Comparison of Private Universities in India based on NIRF Ranking and Fee Charging Strategies

Abstract

The need of additional universities in Indian higher education system to provide higher education to all eligible population of the country and the success of private university model in the USA tempted the Indian government to give permission to establish Private Universities in the country. Accordingly, based on section 22 of UGC act, the Indian government has allowed the state governments to establish private universities in the respective states. Presently there are 264 private universities in the country spread over 22 states. Due to non-availability of any financial support from the state and central governments, private universities are trying to sustain through their only strategy of service differentiation through 21st century curriculum and industry integrated programme design. In this paper, we have studied and compared some of the private universities in India in terms of their infrastructure, faculties, variety of courses, and fee structure of identified courses. We have also studied the performance scores given by NIRF, MHRD, Govt. of India for various criterions like Teaching, Learning & Resources, Research and Professional Practice, Graduation Outcomes, Outreach and Inclusivity, Public Perception. Based on the annual fee charged by the private universities established before 2010, we have identified three types of strategies which include low-cost – low quality, high-fee – high-quality, and nominal-fee – high quality strategies and analysed them based on the philosophy and background of such universities in general. We have also identified other innovative strategies offered by many private universities, in general, to differentiate themselves from publicly funded universities. The paper also contains some recommendations based on the observations to improve the quality, relevancy, and effectiveness of educational services and research contributions of private universities.

SWOC Analysis: Impact of Methodological Changes in Top 20 NIRF-ranked Management Institutions on Branding Strategy

“…Certain ranking entities also factor in collaborations with industries, global perspectives, alumni engagement, institutional reputation, and financial sustainability. Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2017) [29] [30]. study likely contributes to the literature on institutional rankings and research productivity by providing insights into the impact of NIRF rankings on research publications in a specific regional context as they may also explore factors that could influence this relationship, such as institutional resources, faculty expertise, and research funding.…”

Exploring private university attractiveness from students’ perspective to ensure sustainable institutes: an empirical investigation from Indian perspective

“…In this regard, university attractiveness depends primarily on strengthening the internal resources to establish university as a brand in educational services market to survive the future competition (Dorozhkin et al, 2016). The internal strength of the university is dependent on the variety of degree programs offered, economic benefits offered to students, reputation of the institute, value added services, destination attributes of universities, infrastructure, university rankings, teaching quality, research and innovation, technological Private university attractiveness and HEIs developments, labor market conditions, students' satisfaction level and the national infrastructure (Aithal and Revathi, 2017;Columbu et al, 2021;Cattaneo et al, 2019;Falk and Hagsten, 2018). The education specialists, policymakers and administrators of educational institutes can thus take effective decisions on generating university attractiveness for driving a potential student choose a particular institute (Dorozhkin et al, 2016).…”

“…, 2016). The internal strength of the university is dependent on the variety of degree programs offered, economic benefits offered to students, reputation of the institute, value added services, destination attributes of universities, infrastructure, university rankings, teaching quality, research and innovation, technological developments, labor market conditions, students’ satisfaction level and the national infrastructure (Aithal and Revathi, 2017; Columbu et al. , 2021; Cattaneo et al.…”

How Internal Quality Assurance System is Re-defined in Private Universities – A Case of Srinivas University, India

“…India, being a developing country is now focussing on enhancing its gross enrolment ratio (GER) towards 50% during the next 10 years, and is encouraged private universities to grow in the country to more than 50%. But private universities, being self-financing universities, can sustain only if they provide quality higher education [9][10][11][12]. In this regard, it is essential to identify and analyse the quality of services offered by universities in the higher education space.…”