2005
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-6354-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Public and Private Provision of Higher Education in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract: A sample of public universities and private colleges are compared in terms of their enrolments, costs, facilities and quality of provision. The purpose is to illuminate an important policy issue for Malaysia and to contribute to the general debate on the role of the private sector in the provision of higher education. The general findings are that public universities appear to be more efficient in satisfying public demand in terms of quality of provision.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
56
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
56
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is broadly accepted that availability and quality of physical facilities offer some clue of efficiency and quality of educational (Wilkinson & Yussof, 2005). Institutes should be responsible for enhancing the quality of physical facilities including classrooms and workshops, training equipment, sports and recreational, cafeteria, and accommodations.…”
Section: Discussion Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is broadly accepted that availability and quality of physical facilities offer some clue of efficiency and quality of educational (Wilkinson & Yussof, 2005). Institutes should be responsible for enhancing the quality of physical facilities including classrooms and workshops, training equipment, sports and recreational, cafeteria, and accommodations.…”
Section: Discussion Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It would be useful for future research to conduct a longitudinal study that follow students into their industrial training in order to measure their moral development, in order to determine benefits gained from real working environment. Secondly the study only focuses on students from public university; hence it is very meaningful if private university being considered for future research due to the distinction on both institutions [35]. The third limitation in this study is regarding the method used.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results show that the courses with Ql contents are present at a number of engineering departments and at some humanities, but still lacking at humanistic departments. Similar to Wilkinson and Yussof (2005) we include fields of study ( Table 2). The results show that faculties from categories I and II belong to the technical and technological group of faculties, whereas within category III there are present technical and social faculties.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%