(The methodology of the Dataquest-IDC-Nasscom "Best Tech School Survey")

Background
The first ever Dataquest-IDC-Nasscom survey scorecard on the best T-Schools in the country was compiled by Dataquest on the basis of a methodology and calculations vetted by research firm IDC. The IDC team was led by Parijat Chakraborty, and assisted by Arpit Singh and Nikhil Pant.

Research Objective
The aim of this survey was to determine the top Technology Schools (BE, B-Tech, or similar level graduate technical course) in the country and rank them on a list of parameters important for both students and recruiters.

Research Methodology
The Dataquest-IDC-Nasscom survey was done in two phases

Phase1- Desk Research
In this phase, an exhaustive desk research was done, jointly, by the Dataquest and the IDC team so as to identify the list of 150 Tech Schools, and 40 leading IT companies who were to be invited to be a part of this survey. We screened colleges established post 2002 and the ones which were not offering a BE, B-Tech, or similar level graduate technical courses.

Phase 2
The Tech Schools and the IT companies short-listed in phase 1 were approached by the IDC team. For the Tech Schools, face-to-face interviews were done with the college representative (preferably the placement coordinator). HR heads of leading IT companies were contacted over e-mail to include the recruiter perception in the survey. The data was compiled on the basis of two-year objective data (academic years 2003-04 and 2004-05) provided by the institutes and perception scores of the recruiters.

The Ranking: The final sample size of the survey was 118 institutes. The research team from IDC carried out the validation exercise. Field visits were also conducted to check the veracity of the information.

The objective scores were obtained by evaluating the T Schools against the following parameters:

• Placements
• Infrastructure
• Intellectual Capital
• Industry Interface

The weights were distributed as: Placements (40%), Infrastructure (15%), Intellectual Capital (15%) and Industry Interface (5%). The total weightage assigned to objective data was 75%.

These parameters were further categorized into sub parameters. This was done in the following manner:

Placements
(In the last two years)

• Percentage of students placed
• Percentage of students placed abroad
• Percentage of students going for higher studies
• Number of companies visiting the campus
• Max salary offered per annum
• Minimum salary offered per annum
• Average salary per annum

Infrastructure

• Computers/Students ratio
• Percentage of computers connected to the internet
• Hostel facility
• Internet access in the hostel

Intellectual Capital

• Faculty/Students ratio
• Percentage of permanent faculty
• Percentage of permanent faculty with industry experience
• Number of years of teaching experience of faculty
• Number of assignments in 2003-04 and 2004-05
• Average number of seminar attended in 2003-04 and 2004-05
• Average number of research papers published by the faculty in 2003-04 and 2004-05

Industry Interface

• Average number of seminars conducted by the institute in 2003-04 and 2004-05
• Average number of research papers by the institute in 2003-04 and 2004-05
• International affiliation or linkages

Perception Score: The perception survey of recruiters was conducted through another questionnaire. Recruiters were asked to rate importance of various aspects while deciding which Tech School to visit for campus recruitments on a 5-point scale. Recruiters were also welcome to add any parameter of their choice. They were given a list of institutes, which they had to rate on a 10-point scale. The overall weightage given to the recruiter's response was 25%. Infosys, Cadence Design System, Satyam, Sapient and IBM Global Services were some of the companies that participated in the recruiter's part of the survey.

The composite score, which is the total of the objective data score and the recruiter's perception score, was used to arrive at the final ranking.

IIT Delhi refused to participate in the survey.

Page(s)   1  2