zucas final

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

1/69

Project Topic:

ZIMBABWE UNIVERSITY CENTRALISED ADMISSION

SERVICE

By

KURASA TOREVEI

St!"e#t N!$%er: &'&&()*M

De+ree: BTec, -o#./ "e+ree i# IT -B0oc1 Re0e2.e/

S!per3i.or: Mr45otor2 O

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

2/69

This Project is submitted to the Department of Information Technology , Harare Institute of Technology, in

 partial fulfillment of the Bachelor of Technology Honors Degree in Information Technology

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

3/69

S!per3i.or: Mr45otor2 O

Si+#2t!re:66666666666666

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

4/69

ACKNOWLE5EMENT

Firstly and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty GOD for guiding me through my

studies and the subsequent work on this project !y special thanks e"tends my wife Dorothy

and son #ore for the sacrificed joy during my study time

Of course, like any author, I am indebted always to those people that do their best to impro$e

on my best #hanks especially to all who ha$e checked on my work and corrected some te"t

in this documentation and this was the work of my super$isor !r Gotora O who ga$e me

resounding guidance and leadership during the de$elopment of this project

#o the department of computer science and information %ciences and #echnology students

and staff, I really thank you for your unwa$ering support

#hank you, and be &ell and 'appy

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

5/69

ABSTRACT

#he adoption of information and communication technology has seen the automation of most

of the uni$ersity processes which has since proliferated in some uni$ersities, with the

admission process being one of the processes being automated #he necessity of fully

e"ploiting the use of information technology has enlightened the need to design a centralised

uni$ersity admissions system that addresses the specific requirements for the (imbabwean

uni$ersities #his thesis del$es into the design of an effecti$e centralised admissions system

for undergraduates, which can sol$e some problems which are currently being encountered

with the decentralised admission system #he system model was e$aluated using a

combination of software performance tests and perceptions from the system users

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

6/69

#able of )ontents

)'A*#+ O-+. I-#OD/)#IO-0000000000000000000000001

12 Introduction00000000000000000000000000000001

11 3ackground of study0000000000000000000000000001

14 *roblem statement0000000000000000000000000000415 %tatement of purpose0000000000000000000000000004

16 esearch objecti$es00000000000000000000000000004

17 esearch questions00000000000000000000000000005

18 9ustification00000000000000000000000000000005

1: Assumptions0000000000000000000000000000006

1; s +nd56

557 %ystem %ecurity 58

558 %election Algorithm 5:

55: *ost %election 5;

55; %ystem testing and e$aluation 5;

56 *opulation and %ampling 5;

57 Data Analysis *rocedures 5=

)'A*#+ FO/. DA#A *+%+-#A#IO- A-D A-A

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

7/69

72 Introduction82

71 Aims and objecti$es realisation 82

74 Future &ork82

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

8/69

#able of Figures

Figure 1 . )entralised /ni$ersity Admissions %ystem use case diagram 44

Figure 4 )entralised /ni$ersity Admissions %ystem acti$ity diagram 46

Figure 5 )entralised Admissions %ystem process flow diagram 48

Figure 6 )entralised /ni$ersity Admissions %ystem entity relationship diagram 4;

Figure 7 /ser interface design process 52

Figure 8 Account creation page for applicants 51

Figure : +ntering qualifications for an applicant 54

Figure ; making an application on the system 55

Figure = %etting degree selection criteria56

Figure 12 !anaging uni$ersities in the system 58

Figure 11 Adding a new faculty 58

Figure 14 *rior e"perience with internet 68

Figure 15 the centralised admission system is reasonably easy to use 6;

Figure 16 )arrying out the application process was easy 6=

Figure 17 the system is unnecessarily comple" 72

Figure 18 O$erall system rating +rrorB 3ookmark not defined

Figure 1: Internet connecti$ity 74

Figure 1; Ability to access platform 75

Figure 1= +ase of use of the centralised system 76

Figure 42 O$erall system rating 78

Figure 41 eduction in redundancies 7;

Figure 44 human intensity reduction 7=

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

9/69

CAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

&4* INTRODUCTION

#he fast de$elopment of information and communication technologies CI)# and the

e"pansion of the internet ha$e changed different industry structures around the world #oday

organiEations of all types around the globe are utiliEing I)#, not only for cutting costs and

impro$ing efficiency, but also for better ser$ice pro$ision 'owe$er, in (imbabwe, the use of 

I)# for uni$ersity undergraduate admissions is not being fully e"ploited

 /ni$ersity undergraduate candidate selection is the process through which applicants are

accepted for uni$ersity entry to undertake undergraduate degree programs In (imbabwe,

most prospecti$e uni$ersity undergraduate students apply for admission in differentuni$ersities upon the completion of ad$anced le$el studies Admission in any of the country>s

state uni$ersity differs due to the selection criteria used in the selection process by each of 

these uni$ersities

ey aspects of the current selection system that will be of note would be the ability of the

 proposed centralised system to reduce the number of simultaneous multiple offers to one

 particular applicant by differing uni$ersities, speed of placement and consistency of the

centralised system to gi$e consistent results o$er $arying data that should not ha$e effect on

its selection mechanism

A presumption is made that a softwaredri$en system is most likely to be more effecti$e in

most parts than the present manual, decentralised system #hus, the proposition is that this

research be summarily composed of an e$aluati$e step of assessing the practicality of design

of the system ie the design of an alternati$e centralised candidate selection system

&4& BACK5ROUND O9 STUDY

As an attempt to address the shortcomings of the con$entional undergraduate candidate

selection system in uni$ersities, a centralised system which can be used by all applicants to

apply to any of the state uni$ersities is going to be de$eloped

#o date, the candidate selection process is decentrally carried out at each of the uni$ersities,

which has resulted in redundancy of the selection process Applicants are being allocated

 places in more than one uni$ersity in utmost cases yet each applicant can take up a place in

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

10/69

only one uni$ersity lea$ing the other allocated places $acant In most of the uni$ersities, the

candidate selection process is still being done manually which consumes a lot of time

#he acceptance of post As selection criteria for the degree program they will be applying for

/ndergraduate entry selection criteria and standards $ary from one uni$ersity to another and

these will be ascertained in the uni$ersitiesH admissions policies

&4' PROBLEM STATEMENT

#he lack of a fast, centrally decisi$e managed process has yielded undesirable results in theundergraduate entry system across state uni$ersities in (imbabwe #he current state of affairs

has led to predominant redundant offers, time and resource consuming candidate selection

 process for undergraduate entries in each of the state uni$ersities %imultaneous multiple

offers to one particular applicant by differing uni$ersities ha$e to be eliminated Applicants

ha$e to be informed in time, of the a$ailability of their enrolment places so as to reduce

incon$eniences for both the applicants and the admission staff in these uni$ersities Also, the

current way of selecting candidates for uni$ersity entry tends to be not as accurate, as it is

 prone to human errors and bias since it is done manually 'owe$er, adopting e"isting

solutions such as the deferred acceptance algorithm does not quite suffice the problem as they

tend to ha$e their own weaknesses

15 %#A#+!+-# OF */*O%+

#o de$elop a centralised uni$ersity undergraduate candidate selection system that is capable of 

allocating uni$ersity places to applicants in a fast, accurate and nonredundant manner

16 O39+)#I+%

• #o design and implement a centraliEed uni$ersity undergraduate candidate selection system

model, using the stable matching concept

• #o e$aluate the usability and effecti$eness of the resultant system

• #o de$elop a fully functional design of the centralised uni$ersity admissions system

17 9/%#IFI)A#IO-

#he con$entional candidate selection process in state uni$ersities has shown some weaknesses and the

researcher has therefore seen it feasible to research on how best the candidate selection process can be

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

11/69

centraliEed for undergraduate entry across state uni$ersities, addressing redundancies posed by the

 presentday selection process 3y centralising the candidate selection process, the problem of multiple

simultaneous offers to one applicant by different uni$ersities can be eliminated #he centralised

system will also benefit each of the uni$ersities through a reduction in resource wastages which arise

due to the simultaneous multiple offers )entralising the candidate selection process would mean that

the number of students who will turn down admission offers because they would ha$e been offered

admission by another uni$ersity will be greatly reduced In such a way, resource wastages by the

uni$ersities will be minimal as a greater number of students offered admission will accept, thereby

aligning with the uni$ersities> admission plans

 +fficiency in the selection process will also be increased through the proposed system 3ecause the

selection process is currently being done manually, the centralised system will reduce the time taken

for candidate selection, and this in turn would mean that candidates will be notified in time of the

a$ailability of their enrolment places Also, de$eloping the proposed system results in a candidate

selection process that will be free from human errors and bias hence the candidate selection process

will be more accurate and in a way, fair

For the technical implementation feasibility test of the system, we base this on the assumption that the

 process of the acceptance of the system does not affect change to the suggested e"ecution of the

 proposed system

18 s academic qualifications

through the national e"amination results pro$iders which are (I!%+) and )ambridge Acquiring the

actual results databases from these e"amination boards for the purpose of this research is likely to be

not $iable due to the confidentiality policies of these boards

1: %)O*+

#he model to be de$eloped shall only cater for the admission of post Ale$el students for 

undergraduate programmes #his implies that applicants with other forms of qualifications will not be

catered for in the system due to time reasons Although the proposed system will ha$e the capability

to accommodate all state uni$ersities, only three of the state uni$ersities shall be used namely 3indura

/ni$ersity of %cience +ducation, where the researcher is based, /ni$ersity of (imbabwe and the

 -ational /ni$ersity of %cience and #echnology

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

12/69

CAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

'4* INTRODUCTION

e$iewing related literature will assist the researcher to unco$er what other researchers ha$e done on

this subject matter #his chapter re$iews rele$ant research made on the design of centralised

admissions systems, particularly the algorithms employed )ollecti$e ideas and $iews of different

authors are contained in this chapter #he ser$es to answer the following questions what are the

current algorithms that are being used in the designing of centralised admission systems and what

gaps need to be filled to impro$e the e"isting algorithmsJ

#he college admissions problem is an e"ample of a two sided matching market which has been widely

studied by economists and game theorists CAbdulkadiroglu A 4227 #his is whereby a college only

accepts a specific number of students Cquotas in each academic year due to the impossibility of the

college to accept all students who applied for it because of limited resources %o, e$ery student cannot

get into their top choices and on the other hand, a student also can only accept offer of admission from

only one college, thus it is not guaranteed that all students whom a college has made offers of 

admission will accept the offers

Issues in$ol$ing who gets which job, who gets which school places and the admission of students to

colleges are among the matching situations that ha$e gained attention in the last decades In a two

sided matching market, agents belong to one of two disjoint sets, for instance colleges and students,and each agent ie college and student, has preferences o$er the other side of the market ie students

and colleges, and the prospect of being unmatched *erhaps the most famous matching mechanisms

are the 3oston mechanism and the Gale%hapely algorithm #hese two differ in the criteria applied for 

admission under each of the mechanisms !any countries around the world are using the centraliEed

admission system, for e"ample German, %weden and 'ungary, which are all based on either the

3oston mechanism or the Gale%hapely algorithm

In this research, the effecti$eness of the stable matching algorithms in pre$ious matching problems is

analysed and a further study is made to attempt to analyse the root causes of the weaknesses and

limitations associated with these particular solutions in sol$ing the stable marriage problem in

comple" markets where the matching is not simply one entity in set A being matched to only one

entity in set 3 Csimple markets as initially e"postulated by Gale and %hapely C1=84 A critical

analysis is then made to formulate sufficient facts on which to impro$e the e"isting algorithm for use

in the case of the centralised uni$ersity admissions system as a comple" market

'4& OVERVIEW O9 CENTRALISED ADMISSIONS SYSTEMS

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

13/69

#he centralisation of the uni$ersity admission process has been appreciated across the world In

'ungary, student admissions for both secondary and higher education are organised by centralised

matching schemes #he programs for both the secondary schools and higher education are based on

the original model and algorithm of Gale and %hapley C3iro et al 4212

#he centralised German uni$ersity admissions system implements the primiti$e prejudicial

mechanism to be e"plained later, the K3oston mechanismH CAtila Abdulkadiroglu L #ayfun %onmeE

4225, and the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm by Gale and %hapley Although for the majority of the

subjects, the uni$ersities decentrally select the students themsel$es, there is a centralised matching

scheme administered by the clearing house that is used to allocate places for medicine and three

specialitiesCdentistry, pharmacy and $eterinary medicine as these fields of study are most prone to

o$er demand in the country C3raun, ubler and Dwenger 4212

'4' ORI5INS O9 TE STABLE MATCIN5 PROBLEM

#he stable matching Cmarriage problem originated, in part, in 1=84 when Da$id Gale and

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

14/69

Abdulkadiroglu and %onmeE find $arious shortcomings of the 3oston mechanism. the mechanism is

not stable, that is, it can cause an unfair outcome where a student is not admitted to a school they like

while a student with a lower priority than them is admitted to that school the 3oston mechanism is

not strategyproof, that is, it gi$es students a strong incenti$e to misrepresent their preferences by

impro$ing the ranking of schools for which they ha$e high priority #he authors also highlighted the

mechanism>s ease of manipulation #he authors further point out that the deferred acceptance

mechanism by Gale and %hapely sol$es both problems because it is both stable and strategyproof

Gale and %hapley focused on a common problem faced by colleges based on their usual admissions

 procedure, namely, how to admit the ideal number of bestqualified applicants based on a specific

quota without knowing precisely how many admitted applicants will accept CGale and %hapley 1=84

For e"ample, the authors note the college may not know whether the applicant has applied elsewhere

and, if so, whether the other colleges will admit them For the stable matching problem, Gale and

%hapley analyEed matching at an abstract general le$el #hey used marriage as one of their illustrati$e

e"amples how should ten men and ten women be matched while respecting their indi$idual

 preferencesJ #his in$ol$ed a set of men and a set of women, each whom ha$e ranked all the members

of the other set in a strict order of preference #he main challenge in$ol$ed designing a simple

mechanism that would lead to a stable matching, where no couples would break up and form new

couples that would make them better off #he authors used their solution to this problem as a basis for 

sol$ing the e"tended problem where one of the sets consists of college applicants, and the other 

consists of colleges, each of which has a quota of places to fill

'owe$er, this was not the only origin of the stable matching problem It turns out that for a decade

 before the work of Gale and %hapley, unbeknownst to them, the -ational esident !atch *rogram

had been using the $ery similar procedure Cleinburg and #ardos 4228 #he program began in 1=74

in response to dissatisfaction with the process and results of matching applicants to residency

 programs $ia the decentralised, competiti$e market #he -!* administers the matching of 

graduating medical students to hospital residency positions through a centralised ser$ice Coth and

%otomayor 1==2 From shortly after the first residency programs were formally introduced, thehiring process was characterised by intense competition amongst hospitals for interns A publication

in 1=84 by Gale and %hapley noted that there always e"ists a stable solution when colleges are

matching with students, but that it is possible to fa$our colleges as a group o$er applicants as a group

/p to the le$el of simple markets, matching in which only onetoone matching is the only possibility

Csimple markets, and no couple Cor more of accepting agents would rather prefer a match in which

they outright want combined acceptance by one proposing agent Ccomple" markets the deferred

acceptance algorithm has been pro$en to work and always produce stable matching CGale and %hapley

1=84 Coth A 422; #he authors further pro$e that this algorithm fails and will not always produce

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

15/69

a stable matching in a case where couples e"ist #hey faced this problem where some of the accepting

medical students would be married couples who would rather prefer a matching to a hospital where

they both are accepted

'4) TE DE9ERRED ACCEPTANCE AL5ORITM

In the deference algorithm C!iralles A 422;, students submit their ranking lists that correspond their 

 preferences o$er the colleges they are applying for #he students then recei$e scores at each college

they applied for according to their final grades at secondary school, and entrance e"ams #hese scores

will be a real number between 2 and 1 assigned by an e$en lottery #he assignment is computed in

se$eral rounds where in the first round, the mechanism assigns each student to her first ranked school,

in increasing order of the lottery numbers, until either school capacity is reached or no more students

rank the school as their first choice In each of the remaining rounds, each student applies to their 

most preferred school amongst the ones that would not ha$e rejected them Again, the algorithm

compares all students applying to the school and reassigns students in their increasing order of lottery

numbers until full capacity is reached or until no students remain

#he Gale%hapley algorithm has been found to be stable in that no student loses a seat to a lower 

 priority student and recei$es a less preferred assignment and also strategy proof for students, that is, it

is a dominant strategy for students to state their true preferences ariants of the college proposing

deferred acceptance C)DA algorithms ha$e been used to allocate medical students to their 

 professional position in the /% Coth 1=;6 and $ariants of the student proposing deferred acceptance

algorithm C%DA ha$e been and are still being used to assign students to public schools in 3oston and

 -ew ?ork CAbdulkaroglu et al 4227

'4 TE COLLE5E PROPOSIN5 DE9ERRED ACCEPTANCE AL5ORITM

In the college proposing deferred acceptance algorithm, each college proposes to its top acceptable

students +ach student rejects any unacceptable proposals and, if more than one acceptable proposal is

recei$ed, the student holds the most preferred and rejects the rest Any college which would ha$e been

 pre$iously rejected by any student proposes its most preferred acceptable students who would not

ha$e rejected it +ach student holds their mostpreferred acceptable offer to date and rejects the rest

#he algorithm terminates when there are no more rejections +ach student is matched with the college

they would be holding in the last step

According to C3raun, ubler and Dwenger 4212, in the German>s centralised uni$ersity admissions

 procedure the 3oston mechanism is used to firstly allocate up to 62 percent of the total capacity of 

each uni$ersity and all the other remaining places are assigned using the college proposing deferred

acceptance algorithm studied the German uni$ersity admissions system from an empirical perspecti$e

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

16/69

and found considerable support for the hypothesis that applicants try to manipulate the centralised

admissions procedure Applicants ha$e strong incenti$es to manipulate the German admissions

 procedure by submitting a ranking of uni$ersities that do not correspond to their true preferences

#he way in which conflicts are resol$ed in the 3oston mechanism and the Deference Algorithm isdifferent #he deference algorithm makes truthful ranking a dominant strategy and resol$es any

conflicts purely by random lotteries regardless of the underlying cardinal utilities #herefore the

outcome of the deference algorithm is completely insensiti$e to cardinal preferences In contrast, the

3oston allows parts of participants to influence how ties are broken, so it has the potential to resol$e

conflicts based on students> cardinal utilities which may be useful for efficient resolution of 

conflicting interests )onflicts arise due to tension in stabilising equity in assignments, that is, the

e"tent to which student priorities can be accommodated, student welfare and immunity to strategic

action CA + oth 1=;4

 #he 3oston mechanism may e"pose strategically nai$e participants as pro$ed by Abdulkaroglu et al

that some players may ha$e beha$ed nai$ely and suffered as a consequence under the 3oston

mechanism %chools that are o$erdemanded tend to enable $aluable traders, as there are many

students who would be willing to e"change their assigned school for an o$erdemanded one #hus

misreporting would make o$erdemanded schools to be e$en more o$erdemanded #he increase in

demand amplifies trade opportunities, and imposes a negati$e e"ternality on the other students

%tudents may e$en report a high preference for a school they do not find acceptable as long as it

enables desirable trades &hen trade is not certain students may still attempt it, but when they fail to

trade they can end up with an unacceptable school, making the final matching unstable and inefficient

A theoretical justification to 3oston mechanism>s weaknesses was pro$ided by *athak and %onmeE in

422;, who argue that strategically sophisticated participants e"ploit nai$e ones in the 3oston

mechanism, to such an e"tent that the former effecti$ely enjoys a higher priority o$er the latter at

e$ery school e"pect for the latter>s most preferred

'4( TE PROBLEMS O9 TE DE9ERRED ACCEPTANCE AL5ORITM

As confirmed by Coth A 422;, the problem of couples, e$en after attempts to make the deferred

algorithm e"ists still In our case, this is concerned with a typical situation where a uni$ersity is

considering a set of applicants which it can admit only a quota a pair or more of these ha$ing a gi$en

KconditionH to only be accepted, e$en if one outright meets the criteria and prefers when another 

student which that particular also prefers to be accepted is accepted at that same uni$ersity 'a$ing

e$aluated their qualifications, the admissions office must decide which ones to admit #he procedure

of offering admissions only to the best qualified applicants will not generally be satisfactory, for it

cannot be assumed that all those offered admission will accept Accordingly, in order for a college to

recei$e a particular number of acceptances, it will generally ha$e to offer to admit more than a certain

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

17/69

number of applicants CGale and %hapley 1=84 According to the authors, the problem of determining

how many and which ones to admit requires some rather in$ol$ed guesswork since it may not be

known whether a gi$en applicant has also applied elsewhere if this is known it may not be known,

and also which of the other colleges will offer to admit him

#he deferred acceptance algorithm by Gale and %hapley sol$es the stable marriage problem through a

series of MproposalsN made by the MmenN, resulting in pro$isional MengagementsN that the women are

free to break later if they recei$e a better offer In practise, because the deferred acceptance algorithm

assumes strict preferences, almost all matching schemes either require all participants to rank their 

choices in strict order of preference, or use some form of randomisation to break any ties in the

 preference list #his may result in arbitrary decisions, either on the part of participants or scheme

administrators, who produce a strictly ordered list by discriminating unnecessarily or artificially

 between applicants

#hrough the deferred acceptance algorithm, Gale and %hapley did pro$e that the set of stable

outcomes is nonempty for all preferences of the kind they considered and also that when the

 preferences are strict, there always e"ists a stable matching Coth A 422;&ith the student proposing

deferred acceptance algorithm, the mechanism specifies how to order equi$alent students from the

 point of $iew of schools with limited space For instance, one can assign each student a distinct

number, break ties in school preferences according to those assigned numbers, then apply the deferred

acceptance algorithm to the strict preferences that result from the tiebreaking #his preser$es the

stability and the strategyproofness of the student proposing deferred algorithm 'owe$er, tiebreaking

introduces artificial stability constraints Csince, after tiebreaking, schools appear to ha$e strict

 preferences between students for whom they are indifferent, and these constraints can harm student

welfare

'47 TE NRMP AL5ORITM

Analysis of the algorithms used by the -ational esidency !atching *rogram clearinghouse showed

that they were closely related to the Gale%hapely algorithm Coth 1==2 #he Gale %hapley result

showed that the -!* $ersion of the algorithm, because it had the hospitals proposing to the

students, produced a match that was hospitaloptimal #he hospital optimal stable matching is

 produced by a Mhospital proposingN algorithm, which operates by ha$ing residency programs propose

Cmake offers to applicants and allowing applicants to hold at any point in the algorithm the most

 preferred offer amongst those so far recei$ed #he algorithm was criticised as being biased towards

residency programs at the e"pense of the applicants In contrast, defenders of the -!* were

inclined to $iew the matching algorithm as ha$ing e$ol$ed from the traditional recruitment process in

which programs offer positions to applicants, and adapted to changes in the medical market, picking

up special features as required In the fall of 1==7 an alternati$e design of a new Capplicantproposing

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

18/69

algorithm was commissioned for conducting the annual match and a study to compare it with the

current -!* algorithm CAl$in+oth, 1==7 According to the same author, the applicant proposing

algorithm was designed based on the algorithm outlined by oth and ande ate and also on the

components of the e"isting algorithm #o code a working algorithm, choices had to be made

concerning the sequencing of operations +ach decision can be shown to ha$e no effect on the

outcome of simple matches but, but could affect the outcome when match $ariations are present Csince

optimal stable matches may not e"ist #he matches produced under the newly designed algorithm

and the current program proposing algorithm were compared and showed that there was a slight

difference between the two algorithms were only 21 of the applicants were affected by the change

in algorithms #he choice between either the applicant proposing or the program proposing was

therefore seen as not in$ol$ing consequential differences for the match as a whole C*eransin and

andlett 1==:

#he goal of the redesign of the -!* was to construct an algorithm that would produce stable

matching as fa$ourable as possible to applicants, while meeting the specific constraints of the medical

market Coth and *eranson 1=== #he comparisons between the new and the e"isting algorithms

were to focus both on how many applicants and residency programs could be e"pected to recei$e

morepreferred and lesspreferred matches under the two algorithms

#he e"istence of married couples amongst the medical students posed some problems as many of the

couples felt that the -!* clearinghouse was not ser$ing them well oth C1=;6 argues that this was

 because the matching algorithm used until then did not allow couples to appropriately e"press

 preferences 'e went on to clarify that in a market without couples, the 1=72s clearinghouse algorithm

is equi$alent to the deferred acceptance algorithm of Gale and %hapley #he algorithm often fails to

find a stable matching when there are couples in$ol$ed oth further argued that the main problem of 

the mechanism is that Cprior to the 1=;5 match it did not allow couples to report preferences o$er 

 pairs of positions, one for each member of the couple Coth and *eranson 1=== describe the current

algorithm, which elicits and uses couples> preferences o$er pairs of positions and has been used by

more than 62 centralised clearinghouses including the American labour market for new doctors, the -!*

oth C1=;6 postulates that the problem is difficult e$en if couples are allowed to e"press their 

 preferences o$er pairs of positions, because there does not necessarily e"ist stable matching with

couples In the late 1==2>s, the market e$ol$ed from a decentralised one Coth and Ping, 1==: to

one employing a centralised clearinghouse, where a key design issue was whether it would be

 possible to accommodate the presence of couples eilin C1==; reported that under the old

decentralised system, couples had difficulties coordinating their internship choices In 1===, clinical

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

19/69

 psychologists adopted a centralised clearinghouse using an algorithm based on Al$in oth and

*eranson, in which couples are allowed to e"press preference o$er hospital pairs

+"isting studies on couples matching are mostly negati$e. oth C1=;6 and unpublished work by

%otomayor show that stable matching does not e"ist where there are couples, and onn C1==2 showsthat it may be computationally hard to determine if a stable matching e$en e"ists %ome -!*

 participants who participate as couples are ad$ised to form preferences by first forming indi$idual

rank order lists after inter$iewing with programs #hen this list will ser$e as an input into the joint

ranking of the couple For instance, medical students who are couples at the /ni$ersity of ansas

!edical %chool are suggested to make a list of all possible program pair combinations from both

indi$idual rank order lists by computing the difference between the ranking number of the program on

each indi$idual>s rank order list and trying to minimise the difference in their joint rank order list

Cojima, *athak and oth 4212

'48 SUMMARY O9 LITERATURE REVIEW

#he e"istence of the instability in the deferred acceptance algorithm then lea$es a compelling question

as to whether a stable matching can in actual fact ne$er e"ist as implied by the researchersH inability

to pro$e, as done for simple markets, that such a stable matching can e"ist *eculiar and irregular 

 points are noted which are to not be o$erlooked &hilst the great work these researchers ha$e put in

attempting to pro$e their findings is affirmed, pertinent issues are raised that may in$alidate parts and

not all of their findings *erhaps this can e"plain and enable the construction of a better method to

achie$e the best matching for uni$ersity admissions in (imbabwe From the researches referenced

abo$e, the following points were noted.

i !ost importantly, the deferred acceptance algorithm is processed in iterations which themsel$es

are not e"hausti$e in their e$aluation of criteria and preferences this can be pro$ed this by how

the order of processing matching easily affects the outcome of the matching

ii #he $ery fact that there e"ists proposeroptimal and acceptoroptimal $ersions of the algorithm,

gi$en by which set is made to do the actual MproposalN suggests and indicates failure in the

algorithm to process preferences and criteria in a fair, nonfa$ouring manner for any order of 

 processing

iii It is noted that, the deferred acceptance algorithm itself is a suggesti$e algorithm, in criteria for 

uni$ersities and preferences for students in that it imposes conditions which themsel$es may be

regarded McriteriaN

i$ It should also be noted that in reality, not all problems ha$e the rigid form of preferences, as

imposed by the condition of the original and then later re$isions of the deferred acceptance

algorithm -ot all preferences are made in strict lists some may just not be rigid #he couplesH

 problem is an e"ample of nonrigid preferences, howe$er, the past researchers ha$e settled on

calling this a $ariation of the algorithm where couples e"ist

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

20/69

'4; CONCLUSION

#he author has managed to analyse the origin of the problem of stable marriage problems, and looked

at the $aried propositions made in attempt to get a solution to this In this case, the researcher aims to

use this to find a suitable solution for the design of a suitably functional centralised uni$ersityadmissions system for uni$ersities in (imbabwe &hilst the fundamental work done in achie$ing

stable marriages in simple markets by Gale and %hapley C1=84 is acknowledged, and the subsequent

re$isions by oth C422:, some anomalies were found that propose and suggest a look at the

algorithm, if possible change and make it suitable for the proposed en$ironment, or if need be,

construct and implement another proposition for the solution of stable matching and use in the design

of a central uni$ersity admissions system

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

21/69

CAPTER TREE: METODOLO5Y

)4* INTRODUCTION

#his chapter includes a re$iew of the research method and design appropriateness, a discussion of the

indepth look into the methods used to accomplish the stated objecti$es, including the tools that will

 be used to do so

)4& RESEARC DESI5N

esearch design can be defined as a plan that describes how, when and where data is to be collected

and analysed for the purposes of a research C*olit, DF, 3eck, )#, 'ungler, 3* 4226 #his can be

thought of as the logic of a research that throws a light on how the study is to be conducted It shows

how all the major parts of the research study work together in an attempt to address the research

questions #he key to a successful project is proper design and the design stage in$ol$es coming up

with the different modules of the system and their intended functionality

%ystem design can be thought of as the process of defining the architecture, components, modules and

data for the system to satisfy specified requirements #he major objecti$e of this stage is to ensure that

an efficient, effecti$e, maintainable, and reliable system is de$eloped #he system interfaces should be

designed with the end user in mind making the design process easier and the designed work easier to

implement

For the design of the central uni$ersity admissions C)/A model, the researcher dwelled on the

qualitati$e research approach which is an approach to research using methods such as participant

obser$ation, inter$iews, questionnaires or case studies which result in a narrati$e account of a setting

or a practice, with focus being on the interpretation of phenomena in natural settings to make sense in

terms of the meanings people bring to these settings CDenEin, - 4212

#o come up with the model for the centralised uni$ersity admissions system, the researcher had to

re$iew some of the models and their algorithms in literature and how they were designed #he

functionality of these systems was analysed in order to come up with a design that would eliminate

some of the problems that were found to e"ist with these systems A re$iew of the literature on

centralised candidate selection systems therefore aided as a guide in the design of the centralised

uni$ersity admissions system

#he researcher also conducted some inter$iews with the personnel in the 3/%+ admissions offices

with the aim of attaining a deeper understanding of how the admission process is carried out for 

undergraduate students, and also the fundamental student entry data required for admission and the

criteria used for selection #his helped in coming up with a model that would incorporate most of the

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

22/69

important details and procedures used for the selection of undergraduate students %uggestions and

ideas concerning the $ital features that a centralised admission system should consist of were also

taken from the admissions personnel for the model design

%oftware performance tests were carried out as a way of e$aluating the system>s performance in itsintended en$ironment Different types of tests were conducted, each test gi$ing an e$aluation of the

system under different scenarios For the e$aluation of the system>s attributes that could not be

directly determined by system performance tests, and the effecti$eness of the system, the users>

 perceptions had to be taken into account and this was done by collecting the data from two groups of 

the system users namely the applicants and the faculty administrators An analysis of data from these

questionnaires was then used for the system e$aluation, thus the e$aluation of the system was a

combination of system tests and users> perceptions

)4& SO9TWARE DESI5N

)4'4& De.i+# Too0.

*roper de$elopment of an ideal system that meets specified requirements and that suits the area in

which the system is to be used in$ol$es the use of appropriate tools In the researcher>s quest to

achie$e the first objecti$e, the researcher decided to use the following tools.

1 *'* scripting language

4 )odeIgniter Framework  

5 Internet Information %er$ices CII%

6 3oot%trap for user interface design

7 !y%@< database

PP Scripti#+ L2#+!2+e

#his is a ser$erside scripting language designed for web de$elopment *'* was chosen for the

de$elopment of the system mainly because it offers security on accessing databases and other secure

information, and also that it allows the quick de$elopment of databasedri$en websites

Co"eI+#iter 9r2$e

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

23/69

the !odeliew)ontroller C!) software architectural pattern which allows the attaching of 

multiple $iews to a model to pro$ide different presentations

I#ter#et I#=or$2tio# Ser3ice.

Internet Information %er$ices ; is a web ser$er software package de$eloped by !icrosoft and this was

adopted as the web ser$er for the centralised uni$ersity admissions system as it tends not to add any

e"tra weight on the machine since it comes with the operating system

BootStr2p

#his is an opensource framework designed to build user interface components 3oot%trap was used in

the designing of the interfaces for the centralised uni$ersity admissions system because it is constant

and ensures that results are uniform across platforms therefore output remains the same whether the

users are using different browsers

MyS>L D2t2%2.e

#his is a relational database management system CD3!% which was adopted for its typical use for 

web application de$elopment Coften accessed using *'* thus making it the perfect candidate for 

use Also, it generally offers fewer features than other databases, which then means that it is fast and

due to its speed, the system will o$erall be fast

)4'4' Sy.te$ De.i+# Proce..

)4'4'4& Re?!ire$e#t. Speci=ic2tio#

#his refers to the ser$ices that the system will be e"pected to pro$ide for to its users #he

requirements will be classified according to each user

Sy.te$ !.er.:

Applicants

Faculty Administrators

%uper Administrator 

)4'4'4' 9!#ctio#20 Re?!ire$e#t.

#hese are statements of ser$ices the system should pro$ide, ie how the system should react to

 particular inputs #his is primarily what the system is e"pected and should do.

Q #he system should be able to register new faculty administrators and applicants

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

24/69

Q #he system should allow the faculty administrators to add new andRor edit degrees and their 

selection criteria

Q #he system should allow all the faculty administrators to $iew the list of selected students

when the selection process is done

Q #he system should allow the super administrator to initiate new intakes

Q #he system should allow the super administrator to add new faculty administrators

Q #he system should allow applicants to place as many preferences as they want upon

application

Q #he system should be able to $erify applicant>s data before sa$ing the application

Q #he system should be able to allocate places to applicants

)4'4'4) No#@9!#ctio#20 Re?!ire$e#t.

#hese specify the criteria that can be used to judge the operation of the system ie how the system is

supposed to be CGlinE, ! 422: #he following are the nonfunctional requirements of the central

uni$ersity admissions system.

Q *erformance requirements

Q Accessibility requirements

Q A$ailability requirements

Q %ecurity requirements

Q %calability requirements

)4'4) So=t

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

25/69

Also, this methodology was adopted because it allows the easy implementation of changes to the

system being de$eloped 3ecause there will always be the need to either subtract or add some features

and functionalities to the system in the course of its de$elopment as a way of ensuring the

achie$ement of the stated objecti$es of the research, the agile methodology pro$ed useful due to its

 pro$ision of the ability to easily implement new changes

)4'4 Met,o". !.e" i# t,e .y.te$ "e.i+#

Object Oriented Analysis and Design COOAD is a technique for analysing the requirements and

creating the design for a software system #he analysis done in using OOAD needs to be depicted

through $isual modelling and these $isual models of a software system can be created using the

/nified !odelling

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

26/69

Figure 1 . )entralised /ni$ersity Admissions %ystem use case diagram

)4'47 Acti3ity Di2+r2$

#his is one of the important /!< diagrams used to describe the dynamic aspects of the system An

acti$ity diagram can be defined as a representation of the flow from one acti$ity to another acti$ity

where an acti$ity can be described as an operation of the system #he author decided to use an acti$ity

diagram for the purpose of capturing the dynamic beha$iour, and the sequence from one acti$ity to

another of the central uni$ersity admissions system #he flow between the system and the actors

within the use cases is described with the acti$ity diagram 3elow is an acti$ity diagram for the

central uni$ersity admissions system

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

27/69

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

28/69

)4'48 Proce.. 90o< C,2rt

A process flow chart pro$ides a $isual representation of the steps in a process, thereby gi$ing a clear 

understanding of the process In this case, the author decided to use a process flow chart as a way of 

communicating how the central admissions system would process an application from the time it is

 placed on the system to the final stage where a place is allocated to an applicant All the steps that will

 be taken by the system and certain decisions to be made during the process will be represented in the

 process flow chart #he figure below shows a process diagram for the centralised uni$ersity

admissions system

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

29/69

Figure 5 )entralised Admissions %ystem process flow diagram

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

30/69

From the diagram abo$e, upon picking an application, the $ery first decision that the system makes is

whether that particular applicant has already been allocated a place in any other uni$ersity #his

decision is the stage where the system aims to eliminate redundant place allocation It is only after the

system determines that the applicant has indeed not been allocated a place, that it considers whether

the applicant>s qualifications meet the stated selection criteria of their first preference chosen If the

applicant does not meet the selection criteria of the preference placed on the first place, the system

goes on to check whether the applicant meets the criteria of the other preferences placed, in their

order In the case that the applicant does not meet the selection criteria for any of hisRher selected

 preferences the applicant is not allocated any place

#he other decision that the system makes in the course of the selection process is whether the class

 being applied for is full #his decision is only made in the tide that the applicant does meet the

selection criteria of one of the preferences placed Gi$en that the ma"imum number of students that

can be accepted for that particular class has not yet been reached, the applicant is allocated the place

Also in the selection procedure, there is a displacement scenario #his happens when an applicant

meets the selection criteria for a particular preference but the class ha$ing been full In this case, the

system considers if this current applicant is more preferable to any of the applicants making up the

full class %hould the current applicant be more preferable, sRhe is allocated the place of the other

applicant to whom sRhe is preferred to

54; Database Design

As highlighted earlier in this chapter, the !y%@< database, which is a relational database, was

adopted to work with the central uni$ersity admissions system #he following are the reasons which

led to the use of a relational database.

i It offers better security by splitting data into tables thereby making certain tables confidential

ii It caters for future requirements by ha$ing data held in separate tables thereby making it

easier to add records that are not yet needed but may be in the future

iii It is good in handling data through the support for di$erse data needs

3elow is an entity relationship diagram showing the structure of the central uni$ersity admissions

database.

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

31/69

Figure 6 )entralised /ni$ersity Admissions %ystem entity relationship diagram

54= /ser Interface Design

#he design process for the user interface calls for a software de$elopment model that suitably suits

websites at the same time making it possible to be integrated with the required components /ser

interface design is concerned with describing user beha$iour and defining how a particular system

will accommodate and respond to that beha$iour C9esse 9ames Garrett, 4211, where user interface is

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

32/69

that part of a computer system which a user interacts with in order to undertake certain tasks and

achie$e some particular goals C%tone, 9arrett et al, 4221 It in$ol$es researching into the beha$iours

and goals of the target users of a software system #o ensure that the central uni$ersity admissions

system is well communicated to the users, the author applied the following aspects in the /I design.

i %implicity

#his is one of the core principles that the author applied in designing the /I for the system #he /I of

the central uni$ersity admissions was designed to be as simple as possible so that the intended users

of the system would be able to interpret the design, thus being more inclined to use it #he interface

was designed in such a way that it is clearly laid out, well organised and all the controls that need to

 be accessed by the system users are as $isible as possible

ii %tructure

#he author ensured that the interface is clearly laid out, well organised and controls are easily

identifiable for the users #he structure of the /I was constructed with the consideration that the users

would be new to the system and they will try out different options in order to achie$e what they

desire In doing so, they can make a lot of mistakes they can enter wrong data or go to a wrong place

#o minimiEe such, the structure of the /I was considered to play a $ital role

iii %iEe

#his is also an important consideration made in coming up with the /I for the system because the siEe

of the /I directly influences the time taken to load pages, hence the siEe of the /I was minimiEed so

as to make the o$erall system $ery light so that it can respond quickly to the user>s requests

#o be able to come up with a user interface which incorporates the abo$e aspects, the diagram below

shows the sequence of steps taken by the researcher in designing the /I for the central uni$ersity

admissions system.

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

33/69

Q Outline%ystemequirements

Q Determinesystemend users

/seresearch

Q /ser *ath!apping

Q %tructureL

 -a$igationDesign

Information

Architecture Q Design&ireframe

Q InteractionDesign

Interaction

Design

Q

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

34/69

undergoes as it processes an application from the time it is submitted up to when places are allocated

and the merit list generated

554 Applicant>s +nd

#he applicants can interact with the system after logging in, where the applicant would pro$ide user

credentials, or in the e$ent that the applicant does not ha$e an e"isting account, they will ha$e to

create one on the system ha$e to create one on the system

Figure 8 Account creation page for applicants

As depicted abo$e, an applicant>s personal details will be captured into the system during

account creation such that when the applicant logs in, they need not to enter their personal

details, e"cept for their qualifications Once logged in, an applicant will ha$e to create a

 profile for hisRher qualifications, before starting the application process #he profile created

would ha$e the qualifications to be used in the selection process

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

35/69

Figure : +ntering qualifications for an applicant

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

36/69

Once they are logged into the system, they can then select the degree programmes they wish

to apply for in any of the uni$ersities, in order of preference from the list of a$ailable degree

 programmes on the system

Figure ; making an application on the system

As depicted abo$e, an applicant makes an application by selecting their degree of choice

through the Mselect degreeN drop down menu and putting the degree at their preferred rank 

order Also, an applicant has the ability to change their preference order before the selection

day After submitting their applications on the system, which is only possible before the

application due date, applicants will await notification by the system through an email, of the

a$ailability or una$ailability of an admission place after the selection process is done by the

system

)4)4) 92c!0ty A"$i#i.tr2tor. E#"

#hese will also interact with the system after login #his end of the system will allow each

faculty of e$ery uni$ersity to add degree programmes on offer, thereafter setting the selection

criteria for the degrees in the system before the selection day #he criteria entered in the

system will be the ones which the system would use for the selection of applicants

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

37/69

Figure = %etting degree selection criteria

#he faculty administrators will also be in a position to edit or update their selection criteria in

the system whene$er need be After the selection process is carried out by the system, this

end of the system will also show the merit list

)4)4 S!per A"$i#i.tr2tor. E#"

#his end of the system allows the user to set the applications due date initiate a new intake in

the system After the set due date, the system will no longer recei$e applications #he super 

administrator will also be responsible for initiating the system to carry out the selection

 process after the application due date #he management of uni$ersities in the system will also

 be carried out by the super administrator

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

38/69

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

39/69

Figure 12 !anaging uni$ersities in the system

As depicted abo$e, this end allows the super user to add or remo$e uni$ersities to the system

3esides adding or remo$ing uni$ersities, the super administrator also adds new faculty

administrators to the system

Figure 11 Adding a new faculty

As depicted abo$e, the system administrator adds new faculty administrators to the system as

 per uni$ersity

)4)4( Sy.te$ Sec!rity

Any software system de$eloped should be able to enforce non functional requirements such

as integrity preser$ation, accountability, confidentiality amongst other things C&ilhelm et al

4228 #herefore, to ensure that the system meets such requirements, inbuilt security

measures will ha$e to be enforced during the de$elopment of the system In the design of the

central uni$ersity admissions system, the de$eloper ensured that all tables would not be

editable and also that all the user input data is $alidated before being passed on to the system

so as to make sure that the system does not crash as a result of erroneous input Also, access

le$els to different actions which are needed in the system were created, the super and the

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

40/69

faculty administrators #his was done to ensure that no unauthorised users will ha$e the

ability to perform certain actions on the system

Another security aspect which was implemented in the de$elopment of the system is the

)ompletely Automated *ublic #uring test to tell )omputers and 'umans Apart Ccaptcha

3ecause the central uni$ersity admissions system is a web based system, the researcher saw it

fit to implement an aspect that would secure it from Distributed Denial of %er$ice CDDo%

attacks, where attackers can make use of some automated software to generate a massi$e

quantity of requests thereby causing a high load on the system ser$er, resulting in legitimate

users and their requests being denied access to the system

)4)47 Se0ectio# A0+orit,$

+ach of the uni$ersities> faculty administrators will set the criteria used to select students for 

each of the degree programs offered by the uni$ersity and updating the criteria from time to

time On each of the application submitted on the system, the system checks if the

qualifications of an applicant match or meet the selection criteria for the preferences the

applicant would ha$e put #he steps below gi$e an outline of how the selection algorithm will

 process the selection of candidates.

Step 1: #he algorithm  takes all the preferences for each student and takes the uni$ersities>

 preferences and conditions Cconditional preferences plus criteria

Step :  It then chooses the ne"t acceptor Cstarting with uni$ersity 1, / 1, choosing any

acceptor not yet tra$ersed otherwise it will stop processing

Step !: #he current acceptor Cuni$ersity must tra$erse each of its applying students

regardless of the option number where they are applying

a &here the current acceptor is not highest on the current applicant>s rank order list,

acceptor must probe all higher acceptors for tra$ersal of this particular application of 

which if all higher precedent acceptors reject current applicant, then that current

acceptor is gi$en an opportunity to accept the applicant Otherwise any of the higher 

 precedent acceptors of this current application may successfully accept offer and

render current applicant takenRaccepted

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

41/69

 b Once all applicants ha$e been tra$ersed by current acceptor whether class is full or 

not, tra$ersal for the current acceptor is stopped and the algorithm starts again at step

4

)4)48 Po.t Se0ectio#

After the system carries out the selection process, each applicant is notified of the a$ailability

or una$ailability of admission places #he system will also generate a merit list for the

uni$ersities> faculties to see which students will ha$e been admitted to their uni$ersity

%tudents who would ha$e been offered places will go to the uni$ersity they would ha$e been

accepted and hisRher name will be checked for on the merit list

)4)4; Sy.te$ te.ti#+ 2#" e320!2tio#

%oftware testing can be defined as the process of $alidating and $erifying that a software

 product meets the technical requirements that guided its design and de$elopment, and also

that it works as e"pected C'asling et al 422; %oftware testing also in$ol$es $erifying to see

if the software product can be implemented with the same characteristic In the researcher>s

quest to achie$e her second objecti$e, the researcher carried out the testing of the centralised

uni$ersity admissions system using benchmarks and also conducted an analysis of the users>

 perceptions for the e$aluation of some of the system>s attributes #he findings of the

e$aluation are in )hapter 6 of this document

)4 POPULATION AND SAMPLIN5

#he researcher adopted a sampling strategy known as probability sampling #his is a simple

random method in which students were selected as the applicants to the system #his has an

ad$antage of minimiEing bias by ensuring that each indi$idual has an equal chance of 

 participating in the research A target population of fifty part 11 students was selected from

the 3indura /ni$ersity of %cience +ducation 3achelor of %cience education degrees in

chemistry and also in physics as the applicants to the system #he researcher selected part 11

students as their appreciation of using the centralised admission system would be based on

 prior e"perience with the current decentralised system of uni$ersity admissions and at the

same time, the group will also resemble high school students who would be the actual

intended users of the system since these students were post high school students

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

42/69

#he researcher also selected fifteen faculty administrators from the faculties of commerce,

agriculture and en$ironmental science and the faculty of commerce for each of the

uni$ersities within the scope of the system which are 3indura /ni$ersity of %cience

+ducation, /ni$ersity of (imbabwe and the -ational /ni$ersity of %cience and #echnology

A mock application e"ercise was performed for the selected sample of fifty applicants where

the applicants applied to each of the three uni$ersities for degrees of their choice #he faculty

administrators were also gi$en an opportunity to perform the administrati$e tasks on the

system After using the system, the students and the faculty administrators ga$e their $iews

and perceptions on the centralised uni$ersity admissions system

)4( DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

#his refers to the steps followed in data analysis From the number of different data analysis

software a$ailable that can be used to come up with a conclusion on the $alue of a research,

the researcher will adopt the %tatistical *ackage for the %ocial %ciences C%*%% #he

researcher chose %*%% as the data analysis tool due to the wide range of options that it offers

ie it is specifically made for analyEing statistical data and thus it offers a great range of 

methods, graphs and charts Also, %*%% pro$ides better output organiEation since it is

designed to make certain that the output is kept separate from the data itself All results are

stored in a file that is different from the data

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

43/69

CAPTER 9OUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4* I#tro"!ctio#

#his chapter takes a look at the e$aluation of the centraliEed uni$ersity admissions system through

$arious system tests and the analysis of user perceptions #he usability of the central uni$ersity

admissions model in its intended en$ironment was e$aluated based on the following software

attributes which are scalability, stability, and speed Different tests to e$aluate the performance of the

system were carried out #he system users> perceptions were analysed to gi$e an e$aluation of the

system based on those attributes that could not be unco$ered through system tests and also its

effecti$eness

4& A#20y.i. 2#" I#terpret2tio# o= Re.!0t.

4&4' Sy.te$ Per=or$2#ce Te.t.

#he system performance tests were carried out for the purpose of testing whether the system would be

able to cope with the different $ariant en$ironmental factors that may make it redundant nown tests

in software engineering under the field of system performance testing were used for the purpose of

determining how the system will perform in terms of responsi$eness and stability under a particular

workload

#he researcher used performance testing for the measuring of other quality attributes of the systemsuch as scalability, reliability and resource usage 3eing a subset of performance engineering,

 performance testing is also regarded as a computer science practice which stri$es to build

 performance into the implementation, design and architecture of a system

For this research, the most common performance concerns related to a web application were adopted

and these are the speed of the central uni$ersity admissions system, the ability to accommodate the

current or e"pected user base, the ability to handle stress and the ability to perform within capacity

For the testing of the system, the researcher used two different laptop machines as the ser$ers #he

machines had the following specifications.

T2%0e & 2r"

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

44/69

4&4'4& St2ti.tic. =or t,e t2r+et e#3iro#$e#t

#he proposed system will be run on the web, and accessible from anywhere regardless of

geographical location According to the -o$ember 4216 A>

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

45/69

which means

the speed of

the system is

within the

normal '##*

 bounds ie

822

milliseconds,

!icrosoft

Appendi"

*'* or

!y%@<

software

*'* or

!y%@<

software

!y%@<

software

#his was

the

 probable

cause of the

two '##*

725 errors

%calability

 Interpretatio

n

Ser3e

r &

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

Ser3e

r '

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

All

successful

'##* 422

responses

equests for 

 both ser$ersturned

around

without a

timeout or

ser$ice

una$ailable

esource

demand alsodid not

increase any

significantly

for both

ser$ers for

the II%, *'*

or !?%@<

software

esource

demand alsodid not

increase any

significantly

for the II%,

*'* or

!y%@< for

 both ser$ers

From the table abo$e, the results of the speed test performed show that the system managed to sustain

o$er the time gi$en, with only minimal lag e"perienced when the number of requests increased,

considering the fact that the actual recommended hardware is usually more powerful than the one

used shown in #able 61

For the hardware scalability test, two different machines with specifications shown in table 61 were

used to assess whether a change in hardware can affect the speed at which the system will perform

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

46/69

and as shown in the table, the application maintained its performance e$en when it was run on a

machine of lower hardware capability All the requests for %er$er 4 pro$ed successful and no

significant resource usage #he speed and the scalability of the system can therefore be considered to

 be good from the results contained from the performance tests

4&4'4) A""itio#20 Te.t.

#hese are tests which were conducted to determine other characteristics of the system which could not

 be determined through the system performance tests #hese factors had to be tested for in the system

to further determine its usability in its en$ironment

T2%0e ) A""itio#20 .y.te$ te.t.

Te.t Re.!0t I#terpret2tio#

Te$per 9ree   Good 3ecause the system is centrally

managed, indi$idual uni$ersities

and faculties ha$e no

manipulati$e control o$er who

they accept e"cept those that

qualify by merit of that

uni$ersityHs criteria

Ce#tr20i2tio#   ery Good &eb Accessible and centrally

 processing applications

No#@re"!#"2#t   ery Good 3ecause no one candidate can

recei$e a further offer after

ha$ing recei$ed one, it means

no candidate can recei$e two

offers at any gi$en time

!$2#@Re.o!rce

Mi#i$20

  ery Good +"cept for the inputting of

criteria L preferences and also

setup data the system will runwith $ery minimal human

inter$ention

#he test for the humantemperfree feature carried out on the system show that the selection outcome

from the centralised uni$ersity admissions system cannot be manipulated or influenced by users since

the system is centrally managed which lea$es uni$ersities and faculties with no control o$er who is

accepted #he system passed the test with a good score #he system also passed the test for the

centraliEation feature with a $ery good score due to its web accessibility #he other additional test

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

47/69

which was carried out on the system was the test for nonredundancy which the system passed with a

$ery good score as the test resulted in no applicant being allocated more than one uni$ersity place A

test was also carried out to assess whether the centraliEed uni$ersity admissions system is human

resource minimal which the system passed with a good score because besides the setting of the

selection criteria, the system can carry out the selection process on its own with $ery little human

assistance

4&4) A#20y.i. o= t,e ?!e.tio##2ire.

#he analysis and interpretation of the results yielded two sets of data that were also used to reach a

conclusion of this research thesis, in addition to the system tests carried out #hese two sets of data are

non numerical and numerical data -onnumerical data is the data that came as a result of the

questionnaires pro$ided to the fifty applicants and fifteen faculty administration officers who took

 part in the research #his nonnumerical data was used to create the numerical data which was

represented in the form of frequency tables as will be shown in this chapter #he frequency tables

show the occurrences of certain responses, and these frequencies are the ones which were also used

for representing data in the form of percentage bar charts #he researcher collected data from 7;

 participants with 68 being potential applicants and the remaining 14 being the faculty admission

administrators #wo sets of questionnaires were used in the research with one set being for the

applicants and the other being for the faculty administrators #he e$aluation of the usability of the

centralised application system was achie$ed through an analysis of the data obtained from these

questionnaires #he samples of the questionnaires are included in the inde"

4&4)4& A#20y.i. o= t,e App0ic2#t >!e.tio##2ire

#he Applicant @uestionnaire was used in this research for the purpose of gathering the users>,

 particularly the applicants, perceptions on the usability of the centralised uni$ersity admissions

system thereby imparting a basis of e$aluating the system>s usability #his questionnaire includes

questions that focus on determining the applicants> $iews and opinions regarding the usability of the

centralised uni$ersity admissions system and also related factors to the system

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

48/69

>N I ,23e prior eperie#ce

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

49/69

Frequency *ercent alid *ercent

)umulati$e

*ercent

alid ?es 62 ;:2 ;:2 ;:2

 -o 8 152 152 1222

#otal 68 1222 1222

From the frequencies shown in the table abo$e, it can be concluded that most applicants will be able

to access the system since it is web based thus widening its accessibility

>N I =o!#" t,e ce#tr20i.e" !#i3er.ity 2"$i..io#. .y.te$ re2.o#2%0y e2.y to !.e

T2%0e ( I =o!#" t,e ce#tr20ie" .y.te$ re2.o#2%0y e2.y to !.e

Frequency *ercent alid *ercent

)umulati$e

*ercent

alid %trongly Agree 16 526 526 526

Agree 48 787 787 ;:2

Disagree 6 ;: ;: =7:

%trongly

Disagree4 65 65 1222

#otal 68 1222 1222

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

50/69

9i+!re &) t,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io# .y.te$ i. re2.o#2%0y e2.y to !.e

In order to determine whether the design of the centraliEed admissions system enhanced ease of its

use, the researcher had to assess if the applicants found the system easy to use from the e"perience

they had with it As shown in the tabulated statistics abo$e, 52 of the applicants strongly agreed that

they found the )/A system relati$ely easy to use, with 7: also agreeing on the ease of use of the

system 'owe$er, 15 of the respondents did not agree to this, with 6 of this strongly disagreeing

esponses on this question can conclude that the centralised uni$ersity admissions system is quite

usable

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

51/69

>N( I =o!#" c2rryi#+ o!t t,e 2pp0ic2tio# proce.. e2.y

9i+!re & C2rryi#+ o!t t,e 2pp0ic2tio# proce..

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

52/69

of the system was kept as simple as possible resulting in the conclusion which can be drawn from the

gi$en responses that the system is simple

9i+!re &( t,e .y.te$ i. !##ece..2ri0y co$p0e

>N8 T,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io#. .y.te$ i. co.t e==ecti3e

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

53/69

Frequency *ercent alid *ercent

)umulati$e

*ercent

alid -o 6 =15 =15 =15

?es 64 ;: ;: 1222

#otal 68 1222 1222

>N; T,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io#. .y.te$ s ability to eliminate human errors

and bias in the admissions process A total percentage of 48 and 6; were in agreement that the

centralised system will do eliminate human errors and bias, hence fair A total percentage of 44 and 6

were howe$er in disagreement to the $iew because they highlighted that the manual method is really

not biased %ince a significantly greater number of the population agreed that human error and bias

can be eliminated, it can therefore be concluded that the centralised system eliminates human error

and bias in the admission process

4&4)4' A#20y.i. o= t,e 92c!0ty A"$i#i.tr2tor. >!e.tio##2ire.

#his questionnaire was designed for the assessment of the centraliEed admissions system by the

faculty administrators after using it #he questionnaire contains questions aimed at determining the

administrator>s perceptions on the usability of the system and also as a way of attesting other

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

54/69

 properties of the system such as the redundancy elimination, reduction in the time taken to carry out

the selection process, reduction in the need for human mediation in carrying out the actual selection

 process

>N& ,o< +oo" i. t,e i#ter#et co##ecti3ity 2t yo!r !#i3er.ity

#his was asked to determine whether some faculty administrators would not be able to access the

system due to limited or no internet connecti$ity at their uni$ersities Out of the total responses, 5 and

: people said that their internet connecti$ity was e"cellent and good respecti$ely whereas 4 said that it

was poor -one said that they did not ha$e connection at all #his implies that the design of the

centraliEed admissions system as a web based system enables easy access to its intended users as

shown by the greater portion of the people with internet connecti$ity 3elow is a presentation of the

distribution of the responses gi$en to the question.

9i+!re &7 I#ter#et co##ecti3ity

>N' "o yo! ,23e t,e 2%i0ity to 2cce.. t,e p02t=or$ 2. 2#"

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

55/69

connecti$ity at their uni$ersity was poor in the pre$ious question A conclusion can therefore be made

that the centraliEed application system is highly accessible since it is web based #he responses to this

question are shown in the pie chart below.

9i+!re &8 A%i0ity to 2cce.. p02t=or$

>N) I =o!#" t,e ce#tr20ie" !#i3er.ity 2"$i..io#. .y.te$ re2.o#2%0y e2.y to !.e

#he faculty administrators were also asked whether they found the system reasonably easy to use in

which 47 of the respondents strongly agreed and 64 just agreeing to that %ome of those who

agreed highlighted that the design of the model was simple, consequently its ease of use Another

47 of the respondents indicated that they did not find the system quite easy to use and the remaining

; strongly disagreeing that they found the centralised admissions system reasonably easy to use

3elow are the presentations of the faculty administrators> responses to this question

T2%0e ; t,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io# .y.te$ i. re2.o#2%0y e2.y to !.e

Frequency *ercent alid *ercent

)umulati$e

*ercent

alid %trongly Agree 5 472 472 472

Agree 7 61: 61: 88:

Disagree 5 472 472 =1:

%trongly Disagree 1 ;5 ;5 1222

#otal 14 1222 1222

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

56/69

9i+!re &; E2.e o= !.e o= t,e ce#tr20i.e" .y.te$

>N7 I =o!#" per=or$i#+ t,e 2"$i#i.tr2ti3e t2.1. .i$p0e

#he table below shows the responses gi$en to this question = of the respondents either strongly

agreed or agreed to ha$ing found the administrati$e tasks simple whereas the remaining 5 strongly

disagreed and disagreed to ha$ing found performing the tasks simple #hose who claimed not to ha$e

found performing tasks simple highlighted that they had some challenges in the setting of the degrees

criteria in the system although they would e$entually manage to do so

T2%0e per=or$i#+ 2"$i#i.tr2ti3e t2.1.

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

57/69

Frequency *ercent alid *ercent

)umulati$e

*ercent

alid %trongly Agree 4 18: 18: 18:

Agree : 7;5 7;5 :72

Disagree 4 18: 18: =1:

%trongly Disagree 1 ;5 ;5 1222

#otal 14 1222 1222

>N 8 5i3e 2# o3er200 r2ti#+ o= t,e .y.te$ i# ter$. o= it. !.2%i0ity

As in the applicant questionnaire, the faculty administrators were asked to gi$e their perception on the

centraliEed admission system basing on how usable it is From the results obtained, =4 of the

respondents rated the system as e"cellent, $ery good and just good #he remaining ; responded that

the system was poor, mainly due to the challenges they had faced in setting the degree criteria for

their faculties #his means that o$erall the users appreciated the usability of the system #he

following graph gi$es a summary of the responses to the question.

9i+!re & O3er200 .y.te$ r2ti#+

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

58/69

>N; t,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io# .y.te$ i. 0i1e0y to re.!0t i# t,e re"!ctio# i# t,e 2"$i..io#

re.po#.e ti$e

#he faculty administrator>s perceptions were sought on the speed of the centraliEed admission system

 by asking them whether they see the likeliness of a reduction in the admission response time throughthe system where the majority consisting of ;5 of the respondents gladly agreeing that the

admission response time will be reduced, highlighting that manually going through applications

ob$iously takes much time and the remaining 1: disagreeing that the centralised admissions system

will reduce the response time taken in the candidate selection process It can therefore be concluded

that the centraliEed admissions system reduces the time taken in the candidate selection process thus

the admission response time A summary of the results is shown in the following table

T2%0e &* t,e ce#tr20i.e" 2"$i..io# .y.te$ N t,e ce#tr20ie" !#i3er.ity 2"$i..io#. .y.te$

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

59/69

9i+!re '* Re"!ctio# i# re"!#"2#cie.

>N&* t,e ce#tr20i.e" !#i3er.ity 2"$i..io#. .y.te$

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

60/69

9i+!re '& ,!$2# i#te#.ity re"!ctio#

4' C,2pter S!$$2ry

#his chapter ga$e an analysis of the e$aluation of the system which was done in two parts, the first

 part being system performance tests and the other part being that of users> perceptions on the

effecti$eness of the system #he results drawn from the performance tests conducted on thecentraliEed uni$ersity admissions system earlier in this chapter showed the functionality of the system

in different scenarios #his was used to determine the usability of the system in its anticipated

en$ironment

#he sample of results shown in the last part of this chapter analyses the users> perceptions on the

effecti$eness and also properties of the system that could not be drawn from the system performance

tests conducted From these research findings, a greater part of the population from the sampled data

attested to the technical usability and the effecti$eness of the system Also, a greater number of the

administrators who had the opportunity to use the system showed satisfaction on the system>s

effecti$eness in eliminating redundant offers in the candidate selection process and also how it would

speed up the candidate selection process

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

61/69

CAPTER 9IVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(4* I#tro"!ctio#

#he researcher had two objecti$es that she intended to meet in the course of this research which were

to design a centralised uni$ersity undergraduate admission system model using the stable matching

 problem concept and to test the system model to e$aluate the usability and the effecti$eness of the

resulting design of the centraliEed undergraduate admission system 3asically, this chapter presents a

summary of the findings and the conclusions drawn from the research Future works that can be

de$eloped from this project are also recommended in this chapter

(4& Ai$. 2#" o%jecti3e. re20i.2tio#

#he aim of the project was to de$elop a centraliEed uni$ersity undergraduate candidate selection

system that is capable of allocating uni$ersity places to applicants in a fast, accurate and non

redundant manner #he researcher managed to come up with a centralised undergraduate uni$ersity

admissions system which implements the stable matching concept #he system was e$aluated using

system performance tests and from the results presented in the pre$ious chapter, a conclusion can be

made that the system is technically usable #he effecti$eness of the system was also determined

through user perceptions and the results of the analysis of the user perceptions were also presented in

the pre$ious chapter From those results, it can be concluded the centralised admissions system is

effecti$e in eliminating redundancies in the undergraduate admissions process

(4' 9!t!re Wor1 

As the future of this research, the centralised uni$ersity admissions system should be impro$ed so that

 besides undergraduate admissions, other admission types such as postgraduate admissions can also be

accommodated in the centralised system Also, applicants with special qualifications should also be

catered for, besides the A>

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

62/69

&orks )ited

1 A + oth 1=;4, T#he +conomics of !atching. %tability and Incenti$esT, !athematics of

Operations e$iew, pp 81:84;

4 Abdulkadiroglu A 4227, T)ollege Admissions &ith Affirmati$e ActionT, International 9ournal

of Game #heory, $ol 55, no 6

5 Abdulkaroglu et al 4227, T#he 3oston *ublic %chool !atchT, American +conomic e$iew

6 Atila Abdulkadiroglu L #ayfun %onmeE 4225, T%chool )hoice. A !echanism Design

ApproachT, American +conomic e$iew, $ol =5, pp :4=:6:

7 3iro et al 4212, T#he )ollege Admissions *roblem &ith

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

63/69

17 *olit, DF, 3eck, )#, 'ungler, 3* 4226, +ssentials of -ursing esearch. !ethods,

Appraisal, and /tiliEation, 93

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

64/69

APPLICANT >UESTIONNAIRE

?our participation is kindly requested in our questionnaire on the uni$ersity candidate selection

system In this questionnaire you are kindly asked to respond to a few short questions regarding your

$iews on the system #hank you so much for your $aluable time and most of all your $ital support andhonest perception

SECTION A: PERSONAL IN9ORMATION

Tic# $here appropriate

1 Gender. male female

4 Age range. 1;47 4852 5162 61and abo$e

SECTION B: INTERNET EPERIENCE 

5 I ha$e prior e"perience with the use of the internet. ?es -o

6 Do you ha$e access to a de$ice that can connect you to the internetJ

?es -o

7 Do you ha$e the ability to access the platform from your areaJ

?es -o

SECTION C: ANALYSIS O9 TE USABILITY O9 TE CENTRALIZED APPLICATION

SYSTEM

8 #he centralised admission system is easy to use

%trongly agree Agree Disagree %trongly disagree

: )arrying out the application process was straightforward

8/17/2019 Zucas Final

65/69

%trongly agree Agree Disagree %trongly disagree

; I found the system unnecessarily comple"

%trongly agree Agree Disagree %trongly disagree

= I had to be assisted through the application process on the system

?es -o

12 #here is a part of the process I could not complete due to the system>s infeasible requirements

?es   -o

11 Gi$e an o$erall rating of the system in terms of its usability

+"cellent ery good Good *oor

SECTION D 

14 #he current admission process is subject to bias in the selection process

%trongly agree Agree Disagree %trongly disagree

15 Automated admissions process is likely to eliminate bias in the selection process