Vol. 34, 2017, pp. 13-23
Discriminating Students of Public and Private Universities in Respect of Some Social Characters
K. C. Bhuyan
Department of Mathematics, American International University- Bangladesh Urmi, A. F.
Department of Mathematics, American International University- Bangladesh and Fardus, J.
Department of Mathematics, American International University- Bangladesh
Abstract
The present analysis is based on data collected from 1012 students of public and private universities to study the awareness of health hazard of smoking and their smoking habit. The students are classified by public and private universities, where 88.2% investigated students are from private university. Public and private university students are similar in terms of awareness of health hazard of smoking and smoking habit. The affiliation of students to private university is significantly associated with upward trend in social status of the students’ families. Similar findings are also observed in discriminating the students of public and private universities. The discrimination of students is mainly for parent’s education, residential origin and age.
1. Introduction
In a recent study, Bhuyan et al (2016) have tried to discriminate the students of universities by their smoking habit. The identified important variables for discrimination are sex of students followed by age and their father’s education. The smoking habit is also influenced by awareness of the students regarding health hazard of smoking and by their family income. [ Bhuyan et al (2016)] . Differential awareness and differential smoking habit among the students of universities are also observed.
The above mentioned two studies have been conducted in two private and one public universities. The awareness of health hazard of smoking habit and some background social characters of the students vary from university to university. Some of the social characters have positive impacts on awareness and negative impacts on smoking habit.
This is a good sign for the implementation of policy related to tobacco control. Because there is a continuous rise in the consumption of tobacco or shisha among the youths and there is increasing trend in tobacco-induced death. [WHO(2004), Bhuyan and Khatun (2014)]. The barriers in the implementation of policy related to tobacco control are education and awareness among consumers. Knowledge of health hazard of smoking is an important factor in predicting smoking related behavior, including lower
14
likelihood of initiation and greater likelihood of quitting [Mahato (2012), Ghani et al.(2012), WHO (1986), Sansonem et al. (2012), WHO(2005)]
As differential social characters are observed among the students, it is decided to discriminate them according to their parent educational institution to identify the important factor for discrimination.
2. Methodology
The data used in the present paper are collected from the students of American International University-Bangladesh [AIUB], Jahangirnagar University [J.U.] and World University [WU] under the supervision of teachers of respective universities during the academic session 2012-13 and 2013-14. It has been decided to collect information from 10% randomly selected students of AIUB and 5% student of each of J.U. and W.U. by convenience sampling technique. During the investigation there were 11009 students in AIUB, 15000 students in J.U. and 6000 students in W.U.
Conveniently selected students are provided pre-tested questionnaires and are asked to return the same to their respective teachers. But all the students have not returned the filled-in questionnaires. The numbers of students who have provided all required information are 798 from AIUB, 95 from W.U. and 119 from J.U. Some of the students have not provided all types of information, specially the information regarding their smoking habit. The incomplete filled-in questionnaires are discarded. Finally the analysis is done using the data collected from 1012 students.
The students are classified by their parent educational institution, smoking habit and awareness of health hazard of smoking. The educational institute are categorized into 2, viz. (a) Public University [J.U.](b) Private university [AIUB and W.U.]
The awareness of health hazard of students [Bhuyan et al (2016), Mahato (2012)] has been studied on the basis of nominal scale of 20 questions each of which has closed answers like “True”, “False” and “Don’t Know”. The affirmative answers towards the knowledge of awareness is assigned “3”, followed by “2”, with less awareness and “1”
is assigned to the answer which is not affirmative to the awareness. The maximum of the sum of the assigned values towards awareness is 60 and minimum is 20. These values are different for different respondents. According to the sum of the assigned
15
values in favor of awareness, the respondents are classified into three classes, viz. (i) Low in awareness (sum of the assigned values less <30) (ii) Medium in awareness (sum is 30-40) and( iii) High in awareness (sum is 40+).
The association of awareness, smoking habit and type of university has been studied by χ2 –test.
The students are discriminated by their origin of parent educational institutes. The discrimination helps in identifying the important social factors responsible for discrimination [Dillon and Goldstein (1968), Bhuyan (2005), Nurosis (1990)].The important variable is identified from the results of correlation coefficient of a variable with discriminant score, where the largest correlation coefficient in magnitude indicates the most important variable for discrimination.
For discriminant analysis the variables used are age of students (x1), father’s education (x2), father’s occupation (x3), mother’s education (x4), mother’s occupation (x5), family income(x6), awareness of health hazard of smoking (x7), smoking habit of students (x8) and residence of students (x9). All the variables are transferred to nominal scale by assigning numbers [Bhuyan et al 2016]
3. Results and Discussion
Among the total investigated students 893 are from private universities and 119 from public university. Among the students of private universities 74.5% are from urban area as against 39.5% urban students from public university [Table 1]. This differential is highly significant [χ2=61.578, p=.000].
Table 1: Distribution of Students of two Types of Universities According to Residential Origin
Types of university
Residential Origin
Total Urban Rural
n % n % n %
Private 665 74.5 228 25.5 893 88.2
Public 47 39.5 72 60.5 119 11.8
Total 712 70.4 300 29.6 1012 100
16
The odd ratio [OR=4.46 with confidence Interval, C.I. (3.00,6.63), Altman (1990)] 4.46 indicates that the prevalence of urban students in private universities is more than four times compared to that of public university.
Among the students of public university 89.9% [Table 2] are highly aware of the health hazard of smoking. The corresponding figure among the students of private university is 88.1. However, this differential is not statistically significant
Table 2: Distribution of Students of two Types of Universities According to Awareness of Health Hazard of Smoking
Type of university
Awareness Total High Medium
n % n % n %
Private 787 88.1 106 11.9 893 88.2
Public 107 89.9 12 10.1 119 11.8
Total 894 88.3 118 11.7 1012 100
[χ2=0.325, p=0.568]. High level of awareness among public university students compared to that of private university students is lower [O.R. =1.20].
Among the private university students 32.9% students are smokers. The corresponding figure among students of public university is 32.8% [Table 3]. The smoker students are almost similar in proportion in both public and private universities [χ2=0.001, p=0.974, O.R. =1.01].
From the above analysis it is observed that in terms of awareness of health hazard of smoking and smoking habit the students are similar in both public and private universities.
Table 3: Distribution of Students of Two Types of Universities A
ccording to Their Smoking Habit
Types of university
Smoking habit
Total Yes No
n % n % n %
Private 294 32.9 599 67.1 893 88.2
Public 39 32.8 80 67.2 119 11.8
Total 333 32.9 679 67.1 1012 100
17
Majority (63.0%) of the public university students are in the age group 22 years and above. Again majority of the private university students are in the age group 19 years but less than 22 years. This differential is statistically significant [χ2=62.98, p=0.000, Table 4]. This analysis indicates that in public university
.
Table 4: Distribution of Students of two Types of Univ
ersities According to Their Age
Types of university
Age( in years)
Total
<19 19-22 22+
n % n % n % n %
Private 92 10.3 553 61.9 248 27.8 893 88.2
Public 1 0.8 43 36.2 75 63.0 119 11.8
Total 93 9.2 596 58.9 323 31.9 1012 100 Either the students are admitted later than their expected academic admission year or they stay for longer period in the university. In either case, this is the waste of time and resources of the students and their guardians. The prevalence of waste of time in public university is more than 4 times [O.R. =4.48, C.I. =2.97 to 6.61] compared to that of private university.
Most of the private university students (72.3%; Table 5) are the off springs of graduate fathers. The corresponding figure for public university students is only 25.2%. This differential in the level of education of father according to type of universities is highly significant [χ2=129.277, p=0.000]. The
odd ratio [
O.R. =7.76]
,Table 5: Distribution of Students of Two Types of Universities According
to Their Father’s Education
Types of university
Level of education
Total Primary Secondary Graduate+
n % n % n % n %
Private 37 4.1 210 23.5 646 72.3 893 88.2 Public 29 24.4 60 50.4 30 25.2 119 11.8
Total 66 6.5 270 26.7 676 66.8 1012 100
18
C.I. : 5.00-12.00] indicates that the prevalence of graduate father among private university students is more than 7 times compared to that of public university students.
Higher proportion [45.7%, Table 6] of private university students have their mothers graduate and above compared to the corresponding proportion of students of public university. Mothers of maximum students (55.5%) of public university are educated up to secondary level. The differentials in proportion of students of universities according to the levels of mother’s education are significant [χ2= 72.21, p= 0.000]. The odd ratio [O.R. =6.86, C.I.: 3.78-12.43] indicates that the prevalence of graduate mothers among private university
Table 6: Distribution of Students of two Types of Universities Accord
ing to Their Mother’s Education
Types of university
Level of education.
Total Primary Secondary Graduate+
n % n % n % n %
Private 68 7.6 417 46.7 408 45.7 893 88.2 Public 40 33.6 66 55.5 13 10.9 119 11.8
Total 108 10.7 483 47.7 421 41.6 1012 100
Students
are more than 6 times than that of public university students.
The study indicates that offspring of higher educated parents are higher in proportion in private university.Table 7: Distribution of Students of Two Types of Universities Accordi
ng to Their Father’s Occupation
Types of university
Father’s occupation
Total Service Business Others
n % n % n % n %
Private 464 52.0 345 38.6 84 9.4 893 88.2
Public 28 24.4 29 23.5 62 52 119 11.8
Total 492 48.6 374 37.0 146 14.4 1012 100 Fathers of 52% students of private university are servicemen. The corresponding percentage among the students of public university is 24.4. This differentials in
19
proportion of students with the change in father’s occupation according to type of universities are significantly different [Table 7; χ2=156.83, p= 0.000]. The odd ratio [O.R. =3.52, C.I.:2.26-5.48] indicates that the existence of serviceman as father among private university students is more than 3 times than the corresponding existence rate among the students of public university. There exists 77.4 % [Table 8] housewives as mothers of private university students.
The corresponding percentage among the students of public university is 88.2. This differential in proportion of housewives as mothers of students of public and private universities is significant [χ2=7.37, p=0.011]. The odd ratio [O.R.=2.19; C.I.:1.27-3.78]
indicates that there exists more than 2 times business and servicewomen as mothers among the students of private university.
Table 8: Distribution of Students of Two Types of Universities According to Their Mother’s Occupation
Types of university
Occupation of mother
Total Housewife Service Business
n % n % n % n %
Private 691 77.4 168 18.8 34 3.8 893 88.2
Public 105 88.2 0 0.0 14 11.8 119 11.8
Total 796 78.7 168 16.6 48 4.7 1012 100 Most of the students of private university are from economically affluent families as around 91% of them are coming from business and service holders families.
Table 9: Distribution of Students of Two Types of Universi
ties According to Family Income
Types of university
Monthly family income (in 000 taka)
Total
<50 50-100 >100
n % n % n % n %
Private 470 52.6 277 31.0 146 16.3 893 88.2
Public 85 71.4 10 8.4 24 20.2 119 11.8
Total 555 54.8 287 28.4 170 16.8 1012 100
20
Among the public university students 71.4% are from families having monthly income less than 50 thousand taka. The corresponding percentage among the students of private university is 52.6 [Table 9]. More private university students are economically sound compared to the public university students as a good percent (31.0%) of them are from family having income 50 to 100 thousands taka. The differentials in proportion of students according to family income are significant [χ2= 41.001, p=0.000]
So far, socioeconomic characteristics concern, the students of private university are in better position and in higher social status.
Results of Discriminant Analysis
As there are two groups of students, viz. students of public university and students of private university, one discriminant function is derived. The function is
D=-0.041+0.551x1-0.784x2+0.455x3-0.633x4+0.080x5+0.057x6+0.121x7-0.004x8+0.631x9
The function is significant as Wilks Lambda is 0.773 [χ2= 258.758, p=0.000, Bartlett (1947)] indicates that the students of private and public universities are significantly different in respect of some of the socioeconomic characteristics. The important socioeconomic characteristics are identified by the canonical
.
Table 10: Correlation Coefficient Between Variables and Discriminate Score in Descending Order of
Magnitude
Correlation
coefficients of the variables and the discriminant score. The correlation coefficients are shown in Table 10 in descending order of magnitude. It is seen that father’s education is very important social factor to discriminate between student of private and public universities followed by mother’s education, residential origin and age of students.Variables Correlation Coefficients
Father’s education -0.705 Mother’s education -0.703 Residential origin 0.470
Age 0.457 Father’s occupation 0.397
Mother’s occupation 0.175
Income -0.104 Awareness of health hazard 0.033
Smoking habit 0.002
21
4. Conclusion
The present analysis is based on data collected from 893 students of two private universities and 119 students of one public university. The students have provided information by filling a pre-designed and pre-tested questionnaire under the supervision of teachers of the respective universities. Most of the investigated students (70.4%) are urban based. This percentage is higher (74.5%) among the students of private universities. Again, higher proportion (60.5%) of public university students are from rural area.
The students are almost similarly aware of health hazard, still a good number of students are smokers. Among the investigated students 32.9% are smokers and percentages of smoker students are almost similar among public (32.8%) and private (32.9%) universities.
Most (58.9%) of the investigated students are in the age group 19 years to less than 22 years. These group of students are significantly more in private university. Most (63.0%) of the public university students are of ages 22 and above years. This indicates that public university students are completing their academic life taking more time.
Most of the students (66.8%) have their fathers with minimum graduation degree.
These group of students are higher in proportion (72.3%) in case of private university.
Similar is the case in case of mother’s education also. It implies that the off springs of higher educated parents are admitted in large scale in private university. A good percentage (45.2% ) of university students are coming from economically well-to-do families. These group of students are more (47.4%) in private universities. The study indicates that upward trend in socioeconomic condition leads the students to be admitted in private university.
The analysis provides information that public and private university students are significantly different in respect of their social background. The discriminant analysis also indicates that public university students are significantly different compared to their peers in private university. Education of parent is very much influencing in discriminating the students of both type of universities followed by residential origin.
More urban students are admitted in private university compared to the admitted
22
students of rural origin. Discrimination is also observed in ages of students of both types of universities.
References:
D. G. Altman (1990): Practical Statistics for Medical Research, CRC Press.
M. S. Bartlett (1947): Multivariate Analysis, Jour. Roy. Statistics Soc. B, 9, pp 176- 197.
K. C. Bhuyan (2005): Multivariate Analysis and its Applications, New Central Book Agency P(Ltd), India.
K. C. Bhuyan and M. Khatun (2014): Awareness of health hazard of tobacco consumption among students of American International University-Bangladesh, AJSE, 13(1), pp 85-92.
K. C. Bhuyan, J. Fardus and M. Khatun (2016): Discriminating the students of universities by their smoking habit, AJSE, 15(1), pp 143-148.
K.C. Bhuyan, M. Khatun and J. Fardus (2016): Awareness of health hazard of tobacco consumption among students of universities – A meta-analysis approach, JUJSS, 33, pp 1-17.
W. R. Dillon and M. Goldstein (1989): Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
W. M. Ghani, R. I. A. Nabillah, Y. H. Yang, N. A. Talib, N. Ikeda, T. Axell, P. C.
Gupta, Y. Handa, N. Abdullah and R. B. Zain (2012): Factors affecting commencement and cessation of smoking behavior in Malaysian adults, BMC Public Health, 12, 207.
P. Mahato (2012): Knowledge of Health Effect of Tobacco Consumption among the Higher Secondary School Students, MPH Thesis, AIUB.
M. J. Nurosis (1990): SPSS/PC+ Advance Statistics TM 4.01. B.M PC/XT AT and PS/2, Illinois.
C. G. Sensonem, L. J. Raute, T. G. Fong, M. S. Pedhekar, A. C. K. Quah, B. M.
Travers, P. C. Gupta and D. N. Sinha (2012): Knowledge of health effects and intensions to quit among smokers in India: Findings from the tobacco control policy, India Pilot Survey, Int. J. Envinton, Res. Public Health, 9, pp 564-578.
WHO (1986): Tobacco Smoking, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Human, 38, pp 335-394.
23
WHO (2004): Tobacco Smoking, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Human, 83.
WHO (2005): Waterpipe tobacco smoking: Health effects, research needs and recommended actions by regulators, Geneva, Switzerland.
