Content uploaded by Nino Tandilashvili
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nino Tandilashvili on Nov 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The influence of rankings on business school students’ perception
and satisfaction. An exploratory study
Nino Tandilashvili1 , Anna Tandilashvili2 , Marina Tabatadze3
1ISC Paris Business School, France. 2Business and Technology University, Georgia. 3Tbilisi State
University, Georgia.
How to cite: Tandilashvili, N.; Tandilashvili, A.; Tabatadze, M. 2024. The influence of rankings on
business school students’ perception and satisfaction. An exploratory study. In: 10th International
Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’24). Valencia, 18-21 June 2024.
https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd24.2024.17221
Abstract
Rankings of higher education institutions are used as important marketing tools. Given
their competitive environment, business schools increasingly use their position in
rankings to attract new students and staff and to communicate about their image and
reputation. In parallel, literature has demonstrated the importance of student
satisfaction in generating considerable financial and reputational benefits. With few
empirical evidence analysing the relationship between the position in ranking and
students’ experiences, the aim of this paper is to explore the influence of business
schools’ rankings on students’ perception of quality and their satisfaction. The analyses
of focus group discussions shows that even if generally students do not pay important
attention to the rankings, certain (good) position boosts their expectations towards
business schools’ product quality (education) and customer service (administration). As
a result, they are more critical and less satisfied if they perceive a gap between the
position in ranking and the quality of service received.
Keywords: Student satisfaction, student experience, university rankings, perception of
quality, customer expectation.
1. Introduction
Rankings of higher education institutions (HEIs) are becoming increasingly important due to
the growing tendency of public openness and external accountability (Tandilashvili et al., 2024;
Luque-Martínez & Faraoni, 2020; Soo, 2013). Despite an important criticism from the academia
on the relevance of the ranking methodology, the possibility to objectively judge the quality of
education and the negative impacts of rankings higher education field (Tandilashvili et al., 2024;
Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008), rankings are widely accepted by the public and higher education
actors (Ashiru, et al., 2022; Luque-Martínez & Faraoni, 2020; Tandilashvili & Tabatadze,
10th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’24)
Universitat Polit`
ecnica de Val`
encia, Val`
encia, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd24.2024.17221
HEAd
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Editorial Universitat Polit`
ecnica de Val`
encia 801
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
2016). Ranking in the domestic top 20 and worldwide top 100 have become a source of
competitive advantage in the fiercely competitive global market (Warwick, 2014).
Despite the importance of the topic, there is limited knowledge on student perceptions and
expectations about the HEI position in the ranking and its impact on their satisfaction. Prior
studies have shown that HEIs widely communicate about their top ranking on different channels
and use it as an important tool to attract new customers. However, little research has studied the
extent to which existing students are influenced by the rankings (Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008).
The few existing empirical studies have shown some contradictory results.
The aim of this paper is to explore the influence of business schools’ rankings on students’
perception of quality and their satisfaction. With the intention to have a richer understanding of
the research topic and in view of generating a data collection tool for future quantitative
research, we opted for a qualitative method using a focus group approach. The paper proposes
a comparative case study of a French and a Georgian business school which have considerably
improved their positions in national rankings. The results show that students do not pay much
attention to the position in the ranking. However, once reminded of it, they appreciate a good
position, but also express higher expectations in terms of service quality. The results vary per
country and institutional context in terms of students’ perceptions.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Student Satisfaction
Literature on student satisfaction is rich of examples of the financial and reputational benefits
that Higher Education Institutions can generate with satisfied students. Satisfied students lead
to higher financial advantages (Dollinger et al., 2018); they are more loyal to their institutions
(Tandilashvili et al., 2023); have a more positive attitude and are more involved (Rehman et al.,
2020), and recommend their institution to others (Khan & Hemsley-Brown, 2021).
The review of prior studies allows to group the determinants of student satisfaction into purely
academic and non-academic elements. Academic aspects are teaching effectiveness, course
structure and teaching methods, and the quality of faculty (Khan & Hemsley-Brown, 2021; El
Alfy & Abukari, 2020; Sutherland et al., 2019; Tabatadze, 2018). Non-academic factors include
services, the general environment, facilities, and the quality of the administrative staff
(Tandilashvili, 2019; Herdlein & Zurner 2015; Abdullah, 2006; Mai, 2005; Schertzer &
Schertzer, 2004). Additionally, some studies have identified the determinants of dissatisfaction
which are the elements which can lead to dissatisfaction when they are taken for granted (Gruber
et al. 2012; Tandilashvili, et al., 2023).
802
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
Student satisfaction varies per student profile and institutional type. Sociocultural variations
among nations and individual student traits that may impact quality perception all contribute to
the explanation of the situation. Most research uses demographic variables including age,
gender, ethnicity, education level, and religion to explain variance in this area. Other factors are
students’ abilities and outcomes, motivation and involvement, social integration with other
students, relationships with staff, study discipline and level (Herdlein & Zurner, 2015; Lazibat
et al., 2014; Abdullah, 2006), the expense of study (Khan & Hemsley-Brown, 2021). Students
of business and management seem to be particularly severe when it comes to perceiving the
quality of service (Gnusowski & Schoefer, 2021; Ledden & Kalafatis, 2010). Studies have
shown that business school students are becoming less satisfied with traditional education
services and are demanding more individualized care and attention (Tandilashvili et al., 2023).
2.2. International rankings and student behaviour
National HEI rankings and league tables have existed for many decades and have been used by
future students as a comparative tool to make an informed decision. However, the importance
of the rankings increased since the 2000s with the introduction of the first international
university rankings in 2003 by Shanghai university.
Despite important criticism, rankings and league tables are well established marketing tools in
higher education (Gibbons et al., 2015; Davies, 2012). HEIs extensively use their good position
in their external and internal communications (Tandilashvili et al., 2024; Hazelkorn, 2011) with
the aim to attract new students and faculty and improve their image and reputation (Ashiru et
al., 2022; Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008). Rank is generally the most dynamic attribute, meaning
that the rank of a HEI can rise and fall quicker than can the public perception of prestige and
reputation (Hazelkorn, 2011). Dramatic changes in rank can lead to action, but gradual shifts
may go unnoticed (Ashiru et al., 2022).
Studies have shown that business schools are particularly eager to take advantage of their
positions in national and international rankings, given their increased competitive environment
(Ashiru et al., 2022). The findings of prior studies reveal that many students consider the
business school ranking as a stand-in for the calibre of instruction and overall, HEI experience,
despite the ranking system's dubious procedures (Gibbons et al., 2015; Davies, 2012; Morgeson
& Nahrgang, 2008). Students also perceive the position in ranking as a promise of future
employment. When, companies utilize the applicant's institution as part of the selection process
for yearly graduate recruitment schemes, students studying business and related disciplines gain
from the social capital of their selected university (Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008).
Even if most empirical evidence presents rankings as an important symbolic capital of business
school to impact students’ perception, some studies have conflicting conclusions. For example,
for Ashiru et al. (2022) ranking is an important signifier of prestige and quality of the teaching
803
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
for the internationally mobile students. Broecke (2012) shows that from 2002 to 2009, UK-
domiciled students responded to changes in university rankings. However, Soo (2013) reports
that for the period of 2005–2009, the Sunday Times Universities ranking had no impact on
student applications.
Interestingly, very few studies have explored the relationship between the HEIs’ position in
ranking and the perception satisfaction of existing students. The existing empirical evidence has
some interesting conclusions. For example, according to Horstschräer (2012), in Germany the
position of HEI in international rankings and national league tables were important determinant
of satisfaction on some quality dimensions (such as mentoring, faculty infrastructure and the
overall students’ satisfaction) but not for others (such as research reputation), even if research
is a central component of ranking methodologies. Ruigrok et al. (2017) found that rank and
reputation were important issues for all student groups but the impact of ranking on students’
perception of quality varied per their profile. Students whose parents had university education
were more likely to know and consider rankings details and students who had been enrolled
longer were less likely to know and consider rankings details.
With very little literature studying the impact of ranking on students’ perception and
satisfaction, the aim of the present paper is to explore how the rankings influence students’
perception and satisfaction in business schools. Even if students’ decisions are shaped by
gender, nationality and other socio-demographic elements, when it comes to business school
context, there seems to be a considerable global convergence in consumer behaviour (Davies et
al., 2016). That is why this paper proposes an in-depth analysis of two different context cases.
The choice of a comparative study may enable us to better explore this understudied topic.
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Research context
Given the exploratory nature of the study, we opted for a qualitative data analysis. We chose
two different but comparable business schools in this study. First, we chose two countries -
France and Georgia, with different higher education contexts but similar challenges. Both
countries pay important attention to the position of HEIs in local and international rankings due
to increased competition and lack of international visibility (Tabatadze, 2018; Harfi & Mathieu,
2006). Additionally, both countries struggle for international visibility at different scales (EU
for France and the Caucasus region for Georgia): to attract international students and increase
the international exchange rate of their academic staff. Second, we selected business schools
with similar institutional characteristics (small, private business school) and similar position in
national rankings (top-20). Third, as we wanted to observe the impact of the change in rankings,
we selected the schools which have improved their position in national rankings during the last
804
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
5 years. We renamed the institutions as French Business School and Georgian Business School
to keep them anonymous.
3.2. Data collection and Analysis
Data was collected through two focus groups in each institution during the academic year 2023-
2024. In the French Business School (FBS) the groups consisted of 12 and 15 students. In the
Georgian Business School (GBS) the groups consisted of 13 and 8 students. Focus group
discussions have been used in education research to study similar questions (Ashiru et al., 2022;
Pownall et al., 2019; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). It allows us to capture novel observations, not
foreseen in quantitative data collection methods. To promote spontaneity and candidness, the
participation to the group was optional, not graded and students were guaranteed their privacy.
Moreover, the questions were asked in a way to promote honesty and free thinking. The focus
group discussion was registered and transcribed.
This empirical data was examined with thematic analysis. Using naturalistic inquiry techniques
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we converted the data into grounded theory. After reading the first
material, we were able to create the first-order codes using the NVivo software (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). At the second step of data analyses, the first-order codes were grouped according
to their significance. These second-order descriptive codes represent the themes which primarily
address trends in the data which are pertinent to the potential influence of rankings on students’
perception of quality and on their satisfaction. We determined the "essence" of each topic and
the causal relationship between them (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
3.3. Main findigns
Analysing focus group discussions revealed interesting findings. First, we observed that
students do not pay attention to the rankings spontaneously. Only two students initiated this
topic during the four focus group discussions. One student in the French business school
mentioned that he had considered the good position of the school when applying. However,
once he mentioned the topic, other students also approved the importance of the ranking, some
agreeing that they also had checked the school’s position in rankings before applying to the
school. However, students had different opinion on the outcome of the good position:
“Oh yes, it is true. I think that FBS is in the top 20 now. But I do not know if it matters.
It does not change anything for us” (FBS, FG2).
“It is good to have a diploma from this school as it will be better known” (FBS, FG2).
Similarly as the French students, the question of the position in the ranking did not pop up
spontaneously in the Georgian sample either. However, they often mentioned the topic
indirectly when comparinrg ther school to other HEIs.. Students used the term “reputation” and
“acknowledgment” to refer to rankings, considering the position in the rankings as logical
expression of schools’ reputation and public acknowledgment.
805
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
Second, ranking could be an important predictor of students’ perception even if there is an
important difference between the two samples. For the French students, a good position in the
ranking is a guarantee of a good service quality while studying and an assurance of a job
placement after graduation. For the Georgian sample good position in the ranking is the
predictor of the quality of education.
“Honestly, I have not thought of it, but I think that rankings should take into account
also how students are treated at school you know” (FBS, FG1).
“When you are going to study to the well ranked school, you know that you will have the
best professors and will receive a good education” (GBS, FG1).
Third, students’ expectations seem to be largely influenced by business school’s position in
rankings. As mentioned above, French students expect better customer service from their
school. Some students directly express a relation between the position in the ranking and the
expectation.
“Frankly, it is not what I expected. You know, sometimes my issue can be very specific,
and I cannot find the answer on Moodle. You would think to have better service at the
top-20 school” (FBS, FG1).
As for the Georgian students, they expect ‘good education’, the ‘best lecturer’, ‘exposure to the
business world’ from a well-ranked business school. They also expect foreign exchange
opportunities and good job placement.
Fourth, we found that not all students were aware of the existence of national rankings. An
important number of Georgian students did not know that there were some forms of national
rankings in the country. For them, it was the accreditation of schools which mattered. Once
explained what rankings represent, these students were a bit skeptical in terms of the ranking
methodology. They argued that it is the reputation of HEI and the quality of education which
matters and not the rankings. In the French sample, if all students were aware of the existence
of rankings, most of them did not know the FBS’s position despite an important communication
from the FBS about the improved position from the top 30 to the top 20. This was surprising to
discover, given the number of posts on social media preceding the discussion. Appeared not all
students follow the institution on social media and not necessarily read the general
communication emails (easily recognised with the email title).
The fifth findings of this study concern the mixed results in terms of student satisfaction. The
difference is observed across cases, but also between the students of the same focus groups.
GBS students were more satisfied with their institution and showed more pride to be part of it.
They mostly initiated positive discourse towards the institution in contrast with the French
sample where students originated both positive and negative attitudes. Georgian students did
not criticise spontaneously nearly any service dimension. Only when asked detailed and
comparative questions, they expressed some discontent. In contrast, the French students mostly
initiated criticisms towards the service quality and when asked more general questions, also
expressed some positive opinions.
806
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
4. Conlcusion
This research had the objective to explore the potential influence of position in ranking on the
experience and satisfaction of business schools’ existing students. Prior studies have widely
explored the relationship between the ranking position and student’s choice, arguing that good
position in national and international rankings, attracts students, especially foreign students
(Tandilashvili et al., 2024; Ashiru et al., 2022; Gibbons et al., 2015; Davies, 2012). However,
there are very few studies on the impact of the rankings on the perception of existing students.
Whereas, this topic is crucial, given the benefits of satisfied students for HEIs, in terms of their
reputation, student loyalty, word-of-mouth effect (Tandilashvili et al., 2023; Khan & Hemsley-
Brown, 2021; Rehman et al., 2020; Dollinger et al., 2018).
We found that even if students do not pay attention to rankings and most of them are not even
aware of them, rankings still influence their experiences, perception of quality and satisfaction.
Business school students’ attitude to their institutions is similar to customers’ attitude towards
any service provider. Students believe that high-ranked institutions are expected to have better
quality products and better customer service. Thus, they have higher expectations towards their
business schools and thus, are more critical in terms of their perception of quality. Students take
most of school services for granted and are not easily impressed.
Our findings contribute to the literature on student satisfaction by proposing that the HEIs’
position in rankings impacts students’ expectations and the relationship between the perception
of quality and satisfaction. If students perceive a gap between the position in ranking and the
quality of service received, they tend to be more critical in terms of satisfaction. Despite
interesting and novel findings, this study has a clear limitation in terms of generalisation of its
findings. The choice of a qualitative research method with a focus group approach enabled to
detect unforeseen topics, but future quantitative studies are needed to examine further the
findings of this research.
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service
quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6),
569–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x
Ashiru, F., Whitfield, I., Warwick, P. (2022). Business school capital and study choices in
undergraduate education: A student-centred approach, The International Journal of
Management Education, 20(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100633.
Broecke, S. (2015). University rankings: Do they matter? Education Economics, 23(2), 137–
161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2012.729382
Davies, P. (2012). Can Governments improve higher education through ‘informing choice.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(3), 261–276.
807
The influence of rankigs on students’ perception and satisfaction
Dollinger, M., Lodge, J. & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: Towards a
conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210–231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08841241.2018.1466756
Gibbons, S., Neumayer, E. & Perkins, R. (2015). Student satisfaction, league tables and
university applications: Evidence from britain. Economics of Education Review, 48, 148–
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econdurev.201507.002
Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. The battle for world-
class excellence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Horstschräer, J. (2012). University rankings in action? The importance of rankings and an
excellence competition for university choice of high-ability students, Economics of
Education Review, 31(6)1162-1176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.07.018.
Khan, J., Hemsley-Brown, J. (2021). Student satisfaction: The role of expectations in mitigating
the pain of paying fees. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241. 2021.1973646
Luque-Martínez, T., Faraoni, N. (2020). Meta-ranking to position world universities, Studies
in Higher Education, 45(4), 819-833, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1564260
Marginson, S., van der Wende, M. (2007). To Rank or To Be Ranked: The Impact of Global
Rankings in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4),
306-329.
Morgeson, F. P. & Nahrgang J. D. (2008). Same as It Ever Was: Recognizing Stability in the
BusinessWeek Rankings, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), p.26 –
41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214495.
Rehman, M. A., Woyo, E., Akahome, J. E., & Sohail, M. D. (2020). The influence of course
experience, satisfaction, and loyalty on students’ word-of-mouth and re-enrolment
intentions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(2), 259–277.
Ruigrok, W., Gratwohl, M. & Ruppert, A. (2017). Rankings, information asymmetry and
mobility: an empirical study on students’ ranking perceptions, Academy of Management
Annual Meeting Proceedings, N.1. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.15399abstract
Soo K. T. (2013). Does anyone use information from university rankings?, Education
Economics, 21(2), p.176-190, DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2011.561626
Tabatadze, M. (2018). The advantages of using a synthesis of traditional and new teaching
methods in economic education. Proceedings of the Science and education: trends and
prospects, p. 23–25. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id = 32874898
Tandilashvili, N., Tabatadze, M., (2016). International university rankings: review and future
perspectives. World science, 12(2), p.67-72
Tandilashvili, N., Tabatadze, M. &Tandilashvili, A. (2024). Impact of International Rankings
on French Universities. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202401.1656.v1
Tandilashvili, N., Balech, S., Tabatadze, M. (2023). The role of affective ties in the
asymmetrical relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty. Comparative study of
European business schools, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2204468
808
