wut: quality assessment fraud #1

Report

Tags:

Post on 25-Dec-2015

142 Views

Category:

Documents

2 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

1/5 Quality Assessment documents published by the Thai government at http://www.cheqa.mua.go.th that allegedly contain assessment scores based on fraudulent research and faculty data. Members of the WUT Academic Committee allege that Rector Ratish Thakur and Academic Director Nisha Ray-Chaudhuri have purposefully submitted fraudulent research to the Thai Ministry of Education multiple years in a row in order to maintain their university-level QA ratings, despite refusing to fund actual research at WUT, while at the same time "borrowing" millions of Thai baht from student tuition fees for their own personal travel, living, and education expenses.

TRANSCRIPT

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.1 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 1.1 6

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

- - 5 /- - 8 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

5.005.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷ÂêóÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.2 20% 0.00 0.00

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó(Ŭóä­îãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂ=66.667 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°

ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂì­ÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5=ä­îãæñ 30 Ã÷­ÚăÜÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕ­ÿجóÂòÛ 5.000)(ŬóÂóäÿßõ¬âÃö­ÚÃîÈä­îãæñ

îóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂÿÜäöãÛÿØöãÛÂòÛÜöØö¬Ý¬óÚâó=66.667 ÿâø¬î

ÿØöãÛŬóÂóäÿßõ¬âÃö­ÚÃîÈä­îãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂÿÜäöãÛÿØöãÛÂòÛÜöØö¬Ý¬óÚâóØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂì­ÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5 =ä­îãæñ 6 Ã÷­ÚăÜÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕ­ÿجóÂòÛ 5.000)ÿßäóñÊñÚò­Ú

ÿÅäø¬îÈÉ÷ÈÿæøîÂŬóÅñĀÚÚ = 5.000

/ 5.00

collegetimes
Sticky Note
66.667% score for the amount of faculty members with a PhD degree results in a 5.00 excellent rating in this category

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.6 6ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.5 6

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.8 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.7 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.4 5

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 2.3 10%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

- - 7 /- - 7 /

- - 4 /- - 4 /

- - 7 /

0.00 0.00 (Ŭóä­îãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬ÕôäÈÖôĀìÚ¬ÈØóÈèõËóÂóä=20.000ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬ÕôäÈÖôĀìÚ¬ÈØóÈ

èõËóÂóäØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂì­ÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5= ä­îãæñ60 Ã÷­ÚăÜ ÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕ­ÿجóÂòÛ 1.667)

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
20% score regarding the number of faculty results in a poor 1.667 rating in this category (60% is passing)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

5.005.00

4.004.00

5.00

1.67

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ đ 3.51

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Đ 80%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚÉóÂÅèóâß÷ÈßîĂÉÃîÈÚóãÉ­óÈØö¬âöÖ¬îÝú­ëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóÖäö āØÿî ÖóâÂäîÛTQF ÿÊæö¬ã

(ÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ Ĕ)= 4.050

/

0.00 0.00 (ÉôÚèÚÝú­ëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóÖäöØö¬ăÕ­ÈóÚØôìäøî

ÜäñÂîÛîóËößîõëäñ=7/ÉôÚèÚÛòÔÒõÖØö¬ÖîÛĀÛÛëôäèÉ =8)ÿجóÂòÛä­îãæñ87.50 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛä­îãæñ 100 ÿجóÂòÛ 5 ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚò­Ú ÅñĀÚÚÉ÷Èÿجó

ÂòÛ 4.375

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding students who graduate and a find a job successfully in their field, the score was 87.50% resulting in a strong rating of 4.375 in this category
collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding the feeling that employers (companies) have after hiring WUT graduates, the result was a strong 4.050

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

4.05

4.38

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Ē 10%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ׬èÈÚ­ôìÚòÂÃîÈÝæÈóÚØö¬Öößõâß°ìäøîÿÝãĀßä¬ÃîÈÝú­ëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóāØÿجóÂòÛ 1.75/ÉôÚèÚÝú­ëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóāØØò­ÈìâÕÿجóÂòÛ 7) =ä­îãæñ25.000ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñ 25 ÿجóÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚÿجóÂòÛ

5.000

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

5.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 3.1 6ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 3.2 5ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 4.1 7

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Đē 2.5 score

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 4.2 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

- - 7 /- - 6 /- - 8 /

0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ׬èÈÚ­ôìÚòÂÃîÈ

îóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôÿجóÂòÛ 69.000/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØò­ÈìâÕÿجóÂòÛ 15.000 )ÿجóÂòÛ 4.600ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÕòËÚöÅùÔáóßîóÉóäã°ÿÜĆÚ 6 ÿجóÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚÉ÷ÈÿجóÂòÛ

3.833

/

- - 5 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding how many teachers are full-time faculty, the rating is 4.6 but after comparing all quality indexes the summary rating is 3.833

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

5.005.005.00

3.83

5.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 4.3 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (ÉôÚèÚÿÈõÚëÚòÛëÚùÚÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîëä­óÈëääÅ°ÉóÂáóãĂÚĀæñáóãÚîÂë×óÛòÚ =112,439.25/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉô=15.00)

=7,495.95 ÛóØÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬó

ÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5 =25,000.00 ÛóØÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕ­ÿجóÂòÛ 1.499)

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding research funding WUT declared 112,439.25 baht for a total of just 15 full-time faculty/researchers, equal to only 7,495.95 baht per researcher. The Thai government says each researcher should be allocated at least 25,000 baht to do proper university research at WUT, resulting in a poor rating of 1.499

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

1.50

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Ĕ 3%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ׬èÈÚ­ôìÚòÂÃîÈÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîÈóÚëä­óÈëääÅ°Øö¬Öößõâß°ìäøîÿÝãĀßä¬ÿجóÂòÛ1.250/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉôØò­ÈìâÕÿجóÂòÛ

15.000) = ä­îãæñ8.333 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñ10 ÿجóÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚò­ÚÅñĀÚÚÿجóÂòÛ

4.167

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding published research in journals, per the amount of full-time faculty WUT should publish at least 10 (ratio) papers, but having published 8.333 (ratio) results in a strong rating of 4.167

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

4.17

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ ĕ 10%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÃîÈÉôÚèÚÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîÈóÚëä­óÈëääÅ°Øö¬ÚôăÜĂË­ÜäñāãËÚ°

=1.000/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉô ÅÔñÙùäÂõÉĀæñÿØÅāÚāæãö

=15.000)= ä­îãæñ 6.667 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñ20 ÿجóÂòÛ 5

ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöŬóÿجóÂòÛ 1.667

/

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding the amount of research projects with real world value and immediate benefits the score is 6.667 out of a recommended 20 resulting in a poor research benefit rating of 1.667

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

1.67

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Ė 8%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 5.1 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 5.2 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ׬èÈÚ­ôìÚòÂÃîÈÝæÈóÚèõËóÂóäØö¬ăÕ­äòÛäîÈÅùÔáóß =1.500/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòã

ÜäñÉôØò­ÈìâÕ =15.000)= ä­îãæñ10.000 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñ10 ÿجóÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöŬóÿجóÂòÛ 5.000

/

- - 5 /- - 5 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding academic quality the score is 10.000 resulting in a perfect 5.000 rating

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

5.00

5.005.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 7.3 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 7.2 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 8.1 5ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĒ 3.70ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 7.4 5

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĐ 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ ė 25%

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 7.1 6

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Đď 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 6.1 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ Ę 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

- - 4 /- - 5 /

- - 7 /4.42 1.00 4.420 /

- - 6 /

- - 5 /

0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÃîÈÉôÚèÚāÅäÈÂóä/ÂõÉÂääâÛäõÂóäØóÈèõËóÂóä Øö¬ÚôâóĂË­ĂÚÂóä

ßòÓÚóÂóäÿäöãÚÂóäëîÚĀæñ

ÂóäèõÉòã=1.000/ÉôÚèÚāÅäÈÂóä/ÂõÉÂääâÛäõÂóäØóÈèõËóÂóäØò­ÈìâÕ =1.000)=âöŬóÿجóÂòÛ ä­îãæñ100.000 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛŬóä­îãæñ30 ÿجóÂòÛ 5

ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöŬóÿجóÂòÛ 5.000

/

- - 7 /

- - 5 /- - 5 /- - 5 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

collegetimes
Sticky Note
Regarding academic development for learning the rating is a perfect 5.000

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

4.005.00

5.004.425.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.005.005.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĔ 3.51 scoreÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­Øö¬ 9.1 7

ÿÊæö¬ãÅñĀÚÚäèâØùÂÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈØùÂîÈÅ°ÜäñÂîÛ

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÅùÔáóß ÿÜ­óìâóã

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚÜäñÂòÚÅùÔáóßÂóä

é÷ÂêóáóãĂÚāÕãÖ­ÚëòÈÂòÕ=4.486/ÉôÚèÚÜö =1Üö)

=4.486

/- - 5 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜ­óìâóãÖòèÖò­È Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËö­ÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

4.493.00

4.45

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

top related

risk assessment, fraud detection and prevention; empirical
Documents
wut automotive brochure
Documents
fraud risk management and assessment
Documents
vulnerability assessment and approaches to food...
Documents
fraud prevention and deterrence - acfe.com · © 2016...
Documents
fraud risk assessment program leonard w. vona
Documents
the effect of fraud assessment documentation structure
Documents
fraud risk assessment cash receipts cycle -...
Documents
analizatorul acustico-vestibular wut
Documents
fraud risk assessment- detection and prevention- part- 2,
Business
fraud risk assessment - acua a practical approach...
Documents
wut journal of transportation engineering
Documents
vulnerability assessment and approaches to food fraud...
Documents
assessment of predictive modeling for identifying fraud...
Documents
an empirical investigation of fraud risk assessment and
Documents
mobile payment fraud & risk assessment
Business
fraud risk assessment payroll cycle - roselli, clark &...
Documents
fraud risk management | fraud risk assessment - ey india
Documents
fraud risk management - edmonton · 2019-02-09 · fraud...
Documents
fraud risk assessment - acuia.org€¦ · • fraud risk...
Documents