Research Journal of Management Sciences ____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171 Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci. International Science Congress Association 27 Principal Component Analysis on Higher Education Instituition (HEI) Ranking Systems and Conceptual Framework for A New Age Hei Ranking System – Indian Context Sen Harris Boaz Hifield Theorems, 3-78, Joseph Nagar, Marthandam Kanyakumari Dist, Tamilnadu, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in Received 22nd May 2013, revised 29th May 2013, accepted 3rd June 2013 Abstract When World class universities gain from the momentum of student mobility, countries embark on establishing World-Class institutions. For countries like India, which have immense resources but still on loosing side of student mobility, it is prime time to fine tune the education sector to meet global standards. World-Class institutions must be motivated for a vision of national growth by regularizing the education sector to all in line with the sectors riving national growth and complemented with a reliable ranking system which has market potential enough to reach international students. Measuring quality of Higher Education Institution (HEI) is complex. Blind inference of statistical data may lead to a biased judgment. Too many measures and unavailable data tend to make the Ranking process fragile against the ever growing stake older demands. To establish a world class. The growing interest on measuring effectiveness of Higher Education Institution is testimony to the recognition that excellence is not only about achieving outstanding results but also addressing increasing stakeholder needs and catering specific learning needs of diverse student population. As going by International ranking systems, US, UK, Germany, Japan, Australia and few other countries occupy the top 200 universities. The chance for Indian Universities to make it to the league is very narrow. This paper is in a motive to improve the standards of the Indian HEI Ranking System to foster creation of world class universities in India. The parameters used by HEI ranking systems with international reach are analyzed and are studied against the principal components used by Indian ranking system. Also an attempt is made to list the principal components for a new age ranking system in Indian context. Keywords: Indian university rankings, comparing university ranking, academic quality analysis, measuring academic quality. Introduction Evaluation of HEI has been ever evolving but the concerns on reliability remains the same since the inception of the evaluation systems. The multiplicity and complex interdependencies of factors and social wave driven stake holder demands tend to reduce the impact of HEI ranking. The complexity of HEI ranking systems is such that an incremental change in a factor may lead to dramatic changes in the ranks. Looking at the Indian context, the evaluation systems need to be strengthened to help improve the stature of Indian education system. When student migration is considered a prime determinant reluctant of quality of higher education, India is visibly on the loosing end. India is leaking students to the US, UK, China, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and the list is expanding. Failure to attract global students can be linked to many quality parameters. This project intends to look into the quality of Indian HEI ranking systems and a trial is made to establish a Ranking system for Indian universities which will introduce to them the global standards in quality assessment. The paper is organized as follows: i. Comparative study on the existing Indian HEI ranking systems by doing a Principal Component Analysis. ii. Conceptual framework of HEI ranking system with included new age HEI expectations. The conceptual framework is designed on the key features of World Class University as stated by the UNO. Much importance be given to make sure the new age stakeholders need in particular the this proposed ranking system measures HEI through optimal weighted measures of traditional thoughts of academia on Fundamental Research, Consultancy and services, Social Responsibility and Good-will. Scope of Study: The hinge in assessing academic quality is connecting the complexity of the different parameters included and assigning optimal weighting to the parameters and their relationship. The available ranking systems concentrate much on the parameters weighting in the performance of the educational institute in current potential. Research Journal of Management Sciences ________________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci.International Science Congress Association 28 The intended conceptual framework assigns weighting not to the parameters but to the complex relationships between parameters. The ranks are computed by weighted sum approach on the weighted parametrical relationships. Principal Component analysis In order to do the comparative study of existing HEI ranking systems we choose the 2 major Ranking systems namely. i. Outlook India, ii. Competition Success Review (CSR) and compare them with the globally accepted HEI ranking systems namely, i. THE- QS, ii. Shanghai Jiao Tong University iii. Asia Week Study of Ranking Systems: Major factors and parameters used for evaluating and rating were Infrastructure (both physical and academic), faculty, and research, edp, consultancy, publications, curriculum, delivery system, patent, admission, placement, entrepreneurship program and industry interface. The composition, ratio and the output of the faculty were other key factors in measuring qualitative value of the institute. Different components used and corresponding weightings on each parameter by various ranking systems is furnished in table 1. Outlook Express - India Ranking: Outlook Express ranking systems provides a complete ranking of professional studies colleges in India. The focus of the ranking systems is primarily the infrastructure physical, academic and facilities. Also taken into consideration is the quality of students intake and result based academic performance of graduates. Detailed measurement parameters and corresponding weights are listed in table 3. Outlook express has a 13 criteria scale but visibly much importance is given to i. Selection process, ii. Student grooming (Academic Excellence Personality development, exposure and Placements) Table-1 List of Parameter used in International University Rankings systems and their corresponding weightingsRank Indicators SJTU Times Asia Week 1 Articles on ISI databases 20.0 3.3 2 Peer View 40.0 20.0 3 Bibliometric citations per researchers on ISI databases 20.0 20.0 4 Faculty- to – student ratio 20.0 5.0 5 Nobel Prizes and field medals for staff 20.0 Publications 20.0 6 Alumina Laureate 10.0 Recruiters Review 10 Size of institution 10.0 7 First year students accepted to total applications 8.3 Students enrolled to students accepted 8.3 Median score of accepted students entrance score 8.3 8 International student 5.0 International staff 5.0 Teachers with PhD 5.0 Teachers with Masters 5.0 Median salary for teachers 5.0 University spend on teachers 5.0 9 Publications in per- reviewed journals 3.3 Articles presented at international conferences 3.3 Published books 3.3 Research Funds 3.3 Research graduates 3.3 10 Total Spent per student 2.0 Library spent per student 2.0 Internet 2.0 Connection Points 2.0 Library Spending 2.0 Research Journal of Management Sciences ________________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci.International Science Congress Association 29 Table-2 Focus of Ranking systems Global Ranking System Sl No Ranking System Focus Area 1 SJTU Publications and Awards (Faculty, student and Alumni) 2 THE- QS Research Production (Publications – Impact Factor and Citation Index) 3 Asia week Intake Student Quality and Publications Indian Ranking systems 1 Outlook Express Infrastructure (Physical , Academic and Facilities)and Quality of Students intake 2 CSR Faculty Potential (Educational level and Research Productivity of the Teaching staff) Table-3 Parameters and corresponding weights as composed in 2012 ranking of Outlook Express - India Sl No Parameters Weight 1 Selection Process 227.3 2 Academic Excellence 213.6 3 Infrastructure and Facilities 206.4 4 Personality Development and Exposure 172.7 5 Placements 180.0 6 Type of Entrance Exams 59.7 7 Application to Selection Ration 50.0 8 Fee Structure 59.8 9 Age/Establishment of Institute 57.8 10 Percentage of students placed 61.6 11 Number of Recruiters 37.3 12 Salary offered in Campus placement 50.9 13 Return on investment on students perspective 30.2 Table-4Parameters and corresponding weights as composed in 2012 ranking of CSR- India Sl No Parameters Factors Weights 1 Infrastructure Physical and Academic Facilities 22.9% 2 Faculty, Research and Consulting Faculty student ration, Educational Qualification, Research activities, Publications, Workshops and conferences 35.3% 3 Academic Programs Admission, Curriculum and delivery Systems 14.7% 4 Placement Placement Records, Industry Collaborations 27.1% Competition Success Review India – Ranking system: The measurement of CSR is more or less equally distributed in 5 criteria. i. Infrastructure, ii. Faculty Strength, iii. Academic programs, iv. Placement Parameters and corresponding weights as composed in 2012 ranking of CSR- India is listed in table 4. CSR – Ranking system relays much on the statistical data. Lesser importance has been given to the complex relations between quality measures. Implications from Principal Component analysis: Principal component analysis done on the major ranking systems followed in India and the global level shows that ranking systems though try to establish a balanced relationships between different identified parameters they try to keep their individuality by focusing on a area that the scholars deem more important. Different ranking systems have different focus areas. While the raking systems with global reach concentrates on fundamental research and exposure Indian Ranking systems still focus on the Infrastructure and the Teaching potential. The importance of Research productivity is highly under calculated by Indian Ranking systems. Further breaking up the research productively, The International University ranking systems measure i. Research centers to Lab ratio ii. IPR, Awards, Industry Acceptance iii. Phase II and Phase III testing projects and other industry exposure in campus iv. Quality of publications 6.7. Ignored measures of quality are i. Research productivity, ii. quality of exposure, iii. Contribution to the local community, iv.Acceptance of college by fellow academia, Industry and Society. Research Journal of Management Sciences ________________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci.International Science Congress Association 30 Unfortunately the ignored parameters are seen as the new age quality measures of Higher education institution. Conceptualizing HEI Ranking System The complexity and interdependency of the parameters and the ignored relationship between the parameters end up in a sluggish academic ranking model. Identified reasons for ignoring stakeholder needs in ranking systems. i. Unavailable data (Poor data maintenance). ii. Weights assumption without factual data leading to weekly pronounced parameters. (This occurs due to poor judgment of interdependency and relationships of parameters). iii. Dropping important measures due to lack of practices/awareness in majority institutions (Eg. Limited awareness of IPR, Unavailability of potential staff to develop Curriculum) iv. Forced denial of measures due to refusal/Dilution of data (eg. Fund management, Evaluation process, Research productivity) As said above HEI quality measure is a complex process. An effort has been made to identify the parameters which are visible and available for measurement and which could help implicate to fundamental measures of the academic system. While concentrating on the NEW Age Educational Policy like Contract services, the conceptual framework also give weighted importance to traditional view of research and academia. The Parameters are grouped in 6 sub categories viz i. Academic Index ii. Student profiling iii. Staff Profiling iv. Research Productivity v. Infrastructure vi. Governance. Detailed list of parameters is furnished in table 5. A weighted sum approach can be done on the listed parameters to arrive at the intended ranking system. Academic Index: i.Quality of affiliation and accrediting –Ignorance of the stake holders is well used by the HEI to brand their courses with these substandard accreditations. This necessitates the academic ranking systems to consider the acceptability of the accreditation bodies as important as the need to be accredited. ii. Contribution to Curriculum development- Lot has been said about the need for tailor made specific courses to help students mould into the field of education but One size fits all model rules education industry. Ability of the inhouse staff to design syllabus to deliver needs of global standards must be included in HEI ranking systems10. iii. Continual Evaluation methods - When the need for grading student performance is Generic as well as skill specific, it is important to have continual, independent and reliable scientific student evaluation system. The evaluation system should be measured against grading motive and industry acceptability models for similar lines of professionals11. Student profiling: i. Student mobility – Much has been said about the International student migration. Considering the demographical diversity and varied governance in educational policies in India it is necessary to study the student mobility across districts and states while giving importance to student willingness to retain association with the campus. This is better studied by the demographical significance of received applications and the quality of converted applications. ii. Diversity in Exposure and Career Growth - Measured Research exposure, quality of Industrial exposure, Placement records- recruiter profiling, performances in competitive exams, career progress records). iii. Student retaining ratio – Quality of HEI is reflected by willingness of the students to continue studies in the campus. Conversion ratio of students in UG to masters and to Research reveals the affinity of students towards the institution. The extent of Social networking available for the students demands educational institutes to maintain relatively high standards motivate student’s interests to be retained.12Table-5 Listed below are identified parameters to measure HEI Quality based on New Age Educational requirements Sl No Criteria Ignored Parameter 1 Academic Index Quality of Affiliation and Accreditation Contribution to curriculum development Continual Evaluation methods 2 Student Profiling Student Demography Diversity in Exposure and Career growth Student Retaining Ratio 3 Staff Profiling Staff Recruitment Process and Demographical Analysis Faculty Impact Ratio 4 Research Productivity Research Recognition Research Effectiveness 5 Infrastructure Research Center to Lab ratio Library Usage 6 Governance Fund Allocation Endowment and Effective scholarships Research Journal of Management Sciences ________________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci.International Science Congress Association 31 Staff Profiling: i. Staff recruitment – Diversity in terms of skills and diversity in terms of demography add to varied inputs to teaching methods. When it is necessary to build a fast paced learning environment it is mandatory to have measured diversity in staff recruitment13. ii. Faculty Impact ratio – This is the most common metrics. With global standards of 30:1 and Indian standards of 40:1. With much available choices of faculty recruitment it is necessary to value faculty positions against the quality of education, research and consulting value addition that each recruit brings in and the network strength of the recruits. Research Productivity: i. Research Recognition – When publications are mandatory for research studies it is now needful to filter publications on the basis of impact ratio 14. Networking through research and innovative practices is a quantifiable measure that could give the quality of research carried out at the institution15. ii. Research effectiveness – Insufficient data on project records leads to rejecting this parameter from the HEI ranking system. But a relationship can be devised as a ratio of number of projects to student involvement and to public demonstration of research works through conferences, expo etc. iii. Measure of active consulting, Phase II and Phase III Testing projects – Center of excellences are the growing education models. CoE’s build curriculum on live projects. Ignoring these parameters will do no justice to HEI offering live project exposure 16. Infrastructure: i.Research centers to Lab ratio – Ranking systems calculate the effectiveness of Labs and the projects done. The new age education policy requires it to be taken it to the next level expecting the labs to function as research centers. ii. Library Usage –The inclusion proposed in the project is the usage of library. The footprints and the transactions at library. Governance: i.Fund allocation –It is seemingly difficult to get unmanipulated data of fund management. But the governance of the college is pronounced more in fund allocation and fund generation methods. Fund allocation may be relaxed in the primary research but to tighten the filters it must be handled with proper data collection mechanisms. ii. Endowment and effective scholarships - Endowments and scholarships reflect the social concern/ responsibility of the institution and the extent to which the institution is valued by the society and the corporate houses. Traditionally these measures are considered value addition as the educational institutes in India get assistance from the concerned social groups only. With globalization influencing education sector any endorsements flowing in beyond social sects endowment and effective scholarships have emerged as a major measuring criteria for measuring the social connection of the institutions.Conclusion Conceptual framework of the HEI ranking system is expandable further as a reference model to foster new age Education Model. The parameters can be extended to form a accreditation model which could be cross educational vertical. HEI ranking system which is free from dilution and focus on core areas of development can provide valid data to help build education policy. In alignment to competition at Global knowledge economy, Countries, both developing and industrial, are trying to establish world-class universities. The hype surrounding world-class institutions far exceeds the need and capacity for many systems to benefit from such advanced education and research opportunities17. On a macro level planning process, it is highly impossible to lay down a relevant system in the absence of a holistic and a reliable measurement system. Further research in this area will help develop educational policy that will have solution to growing Quality concerns and alignment of education sector to sectors driving national growth. References 1.Aguillo I., Bar-Ilan J., Levene M. and Ortega., Comparing University Rankings, Scientometrics., 85(1), 243-256 (2010) 2.Institute for Higher Education., College and University Ranking systems: Global Perspectives and American Challenges. Wahington DC: IHEP., From http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/a-/ collegerankingsystems .pdf., (2007) 3.CSR–GHRDC Engineering colleges Survey 2012, Competition Success Review., Retrieved form http://ghrdc.org/pdfs/2 EnggMethodology2012.pdf., 2012 4.India’s Best Professional Colleges 2012, Outlook-MRDS Survey., Retrieved from http://www.outlookindia. com/article .aspx?281299., (2012) 5.Kinvin Osmo and Hedman Juha., From university rankings towards productivity analysis of scientific and evidence based policy, Rrefered paper form Proceedings of 6th QS-Apple Education Leaders Conference., 24 – 38 (2011) 6.Times Higher Education., Retrieved from http://timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/methodology., (2012-13) 7.Shanghai Ranking Consultancy., Ranking methodology, Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ ARWUMehtodology-2012.html#4., (2012) 8.Radojicic Zoran and Jeremic Veljko., Quantity or quality: What matters more in ranking higher education instituitions, Current Science,103(2), 158-162 (2012) 9.Bookstein F., Seidler H., Fieder M., and Winckle R., G. Too much noise in the Times Higher Education Rankings, Scientometrics., 85(1), 295-299 (2010) Research Journal of Management Sciences ________________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171Vol. 2(6), 27-32, June (2013) Res. J. Management Sci.International Science Congress Association 32 10.Nitza Davidvoich and Ronan Yavich., Course Websites and their contribution to Students Evaluation of Instructors and their Courses, Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(3), 1-7 (2013) 11.Raveendran Ashita, Beyond Testing and Grading, Using assessment to Improve Teaching–Learning., Research Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 2-7 (2013) 12.Ronan Yavich., Social Networks and Students., Research Journal for Management Sciences, 2(2), 1-2 (2013)13.Irshad Ahmed Kumar. and Shahida Parveen, Teacher Education in the age of Globalization, Research Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 8-12 (2013) 14.Norris M, and Oppenheim, Citation Counts and the research assessment exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE, Journal of Documentation., 59(6), 709–730 (2003) 15.Meho L.I. and Sonnenwald D.H., Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish Scholarship, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 123-138 (2000) 16.Shiekh Kashif Raffat., Farhan Shafiq, Muhammad Shahab Siddiqui and Muhammad Siddiq., University Semantic Grid Network (USGSN), Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 2(2), 54-58 (2013) 17.Pratap Gangan and Gupta B.M., Ranking of Indian Universities for their research output and quality using a new performance index, Curr. Sci., 97(6), 751-752 (2009) 18.Kolluru Srinivas., Rankings of Indian Business Schools: A statistical Analysis, ASCI Journal of Management, 40(2), 101-112 (2011)