Project Topic:

ZIMBABWE UNIVERSITY CENTRALISED ADMISSION

SERVICE

By
KURASHA TOREVEI

Student Number:

H1211530M

Degree: BTech (Hons) degree in IT (Block Release)

Supervisor:

Mr.Gotora O

This Project is submitted to the Department of Information Technology , Harare Institute of Technology, in
partial fulfillment of the Bachelor of Technology Honors Degree in Information Technology

Supervisor:

Mr.Gotora O

Signature:

ACKNOWLEGEMENT
Firstly and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty GOD for guiding me through my
studies and the subsequent work on this project. My special thanks extends my wife Dorothy
and son Tore for the sacrificed joy during my study time.
Of course, like any author, I am indebted always to those people that do their best to improve
on my best. Thanks especially to all who have checked on my work and corrected some text
in this documentation and this was the work of my supervisor Mr. Gotora O who gave me
resounding guidance and leadership during the development of this project.

To the department of computer science and information Sciences and Technology students
and staff, I really thank you for your unwavering support.

Thank you, and be Well and Happy.

ABSTRACT
The adoption of information and communication technology has seen the automation of most
of the university processes which has since proliferated in some universities, with the
admission process being one of the processes being automated. The necessity of fully
exploiting the use of information technology has enlightened the need to design a centralised
university admissions system that addresses the specific requirements for the Zimbabwean
universities. This thesis delves into the design of an effective centralised admissions system
for undergraduates, which can solve some problems which are currently being encountered
with the decentralised admission system. The system model was evaluated using a
combination of software performance tests and perceptions from the system users.

Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.1
1.0
Introduction1
1.1
Background of study..1
1.2
Problem statement.2
1.3
Statement of purpose.2
1.4
Research objectives2
1.5
Research questions3
1.6
Justification3
1.7
Assumptions..4
1.8
Limitations.4
1.9
Scope.4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW6
2.0
Introduction6
2.1 Overview of centralised admissions systems7
2.2 Origins of the stable Matching Problem7
2.3 The Deferred Acceptance Algorithm 9
2.4 The college proposing deferred acceptance algorithm 10
2.5 The problems of the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm.11
2.6
The NRMP algorithm .12
2.7 Summary of Literature Review.14
2.8
Conclusion..15
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY17
3.0 Introduction ....17
3.1
Research Design..17
3.1
Software Design..18
3.2.1 Design Tools...18
3.2.2 System Design Process.20
3.2.3 Software Development Methodology...21
3.2.4 Methods used in the system design... 21
3.2.8 Database Design.................................27
3.2.9 User Interface Design........................28
3.3 Implementation
31
3.3.1 System Functionality and Screen Dumps 31
3.3.3 Faculty Administrators` End
33
3.3.4 Super Administrator`s End 34
3.3.5 System Security 36
3.3.6 Selection Algorithm
37
3.3.7 Post Selection 38
3.3.8 System testing and evaluation
38
3.4 Population and Sampling 38
3.5 Data Analysis Procedures 39
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 40
4.0
Introduction
40
4.1 Analysis And Interpretation of Results
40
4.1.2 System Performance Tests 40
4.1.2.1 Statistics for the target environment
41
4.1.2.2 Performance Test
41
4.1.3 Analysis of the questionnaires
45
4.1.3.1 Analysis of the Applicant Questionnaire 45
4.1.3.2 Analysis of the Faculty Administrator`s Questionnaires 52
4.2 Chapter Summary 59
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
60

5.0 Introduction 60
5.1 Aims and objectives realisation
5.2 Future Work60

60

Table of Figures
Figure 1 : Centralised University Admissions System use case diagram

22

Figure 2 Centralised University Admissions System activity diagram

24

Figure 3 Centralised Admissions System process flow diagram

26

Figure 4 Centralised University Admissions System entity relationship diagram 28

Figure 5 User interface design process

30

Figure 6 Account creation page for applicants

31

Figure 7 Entering qualifications for an applicant 32

Figure 8 making an application on the system

33

Figure 9 Setting degree selection criteria 34

Figure 10 Managing universities in the system

36

Figure 11 Adding a new faculty 36

Figure 12 Prior experience with internet 46
Figure 13 the centralised admission system is reasonably easy to use
Figure 14 Carrying out the application process was easy 49
Figure 15 the system is unnecessarily complex 50
Figure 16 Overall system rating Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 17 Internet connectivity 52
Figure 18 Ability to access platform

53

Figure 19 Ease of use of the centralised system 54

Figure 20 Overall system rating 56
Figure 21 Reduction in redundancies

58

Figure 22 human intensity reduction

59

48

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The fast development of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the
expansion of the internet have changed different industry structures around the world. Today
organizations of all types around the globe are utilizing ICT, not only for cutting costs and
improving efficiency, but also for better service provision. However, in Zimbabwe, the use of
ICT for university undergraduate admissions is not being fully exploited.
University undergraduate candidate selection is the process through which applicants are
accepted for university entry to undertake undergraduate degree programs. In Zimbabwe,
most prospective university undergraduate students apply for admission in different
universities upon the completion of advanced level studies. Admission in any of the country`s
state university differs due to the selection criteria used in the selection process by each of
these universities.
Key aspects of the current selection system that will be of note would be the ability of the
proposed centralised system to reduce the number of simultaneous multiple offers to one
particular applicant by differing universities, speed of placement and consistency of the
centralised system to give consistent results over varying data that should not have effect on
its selection mechanism.
A presumption is made that a software-driven system is most likely to be more effective in
most parts than the present manual, decentralised system. Thus, the proposition is that this
research be summarily composed of an evaluative step of assessing the practicality of design
of the system i.e. the design of an alternative centralised candidate selection system.
1.1

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

As an attempt to address the shortcomings of the conventional undergraduate candidate

selection system in universities, a centralised system which can be used by all applicants to
apply to any of the state universities is going to be developed.
To date, the candidate selection process is de-centrally carried out at each of the universities,
which has resulted in redundancy of the selection process. Applicants are being allocated
places in more than one university in utmost cases yet each applicant can take up a place in

only one university leaving the other allocated places vacant. In most of the universities, the
candidate selection process is still being done manually which consumes a lot of time.
The acceptance of post A-Level students by the state universities for any undergraduate
degree program depends on the different selection criteria endorsed by each university. An
applicant can only be offered admission at a particular university if his or her qualifications
meet the university`s selection criteria for the degree program they will be applying for.
Undergraduate entry selection criteria and standards vary from one university to another and
these will be ascertained in the universities admissions policies.
1.2

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The lack of a fast, centrally decisive managed process has yielded undesirable results in the
undergraduate entry system across state universities in Zimbabwe. The current state of affairs
has led to predominant redundant offers, time and resource consuming candidate selection
process for undergraduate entries in each of the state universities. Simultaneous multiple
offers to one particular applicant by differing universities have to be eliminated. Applicants
have to be informed in time, of the availability of their enrolment places so as to reduce
inconveniences for both the applicants and the admission staff in these universities. Also, the
current way of selecting candidates for university entry tends to be not as accurate, as it is
prone to human errors and bias since it is done manually. However, adopting existing
solutions such as the deferred acceptance algorithm does not quite suffice the problem as they
tend to have their own weaknesses.
1.3

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

To develop a centralised university undergraduate candidate selection system that is capable of

allocating university places to applicants in a fast, accurate and non-redundant manner.
1.4

1.5

OBJECTIVES

To design and implement a centralized university undergraduate candidate selection system

model, using the stable matching concept.

To evaluate the usability and effectiveness of the resultant system.
To develop a fully functional design of the centralised university admissions system
JUSTIFICATION

The conventional candidate selection process in state universities has shown some weaknesses and the
researcher has therefore seen it feasible to research on how best the candidate selection process can be

centralized for undergraduate entry across state universities, addressing redundancies posed by the
present-day selection process. By centralising the candidate selection process, the problem of multiple
simultaneous offers to one applicant by different universities can be eliminated. The centralised
system will also benefit each of the universities through a reduction in resource wastages which arise
due to the simultaneous multiple offers. Centralising the candidate selection process would mean that
the number of students who will turn down admission offers because they would have been offered
admission by another university will be greatly reduced. In such a way, resource wastages by the
universities will be minimal as a greater number of students offered admission will accept, thereby
aligning with the universities` admission plans.
Efficiency in the selection process will also be increased through the proposed system. Because the
selection process is currently being done manually, the centralised system will reduce the time taken
for candidate selection, and this in turn would mean that candidates will be notified in time of the
availability of their enrolment places. Also, developing the proposed system results in a candidate
selection process that will be free from human errors and bias hence the candidate selection process
will be more accurate and in a way, fair.
For the technical implementation feasibility test of the system, we base this on the assumption that the
process of the acceptance of the system does not affect change to the suggested execution of the
proposed system.
1.6

LIMITATIONS

The researcher is likely to face a challenge in verifying the applicant`s academic qualifications
through the national examination results providers which are ZIMSEC and Cambridge. Acquiring the
actual results databases from these examination boards for the purpose of this research is likely to be
not viable due to the confidentiality policies of these boards.
1.7

SCOPE

The model to be developed shall only cater for the admission of post A-level students for
undergraduate programmes. This implies that applicants with other forms of qualifications will not be
catered for in the system due to time reasons. Although the proposed system will have the capability
to accommodate all state universities, only three of the state universities shall be used namely Bindura
University of Science Education, where the researcher is based, University of Zimbabwe and the
National University of Science and Technology.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0

INTRODUCTION

Reviewing related literature will assist the researcher to uncover what other researchers have done on
this subject matter. This chapter reviews relevant research made on the design of centralised
admissions systems, particularly the algorithms employed. Collective ideas and views of different
authors are contained in this chapter. The serves to answer the following questions; what are the
current algorithms that are being used in the designing of centralised admission systems and what
gaps need to be filled to improve the existing algorithms?
The college admissions problem is an example of a two sided matching market which has been widely
studied by economists and game theorists (Abdulkadiroglu A 2005). This is whereby a college only
accepts a specific number of students (quotas) in each academic year due to the impossibility of the
college to accept all students who applied for it because of limited resources. So, every student cannot
get into their top choices and on the other hand, a student also can only accept offer of admission from
only one college, thus it is not guaranteed that all students whom a college has made offers of
admission will accept the offers.
Issues involving who gets which job, who gets which school places and the admission of students to
colleges are among the matching situations that have gained attention in the last decades. In a twosided matching market, agents belong to one of two disjoint sets, for instance colleges and students,
and each agent i.e. college and student, has preferences over the other side of the market i.e. students
and colleges, and the prospect of being unmatched. Perhaps the most famous matching mechanisms
are the Boston mechanism and the Gale-Shapely algorithm. These two differ in the criteria applied for
admission under each of the mechanisms. Many countries around the world are using the centralized
admission system, for example German, Sweden and Hungary, which are all based on either the
Boston mechanism or the Gale-Shapely algorithm.
In this research, the effectiveness of the stable matching algorithms in previous matching problems is
analysed; and a further study is made to attempt to analyse the root causes of the weaknesses and
limitations associated with these particular solutions in solving the stable marriage problem in
complex markets; where the matching is not simply one entity in set A being matched to only one
entity in set B (simple markets) as initially expostulated by Gale and Shapely (1962). A critical
analysis is then made to formulate sufficient facts on which to improve the existing algorithm for use
in the case of the centralised university admissions system as a complex market.
2.1 OVERVIEW OF CENTRALISED ADMISSIONS SYSTEMS

The centralisation of the university admission process has been appreciated across the world. In
Hungary, student admissions for both secondary and higher education are organised by centralised
matching schemes. The programs for both the secondary schools and higher education are based on
the original model and algorithm of Gale and Shapley (Biro et al 2010).
The centralised German university admissions system implements the primitive prejudicial
mechanism to be explained later, the Boston mechanism (Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tayfun Sonmez
2003), and the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm by Gale and Shapley. Although for the majority of the
subjects, the universities de-centrally select the students themselves, there is a centralised matching
scheme administered by the clearing house that is used to allocate places for medicine and three
specialities(dentistry, pharmacy and veterinary medicine) as these fields of study are most prone to
over demand in the country (Braun, Kubler and Dwenger 2010).
2.2 ORIGINS OF THE STABLE MATCHING PROBLEM
The stable matching (marriage) problem originated, in part, in 1962 when David Gale and Lloyd
Shapley asked the question if a self-enforcing college admission process or a job recruiting process
could be designed (Gale and Shapley 1962). A stable matching problem consists of a group of agents,
and, for each agent, a preference list over whom the agent may be matched. According to (Roth and
Peranson 1999), the most important and controversial finding about centralised matching algorithms
is that they are mostly unsuccessful unless they produce stable matches. The problem arises naturally
in school and university admissions and also in matching medical students to hospitals for resident
training. Gale and Shapley, proposed, then that a solution to such a problem is a matching P, with the
property that no pair of agents a & b denoted by P (a, b), that are eligible to each other, rather
prefer each other to their currently assigned match c & d denoted by M (a, c) & M (b, d).
Early and more primitive adaptations which have been proven to have weaknesses align with a
popular method dubbed the Boston mechanism, which prevalently managed primary education
allocations in Boston, United States of America where students would be assigned seats at public
schools through a centralised student assignment mechanism and it has been a popular studentplacement mechanism around the world (Abdulkaroglu et al 2005). Under this mechanism, students
submit their preference lists to the central clearinghouse. The central clearinghouse then follows an
algorithm that tries to match as many students to their stated preferred schools as possible. For each
school, students who have listed it as their first choice are considered and assigned seats in priority
order until either no seat remain or no student remains who would have listed the school as the first
choice. For each school with seats still available, consider the students who have listed it as their kth
choice and assign seats to these students in priority order until either no seats remain or no students
remain who has listed it as kth choice. The procedure terminates when each student is assigned a seat
or when all submitted choices are considered.

Abdulkadiroglu and Sonmez find various shortcomings of the Boston mechanism: the mechanism is
not stable, that is, it can cause an unfair outcome where a student is not admitted to a school they like
while a student with a lower priority than them is admitted to that school; the Boston mechanism is
not strategy-proof, that is, it gives students a strong incentive to misrepresent their preferences by
improving the ranking of schools for which they have high priority. The authors also highlighted the
mechanism`s ease of manipulation. The authors further point out that the deferred acceptance
mechanism by Gale and Shapely solves both problems because it is both stable and strategy-proof.
Gale and Shapley focused on a common problem faced by colleges based on their usual admissions
procedure, namely, how to admit the ideal number of best-qualified applicants based on a specific
quota without knowing precisely how many admitted applicants will accept (Gale and Shapley 1962).
For example, the authors note the college may not know whether the applicant has applied elsewhere
and, if so, whether the other colleges will admit them. For the stable matching problem, Gale and
Shapley analyzed matching at an abstract general level. They used marriage as one of their illustrative
examples- how should ten men and ten women be matched while respecting their individual
preferences? This involved a set of men and a set of women, each whom have ranked all the members
of the other set in a strict order of preference. The main challenge involved designing a simple
mechanism that would lead to a stable matching, where no couples would break up and form new
couples that would make them better off. The authors used their solution to this problem as a basis for
solving the extended problem where one of the sets consists of college applicants, and the other
consists of colleges, each of which has a quota of places to fill.
However, this was not the only origin of the stable matching problem. It turns out that for a decade
before the work of Gale and Shapley, unbeknownst to them, the National Resident Match Program
had been using the very similar procedure (Kleinburg and Tardos 2006). The program began in 1952
in response to dissatisfaction with the process and results of matching applicants to residency
programs via the decentralised, competitive market. The NRMP administers the matching of
graduating medical students to hospital residency positions through a centralised service (Roth and
Sotomayor 1990). From shortly after the first residency programs were formally introduced, the
hiring process was characterised by intense competition amongst hospitals for interns. A publication
in 1962 by Gale and Shapley noted that there always exists a stable solution when colleges are
matching with students, but that it is possible to favour colleges as a group over applicants as a group.
Up to the level of simple markets, matching in which only one-to-one matching is the only possibility
(simple markets), and no couple (or more) of accepting agents would rather prefer a match in which
they outright want combined acceptance by one proposing agent (complex markets); the deferred
acceptance algorithm has been proven to work and always produce stable matching (Gale and Shapley
1962); (Roth. A 2008). The authors further prove that this algorithm fails and will not always produce

a stable matching in a case where couples exist. They faced this problem where some of the accepting
medical students would be married couples who would rather prefer a matching to a hospital where
they both are accepted.
2.3 THE DEFERRED ACCEPTANCE ALGORITHM
In the deference algorithm (Miralles. A 2008), students submit their ranking lists that correspond their
preferences over the colleges they are applying for. The students then receive scores at each college
they applied for according to their final grades at secondary school, and entrance exams. These scores
will be a real number between 0 and 1 assigned by an even lottery. The assignment is computed in
several rounds where in the first round, the mechanism assigns each student to her first ranked school,
in increasing order of the lottery numbers, until either school capacity is reached or no more students
rank the school as their first choice. In each of the remaining rounds, each student applies to their
most preferred school amongst the ones that would not have rejected them. Again, the algorithm
compares all students applying to the school and reassigns students in their increasing order of lottery
numbers until full capacity is reached or until no students remain.
The Gale-Shapley algorithm has been found to be stable in that no student loses a seat to a lower
priority student and receives a less preferred assignment and also strategy proof for students, that is, it
is a dominant strategy for students to state their true preferences. Variants of the college proposing
deferred acceptance (CDA) algorithms have been used to allocate medical students to their
professional position in the US (Roth 1984) and variants of the student proposing deferred acceptance
algorithm (SDA) have been and are still being used to assign students to public schools in Boston and
New York (Abdulkaroglu et al 2005).
2.4 THE COLLEGE PROPOSING DEFERRED ACCEPTANCE ALGORITHM
In the college proposing deferred acceptance algorithm, each college proposes to its top acceptable
students. Each student rejects any unacceptable proposals and, if more than one acceptable proposal is
received, the student holds the most preferred and rejects the rest. Any college which would have been
previously rejected by any student proposes its most preferred acceptable students who would not
have rejected it. Each student holds their most-preferred acceptable offer to date and rejects the rest.
The algorithm terminates when there are no more rejections. Each student is matched with the college
they would be holding in the last step.
According to (Braun, Kubler and Dwenger 2010), in the German`s centralised university admissions
procedure the Boston mechanism is used to firstly allocate up to 40 percent of the total capacity of
each university and all the other remaining places are assigned using the college proposing deferred
acceptance algorithm studied the German university admissions system from an empirical perspective

and found considerable support for the hypothesis that applicants try to manipulate the centralised
admissions procedure. Applicants have strong incentives to manipulate the German admissions
procedure by submitting a ranking of universities that do not correspond to their true preferences.
The way in which conflicts are resolved in the Boston mechanism and the Deference Algorithm is
different. The deference algorithm makes truthful ranking a dominant strategy and resolves any
conflicts purely by random lotteries regardless of the underlying cardinal utilities. Therefore the
outcome of the deference algorithm is completely insensitive to cardinal preferences. In contrast, the
Boston allows parts of participants to influence how ties are broken, so it has the potential to resolve
conflicts based on students` cardinal utilities which may be useful for efficient resolution of
conflicting interests. Conflicts arise due to tension in stabilising equity in assignments, that is, the
extent to which student priorities can be accommodated, student welfare and immunity to strategic
action (A E. Roth 1982).
The Boston mechanism may expose strategically naive participants as proved by Abdulkaroglu et al
that some players may have behaved naively and suffered as a consequence under the Boston
mechanism. Schools that are over-demanded tend to enable valuable traders, as there are many
students who would be willing to exchange their assigned school for an over-demanded one. Thus
misreporting would make over-demanded schools to be even more over-demanded. The increase in
demand amplifies trade opportunities, and imposes a negative externality on the other students.
Students may even report a high preference for a school they do not find acceptable as long as it
enables desirable trades. When trade is not certain students may still attempt it, but when they fail to
trade they can end up with an unacceptable school, making the final matching unstable and inefficient.
A theoretical justification to Boston mechanism`s weaknesses was provided by Pathak and Sonmez in
2008, who argue that strategically sophisticated participants exploit naive ones in the Boston
mechanism, to such an extent that the former effectively enjoys a higher priority over the latter at
every school expect for the latter`s most preferred .
2.5 THE PROBLEMS OF THE DEFERRED ACCEPTANCE ALGORITHM
As confirmed by (Roth. A 2008), the problem of couples, even after attempts to make the deferred
algorithm exists still. In our case, this is concerned with a typical situation where a university is
considering a set of applicants which it can admit only a quota; a pair or more of these having a given
condition to only be accepted, even if one outright meets the criteria and prefers; when another
student which that particular also prefers to be accepted is accepted at that same university. Having
evaluated their qualifications, the admissions office must decide which ones to admit. The procedure
of offering admissions only to the best qualified applicants will not generally be satisfactory, for it
cannot be assumed that all those offered admission will accept. Accordingly, in order for a college to
receive a particular number of acceptances, it will generally have to offer to admit more than a certain

number of applicants (Gale and Shapley 1962). According to the authors, the problem of determining
how many and which ones to admit requires some rather involved guesswork since it may not be
known whether a given applicant has also applied elsewhere; if this is known it may not be known,
and also which of the other colleges will offer to admit him.
The deferred acceptance algorithm by Gale and Shapley solves the stable marriage problem through a
series of proposals made by the men, resulting in provisional engagements that the women are
free to break later if they receive a better offer. In practise, because the deferred acceptance algorithm
assumes strict preferences, almost all matching schemes either require all participants to rank their
choices in strict order of preference, or use some form of randomisation to break any ties in the
preference list. This may result in arbitrary decisions, either on the part of participants or scheme
administrators, who produce a strictly ordered list by discriminating unnecessarily or artificially
between applicants.
Through the deferred acceptance algorithm, Gale and Shapley did prove that the set of stable
outcomes is nonempty for all preferences of the kind they considered and also that when the
preferences are strict, there always exists a stable matching (Roth. A 2008).With the student proposing
deferred acceptance algorithm, the mechanism specifies how to order equivalent students from the
point of view of schools with limited space. For instance, one can assign each student a distinct
number, break ties in school preferences according to those assigned numbers, then apply the deferred
acceptance algorithm to the strict preferences that result from the tiebreaking. This preserves the
stability and the strategy-proofness of the student proposing deferred algorithm. However, tiebreaking
introduces artificial stability constraints (since, after tiebreaking, schools appear to have strict
preferences between students for whom they are indifferent), and these constraints can harm student
welfare.
2.6

THE NRMP ALGORITHM

Analysis of the algorithms used by the National Residency Matching Program clearinghouse showed
that they were closely related to the Gale-Shapely algorithm (Roth 1990). The Gale Shapley result
showed that the NRMP version of the algorithm, because it had the hospitals proposing to the
students, produced a match that was hospital-optimal. The hospital optimal stable matching is
produced by a hospital proposing algorithm, which operates by having residency programs propose
(make offers) to applicants and allowing applicants to hold at any point in the algorithm the most
preferred offer amongst those so far received. The algorithm was criticised as being biased towards
residency programs at the expense of the applicants. In contrast, defenders of the NRMP were
inclined to view the matching algorithm as having evolved from the traditional recruitment process in
which programs offer positions to applicants, and adapted to changes in the medical market, picking
up special features as required. In the fall of 1995 an alternative design of a new (applicant-proposing)

algorithm was commissioned for conducting the annual match and a study to compare it with the
current NRMP algorithm (Alvin.E.Roth, 1995). According to the same author, the applicant proposing
algorithm was designed based on the algorithm outlined by Roth and Vande Vate and also on the
components of the existing algorithm. To code a working algorithm, choices had to be made
concerning the sequencing of operations. Each decision can be shown to have no effect on the
outcome of simple matches but, but could affect the outcome when match variations are present (since
optimal stable matches may not exist). The matches produced under the newly designed algorithm
and the current program proposing algorithm were compared and showed that there was a slight
difference between the two algorithms were only 0.1% of the applicants were affected by the change
in algorithms. The choice between either the applicant proposing or the program proposing was
therefore seen as not involving consequential differences for the match as a whole (Peransin and
Randlett 1997).
The goal of the redesign of the NRMP was to construct an algorithm that would produce stable
matching as favourable as possible to applicants, while meeting the specific constraints of the medical
market (Roth and Peranson 1999). The comparisons between the new and the existing algorithms
were to focus both on how many applicants and residency programs could be expected to receive
more-preferred and less-preferred matches under the two algorithms.
The existence of married couples amongst the medical students posed some problems as many of the
couples felt that the NRMP clearinghouse was not serving them well. Roth (1984) argues that this was
because the matching algorithm used until then did not allow couples to appropriately express
preferences. He went on to clarify that in a market without couples, the 1950s clearinghouse algorithm
is equivalent to the deferred acceptance algorithm of Gale and Shapley. The algorithm often fails to
find a stable matching when there are couples involved. Roth further argued that the main problem of
the mechanism is that (prior to the 1983 match) it did not allow couples to report preferences over
pairs of positions, one for each member of the couple. (Roth and Peranson 1999) describe the current
algorithm, which elicits and uses couples` preferences over pairs of positions and has been used by
more than 40 centralised clearinghouses including the American labour market for new doctors, the
NRMP.
Roth (1984) postulates that the problem is difficult even if couples are allowed to express their
preferences over pairs of positions, because there does not necessarily exist stable matching with
couples. In the late 1990`s, the market evolved from a decentralised one (Roth and Xing, 1997) to
one employing a centralised clearinghouse, where a key design issue was whether it would be
possible to accommodate the presence of couples. Keilin (1998) reported that under the old
decentralised system, couples had difficulties coordinating their internship choices. In 1999, clinical

psychologists adopted a centralised clearinghouse using an algorithm based on Alvin Roth and
Peranson, in which couples are allowed to express preference over hospital pairs.
Existing studies on couples matching are mostly negative: Roth (1984) and unpublished work by
Sotomayor show that stable matching does not exist where there are couples, and Ronn (1990) shows
that it may be computationally hard to determine if a stable matching even exists. Some NRMP
participants who participate as couples are advised to form preferences by first forming individual
rank order lists after interviewing with programs. Then this list will serve as an input into the joint
ranking of the couple. For instance, medical students who are couples at the University of Kansas
Medical School are suggested to make a list of all possible program pair combinations from both
individual rank order lists by computing the difference between the ranking number of the program on
each individual`s rank order list and trying to minimise the difference in their joint rank order list
(Kojima, Pathak and Roth 2010).
2.7 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The existence of the instability in the deferred acceptance algorithm then leaves a compelling question
as to whether a stable matching can; in actual fact never exist as implied by the researchers inability
to prove, as done for simple markets, that such a stable matching can exist. Peculiar and irregular
points are noted which are to not be overlooked. Whilst the great work these researchers have put in
attempting to prove their findings is affirmed, pertinent issues are raised that may invalidate parts and
not all of their findings. Perhaps this can explain and enable the construction of a better method to
achieve the best matching for university admissions in Zimbabwe. From the researches referenced
above, the following points were noted:
i.

Most importantly, the deferred acceptance algorithm is processed in iterations which themselves
are not exhaustive in their evaluation of criteria and preferences; this can be proved this by how

the order of processing matching easily affects the outcome of the matching.
ii. The very fact that there exists proposer-optimal and acceptor-optimal versions of the algorithm,
given by which set is made to do the actual proposal suggests and indicates failure in the
algorithm to process preferences and criteria in a fair, non-favouring manner for any order of
processing.
iii. It is noted that, the deferred acceptance algorithm itself is a suggestive algorithm, in criteria for
universities and preferences for students; in that it imposes conditions which themselves may be
regarded criteria
iv. It should also be noted that in reality, not all problems have the rigid form of preferences, as
imposed by the condition of the original and then later revisions of the deferred acceptance
algorithm. Not all preferences are made in strict lists; some may just not be rigid. The couples
problem is an example of non-rigid preferences, however, the past researchers have settled on
calling this a variation of the algorithm where couples exist.

2.8

CONCLUSION

The author has managed to analyse the origin of the problem of stable marriage problems, and looked
at the varied propositions made in attempt to get a solution to this. In this case, the researcher aims to
use this to find a suitable solution for the design of a suitably functional centralised university
admissions system for universities in Zimbabwe. Whilst the fundamental work done in achieving
stable marriages in simple markets by Gale and Shapley (1962) is acknowledged, and the subsequent
revisions by Roth (2007), some anomalies were found that propose and suggest a look at the
algorithm, if possible change and make it suitable for the proposed environment, or if need be,
construct and implement another proposition for the solution of stable matching and use in the design
of a central university admissions system.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes a review of the research method and design appropriateness, a discussion of the
in-depth look into the methods used to accomplish the stated objectives, including the tools that will
be used to do so.
3.1

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design can be defined as a plan that describes how, when and where data is to be collected
and analysed for the purposes of a research (Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., Hungler, B.P. 2004). This can be
thought of as the logic of a research that throws a light on how the study is to be conducted. It shows
how all the major parts of the research study work together in an attempt to address the research
questions. The key to a successful project is proper design and the design stage involves coming up
with the different modules of the system and their intended functionality.
System design can be thought of as the process of defining the architecture, components, modules and
data for the system to satisfy specified requirements. The major objective of this stage is to ensure that
an efficient, effective, maintainable, and reliable system is developed. The system interfaces should be
designed with the end user in mind making the design process easier and the designed work easier to
implement.
For the design of the central university admissions (CUA) model, the researcher dwelled on the
qualitative research approach which is an approach to research using methods such as participant
observation, interviews, questionnaires or case studies which result in a narrative account of a setting
or a practice, with focus being on the interpretation of phenomena in natural settings to make sense in
terms of the meanings people bring to these settings (Denzin, N 2010).
To come up with the model for the centralised university admissions system, the researcher had to
review some of the models and their algorithms in literature and how they were designed. The
functionality of these systems was analysed in order to come up with a design that would eliminate
some of the problems that were found to exist with these systems. A review of the literature on
centralised candidate selection systems therefore aided as a guide in the design of the centralised
university admissions system.
The researcher also conducted some interviews with the personnel in the BUSE admissions offices
with the aim of attaining a deeper understanding of how the admission process is carried out for
undergraduate students, and also the fundamental student entry data required for admission and the
criteria used for selection. This helped in coming up with a model that would incorporate most of the

important details and procedures used for the selection of undergraduate students. Suggestions and
ideas concerning the vital features that a centralised admission system should consist of were also
taken from the admissions personnel for the model design.
Software performance tests were carried out as a way of evaluating the system`s performance in its
intended environment. Different types of tests were conducted, each test giving an evaluation of the
system under different scenarios. For the evaluation of the system`s attributes that could not be
directly determined by system performance tests, and the effectiveness of the system, the users`
perceptions had to be taken into account and this was done by collecting the data from two groups of
the system users namely the applicants and the faculty administrators. An analysis of data from these
questionnaires was then used for the system evaluation, thus the evaluation of the system was a
combination of system tests and users` perceptions.
3.1

SOFTWARE DESIGN

3.2.1 Design Tools

Proper development of an ideal system that meets specified requirements and that suits the area in
which the system is to be used involves the use of appropriate tools. In the researcher`s quest to
achieve the first objective, the researcher decided to use the following tools:
1)

PHP scripting language

2)

CodeIgniter Framework

3)

Internet Information Services (IIS)

4)

BootStrap for user interface design

5)

MySQL database

PHP Scripting Language

This is a server-side scripting language designed for web development. PHP was chosen for the
development of the system mainly because it offers security on accessing databases and other secure
information, and also that it allows the quick development of database-driven websites.
CodeIgniter Framework
This is an open source rapid development web application framework used in building dynamic
websites with PHP. This framework was chosen because it enables the fast development of web
applications by providing a rich set of libraries for commonly needed tasks. CodeIgniter implements

the Model-View-Controller (MVC) software architectural pattern which allows the attaching of
multiple views to a model to provide different presentations.
Internet Information Services
Internet Information Services 8 is a web server software package developed by Microsoft and this was
adopted as the web server for the centralised university admissions system as it tends not to add any
extra weight on the machine since it comes with the operating system.
BootStrap
This is an open-source framework designed to build user interface components. BootStrap was used in
the designing of the interfaces for the centralised university admissions system because it is constant
and ensures that results are uniform across platforms; therefore output remains the same whether the
users are using different browsers.
MySQL Database
This is a relational database management system (RDBMS) which was adopted for its typical use for
web application development (often accessed using PHP); thus making it the perfect candidate for
use. Also, it generally offers fewer features than other databases, which then means that it is fast and
due to its speed, the system will overall be fast.
3.2.2 System Design Process
3.2.2.1 Requirements Specification
This refers to the services that the system will be expected to provide for to its users. The
requirements will be classified according to each user.
System users:

Applicants

Faculty Administrators

Super Administrator

3.2.2.2 Functional Requirements

These are statements of services the system should provide, i.e. how the system should react to
particular inputs. This is primarily what the system is expected and should do:

The system should be able to register new faculty administrators and applicants.

The system should allow the faculty administrators to add new and/or edit degrees and their

selection criteria.

The system should allow all the faculty administrators to view the list of selected students

when the selection process is done.

The system should allow the super administrator to initiate new intakes.

The system should allow the super administrator to add new faculty administrators.

The system should allow applicants to place as many preferences as they want upon

application.

The system should be able to verify applicant`s data before saving the application.

The system should be able to allocate places to applicants

3.2.2.3 Non-Functional Requirements

These specify the criteria that can be used to judge the operation of the system i.e. how the system is
supposed to be (Glinz, M 2007). The following are the non-functional requirements of the central
university admissions system:

Performance requirements

Accessibility requirements

Availability requirements

Security requirements

Scalability requirements

3.2.3 Software Development Methodology

This is a simplified description of the sequence of activities carried out in the development of
software from a particular perspective (Erickson et al 2005). In developing the centralised university
admissions system, the researcher adopted the agile development methodology, which is a type of an
incremental development methodology. The adoption of this methodology saw the development of the
CUA model being done in small incremental parts, with each completed part building on to the
functionality of previously completed part of the model.
This methodology was adopted mainly because it is the ideal model for use in the development of
time critical applications. This ensured the completion of the system within the limited time frame.

Also, this methodology was adopted because it allows the easy implementation of changes to the
system being developed. Because there will always be the need to either subtract or add some features
and functionalities to the system in the course of its development as a way of ensuring the
achievement of the stated objectives of the research, the agile methodology proved useful due to its
provision of the ability to easily implement new changes.
3.2.4 Methods used in the system design
Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) is a technique for analysing the requirements and
creating the design for a software system. The analysis done in using OOAD needs to be depicted
through visual modelling and these visual models of a software system can be created using the
Unified Modelling Language (UML), which is a standard language for creating blueprints that depict
the structure and design of the software system. UML provides a variety of diagrams to represent the
structure and design of a software system. Of these various diagrams, the researcher decided to use
the use case, activity diagram and the process flow chart.
3.2.5 Use Case Diagram
This is basically used to summarise who uses the system and what they can do with it. It does not
however show the detail of the use cases, or the order in which steps are performed to achieve the
goals of each use case but only summarises some of the relationships between use cases, actors and
the system. The figure below shows a use case diagram for the centralised university admissions
system.

Figure 1 : Centralised University Admissions System use case diagram

3.2.6 Activity Diagram

This is one of the important UML diagrams used to describe the dynamic aspects of the system. An
activity diagram can be defined as a representation of the flow from one activity to another activity
where an activity can be described as an operation of the system. The author decided to use an activity
diagram for the purpose of capturing the dynamic behaviour, and the sequence from one activity to
another of the central university admissions system. The flow between the system and the actors
within the use cases is described with the activity diagram. Below is an activity diagram for the
central university admissions system.

Figure 2 Centralised University Admissions System activity diagram

3.2.7 Process Flow Chart

A process flow chart provides a visual representation of the steps in a process, thereby giving a clear
understanding of the process. In this case, the author decided to use a process flow chart as a way of
communicating how the central admissions system would process an application from the time it is
placed on the system to the final stage where a place is allocated to an applicant. All the steps that will
be taken by the system and certain decisions to be made during the process will be represented in the
process flow chart. The figure below shows a process diagram for the centralised university
admissions system.

Figure 3 Centralised Admissions System process flow diagram

From the diagram above, upon picking an application, the very first decision that the system makes is
whether that particular applicant has already been allocated a place in any other university. This
decision is the stage where the system aims to eliminate redundant place allocation. It is only after the
system determines that the applicant has indeed not been allocated a place, that it considers whether
the applicant`s qualifications meet the stated selection criteria of their first preference chosen. If the
applicant does not meet the selection criteria of the preference placed on the first place, the system
goes on to check whether the applicant meets the criteria of the other preferences placed, in their
order. In the case that the applicant does not meet the selection criteria for any of his/her selected
preferences; the applicant is not allocated any place.
The other decision that the system makes in the course of the selection process is whether the class
being applied for is full. This decision is only made in the tide that the applicant does meet the
selection criteria of one of the preferences placed. Given that the maximum number of students that
can be accepted for that particular class has not yet been reached, the applicant is allocated the place.
Also in the selection procedure, there is a displacement scenario. This happens when an applicant
meets the selection criteria for a particular preference but the class having been full. In this case, the
system considers if this current applicant is more preferable to any of the applicants making up the
full class. Should the current applicant be more preferable, s/he is allocated the place of the other
applicant to whom s/he is preferred to.
3.2.8 Database Design
As highlighted earlier in this chapter, the MySQL database, which is a relational database, was
adopted to work with the central university admissions system. The following are the reasons which
led to the use of a relational database:
i.

It offers better security by splitting data into tables thereby making certain tables confidential.

ii.

It caters for future requirements by having data held in separate tables thereby making it

easier to add records that are not yet needed but may be in the future.
iii.

It is good in handling data through the support for diverse data needs.

Below is an entity relationship diagram showing the structure of the central university admissions
database:

Figure 4 Centralised University Admissions System entity relationship diagram

3.2.9 User Interface Design

The design process for the user interface calls for a software development model that suitably suits
websites at the same time making it possible to be integrated with the required components. User
interface design is concerned with describing user behaviour and defining how a particular system
will accommodate and respond to that behaviour (Jesse James Garrett, 2011), where user interface is

that part of a computer system which a user interacts with in order to undertake certain tasks and
achieve some particular goals (Stone, Jarrett et al, 2001). It involves researching into the behaviours
and goals of the target users of a software system. To ensure that the central university admissions
system is well communicated to the users, the author applied the following aspects in the UI design:
i.

Simplicity

This is one of the core principles that the author applied in designing the UI for the system. The UI of
the central university admissions was designed to be as simple as possible so that the intended users
of the system would be able to interpret the design, thus being more inclined to use it. The interface
was designed in such a way that it is clearly laid out, well organised and all the controls that need to
be accessed by the system users are as visible as possible.
ii.

Structure

The author ensured that the interface is clearly laid out, well organised and controls are easily
identifiable for the users. The structure of the UI was constructed with the consideration that the users
would be new to the system and they will try out different options in order to achieve what they
desire. In doing so, they can make a lot of mistakes; they can enter wrong data or go to a wrong place.
To minimize such, the structure of the UI was considered to play a vital role.
iii.

Size

This is also an important consideration made in coming up with the UI for the system because the size
of the UI directly influences the time taken to load pages, hence the size of the UI was minimized so
as to make the overall system very light so that it can respond quickly to the user`s requests.
To be able to come up with a user interface which incorporates the above aspects, the diagram below
shows the sequence of steps taken by the researcher in designing the UI for the central university
admissions system:

 Outline
System
Requirem
ents
Determine
system
end users
User
Research

Information
Architecture
User Path
Mapping
Structure
&
Navigation
Design

Design
Wireframe
Interaction
Design

Visual
Design
Layouts,
Icons,
Fonts,
Colour
Scheme

Interaction
Design

Figure 5 User interface design process

The diagram above shows the sequence of steps taken in the design of the UI for the CUA model. The
initial step was the user research whereby the researcher drew round the requirements of the system to
ensure that the UI will be built around those requirements such that they will be properly
communicated to the end users. To certify that the users would be able to use the interface being
designed, the researcher had to determine the end users of the model and their probable behaviours.
From the user research, the author went on to the information architecture. During this stage, the
author did the user path mapping and also the expressing of the model through structure and the
navigation design. This was followed by the wireframe design whereby the author defined the
information hierarchy and the layout according to the functions, structure and the content of the
model. This was done in the interaction design stage. The final stage in the design of the UI was the
visual design in which the layouts, icons, fonts and colour scheme were defined for the interface.
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION
3.3.1 System Functionality and Screen Dumps
Screen dumps are various screen shots showing the main user interface components of the system and
in this document they shall be used to illustrate the test results at the end of each component
development. The screen dumps shall also be used to illustrate the various cycle stages that the system

undergoes as it processes an application from the time it is submitted up to when places are allocated
and the merit list generated.
3.3.2 Applicant`s End
The applicants can interact with the system after logging in, where the applicant would provide user
credentials, or in the event that the applicant does not have an existing account, they will have to
create one on the system. have to create one on the system.

Figure 6 Account creation page for applicants

As depicted above, an applicant`s personal details will be captured into the system during
account creation such that when the applicant logs in, they need not to enter their personal
details, except for their qualifications. Once logged in, an applicant will have to create a
profile for his/her qualifications, before starting the application process. The profile created
would have the qualifications to be used in the selection process.

Figure 7 Entering qualifications for an applicant

Once they are logged into the system, they can then select the degree programmes they wish
to apply for in any of the universities, in order of preference from the list of available degree
programmes on the system.

Figure 8 making an application on the system

As depicted above, an applicant makes an application by selecting their degree of choice
through the select degree drop down menu and putting the degree at their preferred rank
order. Also, an applicant has the ability to change their preference order before the selection
day. After submitting their applications on the system, which is only possible before the
application due date, applicants will await notification by the system through an email, of the
availability or unavailability of an admission place after the selection process is done by the
system.
3.3.3 Faculty Administrators` End
These will also interact with the system after login. This end of the system will allow each
faculty of every university to add degree programmes on offer, thereafter setting the selection
criteria for the degrees in the system before the selection day. The criteria entered in the
system will be the ones which the system would use for the selection of applicants.

Figure 9 Setting degree selection criteria

The faculty administrators will also be in a position to edit or update their selection criteria in
the system whenever need be. After the selection process is carried out by the system, this
end of the system will also show the merit list.
3.3.4 Super Administrator`s End
This end of the system allows the user to set the applications due date initiate a new intake in
the system. After the set due date, the system will no longer receive applications. The super
administrator will also be responsible for initiating the system to carry out the selection
process after the application due date. The management of universities in the system will also
be carried out by the super administrator.

Figure 10 Managing universities in the system

As depicted above, this end allows the super user to add or remove universities to the system.
Besides adding or removing universities, the super administrator also adds new faculty
administrators to the system.

Figure 11 Adding a new faculty

As depicted above, the system administrator adds new faculty administrators to the system as
per university.
3.3.5 System Security
Any software system developed should be able to enforce non functional requirements such
as integrity preservation, accountability, confidentiality amongst other things (Wilhelm et al
2006). Therefore, to ensure that the system meets such requirements, in-built security
measures will have to be enforced during the development of the system. In the design of the
central university admissions system, the developer ensured that all tables would not be
editable and also that all the user input data is validated before being passed on to the system
so as to make sure that the system does not crash as a result of erroneous input. Also, access
levels to different actions which are needed in the system were created, the super and the

faculty administrators. This was done to ensure that no unauthorised users will have the
ability to perform certain actions on the system.
Another security aspect which was implemented in the development of the system is the
Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (captcha).
Because the central university admissions system is a web based system, the researcher saw it
fit to implement an aspect that would secure it from Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)
attacks, where attackers can make use of some automated software to generate a massive
quantity of requests thereby causing a high load on the system server, resulting in legitimate
users and their requests being denied access to the system.
3.3.6 Selection Algorithm
Each of the universities` faculty administrators will set the criteria used to select students for
each of the degree programs offered by the university and updating the criteria from time to
time. On each of the application submitted on the system, the system checks if the
qualifications of an applicant match or meet the selection criteria for the preferences the
applicant would have put. The steps below give an outline of how the selection algorithm will
process the selection of candidates:
Step 1: The algorithm takes all the preferences for each student and takes the universities`
preferences and conditions (conditional preferences) plus criteria.
Step 2: It then chooses the next acceptor (starting with university 1, U 1), choosing any
acceptor not yet traversed otherwise it will stop processing.
Step 3: The current acceptor (university) must traverse each of its applying students
regardless of the option number where they are applying.
a) Where the current acceptor is not highest on the current applicant`s rank order list,
acceptor must probe all higher acceptors for traversal of this particular application of
which if all higher precedent acceptors reject current applicant, then that current
acceptor is given an opportunity to accept the applicant. Otherwise any of the higher
precedent acceptors of this current application may successfully accept offer and
render current applicant taken/accepted.

b) Once all applicants have been traversed by current acceptor whether class is full or
not, traversal for the current acceptor is stopped and the algorithm starts again at step
2.
3.3.7

Post Selection

After the system carries out the selection process, each applicant is notified of the availability
or unavailability of admission places. The system will also generate a merit list for the
universities` faculties to see which students will have been admitted to their university.
Students who would have been offered places will go to the university they would have been
accepted and his/her name will be checked for on the merit list.
3.3.8 System testing and evaluation
Software testing can be defined as the process of validating and verifying that a software
product meets the technical requirements that guided its design and development, and also
that it works as expected (Hasling et al 2008). Software testing also involves verifying to see
if the software product can be implemented with the same characteristic. In the researcher`s
quest to achieve her second objective, the researcher carried out the testing of the centralised
university admissions system using benchmarks and also conducted an analysis of the users`
perceptions for the evaluation of some of the system`s attributes. The findings of the
evaluation are in Chapter 4 of this document.
3.4 POPULATION AND SAMPLING
The researcher adopted a sampling strategy known as probability sampling. This is a simple
random method in which students were selected as the applicants to the system. This has an
advantage of minimizing bias by ensuring that each individual has an equal chance of
participating in the research. A target population of fifty part 1.1 students was selected from
the Bindura University of Science Education Bachelor of Science education degrees in
chemistry and also in physics as the applicants to the system. The researcher selected part 1.1
students as their appreciation of using the centralised admission system would be based on
prior experience with the current de-centralised system of university admissions and at the
same time, the group will also resemble high school students who would be the actual
intended users of the system since these students were post high school students.

The researcher also selected fifteen faculty administrators from the faculties of commerce,
agriculture and environmental science and the faculty of commerce for each of the
universities within the scope of the system which are Bindura University of Science
Education, University of Zimbabwe and the National University of Science and Technology.
A mock application exercise was performed for the selected sample of fifty applicants where
the applicants applied to each of the three universities for degrees of their choice. The faculty
administrators were also given an opportunity to perform the administrative tasks on the
system. After using the system, the students and the faculty administrators gave their views
and perceptions on the centralised university admissions system.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This refers to the steps followed in data analysis. From the number of different data analysis
software available that can be used to come up with a conclusion on the value of a research,
the researcher will adopt the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The
researcher chose SPSS as the data analysis tool due to the wide range of options that it offers
i.e. it is specifically made for analyzing statistical data and thus it offers a great range of
methods, graphs and charts. Also, SPSS provides better output organization since it is
designed to make certain that the output is kept separate from the data itself. All results are
stored in a file that is different from the data.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction
This chapter takes a look at the evaluation of the centralized university admissions system through
various system tests and the analysis of user perceptions. The usability of the central university
admissions model in its intended environment was evaluated based on the following software
attributes which are scalability, stability, and speed. Different tests to evaluate the performance of the
system were carried out. The system users` perceptions were analysed to give an evaluation of the
system based on those attributes that could not be uncovered through system tests and also its
effectiveness.
4.1 Analysis and Interpretation of Results
4.1.2 System Performance Tests
The system performance tests were carried out for the purpose of testing whether the system would be
able to cope with the different variant environmental factors that may make it redundant. Known tests
in software engineering under the field of system performance testing were used for the purpose of
determining how the system will perform in terms of responsiveness and stability under a particular
workload.
The researcher used performance testing for the measuring of other quality attributes of the system
such as scalability, reliability and resource usage. Being a subset of performance engineering,
performance testing is also regarded as a computer science practice which strives to build
performance into the implementation, design and architecture of a system.
For this research, the most common performance concerns related to a web application were adopted
and these are the speed of the central university admissions system, the ability to accommodate the
current or expected user base, the ability to handle stress and the ability to perform within capacity.
For the testing of the system, the researcher used two different laptop machines as the servers. The
machines had the following specifications:

Table 1 Hardware specifications used in system testing

Server 1
A simple Dell laptop machine as server 1
4.00 GB RAM (3.90 GB usable)
Dual Core CPU @ 2.10 GHz
X64-based processor

Server 2
A simple laptop machine as server 2
1.00 GB RAM
Dual Core CPU @ 1.8GHz
X64-based processor

4.1.2.1 Statistics for the target environment

The proposed system will be run on the web, and accessible from anywhere regardless of
geographical location. According to the November 2014 A` Level results statistics provided by
ZIMSEC (Appendix-ZIMSEC statistics), on average about 38000 candidates sat for A Level
Examinations. The researcher therefore used this as the expected customer base with the assumption
that each and every student has a chance to apply for a place in one of the universities.
4.1.2.2 Performance Test
This was conducted to validate the speed, responsiveness and scalability characteristics of the
centralised university admissions system. The aim was on determining response times, throughput,
and resource utilization-levels that meet the performance objectives system. For carrying out the
performance tests, synchronous HTTP requests were run. The standard PHP function
file_get_contents was used to make synchronous requests on the system dashboard and a summary of
the results obtained from the system performance tests are summarized in the following table:
Table 2 System performance test results
Test Type

10 Requests

1000

20000

400000

100000

Requests

Requests

Requests

Requests

(Target
Speed

All successful

All

Load)
All

HTTP 200

successful

successful

successful

responses

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

responses

responses

responses, 3

99997

HTTP 503
resource
unavailable
responses.
Interpretation

All requests

Resource

Resource

Resource

turned around

demand did

demand also

demand

without a

not increase

did not

increased

timeout or

any

increase any

but also for

service

significantly

significantly

the IIS,

unavailable,

for the IIS,

for the IIS,

PHP or the

which means

PHP or

PHP or

MySQL

the speed of

MySQL

MySQL

software.

the system is

software.

software.

This was

within the

the

normal HTTP

probable

bounds i.e.

cause of the

600

two HTTP

milliseconds,

503 errors.

Microsoft
Appendix.
Scalability

Serve

All

All

All

r1

successful

successful

successful

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

Serve

responses
All

responses
All

responses
All

r2

successful

successful

successful

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

HTTP 200

responses
Requests for

responses
Resource

responses
Resource

both servers

demand also

demand also

turned

did not

did not

around

increase any

increase any

without a

significantly

significantly

timeout or

for both

for the IIS,

service

servers for

PHP or

unavailable.

the IIS, PHP

MySQL for

or MYSQL

both servers.

Interpretatio
n

software.

From the table above, the results of the speed test performed show that the system managed to sustain
over the time given, with only minimal lag experienced when the number of requests increased,
considering the fact that the actual recommended hardware is usually more powerful than the one
used shown in Table 4.1
For the hardware scalability test, two different machines with specifications shown in table 4.1 were
used to assess whether a change in hardware can affect the speed at which the system will perform

and as shown in the table, the application maintained its performance even when it was run on a
machine of lower hardware capability. All the requests for Server 2 proved successful and no
significant resource usage. The speed and the scalability of the system can therefore be considered to
be good from the results contained from the performance tests.
4.1.2.3 Additional Tests
These are tests which were conducted to determine other characteristics of the system which could not
be determined through the system performance tests. These factors had to be tested for in the system
to further determine its usability in its environment.
Table 3 Additional system tests
Test
Temper Free

Result
Good

Interpretation
Because the system is centrally
managed, individual universities
and faculties have no
manipulative control over who
they accept except those that
qualify by merit of that

Centralization

Very Good

universitys criteria.
Web Accessible and centrally

Non-redundant

Very Good

processing applications.
Because no one candidate can
receive a further offer after
having received one, it means
no candidate can receive two

Human-Resource
Minimal

Very Good

offers at any given time.

Except for the inputting of
criteria & preferences and also
setup data; the system will run
with very minimal human
intervention.

The test for the human-temper-free feature carried out on the system show that the selection outcome
from the centralised university admissions system cannot be manipulated or influenced by users since
the system is centrally managed which leaves universities and faculties with no control over who is
accepted. The system passed the test with a good score. The system also passed the test for the
centralization feature with a very good score due to its web accessibility. The other additional test

which was carried out on the system was the test for non-redundancy which the system passed with a
very good score as the test resulted in no applicant being allocated more than one university place. A
test was also carried out to assess whether the centralized university admissions system is human
resource minimal which the system passed with a good score because besides the setting of the
selection criteria, the system can carry out the selection process on its own with very little human
assistance.
4.1.3 Analysis of the questionnaires
The analysis and interpretation of the results yielded two sets of data that were also used to reach a
conclusion of this research thesis, in addition to the system tests carried out. These two sets of data are
non numerical and numerical data. Non-numerical data is the data that came as a result of the
questionnaires provided to the fifty applicants and fifteen faculty administration officers who took
part in the research. This non-numerical data was used to create the numerical data which was
represented in the form of frequency tables as will be shown in this chapter. The frequency tables
show the occurrences of certain responses, and these frequencies are the ones which were also used
for representing data in the form of percentage bar charts. The researcher collected data from 58
participants with 46 being potential applicants and the remaining 12 being the faculty admission
administrators. Two sets of questionnaires were used in the research with one set being for the
applicants and the other being for the faculty administrators. The evaluation of the usability of the
centralised application system was achieved through an analysis of the data obtained from these
questionnaires. The samples of the questionnaires are included in the index.
4.1.3.1 Analysis of the Applicant Questionnaire
The Applicant Questionnaire was used in this research for the purpose of gathering the users`,
particularly the applicants, perceptions on the usability of the centralised university admissions
system thereby imparting a basis of evaluating the system`s usability. This questionnaire includes
questions that focus on determining the applicants` views and opinions regarding the usability of the
centralised university admissions system and also related factors to the system.

QN I have prior experience with the use of internet

Figure 12 Prior experience with internet

Since the centralized university admissions system was designed as a web based system, the purpose
of this question was to assess whether the applicants have prior experience on the use of the internet
which is needed for them to be able to use the centralized university admissions system. As shown in
the table above, 91% of the sampled population showed to have prior experience with the use of the
internet which then means that most of the applicants will be able to use the system.
QN2 I have access to a device that can connect to the internet
The table and the figure below show the response of the applicants to the accessibility of a device that
can connect to the internet. This was meant to determine if the design of the CUA model as a web
based system can make it easily accessible. From the results shown, the majority of the respondents
have access to devices such as laptops and smart-phones that can connect to the internet hence making
the system easily accessible to.

Table 4 Access to device that connects to the internet

Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

Yes

40

87.0

87.0

87.0

No

13.0

13.0

100.0

Total

46

100.0

100.0

From the frequencies shown in the table above, it can be concluded that most applicants will be able
to access the system since it is web based thus widening its accessibility.
QN4 I found the centralised university admissions system reasonably easy to use
Table 5 I found the centralized system reasonably easy to use
Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

Strongly Agree

14

30.4

30.4

30.4

Agree

26

56.5

56.5

87.0

Disagree

8.7

8.7

95.7

4.3

4.3

100.0

46

100.0

100.0

Strongly
Disagree
Total

Figure 13 the centralised admission system is reasonably easy to use

In order to determine whether the design of the centralized admissions system enhanced ease of its
use, the researcher had to assess if the applicants found the system easy to use from the experience
they had with it. As shown in the tabulated statistics above, 30% of the applicants strongly agreed that
they found the CUA system relatively easy to use, with 57% also agreeing on the ease of use of the
system. However, 13% of the respondents did not agree to this, with 4% of this strongly disagreeing.
Responses on this question can conclude that the centralised university admissions system is quite
usable.

QN5 I found carrying out the application process easy

Figure 14 Carrying out the application process was easy

The statistics shown in the graph above show the outcome on the assessment of how the applicants
perceived carrying out the application process on the centralised university admissions system. A
majority of the respondents articulated that it was easy for them to carry out the application process
on the system. However, a marginal percentage of the respondents disagreed to having found carrying
out the application process on the system easy. A conclusion can therefore be drawn that the design of
the centralized application system enables the applicants to easily carry out the application process.
QN6 the centralised university admissions system is unnecessarily complex
This question aimed at weighing the users` perceptions on the complexity of the system. The pie chart
below indicates that only 8 respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the system was
unnecessarily complex. However, the remaining population disagreed and strongly disagreed that the
system was unnecessarily complex which implies that the mainstream of the respondents perceived
the system as composed of only the necessary features and functionalities. This is because the design

of the system was kept as simple as possible resulting in the conclusion which can be drawn from the
given responses that the system is simple.

Figure 15 the system is unnecessarily complex

QN7 The centralised admissions system is cost effective when applying to more than one
university.
From a total of 46, 4 respondents said that the centralised admissions system is not cost effective. The
main reason for such a view was in line with those applicants who will have to acquire devices that
connect to the internet so as to access the system which might be just as costly as the current way of
applying to more than one university. However, a significantly larger number said that the centralised
system will greatly reduce the costs associated with applying to more than one university. The table
below summarises the responses obtained for this question and from the responses obtained, it can be
concluded that the centralised system is cost effective due to the central point of application it offers.

Table 6 The centralised system is cost effective

Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

No

91.3

91.3

91.3

Yes

42

8.7

8.7

100.0

Total

46

100.0

100.0

QN8 The centralised admissions system will eliminate human errors and bias in the student
admissions process
Table 7 elimination of human errors and bias
Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

12

26.1

26.1

26.1

Agree

22

47.8

47.8

73.9

Disagree

10

21.7

21.7

95.7

4.3

4.3

100.0

46

100.0

100.0

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Disagree
Total

The table above shows the views of the applicants on the system`s ability to eliminate human errors
and bias in the admissions process. A total percentage of 26 and 48 were in agreement that the
centralised system will do eliminate human errors and bias, hence fair. A total percentage of 22 and 4
were however in disagreement to the view because they highlighted that the manual method is really
not biased. Since a significantly greater number of the population agreed that human error and bias
can be eliminated, it can therefore be concluded that the centralised system eliminates human error
and bias in the admission process.
4.1.3.2 Analysis of the Faculty Administrator`s Questionnaires
This questionnaire was designed for the assessment of the centralized admissions system by the
faculty administrators after using it. The questionnaire contains questions aimed at determining the
administrator`s perceptions on the usability of the system and also as a way of attesting other

properties of the system such as the redundancy elimination, reduction in the time taken to carry out
the selection process, reduction in the need for human mediation in carrying out the actual selection
process.
QN1 how good is the internet connectivity at your university
This was asked to determine whether some faculty administrators would not be able to access the
system due to limited or no internet connectivity at their universities. Out of the total responses, 3 and
7 people said that their internet connectivity was excellent and good respectively whereas 2 said that it
was poor. None said that they did not have connection at all. This implies that the design of the
centralized admissions system as a web based system enables easy access to its intended users as
shown by the greater portion of the people with internet connectivity. Below is a presentation of the
distribution of the responses given to the question:

Figure 16 Internet connectivity

QN2 do you have the ability to access the platform as and when required
This question was used as way to determine the accessibility of the system. An investigation was
made through the question as to whether the design of the centralized admissions system as a web
based application would enable faculty administrators to perform their tasks as and whenever required
through enhanced accessibility of the system. From the responses gathered, 83% said that they were
able to access the platform whereas the remaining 17% said that they were not able to access it as and
whenever required. This 17% was composed of those individuals who reflected that the internet

connectivity at their university was poor in the previous question. A conclusion can therefore be made
that the centralized application system is highly accessible since it is web based. The responses to this
question are shown in the pie chart below:

Figure 17 Ability to access platform

QN3 I found the centralized university admissions system reasonably easy to use
The faculty administrators were also asked whether they found the system reasonably easy to use in
which 25% of the respondents strongly agreed and 42% just agreeing to that. Some of those who
agreed highlighted that the design of the model was simple, consequently its ease of use. Another
25% of the respondents indicated that they did not find the system quite easy to use and the remaining
8% strongly disagreeing that they found the centralised admissions system reasonably easy to use.
Below are the presentations of the faculty administrators` responses to this question

Table 8 the centralised admission system is reasonably easy to use

Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

Strongly Agree

25.0

25.0

25.0

Agree

41.7

41.7

66.7

Disagree

25.0

25.0

91.7

Strongly Disagree 1

8.3

8.3

100.0

Total

100.0

100.0

12

Figure 18 Ease of use of the centralised system

QN6 I found performing the administrative tasks simple
The table below shows the responses given to this question. 9 of the respondents either strongly
agreed or agreed to having found the administrative tasks simple whereas the remaining 3 strongly
disagreed and disagreed to having found performing the tasks simple. Those who claimed not to have
found performing tasks simple highlighted that they had some challenges in the setting of the degrees
criteria in the system although they would eventually manage to do so.

Table 9 performing administrative tasks was simple

Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

Strongly Agree

16.7

16.7

16.7

Agree

58.3

58.3

75.0

Disagree

16.7

16.7

91.7

Strongly Disagree 1

8.3

8.3

100.0

Total

100.0

100.0

12

QN 7 Give an overall rating of the system in terms of its usability

As in the applicant questionnaire, the faculty administrators were asked to give their perception on the
centralized admission system basing on how usable it is. From the results obtained, 92% of the
respondents rated the system as excellent, very good and just good. The remaining 8% responded that
the system was poor, mainly due to the challenges they had faced in setting the degree criteria for
their faculties. This means that overall; the users appreciated the usability of the system. The
following graph gives a summary of the responses to the question:

Figure 19 Overall system rating

QN8 the centralised admission system is likely to result in the reduction in the admission
response time
The faculty administrator`s perceptions were sought on the speed of the centralized admission system
by asking them whether they see the likeliness of a reduction in the admission response time through
the system where the majority consisting of 83% of the respondents gladly agreeing that the
admission response time will be reduced, highlighting that manually going through applications
obviously takes much time and the remaining 17% disagreeing that the centralised admissions system
will reduce the response time taken in the candidate selection process. It can therefore be concluded
that the centralized admissions system reduces the time taken in the candidate selection process thus
the admission response time. A summary of the results is shown in the following table.

Table 10 the centralised admission system will reduce the admission response time
Cumulative

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent Percent

Yes

10

83.3

83.3

83.3

No

16.7

16.7

100.0

Total

12

100.0

100.0

QN9 the centralized university admissions system will result in a reduction in redundancies with
other universities
As shown in the graph below, 10 people responded in favour of the fact that the centralized university
admissions system will result in redundancies with other universities. Being given an opportunity to
use the system enabled the faculty administrator`s to really understand how the system would select
candidates for admission thus most of them acknowledging that the centralised system will reduce
redundancies. The remaining 2 respondents highlighted that the centralized system is not a way of
reducing redundancy but more of speeding up the selection process. This gives the basis to conclude
that the centralized admissions system reduces redundancies with other universities.

Figure 20 Reduction in redundancies

QN10 the centralised university admissions system will likely reduce human intervention in the
selection process
This question served as a way to assess the users` perception on the human-minimalism of the
centralized university admissions system so as to reach a conclusion whether the centralized
university admissions does not need a high level of human intervention in the carrying out of the
selection process. The results, shown below, indicate that 75% of the respondents were favouring that
the centralized university admissions system does reduce the need for human intervention in carrying
out the selection process. This distribution gives the conclusion that the centralized admissions system
reduces human intervention in the candidate selection process.

Figure 21 human intensity reduction

4.2 Chapter Summary
This chapter gave an analysis of the evaluation of the system which was done in two parts, the first
part being system performance tests and the other part being that of users` perceptions on the
effectiveness of the system. The results drawn from the performance tests conducted on the
centralized university admissions system earlier in this chapter showed the functionality of the system
in different scenarios. This was used to determine the usability of the system in its anticipated
environment.
The sample of results shown in the last part of this chapter analyses the users` perceptions on the
effectiveness and also properties of the system that could not be drawn from the system performance
tests conducted. From these research findings, a greater part of the population from the sampled data
attested to the technical usability and the effectiveness of the system. Also, a greater number of the
administrators who had the opportunity to use the system showed satisfaction on the system`s
effectiveness in eliminating redundant offers in the candidate selection process and also how it would
speed up the candidate selection process.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction
The researcher had two objectives that she intended to meet in the course of this research which were
to design a centralised university undergraduate admission system model using the stable matching
problem concept and to test the system model to evaluate the usability and the effectiveness of the
resulting design of the centralized undergraduate admission system. Basically, this chapter presents a
summary of the findings and the conclusions drawn from the research. Future works that can be
developed from this project are also recommended in this chapter.
5.1 Aims and objectives realisation
The aim of the project was to develop a centralized university undergraduate candidate selection
system that is capable of allocating university places to applicants in a fast, accurate and nonredundant manner. The researcher managed to come up with a centralised undergraduate university
admissions system which implements the stable matching concept. The system was evaluated using
system performance tests and from the results presented in the previous chapter, a conclusion can be
made that the system is technically usable. The effectiveness of the system was also determined
through user perceptions and the results of the analysis of the user perceptions were also presented in
the previous chapter. From those results, it can be concluded the centralised admissions system is
effective in eliminating redundancies in the undergraduate admissions process.
5.2 Future Work
As the future of this research, the centralised university admissions system should be improved so that
besides undergraduate admissions, other admission types such as postgraduate admissions can also be
accommodated in the centralised system. Also, applicants with special qualifications should also be
catered for, besides the A` Level qualifications.
Further development should also be done on the system so that it integrates with the registration
systems of the participating universities. In that way, the admission and registration to the respective
faculties can be done by a single system.

Works Cited
1)

A E. Roth 1982, 'The Economics of Matching: Stability and Incentives', Mathematics of

Operations Review, pp. 617-628.

2)

Abdulkadiroglu A 2005, 'College Admissions With Affirmative Action', International Journal

of Game Theory, vol 33, no. 4.

3)

Abdulkaroglu et al 2005, 'The Boston Public School Match', American Economic Review.

4)

Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tayfun Sonmez 2003, 'School Choice: A Mechanism Design

Approach', American Economic Review, vol 93, pp. 729-747.

5)

Biro et al 2010, 'The College Admissions Problem With Lower and Common Quotas',

Theoretical Computer Science, vol 411, no. 34, pp. 3136-3153.

6)

Braun, Kubler and Dwenger 2010, 'Telling the Truth May Not Pay Off: An Emperical Study

of the Centralised University Admissions in Germany', B.E Journal of Economics Analysis and
Policy.
7)

Denzin, N 2010, 'On Elephants and Gold Standards', Qualitative Research , vol 10, p. 269.

8)

Erickson et al 2005, 'Agile Modelling, Agile Software Development, and Extreme

Programming: The State of Research', Journal of Database Management, vol 16.

9)

Gale and Shapley 1962, 'College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage', American

Mathematical Monthly, vol 69, pp. 9-15.

10)

Glinz, M 2007, 'On Non-Functional Requirements', Requirements Engineering Conference, p.

21.
11)

Hasling et al 2008, 'Model Based Testing of System Requirements Using UML Use Case

Models', Software Testing, Verification & Validation.

12)

Kleinburg and Tardos 2006, 'Algorithm design', in Algorithm Design, Pearson Education,

Boston.
13)

Kojima, Pathak and Roth 2010, 'Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large

Markets', Quartely Journal of Economics.

14)

Peransin and Randlett 1997, 'The NRMP Matching Algorithm Revisited: Theory versus

Practice', Journal of the American Medical Association, pp. 729-732.

15)

Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., Hungler, B.P. 2004, Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods,

Appraisal, and Utilization, J.B Lippincott, Philadelphia.

16)

Roth 1984, 'The Evolution of the Labour Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case

Study in Game Theory', Journal of Political Economy, pp. 991-1016.

17)

Roth and Peranson 1999, 'The Redesign of the Market for American Physicians', Engineering

Aspects of Economic Design.

18)

Roth and Sotomayor 1990, 'Two Sided Matching: a Study in Game-Theoretic Modelling and

Analysis', in Two Sided Matching: a Study in Game-Theoretic Modelling and Analysis, Cambridge
University Press.
19)

Roth. A 2008, 'Deferred Acceptance Algorithms: History, Theory, Practice and Open

Questions', International Journal of Game Theory, pp. 537-569.

20)

Wilhelm et al 2006, 'Toward Trustworthy Software System', Computer, vol 39, no. 4.

APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
Your participation is kindly requested in our questionnaire on the university candidate selection
system. In this questionnaire you are kindly asked to respond to a few short questions regarding your
views on the system. Thank you so much for your valuable time and most of all your vital support and
honest perception.
SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION
Tick where appropriate
1. Gender:

male

female

2. Age range:

18-25

26-30

31-40

41and above

SECTION B: INTERNET EXPERIENCE

3. I have prior experience with the use of the internet: Yes

No

4. Do you have access to a device that can connect you to the internet?
Yes

No

5. Do you have the ability to access the platform from your area?
Yes

No

SECTION C: ANALYSIS OF THE USABILITY OF THE CENTRALIZED APPLICATION

SYSTEM
6. The centralised admission system is easy to use.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

7. Carrying out the application process was straightforward

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

8. I found the system unnecessarily complex

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

9. I had to be assisted through the application process on the system

Yes

No

10. There is a part of the process I could not complete due to the system`s infeasible requirements
Yes

No

11. Give an overall rating of the system in terms of its usability

Excellent

Very good

Good

Poor

SECTION D
12. The current admission process is subject to bias in the selection process.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

13. Automated admissions process is likely to eliminate bias in the selection process.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

14. Centralised application process is cost effective as compared to the current system when
applying to more than one university
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

15. Overall Comments on the centralised university admissions system:

..Signature

ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION A: INTERNET EXPERIENCE
1. How good is the internet connectivity at your university?
Excellent

Good

Poor

No Internet Connection

2. In your area, do you have the ability to access the platform as when it may be
required?
Yes

No

SECTION C: ANALYSIS OF THE USABILITY OF THE CENTRALIZED

APPLICATION SYSTEM
3. The centralised university admissions system is easy to use
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree

Strongly disagree

4. I found performing the administrative tasks quite simple

Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree

Strongly disagree

5. There is a part of the process I could not complete due to the system`s infeasible
requirements
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

6. Give an overall rating of the system in terms of its usability

Excellent
Very good
Good

Strongly disagree
Poor

SECTION D: PERCEPTIVE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

7. Centralizing the candidate selection process is likely to result in an increased
admission response time than the current manual method.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree

Strongly disagree

8. Centralizing the university candidate selection process is likely to result in reduced

redundancies with other universities.
Strongly agree
Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

9. Centralising the university candidate selection process has a positive impact on the
administration process at my university
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

10. To what extent does the issue of redundant offers with other universities affect the
administration of admissions at your university
To a greater extent

To a lesser extent

Effect insignificant

No effect at all

11. The centralised university admissions system is applicable to the selection criteria
used at my university.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

12. The centralised university admissions system is likely to reduce the need for human
intervention in the selection process.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

13. Overall Comments on the centralised university candidate admissions system

Signature

ZIMSEC STATISTICS
The tables below show an analysis of the released Zimsec November 2014 ALevel.
Number of candidates

Number of candidates

who wrote two or more

who passed two or more

subjects

subjects

School Candidates

30 614

25 291

82,61

Private Candidates

7 324

4 217

57,58

Gender

Percentage Pass Rate(%)

Number of Candidates

Number of Candidates

National Pass Rates

who wrote 2 or more

who passed 2 or more

subjects

subjects

School

13 139

11 387

86,67%

Private

3 126

1 889

60,42%

17 476

13 962

79,89%

4 199

2 342

55,77%

FEMALES

MALES
School

Private