Autonomy in Higher Education: A Boon orBane?

A Statistical Analysis on Assessment and Grading

Srinivasa Rao K S1, Chowdari Prasad2 and Jamuna A.S3
1 Dean Sankara Academy of Vision, Coimbatore 2 Professor & Dean (Branding), TA Pai Management Institute, Manipal 3 Faculty, MS Ramaiah Institute of Management, Bangalore

After achieving independence, Indian citizens got freedom under the provisions of the Constitution, which also meant that freedom is not for free. Also today, in our country, we are enjoying the fruits of the financial reforms initiated a couple of decades back. Later the government initiated reforms even in Higher Education, suggested by Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee on Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions. The concept of Autonomy in Higher Education is a structural solution that provides an environment to improve and strengthen the teaching and learning processes. Autonomy should lead to excellence in academics, governance and financial management of the institutions. Regulatory Bodies are meant to control the deviations of the said freedom. In any institution, Academic autonomy is the freedom to decide academic issues like curriculum, instructional material, pedagogy and students evaluation. Administrative autonomy is the freedom to institution to manage its own affairs in regard to administration. Financial autonomy is the freedom to expend the financial resources at its disposal with its priorities. One has to understand that Autonomy and Accountability are two sides of the same coin. Accountability enables the institutions to regulate the freedom given to them by way of autonomy.The perception of the stakeholders about autonomy, sometimes, may lead to the downfall of the Institutions. The authors in this article have focused on the academic autonomy in Indian B-Schools and discussed various issues and challenges involved in assessing the students as per the pedagogy. The authors have suggested the need for normalisation while assessing the students with a relative grading mechanism.

Introduction A committee that was constituted in Sept. 2004 on the subject of Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions under the chairmanship of Shri Kanti Biswas of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) by the Government of India had the following objectives: a. To suggest measures for enhancing the autonomy of higher education institutions, especially those with potential for excellence b. To institutionalize regulatory provisions for promoting autonomy and accountability of higher education institutions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper submitted to the International Conference on Global Paradigm Shifts in Management, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), English Language Teaching (ELT), and Higher Education (HE) conducted by Seshadripuram First Grade College, Bangalore to be held on 19 th Mar. 2014

The institutions of higher learning in India fall into categories like Universities, Deemed to be Universities, Private Universities, Institutes of National Importance, and Premier Institutes of Management. Most colleges in India are affiliated to universities and provide undergraduate education. Some colleges also undertake post-graduate teaching and research. The affiliating universities oversee the standards of affiliated colleges and hold examinations and award degrees to successful candidates. The UGC, on the recommendation of an Expert Committee and in consultation with the State Government and the University concerned, confers the autonomous status on colleges to enable them to determine their own curricula, rules for admission, evolve methods of assessment of student work, conduct of examinations, use modern tools of educational technology and promote healthy practices such as community service and extension activities for the benefit of the society at large. The system of higher education, like any other system, requires performance evaluation, assessment and accreditation of universities and colleges in the country. In this connection, the UGC established National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in 1994. The philosophy of NAAC is based on objective and continuous improvement rather than being punitive or judgemental, so that all institutions of higher education are empowered to maximize their resources, opportunities and capabilities. Assessment is accomplished through a process of self-study and peer review using defined criteria. The main purpose of assessment and accreditationis improvement and enhancement of quality, recognizing excellence, accountability, information providing andbenchmarking. The process is aimed at strengthening and sustaining the quality and credibility of higher educationmaking it worthy of public confidence and minimizing the scope of external control. The assessment is mainlybased on seven major criteria such as the following: Curricular Aspects Teaching Learning and Evaluation Research, Consultancy and Extension Infrastructure and Learning Resources Student Support and Progression Organization and Management Healthy and Innovative Practices With increasing importance of services sector in the world economy, the member countries of WTO in 1996 agreed to sign a General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which covered services of international trade at par with merchandise trade. This agreement in general covers all the services (presently specified 19 services) including education services. The WTO has identified four different modes of trade in education that received legal protection through GATS: Cross-Border Supply of a service includes any type of course that is provided through distance educationer the internet, any type of testing service, and educational materials which can cross national boundaries Consumption Abroad mainly involves the education of foreign students and is the most common form of trade in educational services Commercial Presence refers to the actual presence of foreign investors in a host country. This would include foreign universities setting up courses or entire institutions in another country Presence of Natural Personsrefers to the ability of people to move between countries to provide educational services

In the first half of the nineteenth century, prior to the establishment of the first set of Indian Universities, several colleges came into existence with full autonomy such as Hindu College, Calcutta (1817), Agra College (1827), Poona College (1833), Elphinstone College, Bombay (1834), Hoogly College (1836), Patna College (1840), St. Joseph College, Nagapattinam (1844), Hislop College, Nagpur (1844), Bethune College for Women, Calcutta (1849), Madras Christian College (1852), and St. Johns College (1853). With the establishment of the first three Universities in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, twenty-seven existing autonomous colleges were affiliated in 1857 to these three universities, when rules were adopted for common admission, courses, examination and results[Report of the CABE Committee (2005)]. Since 1968 when the first National Policy on Education based on Kothari Commission report was adopted, there has been continued emphasis on changing the affiliation system of colleges. The affiliation system which persisted since 1857 worked well during the early decades when the number of colleges affiliated to the universities was small and the universities had direct interest and close association with the programs and performance of itsaffiliated colleges. During the last few decades, however, the number of colleges affiliated to universities has grown to almost unmanageable proportions. The relationship between the universities and affiliated colleges has degraded to proforma functions, reducing the status of affiliated colleges to mechanical entities. Many of our reputed universities and colleges have lost their pre-eminent positions over a period for several reasons. However, only a few manage to maintain their status and dignity in an environment of complex socio-economic pressures and worldwide changes in approaches to the educational processes. Under the rapidly expanding situation with multiplicity of expectations from the higher education system, it has become necessary to identify those attributes, which distinguish a first-rate institution from a mediocre one. The complex array of associated issues deserves a total rethinking of our approach to higher education. Serious efforts are now underway to develop the policy perspectives in education involving deeper national introspection and fundamental changes in the structure, content and delivery mechanisms of our university system. However, Higher Education is continuing to expand, mostly in an unplanned manner, without even minimum levels of checks and balances. Many universities are burdened with unmanageable number of affiliated colleges. Some have more than 300 colleges affiliated to them. New universities are being carved out of existing ones to reduce the number of affiliated colleges. Under these circumstances, our dependence on autonomy as the means to improve quality of such a huge size of higher education system poses serious challenges. The concept of autonomy is a structural solution intended mainly to provide an enabling environment to improve and strengthen the teaching and learning process. Autonomy alone may not guarantee higher quality, just as absence of autonomy need not preclude better performance. The essential factors for high quality education are the caliber and attitudes of students towards learning, the competence and commitment of teachers towards educational processes, the flexibility and foresightedness of the governance system and the social credibility of the educational outcome. Autonomy is expected to provide a better framework for fostering these factors than the affiliation system with all its constraining conditions hanging as a dead weight on the higher education system.

At the core of the concept of autonomy is the decentralized management culture. The delegation of responsibility with accountability for the academic as well as the associated management functions is essential for success of autonomy. The successful implementation of the concept of autonomy requires willing and honest participation of the students, teachers and management in the education process. They should be willing to stand up to intense scrutiny of their role in autonomy. A system of academic audit at every step of the implementation of the concept of autonomy should be acceptable to all concerned parties. The facilities for carrying out autonomous functions such as innovations in curricular content, systems of examination and evaluation, teaching methods, supplementary learning, etc., require not only sufficient financial resources but also continuous training and upgradation of teachers academic skills. Autonomous institutions should, therefore, have the means to mobilize resources on a predictable basis. Their dependence solely on UGC or state governments which have limited allocations for higher education will be a serious drawback. In the rapidly changing teaching-learning environment, an autonomous system can facilitate much needed innovations such as interdisciplinary programs, inter-institutional sharing of academic loads, and transfer of credits between different modes of learning and so on. Autonomy should necessarily lead to excellence in academics, governance and financial management of the institutions. If it does not lead to this, it can be safely concluded that autonomy has been misused. Academic autonomy is the freedom to decide academic issues like curriculum, instructional material, pedagogy, techniques of students evaluation. Administrative autonomy is the freedom to an institution for managing its own affairs in regard to administration. It is the freedom to manage the affairs in such a way that it stimulates and encourages initiative and development of individuals working in the institutions and thereby of the institution itself. Financial autonomy is the freedom to the institution to expend the financial resources at its disposal in a prudent way keeping in view its priorities. Autonomy and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Accountability enables the institutions to regulate the freedom given to them by way of autonomy.

Review of Literature Baroness Perry (1998) indicated that Higher Education funding arrangements remain unsatisfactory even after Labour government took over the power in May 1997 in UK. The author observed that Central Governments price controls over the services which universities offer threaten both autonomy and quality. The author indicated that the best UK research universities can no longer compete with their counterparts in the United States and elsewhere. The author in his article proposed a return to private status for universities, allowing them to form a contractual relationship with government for teaching and research, with freedom to charge an additional market price for their services to privately funded and overseas students. K.S. Srinivasa Rao (2002) developed a Bermuda Triangle model with Student, B-School and Recruiting Company and indicated clearly that a student whose academic performance is not upto the mark during his MBA Program may disappear before getting his proper career opportunities. Also, it was indicated that any B-School not performing well in terms of the contemporary curriculum, may vanish without meeting its long term goals. Finally, it was pointed out that the companies which are not performing well in business may be
4

disappearing from the placement scenario even though the students have finalized their preplacement offers with those companies.

K.S. Srinivasa Rao (2003) analyzed the situation on Indian Higher Education market when it opened to global market, expressed his doubt that Indian B-Schools may not withstand the competition as the B-Schools are not contemporary in curriculum, and having less autonomy in the academic administration. I. M.Pandey (2004) suggested the governance model for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will have to be a normative model consciously created with specific mission and welldefined goals. By taking IIM-Ahmadabad as a reference, the author indicated that the real decision-making should be with the faculty members who will develop a culture of excellence. The author cautioned that the government's role should be to put an eminent board in place which will act as a sounding board for the decisions of the institutes. It was indicated that if the HEIs achieve excellence as determined by the users of teaching, research, consulting, etc., they would have made a tremendous contribution to the society and served their purpose. K.S. Srinivasa Rao (2004) explained the role of a teacher in influencing the student to choose his/her carrier under the autonomy by making the pedagogy such a way making the course more interesting. K.S. Srinivasa Rao and Chowdari Prasad (2005) analyzed various local issues and challenges of Indian B-Schools when they face a global competition. K.S. Srinivasa Rao (2008) discussed various issues and challenges in autonomous institutions offering Management Education at Post Graduate level with a focus on curriculum, assessment and performance of the students in Campus Placements. Thomas R. Guskey (2011) observed that educational improvement efforts over the past two decades have focused primarily on articulating standards for student learning, refining the way we assess students' proficiency on those standards, and tying results to accountability. It was pointed that the one element still unaligned with these reforms is grading and reporting. Student Report Cards today look much like they looked a century ago, listing a single grade for each subject area or course. The author suggests that educators seeking to reform grading must combat five long-held traditions that stand as formidable obstacles to change. Although these traditions stem largely from misunderstandings about the goals of education and the purposes of grading, they remain ingrained in the social fabric of our society. Yogesh. C. Joshi and Ashish. K. Makwana (2012) pointed out that in post WTO scenario, with the inclusion of education in GATS, a discussion on free trade in education becomes imperative. The authors were under the opinion that in the race for globalization, it is the resource-rich universities and educational institutions of the developed nations, which will definitely have an upper edge over the resource-starved institutions of developing countries. The authors indicated that globalization and commercialization of education is becoming a reality and India being a prominent economy, in so far as the concern of human resources is concerned, cannot afford to ignore these changes. The authors though their research
5

surveyconcluded that there is very less awareness, in general, regarding GATS provisions among university teachers across categories of lecturers, readers and professors in the universities. The authors indicated that the universities also face constraints of resources, undue interference from government and lack autonomy to compete in the wake of privatization of higher education. Therefore, universities require a great deal to transform and restructure themselves to compete successfully with foreign universities, owing to free trade and implementation of GATS in India. Beatriz Oria (2012) indicated that Pedagogical research on higher education during the last decade has been mainly concerned with fostering an educational model in accordance with the recommendations of the Bologna Declaration of 1999. However, it was observed that despite remarkable progress that has been made so far, the students future employability is still seriouslycurtailed by an excessively theoretical and/or content-based training, which does not cater effectively for the development of transversal skills. The author reported the results of a pilot experience carried out at the University of Zaragoza (Spain), in the joint programme in Law and Business Administration and Management. The goal of this research project was to enhance students employability by supplementing the subjects / syllabus with complementary activities and tasks meant to improve some of the competencies and skills promulgated by the European Higher Education, thus improving the students chances in todays competitive labour market, while enhancing the quality standards of the Degree. Jamuna A.S. and K. S. Srinivasa Rao (2013) studied the need of effective communication and its impact on the professional life of students of management. It was observed that students who may get better grades in written examinations, sometimes may not be effective in their oral communication which plays an important role while facing the Campus Interviews. Also, it was noticed that smart students who are able to communicate well during Interviews may be getting better placements even though their academic grades are average. The authors have noticed through the literature survey that one of the key factors in autonomy is the Assessment and Grading of the results, which has its own pros and cons while the faculty evaluating the academic performance of students.

Methodology The authors have taken a student group of 176 from three sections of an autonomous Institute offering MBA Program and compared their course-wise grades and how those grades influenced their overall grades. In autonomous Institutions, the assessment is through continuous evaluation and the faculty have their freedom to use various components for assessment viz., Assignments, Attendance, Classroom Participation, Group Presentations, etc., under During Term Assessment (DTE) in addition to Mid-Term and End-Term Examinations. As the DTE is disclosed to the student before going for the Term-End examination, the Faculty has a chance to normalise the grades with the total marks for each course but can play only with the Term-End Marks in pulling or pushing the grades to come close to the symmetric distribution. This is possible only when we work on Relative Grading System where the best performer in each course can get the highest grade and the least performer gets the least grade and the total students will be distributed within the range. This relative grading mechanism with normalisation of grades will reduce the bias in assessment
6

of the students by the teachers to some extent, as one can find a teacher who is very liberal in awarding marks and at the same time also find teachers who are very conservative.

Data Analysis Even though in a term we have more courses in an MBA Program for each term, we have considered three typical courses for which the Pull and Push of Grades was done such that the grades of these courses have come close to the normality. As suggested earlier, this process will minimise the grade aberration, if any. (a) Pre-Normalisation:
Course: C5

Scope for 26 for normalisation in TEE (out of 100) Count

Letter Grade SubGrade

Honor Point 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

Min 97.0 93.0 90.0 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 <

Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0

Grade

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 36 40 48 22 10 0 176

55

110 10 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= 81.4 Quartile 3= 70.5 Quartile 1= 63.8 Minimum= 22.0

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

67.2 67.6 63.3 5.8

Distribution of Grades
50 No. of Students 40 30 20 10 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades B+ A +A A CD+ DD-E W B BC+ C

Course: C6 Scope for 11 for normalisation in TEE (out of 100) Count

Letter Grade

Honor Point

Min

Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0

SubGrade

Grade

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

4.3 97.0 4.0 93.0 3.7 90.0 3.3 87.0 3.0 83.0 2.7 80.0 2.3 77.0 2.0 73.0 1.7 70.0 1.3 67.0 1.0 63.0 0.7 60.0 0.0 < Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

0 0 0 2 10 21 38 50 19 18 8 3 7 0 176

33

107

29 7 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= Quartile 3= Quartile 1= Minimum=

87.8 79.3 71.2 17.1

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

74.1 75.0 79.4 9.2

Distribution of Grades
B 45 C+ 40 35 BC 30 25 20 B+ 15 AC -D + 10 E D 5 A +A D- W 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades No. of Students

Course: C7 Scope for 9.6 for normalisation in Total (out of 100) Count
Letter Grade

Honor Point 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

Min 97.0 93.0 90.0 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 <

Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0

SubGrade

Grade

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

0 0 5 23 56 47 20 10 9 6 0 0 0 0 176

126

39

6 0 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= Quartile 3= Quartile 1= Minimum=

90.4 85.9 79.9 67.6

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

82.2 82.5 82.0 5.1

Distribution of Grades
60 No. of Students 50 40 30 20 10 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades A +A AB+ CCD+ DD-E W B BC+

(b) Post Normalisation

Course: C5

Scope for 26 for normalisation in TEE (out of 100) Add 12.2 out of 100 of Total
Letter Grade

Count Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0
SubGrade Grade

Honor Point 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

Min 97.0 93.0 90.0 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 <

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

0 1 1 9 28 46 35 42 10 3 0 0 1 0 176

83

87

3 1 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= Quartile 3= Quartile 1= Minimum=

93.6 82.7 76.0 34.2

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

79.4 79.8 75.5 5.8

10

Distribution of Grades
50 No. of Students 40 30 20 10 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades Course: C6 Scope for 11 for normalisation in TEE (out of 100) Add 5.1 out of 50 of Total
Letter Grade

BC+ B

B+ A +A A -

CD+

DD-E W

Count Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0
SubGrade Grade

Honor Point 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

Min 97.0 93.0 90.0 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 <

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

0 0 8 11 42 29 39 27 6 6 3 0 5 0 176

82

72

9 5 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= Quartile 3= Quartile 1= Minimum=

92.9 84.4 76.3 22.2

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

79.2 80.1 84.5 9.2

11

Distribution of Grades
B 45 C+ 40 35 BC 30 25 20 B+ 15 AC -D + 10 E D 5 A +A D- W 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades No. of Students

Course: C7 Scope for 9.6 for normalisation in Total (out of 100) Subtract 0.3 out of 100 of Total
Letter Grade

Count Max 100.0 96.9 92.9 89.9 86.9 82.9 79.9 76.9 72.9 69.9 66.9 62.9 60.0
SubGrade Grade

Honor Point 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 Withheld / Withdrawn Total Students

Min 97.0 93.0 90.0 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 <

A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D DE W

0 0 5 23 51 43 29 10 9 6 0 0 0 0 176

117

48

6 0 0 176

Descriptive Statistics: Maximum= Quartile 3= Quartile 1= Minimum=

90.1 85.6 79.6 67.3

Mean= Median= Mode= S.D.=

81.9 82.2 81.7 5.1

12

Distribution of Grades
60 No. of Students 50 40 30 20 10 0 A A A-B B B-C C C D D D E W + + + - + Grades A +A AB+ CCD+ DD-E W B BC+

We have given freedom to the faculty who can suggest the maximum or minimum scores that we can use Pull or Push criteria to get the normalised grades. In fact, when we have computerised this choice, faculty were bit upset and felt that they lost their freedom. We have modified it to the current situation where we will add / subtract a score of the choice of the teacher within the admissible range.

Conclusions Academic Reforms took place in India while shifting from British type of examinations (internal and external) to American Standards of letter grading the student performance coupled with normalisation. As years went on, numbers of students / colleges / courses / Institutions / Universities increased and demand from the academia and industry have changed, pattern and emphasis on evaluation has been for realistic testing of knowledge. Higher Education in India underwent metamorphosis during the sixties and seventies leading to continuous internal assessment system, particularly in professional colleges. Gradually, UGC recommended adoption of a 7-Point Letter Grade System through Semester type of education (modular approach), Credit-based Examinations, Letter Grade and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) systems. IITs, IIMs, IISc, IARI, Agricultural Universities and others like autonomous colleges and institutions including private B-Schools switched to the new system in a phased manner. No doubt, this shift also called for critical thinking, training the teachers in pedagogy, paper setting, evaluation, etc., and thus accepting the need for normalisation too. Need for normalisation is well established when we compare the style of marking or grading by the examiners / evaluators for the same exam. It is known that the types of teachers / examiners / evaluators come with different backgrounds. Simply, we can list them out in pairs young and experienced, internal and external, domestic and international as well as permanent and visiting faculty members. Each one of them may perceive the act of evaluation in their own ways and award marks / grades. But, the autonomous institution cannot afford to accept these outcomes as is where is and hence should resort to normalise their scores. With the introduction of computers at all levels and usage of statistical tools, it is not a difficult task too. The ultimate idea is that the student community also should not suffer due to the unavoidable bias among these different groups of evaluators.
13

In the process, it is evident from the scenarios given above that the marks awarded by an evaluator are not necessarily well distributed in a perfect bell shaped curve. It is very likely that there may be skewness towards right or left, which may also reflect badly on either the teaching and pedagogy or the liberal or conservative awarding of marks by the evaluator. To even out all such aberrations, the system of normalisation is used through Push and Pull methods by adding / deducting marginal marks, if necessary, with the concurrence of the evaluator, so that a realistic outcome is achieved. References:
Baroness Perry , The future for Universities: A Public -Private Partnership?, IEA Economic Affairs, September, 1998, pp.36-41 2. Beatriz Oria, Enhancing Higher Education Students Employability: A Spanish Case Study, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, Vol.11 No.3, 2012, pp.217-230 3. Jamuna A.S. and K. S. Srinivasa Rao, Communication And its Impact on Management Students Professional Life, Intercontinental Journal of Human Resource Research Review (IJHRRR), ISSN: 2320 -9704, July, 2013, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp.7-21 4. K.S. Srinivasa Rao, "Indian Management Education: Issues and Challenges, the MBA Review, Magazine of ICFAI Press, SPECIAL ISSUE: Management Education, Apr. 2008, pp. 54-56, http://www.iupindia.org/408/mba.asp 5. K.S. Srinivasa Rao, Interest of a Student in a Course and Influence of the Teacher A Statistical Analysis, Proceedings of the First International Conference on School Education conducted by Litter Rock Indian School, Brahmavara, Karnataka during 05-08, April, 2004, pp. 85-95 6. K.S. Srinivasa Rao, Is there a place for Indian B -schools in the Global Village? A Review, e Proceedings of the First AIMS International Conference on Management Scholars in a Global Village: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Dr.Omprakash K. Gupta , Dec., 2003, pp. 33-42 7. K.S. Srinivasa Rao, Student B-School Recruiting Company: A Bermuda Triangle, Competing in the New Global Age, Proceeding of the International Conference of Global Business Development Institute (GBDI), Edited by Prof. P. Rama Ramalingam &Prof.KazemDarbandi, Publication of GBDI, Technology & Operations Department, College of Business Administration, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768, USA, Jan., 2002, pp. 96-106 8. K.S. Srinivasa Rao and Chowdari Prasad, Indian B -Schools in the Global Context, GITAM Journal of Management, Jan-July, 2005, pp. 217-227 9. Report of the CABE Committee on Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions, Ministry of HRD, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Govt. of India, 2005 10. Thomas R. Guskey, Five Obstacles to Grading Reform, Effective Grading Practices,Educational Leadership, ASCD, Vol.69, No.3, November 2011, pp.16-21 11. Yogesh. C. Joshi and Ashish. K. Makwana, A Study of GATS Provisions, Higher Education and Understanding among the University Teachers, BVIMR Management Edge, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2012, pp. 9-19 1.

14