c

c c

c 
c
c
 
c
 c c

c

c

!c "#c
$
c
c
c
c

cc  c


%! 
c

cc
&'%
!c!c

cc
(% c

cc
ccccccc c

ccccccccc
c

%c)!'c)!c

cc
c c

cc
c

cc
cccc 

c

 c*c+
  c

ccc  c!c"! c

ccc#$ c!c!
u%c

ccc"&'c
(
)c

ccc$c
'!!
%c

,
 
 c

c c

uc
c
á

 :
In today¶s competitive world, there are numerous options available for aspirants dedicated to
pursuing a career in the business field. The decision taken by the students may be based on their
own personal opinions and circumstances, so the most important decision would be to decide
where to study. In this research study, we have identified a number of factors that are essential to
be considered while choosing a B school and the factors which predominantly influences the
selection of the B school.

   


There are various factors that is to be considered while choosing a suitable B-school. Some of
the factors include Cost, faculty, placement etc.
Cost: Some B schools can be very expensive and choosing that B school depends upon how
much you are prepared to pay for the education.
Faculty: Some B schools have excellent experienced faculty members and students who are
knowledge oriented are more likely to choose those B schools.
Placement: Students pursue MBA mainly to enhance career options and choosing a B school
with good placement record is important.
Likewise we have a total of 17 factors taken into consideration depending upon the current
standards. We are to determine which will predominantly affect the selection of a B school and
to find media to market B-schools in a better way.



á



The project aims at identifying the significant factors that drives people to select the B-school of
their choice.
 






To determine the main criteria used to select B-schools and the factors that responsible for it.

 

 
The research methodology used here is descriptive or conclusive research. Descriptive research
deals with data that can be counted and studied. It is neither qualitative nor quantitative. Mailed
questionnaire was used to collect responses.

 

The adequate sample size for a descriptive research is 200 to 250.
For a five point scale, ı=Range/6 = 5/6 = .855
Sample Size, n = ı2z2 / D2 = .83332 * 1.962 / 0.152 = 118.32§ 118

(Assuming level of precession= ±0.15)

For this project a sample size of 200 has been used.

c
c
 


Convenience sampling method is used to obtain responses and for the analysis. Due to lack of
time, the questionnaire was prepared online and sent across and responses were obtained through
online portal
(qualtrics.com)

 

c ° 
 

°ominal scale is used to classify data under specific headings. Here nominal scale has
been used for the following:

Educational qualification: The respondent is classified into undergraduate, post graduate

and currently pursuing undergraduate.
Gender: Male or female
Annual income of family: Since it is assumed that the annual income of the family may
have an effect on the result it has been classified into 3 groups.
Location: It has been classified into 3 types- metro, town and village.
Work experience: It has been divided into those who are fresher and those who have
work experience.

Vc 


 

A 5 point Likert scale has been used to measure the agreeableness of each factor in
selecting the B-school. A total of 17 variables are used to measure the perception of the
respondents towards each of these factors.

The following points were allotted to various degree of agreeableness :

Very important 5
Important 4
°either important nor unimportant 3
°ot important- 2
°ot very important 1¶

It was assessed for the following 17 variables:

c Cost of the course

c Faculty members

c Infrastructure of the institution

c Placement

c Average salary

c Location of the college

c Ranking

c
c

c Specialization offered

c Co-curricular activities

c Student intake

c Accommodation provided

c Course duration

c College brand name

c Exchange program

c Extra- curricular activities

c Admission test taken

c ƒuota allocation

à


 

á  

 




The independent samples t-test compares the mean scores of two groups on a given variable.

!

H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to cost in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given cost in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c
 cc

   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
cc

 c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

cc c  c
 c ( ))c *"c  ++c ,)c -+)c  *(.c ,+-c  +,.c ""(c

  c

' c

 c  +,.c ,*. ))c -+c  *(.c ,(.c  ++c "(+c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .738 which is greater than .05; hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for the cost variable is equal to zero. This
indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of cost in selection of a B-school.

c
c


" 



H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to faculty member in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to faculty memberin the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
cc

 c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

 c' '/ c
 c ,+-c -,"c  ()+c "**c .+*c  *((c *,c  ""c ,+.c

  c

' c

 c  (+c ," .,-c ."+c  *((c **c  "",c ,++c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .630 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for the faculty variable is equal to zero.
This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of faculty in selection of a B-school.

á  



H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to infrastructure in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given infrastructure in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

)c
c
 4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

   cc c
 c ,*c .c ")(c ,c ---c *"-c *-c  ,.+c ",)c

  c
  c

' c

 c "),c ,"* *""c --c *"-c *)c  ,..c "",c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .777 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for the infrastructure variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of infrastructure in selection of a B-school.

 

H0:µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to placement in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha:µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to placement in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

0  ' c
 c + ),c *,c  -"c "**c ++"c  *..c *.)c  ,c *.)c

  c

' c

 c , ,..c ,) +--c "(c  *..c *.c  ,--c *(c

  c

c

' c

=c
c
The significance is .332 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for the placements variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of placements in selection of a B-school.

  

H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to average salary in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to average salary in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

1
 c  c
 c **(c "c  ("+c "**c .-+c  *(+c ,*+c  "(.c ,c

  c

' c

 c  ("*c ,"* ".c .-c  *(+c ,*(c  "(c ,."c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .673 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for the average salary provided variable is
equal to zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences
towards the importance of average salary in selection of a B-school.

2c
c



H0:µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to location in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to location in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

4 cc c
 c .).c (*)c (",c ,)c .-(c *.-c ,)c  "(.c +-c

  c
 

c

' c

 c (**c ,*. *-c .*c *.-c ,.-c  ".(c +)c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .674 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender for Location of the college variable is
equal to zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences
towards the importance of location of the college in selection of a B-school.

 

H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to college ranking in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to college ranking in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

`c
c
 4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

2 3cc c
 c ) ,)c **c " ,-c "**c *"c  "*)c *c  +c  *",c

  c
  c

' c

 c " (+-c , ),"c *,.c  "*)c *)c  +--c  *+c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .029 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. The mean difference of gender for ranking variable is not equal to zero. This indicates
that there is a difference between the male and female preferences towards the importance of
location of the college in selection of a B-school. Male respondents give more importance to the
ranking of the college than female respondents.

 


H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to specialization offered in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to specialization offered in the selection of B-school is influenced by
gender.

%c
c
 4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

& 5 c c

 c ( ,*c *")c , ".)c "**c "*.c  ,*c ,,c  +)(c *)(c

  c

' c

 c , ,+"c  +*"c ".*c  ,*c ,++c  (,(c ,,+c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .206 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender specialization offered variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of specialization offered in selection of a B-school.

!  

#


H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to co-curricular activities in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to co-curricular activities in the selection of B-school is influenced by
gender.
4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

  c
 c *+,c ).*c  )"c ,c +c  ,""c ,(+c  (*c ,.*c


 c
  c

' c

 c  )c ,"( ,))c +(c  ,""c ,(+c  (*c ,.,c

  c

c

' c

u*c
c
The significance is .395 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender co-curricular activities variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of co-curricular activities in selection of a B-school.







H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to student intake in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to student intake in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
cc

 c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

 c 3 c
 c " ,,,c ,()c , ))"c ,)c *.,c  +*-c ,.+c  ."c *,c

!'/ #c
  c

' c

 c , )c ,(+ .-c *()c  +*-c ,(c  .,,c  **+c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .061 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender Students intake variable is equal to zero.
This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of Students Intake in selection of a B-school.




H0:µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to accommodation in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.
Ha:µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to accommodation in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

uuc
c
 4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c


cc c

  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

1' c
 c . (.-c *,"c " (c ,-c *,c  +*c ,c  -*+c  *--c

& 
 c
  c

' c

 c " .+*c ,(+ +. **c  +*c ,()c  .)+c  *-c

  c *c

c

' c

The significance is .015 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. The mean difference of gender for accommodation variable is not equal to zero. This
indicates that there is a difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of accommodation provided by the institution in selection of a B-school. Female
respondents give more importance to the accommodation provided by the college than male
respondents.

!



H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to course duration in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to course duration in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

uc
c
 4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

  c c
 c **)c +*c , )+c ,)c *(c  ")*c ,(,c  c  **,c

  c

' c

 c " *"c ,"- .. *(c  ")*c ,+)c  (c  **-c

  c *c

c

' c

The significance is .015 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. The mean difference of gender for the course duration variable is not equal to zero.
This indicates that there is a difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of accommodation provided by the institution in selection of a B-school. Female
respondents give more importance to the course duration than male respondents.

 

H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to college brand in the selection of B-school is not influenced by gender.
Ha:µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to college brand in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

uc
c
 4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
cc

 c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

  c/ c ' c

 c *-c ),"c  ()c "**c .,c  *(.c *+c  "+*c ,+-c

  c

' c

 c  ((c ,"* ",(c ."+c  *(.c *(c  "++c ,(*c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .619 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender college brand name variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of college brand name in selection of a B-school.

K  
  

H0: Tµ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to exchange program in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to exchange program in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c


cc c

  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

u c
c

6  c
 c , .-c ,-c , )",c ,.c *-*c  ",c ,.*c  .*c *"(c

&  '' c
 

c

' c

 c , )*c ,"  *.,c  ",c ,(c  c *,(c

  ,c

cc

' c

The significance is .070 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender exchange programmes variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of exchange programmes in selection of a B-school.

K
  

#


H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The selection of the variable extra-curricular activities in the selection of B-school is not
influenced by gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The selection of the variable extra- curricular activities in the selection of B-school is influenced
by gender

4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c


cc c

  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

6   c
 c .**c ((*c  .-,c ,)c *+c  ,*c ,.c  (,"c "*+c


 c
  c

' c

 c  ."c ," , (*c  ,*c ,,c  (*(c ,c

  c -c

c

' c

u)c
c
 c!c!c
)*c&c!c$$cc
*)+cc&c cc$,cc-c'!!c.! c
cc/ 
c cc $cc $c0$"-$$-$c/!c/$.c!c1-cc$
c
!c !cc$c!cc $c.&ccc cc$$!c&$ !cc
$cc0$"-$$-$c/!cc!ccc"!
cc





H0: µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to admission test taken in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.

Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to admission test taken in the selection of B-school is influenced by
gender.

4
 c c c
 c

c   c  c c

 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

1'c c 3 c
 c ,",c -"c  ),c "**c (,.c  ,"c ,+c  ("-c ,--c

  c

' c

 c  ),c ,"" -.(c (,-c  ,"c ,+c  (")c ,-)c

  c

c

' c

The significance is .416 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender admission test taken variable is equal to
zero. This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards
the importance of Admission test taken in selection of a B-school.

u=c
c
ƒ




H0:µ(male)=µ(female)
The importance given to quota allocation in the selection of B-school is not influenced by
gender.
Ha: µ(male)µ(female)
The importance given to quota allocation in the selection of B-school is influenced by gender.

The significance is .091 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. The mean difference of gender quota allocation variable is equal to zero.
This indicates that there is no difference between the male and female preferences towards the
importance of quota allocation in selection of a B-school.

c
c
4
 c c c

 cc   c  c c
 cc c

c  c
c

c c  c

 c!"  c  c

 c

c  c c c   #c   c   c 4$ c %&& c

7 c  c
 c *.c ),(c , .)c ,))c *,c  +"c ,(c  -,"c *+c

  c

' c

 c , .,c ,,+ -"c *(c  +"c ,c  -,c *-c

  c

c

' c

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

u2c
c
†
 cc

  c c c
c c 
 c
cc c

c
c

c
 cc
 c c
c

#




Std.
° Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Placements 202 1 5 4.86 .447
College brand name 202 1 5 4.61 .615
Faculty members 202 1 5 4.58 .604
Ranking of the college 202 1 5 4.53 .632
Average Salary 202 2 5 4.47 .678
Infrastructure of the 201 2 5 4.38 .637
college
Specializations offered 202 1 5 4.27 .786
Cost of the course 200 1 5 4.00 .902
Course duration 200 1 5 3.94 .935
Admission test taken 202 1 5 3.84 1.011
Co-Curricular activities 201 1 5 3.78 .946
Location of the College 200 1 5 3.76 1.038
Accommodation 199 1 5 3.64 1.054
provided
Extra-curricular 200 1 5 3.60 1.023
activities
Exchange programmes 198 1 5 3.59 1.042
Students intake 200 1 5 3.39 1.083
(number)
ƒuota allocation 190 1 5 2.86 1.250

u`c
c


 
 
$

 :

H0: µ(placement)=µ(college brand)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables Placements and College brand
name
Ha: µ(placement)µ(college brand)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables Placements and College brand name
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Placements & College 202 .182 .010
brand name

Interpretation: Since p < 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis, hence there is significant difference
between the variables placements and college brand. And among these two variables people give
more preference to placements.

 V

H0: µ(college brand)=µ(faculty) There is no difference in the importance given to the variables
College brand name and faculty members.
Ha: µ(college brand)µ(faculty)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables College brand name and faculty
members.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 2 College brand name & 202 .064 .368
Faculty members

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables college brand name and faculty members.

 %

H0: µ(faculty memeber)=µ(ranking)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables faculty members and ranking of
the college.
Ha:µ(faculty memeber)µ(ranking)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables faculty members and ranking of the
college.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 3 Faculty members & 202 .066 .354
Ranking of the college

u%c
c
Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables faculty members and ranking of the college
 &

H0: µ(ranking)=µ(salary)
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables ranking of the college and average
salary.
Ha: µ(ranking)µ(salary)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables ranking of the college and average
salary.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 4 Ranking of the college 202 .275 .000
& Average Salary

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables ranking of the college and average salary.

 '

H0: µ(salary)=µ(infrastructure)
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables average salary and infrastructure
of the college.
Ha: µ(salary)µ(infrastructure)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables average salary and infrastructure of
the college.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 5 Average Salary & 201 -.020 .778
Infrastructure of the
college

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables average salary and infrastructure of the college.

 (
H0: µ(infrastructure)=µ(specialization)
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables infrastructure of the college and
specialization offered.
Ha: µ(infrastructure)µ(specialization)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables infrastructure of the college and
specialization offered.

*c
c
 ° Correlation Sig.
Pair 6 Infrastructure of the 201 .201 .004
college &specializations
offered

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables infrastructure of the college and specialization offered.

 )

H0: µ(specialization)=µ(cost)There is no difference in the importance given to the variables

specialization offered and cost of the course.
Ha: µ(specialization)µ(cost)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables specialization offered and cost of the
course.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 7 Specializations offered 200 .156 .028
& Cost of the course

Interpretation: Since p < 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis, hence there is significant difference
between the variables infrastructure of the college and specialization offered. And among these
two variables people give more preference to specialization offered.

 *

H0: µ(cost)µ(course duration)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables cost of the course and course
duration.
Ha: µ(cost)µ(course duration)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables cost of the course and course
duration.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 8 Cost of the course & 198 .262 .000
Course duration

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables cost of the course and course duration.

uc
c


 +

H0: µ(course duration)=µ(admission test)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables course duration and admission test
taken.
Ha: µ(course duration)µ(admission test)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables course duration and admission test
taken.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 9 Course duration & 200 .253 .000
Admission test taken

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables course duration and admission test taken.

 ,

H0: µ(admission test)=µ(co-curricular activities)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables admission test taken and co-
curricular activities.
Ha: µ(admission test)µ(co-curricular activities)There is difference in the importance given to
the variables admission test taken and co-curricular activities.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 10 Admission test taken & 201 .206 .003
Co-Curricular activities

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables admission test taken and co-curricular activities.

 

H0: µ(co-curricular activities)=µ(location)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables co-curricular activities and
location of the college.
Ha: µ(co-curricular activities)µ(location)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables co-curricular activities and location
of the college.
° Correlation Sig.

c
c
Pair 11 Co-Curricular activities 200 .108 .127
& Location of the
College

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables co-curricular activities and location of the college.

 V

H0:µ(location)=µ(accommodation)
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables location of the college and
accommodation provided.
Ha:µ(location)µ(accommodation)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables location of the college and
accommodation provided.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 12 Location of the College 198 .232 .001
&Accommodation
provided

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables location of the college and accommodation provided.

 %

H0: µ(accommodation)=µ(extra-curricular)
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables accommodation provided and
extra curricular activities.
Ha:µ(accommodation)µ(extra-curricular)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables accommodation provided and extra
curricular activities.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 13 Accommodation 197 .283 .000
provided & Extra-
curricular activities

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables accommodation provided and extra curricular activities.

c
c


 &

H0: µ(extra-curricular)=µ(exchange program)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables extra curricular activities and
exchange programs.
Ha: µ(extra-curricular)µ(exchange program)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables extra curricular activities and
exchange programs.
° Correlation Sig.
Pair 14 Extra-curricular 197 .399 .000
activities & Exchange
programmes

Interpretation: Since p > 0.05 we do not reject the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
difference between the variables extra curricular activities and exchange programs.

 '

H0: µ(exchange program)=µ(student intake)

There is no difference in the importance given to the variables exchange programs and student
intake (number).
Ha: µ(exchange program)µ(student intake)There is difference in the importance given to the
variables exchange programs and student intake (number).

Correlat
° ion Sig.
Pair Exchange 196 .335 .000
15 programmes &
Students intake
(number)

Interpretation: Since p < 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis, hence there is significant difference
between the variables exchange programs and student intake (number). And among these two
variables people give more preference to exchange programs.

 (

H0: µ(student intake)µ(quota allocation)

 c
c
There is no difference in the importance given to the variables student intake (number) and quota
allocation.
Ha: µ(student intake)µ(quota allocation)
There is difference in the importance given to the variables student intake (number) and quota
allocation.
Correlati
° on Sig.
Pair Students intake 188 .224 .002
16 (number) & ƒuota
allocation

Interpretation: Since p < 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis, hence there is significant
difference between the variables student intake (number) and quota allocation. And among
these two variables people give more preference to student intake (number).

h 
c
cc c c

 c c c
chc  c c
  c


 c
c c 
 c
c c (c

icc c
c  
c ccc

c
c

cc
 c
 c
c

-  . 
°-/

!

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the cost in selection of the B-
school.
Ha: µ1 (0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the cost in selection of the B-school.

'cc c c  c c c  c

cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c " +c +c -)c , "*,c +,,c

:c9 &c ,) *.*c ,(c ),c

 c ,.* c ,-c

The significance is greater than .05; hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to theparameter ³Cost of the Course´ in
Selecting a B-School.

)c
c
" 


H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the faculty.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the faculty.

'cc c c  c c c  c

 c' '/ c 8 $ c9 &c -)c +c ".+c -,c ((c

:c9 &c -" *).c ,.c +.)c

 c -" )-c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Faculty Members ´ in
Selecting a B-School.

á  



H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the infrastructure.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience the importance given to the infrastructure.

'cc c c  c c c  c

   cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c *+,c +c *,*c *"c c

:c9 &c )* ((c ,c (,c

 c )* -c ,)c

The significance is greater than .05; hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to theparameter ³Infrastructure of the
College ´ in Selecting a B-School.

 

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the placement.
Ha: µ1 ( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the placement.

'cc c c  c c c  c

0  ' c 8 $ c9 &c ")c +c *c (*c .*c

:c9 &c + -)"c ,.c "*+c

=c
c
  c (* *)*c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Placements ´ in
Selecting a B-School.

  
H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)
The work experience does not influence the importance given to the average salary.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the average salary.

'cc c c  c c c  c

1
 c  c 8 $ c9 &c , .)c +c ..c , "+*c +**c

:c9 &c * ,--c ,.c (.*c

 c , )-c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Average Salary´ in
Selecting a B-School.




H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the location.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the location.
'cc c c  c c c  c

4 cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c  ,),c +c , -"-c , .*.c ,)c

:c9 &c "*) .."c ,(c , *-.c

 c ",+ )(+c ,-c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Location of College´ in
Selecting a B-School.

! 
 

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the college ranking.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the college ranking.

2c
c
 'cc c c  c c c  c

2 3cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c ( +*.c +c , (+c + -")c *,"c

:c9 &c - ((c ,.c +)c

 c - -c ,c

The significance is .001 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis. This shows
that work experience affects an individual¶s perception of the parameter ³Ranking´ in Selecting
a B-School. The Post-hoc test says people with 1 -2 year experience give less preference to
Ranking as compared to people with less than 1 year of experience.

 


H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the specialization.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the specialization.
'cc c c  c c c  c

&  5 c c 8 $ c9 &c *c +c ,-*c "-+c )(c

:c9 &c ,", ),,c ,.c .",c

 c ,"" +"*c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Specializations Offered´
in Selecting a B-School.

!  

#


H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the co-curricular activities.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the co-curricular activities.

'cc c c  c c c  c

  c 
 c 8 $ c9 &c + ,((c +c , *()c , ,.+c +"c

:c9 &c ,- .)*c ,c *,c

 c ,-) )"(c ,)c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Co-Curricular
Activities´ in Selecting a B-School.







H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

`c
c
The work experience does not influence the importance given to the student intake.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the student intake.

'cc c c  c c c  c

 c 3 c!'/ #c 8 $ c9 &c , ,(c +c +)"c +""c ),*c

:c9 &c "+* ,"-c ,(c , ,).c

 c "+, "-+c ,-c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Students Intake´ in
Selecting a B-School.




H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the accommodation.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the accommodation.

'cc c c  c c c  c

1'' c& 
 c 8 $ c9 &c " -c +c c ),c ((-c

:c9 &c ",. (,(c ,+c , ,",c

 c ", (,,c ,.c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Accommodation´ in
Selecting a B-School.

!

 0

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the course duration.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the course duration.
'cc c c  c c c  c

  c c 8 $ c9 &c , -c +c ...c -(c ",c

:c9 &c ,-, "-.c ,(c ))+c

 c ,-+ "-+c ,-c

%c
c
The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Course Duration´ in
Selecting a B-School.

! 
 

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the college brand.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the college brand.
'cc c c  c c c  c

  c/ c ' c 8 $ c9 &c + *,c +c , *,-c " --c *((c

:c9 &c -" +*(c ,.c +.c

 c - +c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³College Brand °ame´ in
Selecting a B-School.

K  
  

H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the exchange program.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the exchange program.

'cc c c  c c c  c

6  c&  '' c 8 $ c9 &c " "")c +c -(+c .-c .)c

:c9 &c ",, "-c ,"c , ,*,c

 c ",+ ".c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Exchange Programs´ in
Selecting a B-School.

K
  

#


H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the extra-curricular activities.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the extra-curricular activities.

'cc c c  c c c  c

6   c 
 c 8 $ c9 &c " ,c +c -+"c .*c c

*c
c
 :c9 &c "* ..c ,(c , *.*c

 c "*- ).(c ,-c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Extra Curricular
Activities´ in Selecting a B-School





H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the admission test.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the admission test.
'cc c c  c c c  c

1'c c 3 c 8 $ c9 &c " .c +c ))c ).,c (.+c

:c9 &c "*, (*c ,.c , *")c

 c "*( ,c ,c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³Admission Test Taken´
in Selecting a B-School.

ƒ




H0: µ1( 0 months)=µ2( 0-12 months)=µ3(12-24 months)=µ4(>24 months)

The work experience does not influence the importance given to the quota allocation.
Ha: µ1( 0 months)µ2( 0-12 months)µ3(12-24 months)µ4(>24 months)
The work experience influences the importance given to the quota allocation.

'cc c c  c c c  c

7 c  c 8 $ c9 &c - ,."c +c " +)-c , "c "*c

:c9 &c ")- .,c ,)(c , .c

 c " ,""c ,)-c

The significance is greater than .05, hence we don¶t reject the null hypothesis. This shows that
work experience does not affect the importance given to the parameter ³ƒuota Allocation´ in
Selecting a B-School.

uc
c
c

 c c
c c


 c

c c c c c

 c c
 c
c
 c

In this analysis, we are trying to find if annual income influence the importance given for
different variables.

Ho : µ1 = µ2 = µ3

Ha : µ 1  µ2  µ3

  
á 

µ1



'
 

µ2
'
 


,
 

µ3




,
 

!

H : µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the cost in selection of the B-school.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the cost in selection of the B-school.
Ä
Äc

'cc c c  c c c  c

cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c ,, "*.c "c  .*+c - ")"c **,c

:c9 &c ,* -(c ,.c -.c

 c ,." ***c ,)c

The significance is .001 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. This shows that the annual income influences the importance given to the cost variable
in selection of a B-school. Respondents with an annual income of less than 5 Lakhs give more
importance to cost.

" 


H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the faculty.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the faculty.

c
c
 'cc c c  c c c  c

 c' '/ c 8 $ c9 &c  .-,c "c " )+c ) +,c ***c

:c9 &c .- ""c ,)c +(*c

 c -" ).c "**c

The significance is .000 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. This shows that the annual income influences the importance given to the faculty
variable in selection of a B-school. Respondents with an annual income of less than 5 lakhs give
more importance to faculty.

á  



H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the infrastructure.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the infrastructure.

'cc c c  c c c  c

   cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c (..c "c "++c -,c ..c

:c9 &c )* (*c ,-c (*)c

 c )* )-c ,c

The significance is .566 which is greater than .05; hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the infrastructure variable in selection of a B-school.

 


H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the placement.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the placement.

'cc c c  c c c  c

0  ' c 8 $ c9 &c + "*.c "c , .*+c ) .*"c ***c

:c9 &c +. )(c ,)c ,).c

 c (* ,**c "**c

c
c
The significance is .000 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. This shows that the annual income influences the importance given to placement
variable in selection of a B-school. Respondents with an annual income of less than 5 Lakhs and
5 Lakhs to 10 Lakhs give more importance to placement.

# 
  

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the average salary.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the average salary.

'cc c c  c c c  c

1
 c  c 8 $ c9 &c --"c "c +).c )+-c (+c

:c9 &c , +"-c ,)c (.,c

 c " ,**c "**c

The significance is .435 which is greater than .05; hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the average salary variable in selection of a B-school.






 

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the location.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the location.

4 cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c , (),c "c -(*c .).c *c

:c9 &c ",, ((c ,.c , *-c

 c "," +c ,)c

The significance is .505 which is greater than .05; hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the location variable in selection of a B-school.

 



 

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the college ranking.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

 c
c
 The annual income influences the importance given to the college ranking.

'cc c c  c c c  c

2 3cc c  c 8 $ c9 &c , +.,c "c .)*c , -,,c ,)+c

:c9 &c -) -+c ,)c +)c

 c )* ,**c "**c

The significance is .183 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the ranking variable in selection of a B-school.

 


-

H :µ1=µ2=µ3The annual income does not influence the importance given to the specialization.
0

H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the specialization.

'cc c c  c c c  c

& 5 c c 8 $ c9 &c ,."c "c *),c ,+*c )-)c

:c9 &c ,"+ ++,c ,)c ."+c

 c ,"+ (+c "**c

The significance is .878 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the specialization offered in selection of a B-school.

! ! 

#


H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the co-curricular activities.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the co-curricular activities.

'cc c c  c c c  c

  c 
 c 8 $ c9 &c  (")c "c " -,(c + ,*c *(-c

:c9 &c ,-, "c ,-c )-+c

 c ,-- ("*c ,c

)c
c


The significance is .047 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. This shows that the annual income influences the importance given to the co-
curricular activities variable in selection of a B-school. Respondents with an annual income
between 5 Lakhs and 10 Lakhs give more importance to cost.






1 2

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the student intake.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the student intake.

'cc c c  c c c  c

 c 3 c!'/ #c 8 $ c9 &c , "(c "c ."+c "-c ,c

:c9 &c "+, -+*c ,.c , ,)"c

 c "+" -c ,)c

The significance is .591 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the student intake variable in selection of a B-school.



#

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the accommodation.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the accommodation.

'cc c c  c c c  c

1'' c& 
 c 8 $ c9 &c ( .),c "c " +(*c " ,",c ,"+c

:c9 &c ", ,+-c ,c , ,*+c

 c ", ),)c ,-c

The significance is .123 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the accommodation variable in selection of a B-school.

=c
c
!



H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the course duration.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the course duration.

'cc c c  c c c  c

  c c 8 $ c9 &c  -,.c "c ( ))c  -,c **(c

:c9 &c ,.( (+(c ,.c )+c

 c ,-( ,,c ,)c

The significance is .004 which is lesser than .05, hence we reject the null hypothesis based on the
evidence. This shows that the annual income influences the importance given to course duration
variable in selection of a B-school. Respondents with an annual of less than 5 Lakhs give more
importance to course duration.

! 
 


H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the college brand.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the college brand.

'cc c c  c c c  c

  c/ c ' c 8 $ c9 &c *+c "c (,c , ,,c +*.c

:c9 &c - *()c ,)c +-c

 c - *c "**c

The significance is .306 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the college brand variable in selection of a B-school.

K  
  

H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the exchange program.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the exchange program.

2c
c


'cc c c  c c c  c

6  c&  '' c 8 $ c9 &c + *+-c "c , ,)c , (,*c "(-c

:c9 &c "*) (c ,(c , *--c

 c "," *+*c ,.c

The significance is .247 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to exchange programmes in selection of a B-school.

K
  

#


H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the extra-curricular activities.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the extra-curricular activities.

'cc c c  c c c  c

6   c 
 c 8 $ c9 &c " *-)c "c , *+c )c +-,c

:c9 &c "*( ,++c ,.c , *(,c

 c "*. ",,c ,)c

The significance is .371 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the extracurricular activities in selection of a B-school.








H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the admission test.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the admission test.

'cc c c  c c c  c

1'c c 3 c 8 $ c9 &c ( ".c "c " ,()c " ,"-c ,""c

:c9 &c , +c ,)c , *,*c

 c "*( "(c "**c

`c
c


The significance is .122 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the admission test in selection of a B-school.

ƒ




H :µ1=µ2=µ3
0

The annual income does not influence the importance given to the quota allocation.
H :µ1µ2µ3
a

The annual income influences the importance given to the quota allocation.
'cc c c  c c c  c

7 c  c 8 $ c9 &c + **c "c , "c -c +-c

:c9 &c "* )*"c ,).c , .+c

 c "+ )"c ,))c

The significance is .379 which is greater than .05, hence we do not reject the null hypothesis
based on the evidence. This shows that the annual income does not influence the importance
given to the quota allocation variable in selection of a B-school.

c

 c

Ú-

 


3
$

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .718
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 715.322
Sphericity df 136
Sig. .000

Inference:

Sampling size is adequateSince the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy is

0.718 it indicates that there is diffusion in the pattern of Correlation and hence Factor analysis is
possible.

%c
c
 *c
c





! 




Component
1 2 3 4 5
Co-Curricular activities .805 .212 .097 -.086 -.023
Extra-curricular .706 .201 .118 -.127 -.082
activities
Exchange programmes .665 .258 .025 .040 -.293
Infrastructure of the .545 -.021 .030 .258 .142
college
Course duration .199 .743 -.114 .037 .014
ƒuota allocation .022 .610 .104 .050 .048
Students intake .351 .492 .161 .012 -.046
(number)
Admission test taken .090 .487 .375 .089 -.118
Accommodation .331 .475 .163 .056 .114
provided
Ranking of the college .187 .059 .714 .023 -.232
Location of the College -.062 .236 .655 .138 .167
Specializations offered .504 -.008 .618 -.021 .204
Placements -.012 .031 .070 .830 .042
Average Salary -.163 .126 .358 .656 -.221
Faculty members .430 .144 -.252 .612 .202
Cost of the course -.045 .407 .100 .172 .734
College brand name .053 .471 .130 .198 -.636

Bartlett¶s measure tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an
identity matrix. For factor analysis to work we need some relationships between variables and if
the R-matrix were an identity matrix then all the correlation coefficients would be zero.
Therefore we want this test to be significant. Here it is highly significant and therefore Factor
analysis can be done.

Before Rotation, Four components express the Variance of 57%. Few Components are unloaded
on any factors.Rotation has the effect of optimizing the factor stricture and one consequence for
these data is that the relative importance of the five factors is equalized.

uc
c
Following are the Factors:

!c"#
c

Cost of Course

College Brand name.

!c$#  cc

Course Duration

ƒuota Allocation

Students Intake

Admission Taken

!c% 

c!
 c

Ranking of College

Location of College

SpecializationsOffered

!c&#_  c

Placements

Average Salary

Faculty Members

!c'#

cc c

Co -curricular Activities

Extra - Curricular Activities

Exchange program

Infrastructure

c
c


! 

This project focused on the identification of the level of importance given to various
factors while choosing a B-school to pursue Business studies. It was found that the parameter
³Placements´ has the highest influence in the selection of the B-School. The various analysis
done in the study shows that most of the factors are considered important by the aspirants while
selecting a business institute. Also it was found that factors such as such as Gender, Work
Experience also have a role to play in selecting a B-School. It is very important to look into these
factors both from institution point of view since they need to attract the right students and also
from the student¶s points of view to find out what they expect from the B-School.

c
c