In the second phase, 108 recruiters in 10 cities (metros and Tier-I cities across the geographies) were contacted and asked to select and rank the top B-schools from the master list as well as those from within their zone. A list of 100 colleges was finalised for the field survey. “Satisfaction levels” on the performance of B-school graduates whom they had recruited during the past three years was also taken to prepare a “Recruiters’ Satisfaction Index”. Subsequently, trained field researchers visited 89 institutes (seven institutes refused to participate in the survey; they were not ranked) to administer structured questionnaire-based face-to-face interviews among senior faculty members (both permanent and visiting) and final year students from different streams. In all, 539 successful interviews were conducted all over the country (43 cities in 18 states).
An array of information was taken from the senior faculty and students about their institute—they also rated and appraised their institute on various sub-parameters, which included satisfaction against expectations. In a parallel exercise, an objective questionnaire was also designed and put on Outlook’s website. Then, based on the expert panel, the weights were decided for the various data inputs: ranking scores allotted by the recruiters (50 per cent), own-institute satisfaction rating by faculty and students (30 per cent), and faculty and students’ ranking of B-schools (10 per cent each).
First, the cumulative satisfaction ratings obtained from students and faculties for every sub-parameter were normalised against the highest rating obtained for that particular sub-parameter. Marks were then calculated using the weights decided by the expert panel. The ranking score given by the recruiters, faculty and students were then divided among the five parameters in proportion of the weights allotted by the experts. This total score for each institute was used to assign the final rankings.
Weightages | |
Placements | 18.1% |
Selection Process | 18.7% |
Personality development & industry exposure | 23.1% |
Academic excellence | 22.7% |
Infrastructure & facilities | 17.4% |
Placements | Points |
Percentage placed | 49 |
No. of recruiters visiting campus | 28 |
Salary offered in campus placement | 29 |
International placements | 20 |
Summer placements | 31 |
Performance of placement cell | 24 |
Selection Process | |
Type of entrance exam | 105 |
Cutoff in entrance tests | 82 |
Infrastructure and Facilities | |
Physical Infrastructure | 35 |
Knowledge facilities | 44 |
Residential facilities | 43 |
Sport facilities | 31 |
Availability of support staff | 21 |
Personality Development and Industry Exposure | |
Soft skills | 44 |
Extracurricular activities | 31 |
Student exchange program | 28 |
Industry interaction | 47 |
Opportunity to try out new ideas | 27 |
Involvement in the framing of vision and growth of the institute | 24 |
Participation level in institutional building activities | 30 |
Academic Excellence | |
Student-faculty ratio | 16 |
Quality of permanent faculty | 19 |
Quality of visiting faculty | 22 |
Pedagogic process | 15 |
Course curriculum and its relevance | 16 |
Student’s role in institute’s research and consultancy | 15 |
Faculty participation in seminars | 10 |
Faculty exchange programmes | 11 |
Research and consulting opportunities for faculty | 13 |
Papers and books by faculty | 12 |
Faculty interaction with industry | 17 |
Accessibility and responsiveness of top management | 11 |
Participation of faculty in designing of the curriculum | 15 |
Consultation with industry in designing of curriculum | 14 |
MDP/PhD programs | 11 |
Emoluments to faculty | 10 |
Tags