Departments about Setting up Different Disciplines of Humanities and Manner of Admission in Academic Campuses; the Case of University of Isfahan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed at achieving the possibility of setting up diverse disciplines of humanities and manner of admission in University of Isfahan. This qualitative research was conducted using survey method. The statistical population was composed of Heads of Departments and Faculty Members in Faculty of Humanities in University of Isfahan. Accordingly, 20 subjects (10 Heads of Departments and 10 Faculty Members) were selected as statistical sample based on purposeful sampling method. The semi-structured interviews were considered the research tools in this study. The interviews were conducted in-person within 30 to 40 minutes. Next, the data were categorized and then analyzed. The research results showed that there were diverse (positive and negative) viewpoints towards setting up academic campuses. Regarding the notion of student admission process in campuses, most of subjects believed that it should be done through a decentralized method using a domestic test. Regarding the mechanism for passing the courses, the majority of respondents preferred education-research method over other methods. Finally, the respondents argued that doing research and passing the thesis were their main objectives in graduate studies.

Keywords

References

Belfield, C. & Levin, M. (2002). Education privatization: causes, consequences and planning implications. International Institute for Educational Planning, 5 (3), 26-36.
Bowman, J. (2005). Admission practices in master of public administration program. Public Administration Review. 48 (5), 867- 869.
Boubakri, N; cosset, J. & Saffar, W. (2017). The constraints on full privatization: International evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42, 392–407.
Chang, S. & Boontham, W. (2017). Post-privatization speed of state ownership relinquishment: Determinants and influence on firm performance. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 41, 82–96.
Holzhacker, D; Chornoivan, O; Yazilitas, D. & Dayan-Ochir, K. (2009). Privatization in higher education: Cross-country analysis of trends, policies, problems, and solutions. Institute for Higher Education Policy Institute for Higher Education Policy, 20 (5), 1-27.
Hegde, D. (2005). Public and private universities: Unequal sources of regional Innovation? Economic Development Quarterly, 19 (4), 373-389.
Islam, A & Salma, U. (2016). The Role of Private Universities in Higher Education of Bangladesh: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Finance and Banking Research, 2 (4), 121-128.
Levy, C. (2004). The new institutionalism: Mismatches with private higher education’s global growth. Higher education, 3, 1-34.
Levin, A. (2010). Privatization in higher education. Columbia University, 85, 35-40.
Crnkovic, B. & Pozega, Z. (2009). Causes & models of privatization in higher education. Regional University, 10, 738 - 837.
National Education Association. (2004). Higher Education and Privatization, 10 (2), 1-40.
Weeks, P. (2006). Privatization of the Public University: A Risk/benefit analysis, A compilation of papers originally presented at a conference sponsored. The Merrill Advanced Studies Center,11 (6), 35-40.
Higher Education Letter
Volume 10, Issue 39
December 2017
Pages 33-59

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics