International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology

Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

Analysis of Garrett’s Ranking for Facilities of Arts and Engineering

Colleges in Salem District of Tamil Nadu
C. Geetha,
Research Scholar, Department of Statistics, Periyar University, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
Dr. S. Mohan Prabhu,
Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Statistics, Muthayammal College of Arts &
Science College (A Unit of VANETRA Group), Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to gather the relevant information on ranking analysis test. This study
explores the tough challenges of maintaining the facilities of the college. The study is also based on our
primary data. We collected 1000 respondents for our findings. The paper makes a comparison between
the facilities of Arts and Engineering Colleges. The Concept describes the various facets of facilities in
the colleges. We used the statistical tool like Garrett’s Ranking Test.

Keywords: Higher Education, Primary Data, Arts & Engineering Colleges, Facilities of Colleges,
Students, Garrett’s Ranking Test.
1. INTRODUCTION

The quality of education system is closely related to the facilities offered by the college. While a college
must provide a good education, it must also provide the necessary facilities to its students to help them
study better. Nowadays, student’s opinions about all aspects of academic life are sought by educational
institutions worldwide. Such development is highly related to institutions worldwide. Universities and
Colleges becomes a place to provide services to fulfill the student’s needs. Student’s demand is at a
higher level not only in the quality of teaching but also to the condition of facilities. Thus, a strategy of
continuous improvement with regard to service quality is very important, so the student’s satisfaction
survey is a powerful tool to improve the quality of student’s life and learning. The measurement of
student satisfaction can be useful to institutions to help them to pin point their strengths and identify areas
for improvement. In this paper, the significant factor about facilities of college by applying Henry Garrett
ranking technique for ordering method is used for determination.

2. METHODOLOGY FOR HENRY GARRETT RANKING TECHNIQUE

This method of ranking is highly feasible which is used primarily to determine the significant factors from
the respondent.

It measures student’s satisfaction and priorities showing how satisfied the students are as well as what
issues are important to them. The Garrett’s ranking technique score conversion formula is given as
follows,

Percent Position = 100 (Rij - 0.5) / Nij,

Where,
Rij - Rank given for the ith variable by the jth respondents.
Nij - Number of variable ranked by jth respondents.
The study was carried out in the colleges of Arts and engineering in Salem District, Tamil Nadu and the
students were taken as the respondents. Using primary data, the responses were converted to numerical
scores using Garrett technique which is highly feasible to test the significant level. The Garrett score is
furnished in Table.1.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 622
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

TABLE 1
GARRETT RANKING CONVERSION TABLE
Percent Score Percent Score Percent Score Percent Score
0.99 99 11.03 74 52.02 49 90.83 24

0.2 98 12.04 73 54.03 48 91.67 23

0.32 97 13.11 72 56.03 47 92.45 22

0.45 96 14.25 71 58.03 46 93.19 21

0.61 95 15.44 70 59.99 45 93.86 20

0.78 94 16.09 69 61.94 44 94.49 19

0.97 93 18.01 68 63.85 43 95.08 18

1.18 92 19.39 67 65.75 42 95.62 17
1.42 91 20.93 66 67.48 41 96.11 16
1.68 90 22.32 65 69.39 40 96.57 15

1.96 89 23.88 64 71.14 39 96.99 14

2.28 88 25.48 63 72.85 38 97.37 13
2.69 87 27.15 62 74.52 37 97.72 12

86 28.86 61 76.12 36 98.04 11

3.01
3.43 85 30.61 60 77.68 35 98.32 10

3.89 84 32.42 59 79.17 34 98.58 9

4.38 83 34.25 58 80.61 33 98.82 8

4.92 82 36.15 57 81.99 32 99.03 7

5.51 81 38.06 56 83.31 31 99.22 6

6.14 80 40.01 55 84.56 30 99.39 5

6.81 79 41.97 54 85.75 29 99.55 4

7.55 78 43.97 53 86.89 28 99.68 3

8.33 77 45.97 52 87.96 27 99.8 2

————————————————

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 623
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

9.17 76 47.98 51 88.97 26 99.91 1

10.06 75 50 50 89.94 25 100 0

TABLE 2
RANKING OF COLLEGE FACILITIES

Infrastructure Library Hostel Water

Code Ranks Canteen Toilet Total
Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities

1 Rank 1 247 216 122 74 101 243 1003

2 Rank 2 212 193 154 139 158 163 1019

3 Rank 3 151 230 200 172 122 134 1009

4 Rank 4 123 140 208 221 158 147 997

5 Rank 5 98 157 176 209 235 118 993

6
Rank 6 169 64 140 185 226 195 979

N Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 6000

Henry Garrett Ranking Method

Table 3 Preference and Ranking of College Facilities
Factors Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6

Infrastructure Facilities 247 212 151 123 98 169

Library Facilities 216 193 230 140 157 64

Canteen 122 154 200 208 176 140

Hostel Facilities 74 139 172 221 209 185

Toilet 101 158 122 158 235 226

Water Facilities 243 163 134 147 118 195

Total 1003 1019 1009 997 993 979

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 624
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

100 (Rij - 0.5) / Nj,

Rank (Rij) Percent Position
(Nj = 6)

1 8 8

2 25 25

3 42 42

4 58 58

5 75 75

6 92 92

Table 4 : Garrett Score

Percent Position Value

Rank (Rij) Garrett Value
/Calculated Value
1 8 78
2 25 63
3 42 54
4 58 46
5 75 37
6 92 23

Table 5 Computation of the Garrett’s Value

Rank Rank
Rank 2 * Rank 3 * Rank 4 * Rank 5 *
Factors 1* 6* Total
63 54 46 37
78 23
Infrastructure 5394
19266 13356 8154 5658 3626 3887
Facilities 7
5514
Library Facilities 16848 12159 12420 6440 5809 1472
8
4931
Canteen 9516 9702 10800 9568 6512 3220
8
4597
Hostel Facilities 5772 8757 9288 10166 7733 4255
1
4558
Toilet 7878 9954 6588 7268 8695 5198
1
5207
Water Facilities 18954 10269 7236 6762 4366 4485
2

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 625
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

Table 6 Ranking of College Facilities

Factors Total Average Score Rank
Infrastructure Facilities 53947 53.95 2
Library Facilities 55148 55.15 1
Canteen 49318 49.32 4
Hostel Facilities 45971 45.97 5
Toilet 45581 45.58 6
Water Facilities 52072 52.07 3

Average
Factors
Score
Infrastructure Facilities 53.95
Library Facilities 55.15
Canteen 49.32
Hostel Facilities 45.97
Toilet 45.58
Water Facilities 52.07

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The result of the ranking of the college facilities, library facilities take up the supreme position of our
ranking analysis. Infrastructure facility is considered to be second position. It is shown in the table 5. Our
findings are that library facilities and infrastructure facilities are very significant factor of arts and
engineering colleges.

5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we analyze and discuss the problems of the college facilities. The Garrett Ranking is highly
useful. It throws a considerable amount of light on the library facilitates as well as in the fracture facilities
by the management. An analysis of Garrett Ranking technique assists the College in framing and
formulating the essential measures to join the student in both colleges.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 626
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 622-627

6. REFERENCE
1. Sebastian Morris (2012), ‘Economic Growth in Gujarat in Relation to the Nation and Other States in
Recent Times - A Statistical Analysis’ Indian Institute Of Management Ahmedabad-380 015 India,
W.P. No 2012-11-02.
2. Mishra, K.R.S Sastry (2013), ‘Industrial Structure and Performance in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat
vis-âvis India: A comparative Study using ASI Data, The Journal of Industrial Statistics (2013), 2(2),
258-280 5. Pravakar Sahoo (2014), ‘Making India an Attractive Investment Destination: Analyzing
FDI Policy and Challenges’, The National Bureau of Asian Research
3. John Christy. R,(2014) Garrett’s Ranking Analysis of Various Clinical Bovine Mastitis Control
Constraints in Villupuram District of Tamil Nadu, IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary
Science, 7(4),62-64.
4. Meena, G.S. Dangayach, A Bhardwaj, ‘Measuring Quality of work life among workers in handicraft
industries of Jaipur’, Int. J. of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2014 Vol.17, No.3, pp.376 – 390.
5. Raghuram (2015), ‘An Overview of the Trucking Sector in India: Significance and Structure’, IIMA
380 015 W.P. No. 2015-12-02.
6. D.Napitupulu, R Rahim, D Abdullah, MI Setiawan, LA Abdillah AS Ahmer, J Simarmata, R Hidayat,
H Nuirdiyanto, A Pranolo (2016), ‘Analysis of Student Satisfaction toward Quality of Service Facility’
7. Aleeswari, A , W.Lilly Merline, Nivetha Martin ‘ Study on Industrial Problems using Garrett Ranking
Technique, 2018, International conference on Management and Information Systems.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 627