No manual or SAR says much about this component. In the earlier superseded SARs, it included Students Exist Survey, Employers Survey, Alumni Survey, Curricular and Co curricular contribution by students. In the revised version for the engineering, NBA retained the first two surveys but left other surveys and their internal weightage share to the choice of Departments. It leaves sub criteria 3.8 a bit tentative.
NBA in the Engineering SAR has also dropped a fixed 80% and 20% weightage to Direct and Indirect Attainment respectively and have since merged the lines. Maybe it is following the ABET document which doesn’t have fixed weightage score.
Since NBA has yet to revise other programs like Management and Pharmacy, the old criteria-80% and 20% continues. Indirect Attainment in such programs continues to remain (a) Students exit survey (more weight) (b) Employers Survey (c) Co Curricular and Extra curricular performance over the entire span of the batch.
While citing example, it however lays emphasis on only the first two.
The major distinction between the direct and indirect attainment is that while direct attainment is on a continuous basis, indirect attainment for example, students exit is only after the students exit at the time of passing out of a batch, and Employer’s survey maybe done annually and averaged at the culmination of batch.
The above surveys analysis (reduced to the scale 3) should be tabulated as Indirect Attainment after due weightage allocated (amongst the surveys) and the two components (direct and indirect) added to arrive at each PO/ PSO attainment.
Note:- Try and develop survey questionnaires based on inputs needed on the competencies related to POs/PSOs.
The above attainment will follow a deep analysis and ATR/ plan for filling the gaps, generated by the Department and should be presented before the BOS.
-Prof JR Sharma: Mento to universities
