FACULTY MOTIVATING FACTORS TO WORK

IN AIDED, SELF- FINANCED &

GOVERNMENT ENGINERING COLLEGES
AUTHOR : PROF. B.C. Thimmaiah – Professor ( Assistant ) – Moskovskaya Shkoloo Upraveleniya
Scolkovo , Novaya Ulitsa , 100, SCOLKOVO , MOSCOW OBLAST , RUSSIA ,143025

Abstract

Faculties are the most important INTERNAL CUSTOMERS in any educational institution.
Reputation of an institution is a prime factor to attract able and efficient faculty. Faculty also
consider other factors like infrastructures, opportunity for research, exposure to industry and
applying for patents, professional growth etc along with adequate compensation and benefits
while opting to work for an institution. In India there has been a proliferation of Engineering
colleges established and managed as Government colleges, Private Aided colleges, and Self-
Financed colleges, etc where in the above factors differ significantly. This paper focuses on the
work place motivating factors of faculty working in such institutions in Bengaluru, India. Based
on a survey and analysis of data it is concluded that 1.There is a significant variation on the
opinion of the faculties belonging to Aided, Self- Financed & Government institutions about the
factors of motivation to select their institutions and 2.There is no significant variations in the
opinion of the faculties of Aided and Self- Financed institutions about the factors of motivation
to select their institutions

Key Words: faculty motivation factors; owning patent; industry exposure; professional growth ;
research and development opportunities.
Introduction and literature review

Private bodies run about 70% colleges and 50% of Universities in India [I]. These private
institutions may be either run as Self-Financing or partly Government funded and the rest are
totally Government funded. The experience with providing self financing higher education is not
encouraging and a self regulatory mechanism is needed to ensure quality of education [II].
The teachers as a most important resource, in Indian institutions is grossly under utilised for
which academic performance of the institutions have declined [III ].
Developing a research culture at the undergraduate level will pay high dividends [IV, Page 4 of
177]. Institutions must be envisioned as Knowledge Enterprises, allow ideas to flourish, setup
ideation centres, Knowledge Incubators and Enterprise Hubs in Institutions [IV, Page 38 of 177].

Reputation of universities

Quality of research, quality of programs and success of graduates are regarded as the most
important aspects contributing to the reputation of a technical university. Ranking by the media
and continuing education programs are regarded as less important.

In the view of engineers and managers, contacts/collaboration with industry are among the most
important image forming factors for a university. Professors regard this aspect as less important.

Merits, awards (e.g. Nobel Prize) and publications by professors are much more important in the
view of professors than of engineers.

Performance-related criteria such as merits/awards for professors, ranking by the media,

publications by professors and success of graduates are regarded as more important in the USA
than in Europe. The reputations of partner universities are rated with average values between 4.2
and 4.9 on a scale of 1 to 6. Exceptions are Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
(ETHZ) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where ratings are higher than 5.

Professors and engineers rate their own universities above-average in each case. This particularly
applies to engineers in the United States. European professors and engineers (such as at Kungl
Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm -KTH and Rheinisch - Westfälische Technische Hochschule -
RWTH Aachen) rate their own universities rather modestly by comparison. (V Page 20 )
Though research is a very important component contributing to the reputation of a technical
university as seen above it is the normal experience in any college that as far as the faculty are
concerned whether their departments will be as interested in their teaching as in their research is
a moot point. [VI]. Candidates are told that teaching is important by the heads of departments or
department chairs which is very true.[VII].Hence the dilemma for the teachers is to balance
between the amount of research and teaching. It could well be that faculty members of the
twenty-first Century College or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as
teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments
[VIII].

The structure of the future university will ensure that the lines between education, research, and
services will be blurred [IX, X].

The faculty is often caught in the balancing act between research and teaching both as personal
preference and the management’s requirements. Resolving this dilemma is many times
frustrating and de-motivating for the faculty resulting in seeking alternative employment.

Filing of patents is another important parameter which influences the global ranking of
universities.

Filings by Worlds top Universities/Institutions, 2007. [XI]

Refer Table 1

No achievements are reported about the colleges selected for this study regarding owning patents
by their faculty.

Salaries and benefits: The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has prescribed
pay scales for all staff of engineering colleges based on the recommendations of the University
Grants Commission (UGC). But except Government and private Aided institutions most of the
rest are found to flout the norms. This is the biggest de-motivating factor for faculty.[XII]
Infrastructure: Many engineering colleges especially those established by private managements
called as self financing colleges have excellent infrastructure over and above the mandatory
compliance norms of the university where as the Government university college has only
minimum infrastructure and no extra amenities. For example the self financing colleges covered
in this study have excellent library, sports, canteen, health and other facilities as follows:

PES campuses are designed to support rigorous academic study and promote shared learning
among a diverse student community. Together, they comprise over 2 million square feet of built
up area and acres of generous, open grounds.

They endeavor to develop and provide supporting infrastructure everywhere. Outside the
classroom, secure hostels and modern cafeterias provide comfortable on-campus living, while
excellent sports and recreation facilities give every student the opportunity to fully explore and
develop their potential.[XIII]

RVCE: The college canteen is designed to cater to 1000 students & staff, it is spread over 500
square meters. The canteen has a modern kitchen where food is steam cooked. The washed
dishes are sterilized for hygienic serving. On campus they also have a Bakery shop called Café'
Coffee Day.

An on-campus banking facility is provided by Ing-Vysya bank. It is fully computerized and air
conditioned. It caters to the need of 4000 students and staff. The ATM facility is a boon to the
hostelites and faculty. The bank takes care of all the college transaction. It also provides EC
facility for parents and students to pay fees, hostel charges, mess bill, University fees etc.

The campus has Out Patient Department (OPD) facility which is open to all the students and staff
from 9 am to 4 pm. In addition there is an exclusive clinical facility for hostelities from 5 pm to 8
pm. The health records of all hostelites are maintained on a regular basis to keep track of their
health.
General amenities include canteen, transport, Post Office, Bank, Health Center) [XIV]
MSRIT: At MSRIT it is a centralized Air Conditioned hybrid library with the state of the art
technological applications. It holds knowledge resources predominantly related to Engineering,
Technology, Management and allied subjects. The Library collection comprises of 73097
Volumes of Books, 278 National & International printed journals and subscribes to 913 (Full
Text) major E-resources. In addition there are 2277 Bound volumes of journals [XV]
BIT: The BIT library came into existence in 1980. The college has a collection of about 49000+
volumes covering the principle fields of interest in engineering. The library has a good collection
of Project reports, rare Books, besides these, there are books for the preparation of GATE, GRE,
MAT, SAT, TOEFL Examinations. It has vast collection of audiovisual material in the CD
section. The library has collections of more than 60,000 documents and has access to more than
820 electronic journals. Besides printed books and journals, library collection contains CD
ROMs, online database and audio video materials, standards, specifications, project reports etc. 
The main emphasis of the B.I.T central library is on providing digital information support, which
is available through campus wise network. Library services contain 1.Reference Service

2. Circulation. 3. Periodical Section 4.Digital Library 5. Book Bank 

The B.I.T central library housed in two storied building with a carpet area of over 1228 Sq. m.
The library has institutional membership for leading libraries [XVI)

AIT: The library is housed in an independent building with an area of about 1298 sq m. with
three floors. There are five divisions in the library. They are lending, reference, periodical,
digital & PG library. It has a collection of 62000 volumes and 17000 titles covering all
disciplines in UG & PG courses. The library had a seating capacity for 255 students. The Ground
floor occupies stack section, circulation counter and Newspaper section. The PG Library has a
collection of 7100 volumes and 1803 titles. A fully furnished reading section is available;
accommodation has been made for eighty members. And a digital library has been maintained
with 12 systems in the first floor of the library. Recently an installation has been made for the
Tech focus digital library software of CD server, version 3. 02 & it is networked with 12
systems. The second floor is the reference section which is well equipped and furnished. It has a
capacity for 135 students.  Reference section has 17000 vols and 16000 titles, with latest
encyclopedia sets on nanotechnology, Chemistry, Computer Engineering & Science &
managements in India are unable to attract and retain able and efficient faculty due to variation in
the infrastructure, research facilities, opportunities for owning patents, professional growth,
exposure to industry etc

Electronics. Latest hand books have been added [XVII].)

BMSCE: BMSCE has a state of the art indoor sports stadium and an excellent library [XVIII]
PRESENT STUDY

Objective: To confirm the ground reality about the motivating factors to work as faculty in
engineering colleges by eliciting the opinion of faculty belonging to Aided, Self- Financed &
Government engineering colleges and to find out if they differ depending on the type of
managements.

Sample for the study: The data for the study was collected from the engineering colleges based in
Bengaluru, India. For the purpose of this study the faculty belonging to all cadres from the
defined set of colleges formed the population. The colleges were broadly classified on the basis
of their type of management viz Government, private Aided and Self- Financed. The percentage
of the selected colleges all within Bengaluru were, 100% Government college (Only one college)
and private Aided colleges (Only 2 colleges) and 10 percent of self financing colleges numbering
four which are the top four ranked self financing colleges as per Common Entrance Test (CET)
preferences of students for admissions into the Engineering Colleges within the state of
Karnataka in India.

Research Methodology: A survey instrument used in this study was a structured questionnaire
which was circulated and responses were collected from the faculty of the selected colleges.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)-Single Factor test at a significance level of 5% is used for
testing the hypothesis regarding the three types of colleges and t-Test: Two-Sample assuming
unequal variances for testing the hypothesis considering two types of colleges.

Sample response rate and characteristics:

Three hundred fifty questionnaires were distributed to the seven colleges for administering to
their faculty as sample respondents for this study and 324 filled up questionnaires were received
back. After elimination of received filled up questionnaires in which item responses were
missing the final sample consisted of 283 responses. The usable response rate of 87% based on
total number of respondents received the questionnaires is well above the range of research
studies in social science.

Hypothesis:
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant variation on the opinion of the faculties belonging to
Aided, Self- Financed & university institutions about the factors of motivation to select their
institutions.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant variation on the opinion of the faculties

belonging to Aided, Self- Financed & university institutions about the factors of motivation to
select their institutions.

Significance level (%): 5

The Data for testing the above hypothesis are:

  No. of Faculties

Parameters of Motivation Self-

Aided University
to select the institution Financed

a) Quality of students 55 72 14

b) Research focus 32 58 6

c) Opportunity for exposure 51 70 10

d) Reputation of institution 83 74 15

e) Opportunity for growth 49 76 18

f) Infrastructure 33 44 2

g) Backing for research 21 34 0

h) Opportunity for applying to patents 5 25 1

i) Compensation & benefits 11 21 1

Total 340 474 67

(Multiples responses by faculties)

ANOVA: Single Factor

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Aided 9 340 37.78 596.44

 Self- Financed 9 474 52.67 486.75
University 9 67 7.44 48.53

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 9561 2 4780 12.67 0.00 3.40

Within Groups 9054 24 377.2
Total 18614 26        

Test interpretation: As the computed p-value is lower than the significance level alpha=0.05 (as
also the calculated value of F (12.67) is greater than the critical value (3.40), we reject the null
hypothesis.

Conclusion: Since the null hypothesis is rejected, we may conclude that there is a significant
variation on the opinion of the faculties belonging to Aided, Self- Financed & university
institutions about the factors of motivation to select their institutions.

Further study is carried out to check whether the opinions of the faculties on the above factors of
motivation to select their institution in Aided and Self- Financed institutions are the same with
respect to the parameters set. (Here, the university institution is purposefully left out because of
its small size when compared to the other two types of institutions).

The hypothesis of no difference between the faculties of the two types of institutions is as
follows:

Null Hypothesis 1.1: The faculties of Aided institutions do not show higher variations in their
opinions than those of Self- Financed institutions with regard to the factors of motivation to
select their institutions.

Alternative Hypothesis: The faculties of Aided institutions show higher variations in their
opinions than those of Self- Financed institutions with regard to the factors of motivation to
select their institutions.
The data for testing are as under:

Parameters of Motivation Self-

Aided
to select the institution Financed

a) Quality of students 55 72

b) Research focus 32 58

c) Opportunity for exposure 51 70

d) Reputation of institution 83 74

e) Opportunity for growth 49 76

f) Infrastructure 33 44

g) Backing for research 21 34

h) Opportunity for applying to patents 5 25

i) Compensation & benefits 11 21

 Total 340 474

(Multiples responses by faculties)

Test Results:

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Self
  Aided
Financed

Mean 37.78 52.67

Variance 596.44 486.75
 Observations 9 9
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 16
t Stat -1.36
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.10
t Critical one-tail 1.75
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.19
t Critical two-tail 2.12  

Test Result: As the mod of computed t-value (1.36) is lesser than the critical value (1.75), we
accept the null hypothesis H0.

Conclusion: Since the null hypothesis is accepted, we may conclude that the faculties of Aided
institutions do not show higher variations in their opinions than those of Self- Financed
institutions with regard to the factors of motivation to select their institutions.

. Or in other words, there is no significant variation in the opinion of the faculties of Aided and
Self- Financed institutions on the factors of motivation to select their institutions.

References:

[I] The Hindustan Times,"Private colleges to be eligible for govt grants."  HT Media Ltd.
2008. HighBeam Research<Accessed on.18 Oct. 2009> available at
<http://www.highbeam.com>.

[II] Hindustan Times. HT Media Ltd. 2008, "HIGHER EDUCATION SCENARIO," The

HighBeam Research. <Accessed on17 Oct. 2009> available at<http://www.highbeam.com>.

[III] Economic Times, 2006, New Delhi, India, "Fee can't be the same in private, Aided colleges,
says Plan panel", available at McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. HighBeam
Research. <Accessed on17 Oct. 2009> available at <http://www.highbeam.com>).
[IV] FICCI , Bridging the Skill Gap, Industry – Academia Convergence: The Interactive
Roundtable, Delhi,(November 23, 2006).
[V] Christian Bodmer, Andrea Leu,Lukas Mira and Heinz Rütter ,SPINE Successful Practices in
International Engineering Education final report (2002),

[VI] Kennedy, D., Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, (1997).

[VII]Kennedy, ibid, p. 96

[VIII] Katz, RN, et. al., Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New
Competition in Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, p.7, (1999)

[IX]Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University, Harvard University Press (1964).

[X].Erich Jantsch, Policy Sciences 1,403 (1970).

[XI] http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/wipo_pub_931.html, <Accessed

on19/10/2009>

[XII] http://www.aicte.ernet.in <accessed on 30/10/09>

[XIII] http://www.pes.edu/menu/infrastructure.aspx <accessed on 30/10/09>

[XIV] Center(http://www.rvce.edu.in/amenities.php <accessed on 30/10/09)>

[XV] (http://www.msrit.edu/node/678 <accessed on 30/10/09)>.

[XVI] ( http://www.bit-bangalore.org/library.php)

[XVII]. ( http://www.dr-ait.org/facilities.htm

[XVIII] http://www.bmsce.ac.in/sports/

Table 1

University No of patents filed

Sl
No

1. CALIFORNIA (US) 345

2. MIT (US) 189

3. TEXAS SYSTEM (US) 158

4. COLUMBIA (US) 130

5. FLORIDA (US) 118

6. HARVARD (US) 109

7. PENNSYLVANIA (US) 99

8. WISCONSIN (US) 89

9. STANFORD (US) 83

10. CALIF. INST. OF TECH. 82

(US)
 11. JOHNS HOPKINS (US) 81

12. TOKYO (JP) 71

Table 2

Sl No Name of College No of Respondents

Aided Colleges
01 BMS College of Engineering (BMSCE) 64

02 Ambedkar Institute of Technology (AIT) 58

Self financing colleges

03 PES Institute of Technology (PESIT) 47

04 MSR Institute of Technology (MSRIT) 32

05 Bangalore Institute of Technology (BIT) 21

06 RVCollege of Engineering (RVCE) 27

Government college
 07 UV College of Engineering (UVCE) 34

283
TOTAL