed in ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities Indices

Percentage of international faculty

Percentage of international students

Citation per faculty members (using ISI data)

Faculty to student ratio

MINES Paris Tech

The number of alumni holding a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position in one of the leading worldwide companies

The performance of universities in terms of their training programs, based on professional future of their graduates

3) Criteria used by National Institutional Ranking Framework, Ministry of HRD, India

a. Teaching, Learning & Resources:Student Strength including Doctoral

Students, Faculty-student ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty,

Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (or equivalent) and Experience, Total

Budget and Its Utilization

b. Research and Professional Practice: Combined metric for Publications,

Combined metric for Quality of Publications, IPR and Patents: Filed,

Published, Granted and Licensed, Footprint ofProjects and Professional

Practice and Executive Development Programs.

c. Graduation Outcomes: Combined % for Placement, Higher Studies, and

Entrepreneurship Metric for University Examinations, Median Salary, Metric

for Graduating Students Admitted Into Top Universities ,Metric for Number

of Ph.D. Students Graduated

d. Outreach and Inclusivity: Percent Students from other states/countries

(Region Diversity), Percentage of Women, Economically and Socially

Challenged Students, Facilities for Physically Challenged Students.

e. Perception: Peer Perception: Employers and Research Investors, Peer

Perception: Academics, Public Perception,Competitiveness.

The outcomes of the study from primary data are as follows:

1) Main criteria identified for the four stake holders

i. For students

i. University / Institute Related

ii. Faculty Related

iii. Convenience Related



ii. For Faculties

i. Job Security Related

ii. Job Progression & Growth Related

iii. Recognition Related

iii. For Industries

i. Employability of Students Related

ii. Collaborative Research Related

iv. For University administrators

i. Quality of Education

ii. Research Output

iii. Size, Reach & Infrastructure

iv. Quality of Faculties & Staff

2) Total 36 sub-criteria were identified under the above main criteria

Type of University & No. of affiliated Colleges, Campus Infrastructure, Admission

Policy, Prior Results & Placements of students, Number of Patents registered,

Number of Ph. D & M. Phil Produced, Tie up with Foreign University, National /

Global Accreditation, Historical Scholarly Ranking, UGC / Private / International

Funding, Availability of Major Academic Programs, All round & activity based

learning through live projects, Course curriculum & quality of program, ICT enabled

university, No. of International Faculties, No. of International Students, Faculty to

student ratio, Qualifications & Experience of faculty, Papers published by faculties,

Honors, Awards & Prizes received by faculties, Nearness from Home, Cost of

education (fees), Religious Consideration, Availability of Scholarship, Ease of

obtaining loans, Recommended by Past Teachers, friends & relatives, Separate

activity centre, National & International Recognition of faculty, Growth & Research

opportunities for faculties, Research opportunities available, Number of Faculty

Development Programs conducted, Consultation to Industry & collaborative research,

Salary Structure, Employability of passed out students, Communication Skills of

students, and Ethics & Value system and Business Etiquette of students



3) The criteria priorities and their ranks from consolidated AHP priority matrix for

students

Criteria for students Priority Rank

Qualification & Experience of faculties 15.01% 1

Prior Results & Placement of students 9.24% 2

Faculty to student ratio 7.07% 3

National & International Recognition of faculties 6.72% 4

Papers published by faculties 5.57% 5

Availability of scholarship 5.49% 6

Cost of education 5.49% 7

ICT Enabled University 4.88% 8

Honors / Awards received by faculties 4.87% 9

Historical Scholarly ranking 4.83% 10

Availability of major course 3.57% 11

Separate Activity Centre 3.56% 12

Number of International faculties 3.48% 13

Availability of Hostel facility 3.32% 14

Ease of obtaining loan 3.18% 15

Nearness to home 2.68% 16

Type of University & No of Affiliated Colleges 2.62% 17

Admission Policy 1.91% 18

All round education and activity based learning 1.89% 19

Employability of passed out students 1.84% 20

Recommendation by past teachers, friends,

relatives 1.09% 21

National / Global Accreditation 0.89% 22

Campus Infrastructure 0.44% 23

Religious Consideration 0.37% 24


faculties:

Criteria for faculties Weight Rank

National & International Recognition of faculties 29.56% 1

Availability of Major Courses 13.91% 2

Growth & Research Opportunities provided 10.24% 3

Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 9.76% 4


Salary structure 5.11% 6

No. of M.Phil.& PhDs produced 4.85% 7

No. of Faculty Development Programs Conducted 4.77% 8

Historical Scholarly Ranking & Citation Index 2.65% 9

Consultation provided to Industries & Collaborative Research 2.61% 10

No. of Patents Registered 1.94% 11



Tieup with foreign Universities 1.65% 12

Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties 1.64% 13

UGC / Private / International Funding 1.37% 14


National / Global Accreditation 1.13% 16

Number of international faculties 1.07% 17

Recommendations by past teachers, friends, relatives 0.78% 18

No. of international students 0.40% 19


Industry / employers:

Criteria for Industries Weights Rank Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students 19.79% 1

Consultation to Industries and collaborative research 14.35% 2

All round & Activity based learning through live projects 10.54% 3


National & International recognition of faculties 7.35% 5

Communication skills of students 6.01% 6

Qualification & Experience of faculties 5.15% 7

No. of patents Registered 4.41% 8

Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties 4.04% 9

Prior Performance & Placements of Students 3.11% 10

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs 2.83% 11

Availability of Major courses / Future ready programs 2.69% 12

National & Global accreditation 2.53% 13


Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 2.12% 15

No. of M.Phil & PhD Produced 1.95% 16

Tie up with foreign universities 1.16% 17

UGC / Private / International funding 1.04% 18

No. of International Faculties 0.99% 19


administrators:

Criteria for administrators Weights Rank

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted 15.22% 1

Growth & Research Opportunities provided 14.24% 2

No. of M.Phil & PhDs produced 10.81% 3

No. of Patents Registered 10.08% 4

Tie up with foreign universities 7.35% 5

UGC / Private / International Funding 6.46% 6

No. of international faculties 5.92% 7





Salary structure 3.92% 10

National & International Recognition 3.59% 11

Historical Scholarly Ranking & Citation Index 3.17% 12

All round education & activity based learning through

projects 1.92% 13


Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs 1.62% 15

Faculty to Student ratio 1.61% 16

Prior Results & Placement of students 0.99% 17

National & Global Accreditation 0.92% 18

Recommendation by past teachers, friends relatives 0.73% 19

No. of international students 0.27% 20

7) Consistency Ratio, Homogeneity &Consensus Measures for all stake holders

Stakeholder Main Criteria

Co

nsi

sten

cy

Ra

tio

Shannon Entropy Homogeneity Measures

α-D

iversi

ty

β-D

iversi

ty

ϒ-D

iversi

ty

MacArthur

M

rel.

Homogeneit

y

1S

AHP

consensus

S*

Students

University Related 1.08% 2.1886 2.3167 0.1281 0.8798 87.87% 73.50%

Faculty Related 0.53% 1.8733 2.0168 0.1435 0.8663 86.50% 73.90%

Convenience Related 0.00% 2.1092 2.2755 0.1664 0.8467 84.53% 67.51%

Faculty

Job Security Related 1.24% 0.8915 1.0411 0.1496 0.8611 85.82% 78.21%

Job progression Related 4.93% 2.2339 2.3389 0.1050 0.9004 89.83% 76.71%

Recognition Related 2.34% 2.4088 2.5296 0.1208 0.8862 88.38% 71.40%

Administrators

(Directors /

Principals /

HODs)

Quality of Education 5.60% 2.1923 2.2759 0.0836 0.9198 89.98% 75.02%

Research Output 1.49% 1.9018 1.9770 0.0752 0.9276 90.94% 80.34%

Size & Infrastructure 1.96% 1.2266 1.2966 0.0700 0.9324 91.55% 85.25%

Quality of Faculty 4.33% 2.3656 2.4348 0.0692 0.9332 91.65% 78.28%

Industries Employability of Students 3.41% 1.7658 1.8332 0.0674 0.9348 93.21% 86.55%

Collaborative Research 3.80% 2.2679 2.3095 0.0416 0.9592 95.75% 89.72%

All consistency ratios are well below 10% which according to Saaty’s Methodology shows

that the responses were genuine and not random. Also the AHP consensus for all criteria is

above 70% which shows a very high degree of agreement amongst the responses from

multiple respondents from various heterogeneous streams.



G. Achievement with respect to objectives:

Objectives Achievement

To study the ranking criteria and

methodology used by various ranking bodies

for universities and higher learning institutes

World ranking body’smethodologies and

their criteria as well as National Institutional

Ranking Framework were studied.

To find out the preferences and priorities of

different stake holders about their criteria to

judge the universities or Higher Education

Institutions

Total of 3 main criteria for students, 3

main criteria for faculties, 2 main criteria

for industry & 4 main criteria for

administrators were identified.

A total of 36 sub-criteria were identified

to evaluate and compare higher education

institutes by four stake holders, namely

students, faculties, employers &

administrators of higher education

institutes.

To develop a model based on Analytical

Hierarchy Process to evaluate and compare

universities or higher education institutes

based on the criteria which the stake holders

have found relevant and from within their

choice set

Consolidated Matrices for all the main

criteria for all stake holders from

respondents pair wise comparison was

obtained by geometric mean.

Normalization of the matrix and

calculation of priority vector as well as

ranking of sub-criteria under main criteria

were done by using AHP.

Consistency Ratio for all the consolidated

matrices were calculated which are below

10%, which indicates that responses are

genuine and not randomly filled up.

Global (Composite) were calculated for

all 4 stakeholders.

To calculate the diversity, homogeneity &

consensus of the responses from multiple

respondents from heterogeneous streams

Homogeneity and consensus were above 70%

for all stakeholders which showhigh degree

of agreement between multiple respondents

from heterogeneous streams.



H. Conclusion:

All the objectives are addressed and a framework for evaluation and comparison of

universities or higher learning institutes by different stakeholders is developed which the

stakeholders can use to compare universities under their consideration set. This framework

supplements the ranking given by the NIRF. It can be successfully used in selection of higher

learning institutes by the stake holders.

I. Copies of Papers Published and list of publications arising from the thesis

Copies of the papers published are attached herewith.

1) Sachinwala, S. H., Bhathawala P. H. (2012). Selection of Higher Educational

Institute by a Student by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Term Paper for

Gujarat Technological University.

2) Sachinwala, S. H., Solanki, M (August 2012). Selection of Infrastructure

Development Company for Municipal Projects using Analytical Hierarchy

Process. International Journal of Advances in Management, Technology &

Engineering Sciences, 1(11), 39-44.

3) Sachinwala, S. H., Bhathawala P. H. (November 2014). Financial and

Technological Evaluation of Industrial Projects by using Analytical Hierarchy

Process and TOPSIS. Proceeding of National Conference on Finance by Auro

University, ISBN: 9788192818948.

J. Patents: Nil

K. References

1) Academic Ranking of Universities in the OIC Retrieved from

http://www.sesrtcic.org/files/article/232.pdf (8/4/2008)

2) Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007, Retrieved from

http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007Methodology.htm

3) Christian, T. M., Cuza, I., &Popa, G. T. (2010). The importance of knowledge on the

evaluation criteria in university scientific research projects. Studies and Scientific

Researches - Economic Edition,15, 514-519.

4) College and University Rankings, Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings

5) College and University Rankings, Retrieved from http://www.universityranking.eu/



6) Feng, Y. J., Lu, H., & K. B. (2004). An AHP/DEA method for measurement of the

efficiency of R&D management activities in universities. INTERNATIONAL

TRANSACTIONS IN OPERATIONAL RESEARCH,11, 181-191

7) Goepel, Klaus D. (2013). Implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Standard

Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making In Corporate Enterprises – A New AHP

Excel Template with Multiple Inputs, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the

Analytic Hierarchy Process 2013

8) Gokhale, M. (2007). USE OF ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS IN UNIVERSITY

STRATEGY PLANNING (Unpublished master's thesis). UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-

ROLLA.

9) Isidro F. Aguillo, Ranking of Web World Universities – Methodology, Retrieved from

http://www.webometrics.info/methodology.html

10) Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., &Glavič, P. (2000). How to rank universities from sustainability

perspective? University of Maribor.

11) Mirkazemi, S. A., Hemmatinesgad, M. A., Gholizadeh, M. H., &Ramazanian, M. R.

(2009). APPLICATION OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR THE

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA OF SPORT OFFICES IN

UNIVERSITIES. Brazilian Journal of Biomotricity,3(4), 390-398.

12) Professional Ranking of World Universities, Retrieved from

http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html

13) Ranking of Universities-Ranking Methodology, Retrieved from

http://www.hec.gov.pk/QualityAssurance/Ranking_Methodology.htm

14) Ranking of Web World Universities – About the ranking. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.webometrics.info/about_rank.html

15) Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International

Journal of Services Sciences,,1(1).

16) Sadlak, Jan “Validity of University rankings and its Ascending Impact on Higher

Education in Europe”, Retrieved from

http://www.cepes.ro/cepes/speeches/OST_ranking.pdf (7/15/2008)

17) Steiner, J. E. (n.d.). WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS – A PRINCIPAL

COMPONENT ANALYSIS. University of Sao Paulo.

18) Stewart, A. C., & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (winter 2000-2001). Balanced Score Card - Beyond

Reports & Ranking. Planning for Higher Education, 37-42.



19) Thakur, Marian, “The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and its

Stakeholders” Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/jir/Nov07/Ranking.pdf

20) University Metrics-Global University rankings - G-FactorRetrieved from

http://www.universitymetrics.com/g-factor

21) Usher, A., and Savino, M. (2006). A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University

LeagueTables. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute. (6/7/2008)

Documents

A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of …...Sham Hormusji Sachinwala PhD Synopsis Gujarat Technological University Page 2 of 16 Management B. Brief Description on the state of the