Examination of Income and Expenditure Pattern of Students in IMT
Chapter One
Objectives Of The Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the income and expenditure pattern among students of IMT. To achieve this, the research will be conducted around the following specific objectives.
- To study about the cultural, social, economical, educational and psychological factors that influences students towards income and spending.
- To identify the factors that determines the income and spending behaviour of students.
- To evaluate the experience of students in spending.
- To evaluate the student satisfaction in spending.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Tertiary education institutions
American higher education has been evolving throughout history in order to maintain its fundamental role in society in preparing individuals to be informed active citizens and creating an innovative environment that fosters ideas and activities needed for the development of strong and competitive economy in a global setting (Bordelon, 2012). Different social, political, and economical elements have influenced, either directly or indirectly, the complex process of shaping American higher education. The federal government has been providing political and financial support to higher education since the middle of the 19th century. For example, the Morel Acts of 1862 and 1890 allowed the establishment of land grant colleges, to support agriculture and mechanical education, and Historically Black colleges and Universities (HBCUs), to provide access for black citizens in higher education. Also, the GI bill in 1944 and the Education Amendments of the early 1970’s have provided opportunity to expand access to higher education through federal financial aid (Wegner & National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008).
With the availability of financial aid and improved access conditions, higher education became a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of social status, color, gender, or income level (Bordelon, 2012). Accordingly, the number of higher education institutions expanded especially through the last quarter of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. In 2011, there were about 6700 higher education institutions serving over 21 million undergraduate and graduate students (Knapp et al, 2012). Higher education institutions vary in different ways such as mission, size, student demographics, history, revenue and spending patterns, and institutional control (public or private).
With the growing arena of American higher education, significant forces for change are also growing and reshaping the landscape of higher education is inevitable. Constrained budgets, global competition, changing demographics, new technologies, and demands for accountability are some of these forces of change that may be looked at as threat to higher education or opportunity for reinvention (Goldstein et al, 2006). Jansen and Bielak (2008) identified five major trends that are changing the landscape of higher education. These trends are:
- Growth of nontraditional students attending schools such as online, part-time, and adult students which would require higher education institutions to reconsider the traditional notions of where, when, and how students will learn.
- Growing gap between price and revenue where the administrative and instructional costs are overgrowing tuition and fees and government-supported research funding.
- New paradigm competitors in the form of virtual campuses and for-profit institutions which have been gaining more credibility and acceptance of employers and the society.
- Globalization and emerging international markets for higher education institutions which are competing across boarders for faculty and students while facing new challenges of creating decentralized academic departments and international enrollment units.
- Answering to the issues of affordability, accessibility and accountability to enhance the performance of higher education institutions through processes that measure productivity and learning outcomes.
All these trends and forces for change are directing higher education institutions toward adopting untraditional approaches in search of improvement. They need to be able not only to maintain their balance in such complex and demanding environment but also to improve their academic and educational processes and meet the societal high expectations for the role of higher education in shaping the future of this nation. Effective deployment of financial resources for higher education institutions is a crucial aspect of management under the current pressuring economic environment (Hamrick et al, 2004 and Webber, 2012). Meanwhile, exploring evidences for efficiency, productivity and accountability can provide indicators for the different constituents in the American higher education of how successful the institutions in managing financial resources to improve their performance (Ehrenberg & Webber, 2010 and Bound & Turner, 2006).
Financial resources and spending patterns in higher education institutions
There is a common financial model in colleges and universities where there are two different budgets, operating and capital budgets (Delta Cost Project, 2009). The main funding sources for each of these two budgets are different. For the operating budget, the main funding sources are tuition and fees, local and state appropriations, endowment income, and federal funds. For the capital budget, the main funding sources are private gifts and donations, bond revenues, and state and federal capital outlay appropriations. These two budgets are usually separated because of the differences in their revenue sources and time for cost benefits. Most of the studies on financial and cost analysis among higher education institutions are focusing mainly on the operation budget (Delta Cost Project, 2009). It should be mentioned that, in some cases, there could be limitations on colleges and universities on where to allocate and spend the money. For example, federal contract and grant money provided to higher education institutions are usually restricted to research or public service expenses. In some institutions, revenues of auxiliary enterprises such as hospitals and dormitories are mainly used to self-support the enterprise rather than the operating budget of the institution (Delta Cost Project, 2009).
All higher education institutions report their spending using categories of expenses based on the standard formats of the federal government’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These standard categories are: instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and other expenditures (detailed definitions of these categories are listed in Appendix A). The standard formats of spending categories allow for comparison between different types of institutions along different periods of time (Delta Cost Project, 2009).
The 2010 economic recession “has caused a fiscal crisis in both public and private higher education that is unmatched in recent memory. Institutions’ attention is focused on what they can cut out of their budgets” (p. 36, Ehrenberg & Webber, 2010). In such an economic environment, it becomes critical for higher education institutions to make the most efficient use of their financial resources (Webber, 2012). A survey conducted by the Council of Higher Education
Management Associations (CHEMA) on 190 administrative leaders from different institutions concluded that 60.5% of them expected financial constraint to be the most significant driver of change for the future of higher education institutions while more than 40% of them considered insufficient financial resources to be one of the largest threats facing higher education institutions (Goldstein et al, 2006).
The performance-spending challenge in higher education
Among the challenges facing the future of higher education institutions is the ability to improve levels of performance with the available constrained financial resources (Kelly et al, 2007). Institutions are increasing tuition in response to government regulations and the higher cost of the education process while, on the other hand, the government is cutting back on support and financial aid claiming that institutions need to be more efficient and productive (Goldstein et al, 2006). The 2006 report from the U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of
Higher Education (Department of Education, 2006) raised concerns about the “lack of clear, reliable information about the cost and quality of postsecondary institutions, along with a remarkable absence of accountability mechanisms to ensure that colleges succeed in educating students” (p. vii). The report also recommended that institutions “must become more transparent about cost, price, and student success outcomes, and must willingly share this information with students and families” (p. 4). There is a widespread public support for higher education and a growing awareness of its importance to the future of the country. Yet, there is also a common believe among the public that higher education institutions are spending money in ways that serve their self-interests rather than help student to learn and, accordingly, that institutions could reduce spending without hindering the quality of education (Wellman, 2010). Surveys conducted with elected officials, community leaders, politicians, and other opinion leaders indicated that they believe that institutions are either unwilling or unable to manage costs and that institutional prestige often has a higher priority than meeting public needs. They demanded institutions give more attention to cost management and productivity rather than to increase funding (Wellman, 2010).
The Delta Cost Project report (2009) anticipated that the financial system of higher education would be hard to endure the current economic environment where there are notable signs of “greater demand for student aid, tightening loan availability, dips in endowment assets and earnings, rising costs of debt payments, and deep state budget cuts” (p. 5). Despite the continuous increases in tuition every year, which is a burden on students and their families, it is expected that most institutions would still have to face deficits that might lead to the need of deep spending cuts. Instead of allowing the funding crisis to be used as a justification for rollbacks in access or quality, institutions leaders and policy makers need to make strategic plans not only to create new revenues but also to improve management of costs through reallocation of existing resources. They need also to convince the public and politicians that higher education must be a priority for their continued investment. This would require better data about college spending and comparative analyses relating spending to performance. The report demanded that every institution “should be able to tell students, boards and legislatures basic facts about where the money comes from, where it goes, and what it buys” (Delta Cost Project, 2009, p. 6).
Kelly (2009) addressed the topic of performance relative to funding by adopting an approach to gauge the productivity of different types and systems of higher education institutions across all states, measured mainly by credentials awarded, relative to the resources and funding they have. Findings of the study were not conclusive enough to determine if these institutions were over- or underfunded since it was found that some perform better than others with the same resources. Yet, the study challenged the argument that more funding always leads to better performance. In another study, Auguste et al (2010) proposed a set of five practices that would improve productivity in higher education institutions without restricting access or compromising educational quality. These practices are: systematically enabling students to reach graduation, reducing nonproductive credits, redesigning the delivery of instruction, redesigning core support services, and optimizing non-core services and other operations. These practices were found to contribute to raising the rate at which students complete their degrees and reducing cost per student in some institutions characterized by high levels of productivity (Auguste et al, 2010).
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this chapter, we would describe how the study was carried out.
Research design
An analysis of the social research methodologies suggests that survey is the handy tool for managers to collect primary data using questionnaire and interviews about the perceptions and attitudes of the respondents. “It is noted somewhere that questionnaire approach is the “most frequently used mode of observation in the social sciences because surveys are reportedly the excellent vehicles for measuring attitudes in large populations” (Sekaran, 2003:257). The current study is both explorative and descriptive in nature.
Sources of Data
The data for this study were generated from two main sources; Primary sources and secondary sources. The primary sources include questionnaire, interviews and observation. The secondary sources include journals, bulletins, textbooks and the internet.
Population of the study
A study population is a group of elements or individuals as the case may be, who share similar characteristics. These similar features can include location, gender, age, sex or specific interest. The emphasis on study population is that it constitute of individuals or elements that are homogeneous in description (Prince Udoyen: 2019). In this study the study population constitute of all the ‘Students’ IMT in Enugu.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 4.1 Frequencies across Gender
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
- 30% of the respondents are male students and 50% of the respondents are females.
- 43% of the respondents are coming under the category of the age below 20 years.
- 56% of the respondents are having 3 to 5 persons in their family.
- 24% of the respondents are going for part time job.
An Analysis on Spending and Income Pattern of Students in IMT
- 63% of the respondents are getting pocket money.
- 95% of the respondents are earning above2000 monthly.
- 80% of the respondents are personally having a bank account.
- 21% of respondents get advice from the parents/guardian for the budgeting.
- 60% of the respondents are spending below 1000.
- 40% majority of the respondents are spending unnecessarily on footwears and clothes.
- 20% of the students are spending necessarily for their food.
- 92% of the respondents are paying in cash.
- 90% of the respondents are preferred online shopping. Among 90%, 67% are preferring flipkart.
CONCLUSIONS
This research clearly shows that only few students are interested to earn while learning to meet their own expenses and are expecting from parents for their personal expenses. This kind of activity will lead to increase in parent burden. Majority of the students are not having savings habit. If the students are aware about it, they will definitely save their part of earnings. If they invest their saving into the productive channel it will be used to develop individual earnings and others can avail the loan from that particular channel.
Recommendation
- Provide the awareness for students regarding the equation between sending’s and savings. Through self awareness or learning, a student should know where to cut down, reduce and postpone the unnecessary expenses.
- Students should cultivate their habit of savings.
- Students should re-invest their savings in to productive channels like post office, and banks.
- Students should consult their parents (or) Guardian for budgeting before spending.
- Students are requested to avoid unnecessary spending like mobile recharge, bars etc.
- Students are requested to pay for their spending through debit (or) credit cards to prevent tax evasion.
REFERENCES
- Dr. P. Abirami and R. Priya Dharshini, A Behavioural Study on Academic Stress of School Students in Chennai City. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management, 8(1), 2017, pp. 18–23.
- Ramesh R Kulkarni, A Study on the Factors Restricting Online Buying Behavior of SemiUrban College Students of North Karnataka. International Journal of Management, 7(7), 2016, pp. 114–121.
- Dr. V. Antony Joe Raja and V. Vijayakumar, A Study on Stress Management in Various Sectors in India. International Journal of Management, 8(1), 2017, pp. 50–61.
- Dr. V. Antony Joe Raja. A Study on Stress Managemen t in Education Sector.
- International Journal of Education (IJE), 4 (1), 2016, pp. 01-14
- Dr. D. Sudhakar and R.Swarna Deva Kumari, Customer Satisfication towards Online Shopping: A Study with Reference to Chittoor District. International Journal of Management (IJM), 7 (3), 2016 , pp. 34-38.
- Dr. Hanif , K. and Mr. Ravi , K. R. An Empirical Study on Consumer Spending Patterns on Online Groceries Portals. International Journal of Management (IJM), 6 (9), 2015, pp. 85-92.
