Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

2nd Annual International Conference on Accounting and Finance (AF 2012)

Students’ Expectation, Perception and Satisfaction towards the

Management Educational Institutions

Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindrana , Mrs.Kalpana Mb

a
Professor, PSG Institute of Management, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641004, Tamilnadu, India
b
Assistant professor, Dept. of Humanities, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641004, Tamilnadu, India

Abstract

This study assesses management education students’ expectation, perception and satisfaction of services experienced
across four categories of institutions in Coimbatore. Institution quality factors were captured using structured
questionnaire across six dimensions namely, location, academics, infrastructure, image, cost and personnel and overall
satisfaction. A significant difference was found between the perception of students across four categories of institutions in
all six dimensions of institution quality factors. All five factors except cost significantly influence the overall satisfaction
of students towards the institution.

©
© 2012
2012The
TheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. Selection
by Elsevier Ltd. and/or peer-review under responsibility of Global Science
and Technology
Selection Forum
and/or Open access
peer-review underresponsibility
under CC BY-NC-NDof license.
Global Science and Technology Forum Pte Ltd
Keywords: expectation; perception; management education, students’ satisfaction, institution quality.

1. Main Text
Customer satisfaction has been considered as a central issue in the marketing literature (Churchill and
Suprenant, 1982). Crosby (1991) maintains that providing a high level of quality lowers costs and retains
satisfied customers, and ultimately generates higher profit margins for an organisation. Past research studies
(Parasuraman et al., 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992) has shown the importance of understanding what the
customer expects which will help the organisation to achieve the first step in delivering service quality and
satisfaction. Now, more than ever, higher education institutions have embraced the marketing concept and the
idea of the student as consumer, the customer who is involved in the purchase of higher education programs
and services (Kotler and Levy 1969). Today’s students search for institutions that will provide them with
unique, memorable, and personal educational experiences. Also, he/she is a customer, seeking an educational
program that will prepare him/her for a successful career and gainful employment.
In an educational institution, students are the main customer of the organization (IWA, 2007; Sakthivel et
al., 2005; Hill, 1995; Zairi, 1995). Students’ satisfaction should always be considered by the institutions due

2212-5671 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Global Science and Technology Forum
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00102-5
402 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

to intensive competition among institutions, internationalization spirit, higher expectation of customer

towards higher educational institution, an increase in the tuition fee, and the classification of education as a
marketable service (Kwek et al., 2010). Letcher and Neves (2010) reported that “student satisfaction helps to
build self-confidence, and that self-confidence helps students develop useful skills, and acquire knowledge”.
Based on the previous explanation, it is important to discuss about factors which determine students’
satisfaction. This study concentrates on understanding the students’ expectation, perception and satisfaction
towards the services offered by management education institutions.

2. Objectives of the Study

x To study the difference between the expected and perceived institution quality factors of respondents
among four categories of institution
x To analyse the relationship between the institution quality factors and overall students’ satisfaction
towards the institution.

3. Literature Review

In combining the studies of various determinants of the overall students’ perceived service quality that
have been identified the four independent variables adopted by Sohail and Shaikh (2004), Joseph, et.al (2005)
and Kennington, Hill and Rakowska (1996) are (1) contact personnel; (2) physical facilities of the tertiary
institution; (3) access to facilities; and (4) cost of courses offered. Mario Rapso Helena Alves (1998), stated
that the service expectations are formed around three main areas a) Learning & Career b) Reputation &
facilities of the Universities, c) Availability & sympathy of the staff. Cook and Zallocco (1983), opines that
specifically, a prospective student comes to know about a higher education institution and forms expectations
about the quality of service he should receive from the institution, from others who have attended or attending
the institution, parents, friends, relatives etc. Other sources of information such as institutional advertisements
and Universities guides will also impact on Universities choice of students.
Hooley and Lynch (1981) examined the choice processes of prospective students of UK and found that
course suitability, Universities location, academic reputation, distance from home, type of Universities
(modern/old), and advice from parents and teachers, as a determining factor in their preference for a particular
Universities. Sevier’s (1993) and McDonnell’s (1995) study on choice of college by African-Americans found
that the choice of college was influenced by reputation of college, availability of financial aid, total cost of
attending, job placement record, quality of faculty, geographic location and number of students.
From the research studies (Sevier, 1993; McDonnell; 1995, Mazzarol, (1998, Soutar, and Mcneil, 1996;
and Lin, 1997) it can be deduced that faculty reputation, institution’s reputation, academic environment, size
of school, employment after graduation, specific academic programs, financial aid availability, student
population and social atmosphere, geographical location and quality of faculty were the overriding factors that
affect undergraduates’ decision to enroll in a higher learning institution. (Bitner, 1990) asserts that the
physical facilities do influence the overall students’ perceived service quality because students will associate
various tangible elements with the services provided by the higher education institution. Ford, et. al. (1999),
stated that reasonable cost of education influences the overall students’ perceived service quality. In addition,
the provision of financial services such as scholarship is indicated as one of the important determinants of the
overall students’ perceived service quality (Hill, 1995). The human interaction component will affect the
customer’s evaluation process in evaluating the perceived service quality (Bitner, 1990). One of the human
interaction components in this research includes the contact personnel. (Sohail and Shaikh, 2004) tested
 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410 403

contact personnel as one of the independent variables for the overall students’ perceived service quality,
which includes courtesy, politeness and respect shown by the administrators; courtesy, attention and empathy
shown by the lecturers; neatness and cleanliness of the lecturers; competencies of the faculty to perform their
duties properly; and maintenance of records by the administrators.
Considering the discussion above it is essential to analyse the six institution quality factors which influence
the overall satisfaction of students’ towards the educational institution.

4. Methodology

Descriptive study using primary data was considered appropriate for this study. A structured questionnaire
was used to collect the data. The questionnaire has been divided into two parts - the first part captures the
demographic characteristics of the respondents and the second captured the expectation and perception of
institution quality factors and the satisfaction of students.
The items that capture each part were partly developed by the researcher and partly adopted from
standardized questionnaires used by earlier researchers (Parasuramman, Zeithammal and Berry 1991, Cronin
& Taylor, 1992, Bitner, 1990, Sahney et.al, 2006, Garvin,1984, Scrabec, 2000). However, they were subjected
to validity and reliability tests. Thus, the items and factors under study were finalised by the researcher.
The study was conducted in Coimbatore city. Proportionate Stratified random sampling technique was
used to choose the respondents across four categories of management educational institutions namely
Standalone, Technical, arts and science and Universities type of institutions.
Using Power Analysis (G Power 3 software), the sample size was calculated as 135. The researcher
distributed 500 questionnaires and was able to collect total of 304 filled in questionnaires from the
respondents. The sample frame comprised of 3580 students from 68 institutions offering management
programme in Coimbatore.
The sample for the study comprise of respondents from management educational institutions among four
categories, as Standalone 13 institutions, 71 respondents, Technical 19 institutions, 107 respondents, Arts and
Science 11 institutions, 85 respondents, and from 6 Universities, 41 respondents. Finally the total numbers of
respondents were 304 from 49 institutions. This list was filtered from the total number of institutions which
offer management education to contain educational institutions having more than 3 years of establishment as
in the beginning of the academic year 2010 -11.

5. Analysis and Findings

The demographic profile indicates that majority of the respondents 55% are male and 89% of the
respondents belong to the age group of 20-23 years. Majority of the respondents 38%are from arts
disciplines and 25% are from engineering. 47% of the respondents’ family monthly income is Rs, 50,000 to
Rs. 1,00,000 and 37% of the respondents’ family monthly income is below Rs. 50,000.

The alpha scores of reliability reported in Table 1, indicate a good conformity of items to each
dimension.
404 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the dimensions

Expectation Perception
Dimensions No. of Cronbach's Dimensions No. of Cronbach'
items alpha items s alpha
Location 4 0.7354 Location 4 0.8254
Academics 14 0.8756 Academics 14 0.7976
Image 6 0.7374 Image 6 0.7341
Infrastructure 6 0.7688 Infrastructure 6 0.6548
Cost 4 0.6900 Cost 4 0.7687
Personnel 13 0.9240 Personnel 13 0.8386

5.1 Gap in Standalone institutions towards institution quality factors

Independent sample t-test was used to determine if there was any significant difference between
expectation and perception towards institution quality factors for all the four categories of institutions such as
Standalone, Technical, arts and science and Universities. In this regard, the following hypotheses H1, H2, H3
and H4 are to be tested.

H1: There is no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents of
Standalone institutions with respect to institution quality factors such as
H1a: location;
H1b: academics;
H1c: image;
H1d: infrastructure;
H1e: cost and
H1f: personnel.
Table 2 Gap in Standalone institution towards institution quality factors

Sig
t
Institution quality Std. Std. (2
N Mean statist
factors Dev Error tailed
ics
)
E 71 3.29 .756 .063 1.870
Location .063
P 71 3.12 .766 .064
E 71 3.79 .836 .070
Academics 1.359 .152
P 71 3.51 .635 .053
E 71 3.63 .818 068
Image 2.680 .008
P 71 3.08 .760 .063
E 71 3.79 .854 .071
Infrastructure 1.711 .652
P 71 3.63 .810 .068
E 71 3.13 .839 .070
Cost 1.102 .073
P 71 3.03 .872 .073
E 71 3.61 .806 .067
Personnel 1.732 .084
P 71 3.59 .678 .056

From Table 2, it can be interpreted that the respondents of Standalone institutions are satisfied with all
institution quality factors except the factor ‘Image’. This is evident from the fact that t-statistics is
insignificant (t= < 1.96 Sig >.05) for all institution quality factors except for the factor ‘Image’ which means
that there is no significant difference between the expected mean scores and perceived mean scores of
 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410 405

respondents with respect to the factors location, academics, infrastructure, cost and personnel. Hence, the
hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1d, H1e and H1f are accepted. Further the t-statistics for the factor ‘image’ is found
to be significant (t =2.680, sig =.008). Therefore, H1c is rejected which states there is significant difference
between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the factors ‘image. Therefore, the
gap between expected and perceived scores is insignificant for majority of the institution quality factors with
respect to Standalone institution.

5.2 Gap in Technical institution towards institution quality factors

H2: There is no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents of
Technical institutions with respect to institution quality factors such as
H2a: location;
H2b: academics;
H2c: image;
H2d: infrastructure;
H2e: cost and
H2f: personnel.
Table 3: Gap in Technical institution towards institution quality factors

t Sig
Institution quality Std. Std.
N Mean statist (2
factors Dev Error
ics tail)
E 107 3.28 .774 .052 1.384
Location .078
P 107 3.11 .735 .050
E 107 3.66 .820 .056
Academics 1.793 .245
P 107 3.52 .606 .041
E 107 3.42 .863 .059
Image 1.250 .108
P 107 3.37 .732 .050
E 107 3.66 .875 .059
Infrastructure 6.079 .000
P 107 3.17 .775 .053
E 107 3.26 .797 .054
Cost 4.876 .002
P 107 3.64 .718 .046
E 107 3.62 .812 .055
Personnel 1.524 .062
P 107 3.53 .669 .045

From Table 3, it can be interpreted that the respondents of Technical institutions are satisfied with all
institution quality factors except for the factors ‘infrastructure’ and ‘cost’. This is evident from the fact that t-
statistics is insignificant (t= < 1.96 Sig >.05) for all institution quality factors except for the factors
‘infrastructure’ and ‘cost’ which means that there is no significant difference between the expected mean
scores and perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the factors location, academics, image and
personnel.

Hence the hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c and H2f are accepted. Further the t-statistics for the factors
‘infrastructure’ and ‘cost’ is found to be significant (t =6.079 and t=4.876 respectively). Therefore
hypotheses H2d and H2e ae rejected which states there is significant difference between expected and
perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the factors ‘infrastructure’ and ‘cost’. Therefore, the
gap between expected and perceived scores is insignificant for majority of the institution quality factors in the
Technical institution.
406 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

5.3 Gap in Arts and Science institutions towards institution quality factors

H3: There is no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents of Arts and
Science institutions with respect to institution quality factors such as
H3a: location;
H3b: academics;
H3c: image;
H3d: infrastructure;
H3e: cost and
H3f: personnel.

Table 4 Gap in Arts and Science institution towards institution quality factors
Sig
t
Institution quality Std. Std. (2
N Mean statist
factors Dev Error tailed
ics
)
E 85 3.22 .721 .055 1.563
Location .119
P 85 3.10 .752 .057
E 85 2.77 .784 .060
Academics 5.024 .000
P 85 2.37 .695 .053
E 85 2.69 .804 .061
Image 4.089 .000
P 85 2.32 .831 .063
E 85 3.74 .858 .065
Infras tructure 6.446 .000
P 85 3.16 .812 .062
E 85 2.95 .874 .067
Cost 1.234 .153
P 85 2.84 .863 .052
E 85 2.74 .770 .059
Personnel 6.540 .000
P 85 2.20 .745 .057

From Table 4, it can be interpreted that the respondents of Arts and Science institutions are not much
satisfied with majority of the institution quality factors except the factors ‘location’ and ‘cost’. This is evident
from the fact that t-statistics is significant (t= > 1.96 Sig <.05) for the most of the institutional quality factors
which means that there is significant difference between the expected mean scores and perceived mean scores
of respondents with respect to the factors academics, image, infrastructure and personnel. Hence the
hypotheses H3b, H3c, H3d and H3f are rejected. Further the t-statistics for the factors ‘location’ and ‘cost’ is
found to be insignificant (t <1.96). Therefore, hypotheses H3a and H3e are accepted which states that there is
no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the
factors ‘location’ and ‘cost’. Therefore, the gap between expected and perceived scores is significant for
majority of the institution quality in the Arts and Science institutions.

5.4 Gap in Universities towards institution quality factors

H4: There is no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents of
Universities with respect to the institution selection factors such as
H4a: location;
H4b: academics;
H4c: image;
H4d: infrastructure;
H4e: cost and
H4f: personnel.
 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410 407

Table 5 Gap in Universities towards institution quality factors

Std. t Sig
Institution quality Std.
N Mean Erro statist (2
factors Dev
r ics tailed)

E 41 3.34 .668 .073 3.374

Location .001
P 41 3.02 .749 .082
E 41 3.89 .726 .080
Academics 1.559 .312
P 41 3.70 .646 .071
E 41 3.75 .695 .076
Image 1.474 .171
P 41 3.65 .763 .084
E 41 3.82 .789 .087
Infrastructure 5.017 .000
P 41 3.21 .762 .084
E 41 2.71 .890 .098
Cost 1.321 .125
P 41 2.52 .862 .081
E 41 3.84 .753 .083
Personnel 5.561 .000
P 41 3.19 .735 .081

From Table 5, it can be interpreted that the respondents of Universities are not much satisfied with the
institution quality factors except the factors ‘location’, ‘infrastructure’ and ‘personnel’. This is evident from
the fact that t-statistics is significant (t= > 1.96 Sig <.05) for these factors which means that there is significant
difference between the expected mean scores and perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the
factors ‘location’, ‘infrastructure’ and ‘personnel’. Hence the hypotheses H4a, H4d and H4f are rejected.
Further, the t-statistics for the factors ‘academics’, ‘image’ and ‘cost’ is found to be insignificant (t <1.96).
Therefore hypotheses H4b, H4c and H4e are accepted which states there is no significant difference between
expected and perceived mean scores of respondents with respect to the factors ‘academics’, ‘image’ and
‘cost’. Therefore, the gap between expected and perceived scores is significant for some of the institution
quality factors in the universities.

5.5 Gap in overall institution quality among various categories of institutions

Independent sample t-test was used to determine if there is any significant difference between expectation
and perception with respect to overall institution quality factors among four categories of institutions and the
results are presented in Table 6. The following hypotheses need to be empirically tested for this purpose.

H5: There is no significant difference between expected and perceived mean scores of respondents with
respect to overall institution quality factors among four categories of institution such as
H5a: Standalone;
H5b: Technical;
H5c: Arts and Science and
H5d: Universities.
408 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

Table 6 Gap in overall institution quality factors among four categories of institutions
Sig
Institution Std. Std. t (2
N Mean
Category Dev Error statistics tailed
)
E 71 3.54 .619 .052 1.107
Standalone .812
P 71 3.44 .602 .050
E 107 3.46 .627 .042 1.779
Technical .121
P 107 3.38 .549 .037
Arts and E 85 3.52 .570 .043 5.178
.000
Science P 85 3.18 .623 .047
E 41 3.56 .524 .057 11.794
Universities .000
P 41 2.64 .471 .052

It can be interpreted from Table 6, that there exists no significant difference between expected and
perceived mean scores of respondents in Standalone institutions and Technical institutions. The t-statistics for
Standalone institutions and Technical institutions is insignificant (t=1.107 and t=1.779 respectively). Hence
hypothesis H5a and H5b is accepted. Therefore, satisfaction with respect to institution quality factors among
respondents of Standalone and Technical institution is good. The t-statistics for Arts and Science institutions
and Universities with respect to institution quality factors is significant (t=5.178 and t=11.794 respectively).
Hence, there is significant difference between expected and perceived mean score values of respondents in
Arts and Science institutions and Universities. Therefore, satisfaction level of respondents of Arts and
Science institutions and Universities with regard to overall institution quality factors is relatively low. Hence
hypotheses H5c and H5d are rejected.

5.6 Relationship between institution quality factors and overall satisfaction

The core function of every service is to satisfy the customer who consumes it. There is evidence to suggest
that service quality leads to customer satisfaction and helps to keep existing customers and attract new ones
(Arambewela and Hall, 2009). Customer satisfaction is based on the perceptions and expectations of
customers about quality of facilities available at the institution (Ekinci, 2004; Christou and Sigala, 2002).
While looking at the causes of satisfaction it has been noticed that satisfaction is a result of quality service
(Bolton and Drew, 1991). Spreng and Mackoy (1996) also found that customer satisfaction is the result of
service quality. Thus, a proper understanding of the antecedents and determinants of customer satisfaction can
be seen as to have an extraordinarily high monetary value for service organization in a competitive
environment (Lassar et al., 2000). Based on the theoretical perspectives mentioned above, the relationship
between institution quality factors and overall satisfaction is analysed and presented in Table 7. In this
context, the following hypothesis has to be empirically tested.

H6: There is no significant relationship between institution quality factors and overall satisfaction.
 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410 409

Table 7 Relationship between institution quality factors and overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction
Sl Pearson correlation Sig. (2-
Institution quality factors Coefficient ‘r’ tailed)
No.
1 Location .261* .024
2 Academics .745** .000
3 Image .476** .000
4 Infrastructure .627** .000
5 Cost -.500** .000
6 Personnel .684** .000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

From Table 7, it can be interpreted that all institution quality factors have significant relationship with
overall satisfaction towards the institution. Therefore, hypothesis H6 is rejected.

The major finding in this study is that institution quality factors leads to overall satisfaction of the
respondents. The results are in line with (Bitner 1990, Sudharani et al, 2011) who found that service quality is
an antecedent of customer satisfaction. Further, Veloutsou et al., (2004) found that students use quality as the
prime criteria to select the institutes for admission and education.

6. Conclusion

The study explains various factors such as location, academics, image, infrastructure, cost and personnel as
a measure of institutional quality. Practically, the findings of this study offer implications for administrators,
policy makers and educationalist to frame suitable strategies to attract student customers. The priority of
policy makers is at the transaction level of institutional quality and they must try to improve the institutional
quality attributes. Berry and Parasuraman (1991) noted that “Service quality is the foundation of service
marketing”. All these quality attributes are under the control of the educational administrators. Thus, at the
transactional level, institutional quality is the most important for education administrators to concentrate on.

References

Arambewela, R. and Hall, J. (2009) "An empirical model of international student satisfaction", Asian Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol.21 No.4, pp.555-569.
Berry and Parasuraman, Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality (New York: The Free Press), 1991.
Bitner, M. J., 1990, Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses, Journal of Marketing,
54(2), 69-82.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991). A multistage model of customer’s assessment of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(4), 365-84.
Christou, E. and Sigala, M. (2002), Conceptualizing the measurement of service quality and TQM performance for hotels: the
HOSTQUAL model. Acta Touristica, 14(2),140-169.
Churchill, O. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982), “An investigation into the detetminants of customer satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 19(4),491-504
Cook R. W., & Zallocco. R. L (1983), Predicting Universities preference and attendance: applied marketing in higher education
410 Dr. Sudharani.D. Ravindran and Mrs. Kalpana M / Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 401 – 410

Administration, Research in Higher Education, Vol.19, Issue 2, 197 – 211.Hooley, G. J. & Lynch, J. E. 1981, 'Modelling the Student
Universities Choice Process Through the Use of Conjoint Measurement Techniques', European Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 158.
Cronin, J.,& Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Crosby, L. (1991). Expanding the role ofCSM in total quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 2(2),5-19
Ekinci, Y. (2004), An investigation of the determinants of customer satisfaction. Tourism Analysis, 8,197-203.
Ford, J.B., Joseph, M., Joseph, B. (1999). Importance-performance analysis as a strategic tool for service marketers: the case of service
quality perceptions of business students in New Zealand and the USA. The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.13, No.2, pp.171-186.
Garvin, David (1984), ‘What Does Quality Really Mean?’, Sloan Management Review, Vol.26, Issue no.4 Pg.23
Hill, F. M (1995). “Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of Students as Primary Consumer”, Quality Assurance in
Education, 3(3), 10-21.
IWA 2:2007, International Standard, Quality management systems - Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2000 in education.
Joseph, M., Yakhou, M. and Stone, G. (2005). An educational institution’s quest for service quality: customers’ perspective. Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol.13, No.1, pp.66-82.
Kennington, C., Hill, J., and Rakowska, A. (1996). ‘Consumer selection criteria for banks in Poland’, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol.14, No.4, pp.12-21.
Kotler, P. & Levy J. Sydney (1969), “Broadening the concept of Marketing”’ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13, January, pp. 19-25.
Kwek, Choon Ling et al. (2010). The ‘Inside-out’ and ‘Outside-in’ Approaches on Students’ Perceived Service Quality: An Empirical
Evaluation. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2), 01-26.
Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). Service quality perspectives and satisfaction in private banking, Journal of Service
Marketing, 14 (3), 244-271.
Letcher, D.W. and Neves J.S. (2010). Determinant of undergraduate business student satisfaction. Research in Higher Education Journal,
1-26.
Lin, J.G., & Yi, J.K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Student Journal,
December 1997, Vol.31 Issue 4.
Mario Rapso Helena Alves (1998), Marketing higher education: students expectations, Econ papers
Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol.12, No.4, pp.163-175.
McDonnell, M. (1995). Things to consider when evaluating college. Received March 2002.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/mm/cc/info/choosing/eval.html
Nandi, D.K (2010), ‘Aspiring Management Students’ Expectations from B-Schools: An Empirical Analysis’, The FedUni Journal of
Higher Education, Pg.7-19 vol. Issue
Navarro M. M., Iglesias M. P. & Torres P. R. (2005), A new management element of universities: satisfaction with the courses offered.
International Journal of Education Management, 19(6), 505-526
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1990), Delivering Quality Service, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml, (1991)"Understanding Customer Expectations of Service," Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.
39-48.
Quentin Scrabec (2000), ‘A Quality Education is not Customer Driven’, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 17 Issue.no.3 May-
June Pg.298-300
Sakthivel, P.B. et al. (2005). TQM Implementation and Students Satisfaction of Academic Performance. The TQM Magazine , 17(6),
573-589
Sangeeta Sahney, D.K., Banwet., and Karunes, S (2006) ‘An Integrated Framework for Quality in Education: Application of Quality
Function Deployment’, Interpretive Structural Modelling and Path Analysis, Total Quality Management, Vol.17, Issue 2, pp.265-285
Sevier , R . ( 1993 ) ‘ Image is everything ’ , College and Universities Winter, 60 – 75 .
Sohail, M.S. and Shaikh, N.M. (2004). Quest for excellent in business education: a study of student impressions of service quality. The
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.18, No.1, pp.58-65.
Soutar, G. & McNeil, M. (1996). measuring service quality in a tertiary institution. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), 72-82.
Spreng, R. A. & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction, Journal of
Retailing, 72(2), 52-64
Sudharani Ravindran D., M. Kalpana., K. Ramya. (2011). ‘Impact of service quality on Students’ satisfaction’, Asian Journal of Research
in Social Science & Humanities, Vol.1, No.4, pp.480 -495.
Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W. & Paton, R. A. 2004, 'Universities selection: information requirements and importance', The International
Journal of Educational Management, vol. 18, no. 2/3, pp. 160- 171.
Zairi, M. (1995). Total quality education for superior performance. Training for Quality, 3(1), 29-35