Profile of Undergraduate Study Programs in Indonesia Based on EPSBED (Self Evaluation Document) (Case Study on Profile of MIPA).

i

PROFILE OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDY PROGRAMS IN INDONESIA
BASED ON EPSBED (SELF EVALUATION DOCUMENT)
(Case Study on Profile of MIPA)

YULIUS ANDRI SULISTYANTO

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
2009

ii

Aku ana apa-apa kuwat nyangga, karana Panjenegané kang paring santosa (Flp
4:13)

iii

ABSTRACT

YULIUS ANDRI SULISTYANTO. Profile of Undergraduate Study Programs in Indonesia
Based on EPSBED (Self Evaluation Document) (Case Study on Profile of MIPA). At the direction
of Dr. Ir. Asep Saefuddin, M.Sc and Dr. Ir. Hari Wijayanto, MSi.
This research developed analytical methods on EPSBED documents. EPSBED is briefly
defined as an internal evaluation conducted by study program that can be used as supporting of
BAN-PT accreditation and requirement of competition grant and any programs of Higher
Education (Dikti). The EPSBED documents expand vastly and need to be managed then the result
offer more information. The documents that consisted of institutions, study programs, lecturers and
students were descriptively summarized into charts, tables, and graphs to know the profile, and so
did for science field of MIPA and study program of Statistics.
It reveals that total institutions are 2,861 and 9,274 study programs in Indonesia. There are 7
study programs organized at most under MIPA and 15 institutions organized study program of
Statistics. Spearman rank correlations show that ratio between number of students and lecturers at
PTN and PTS for both science-field and region, ratio between number of candidate and target at
PTN and PTS by science-field are independent at α level significant (α=0.10). However, ratio
between number of candidate and target at PTN and PTS by region is directly related with
rs=0.404.
Globally, PTN is higher on performance than PTS, proven by some indicators such as
percentage of reporting, academic title and last education of lecturers, and ratio between number of
candidate and capacity (Rcc). At MIPA and Statistics, PTN is also higher indicated by ratio

between number of students and lecturers (Rsl) and ratio between number of candidate and
capacity (Rcc). Study Program of Statistics in ITS, IPB, and Brawijaya University are good in
performance.
Keywords : EPSBED, study program, Spearman rank correlation.

iv

PROFILE OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDY PROGRAMS IN INDONESIA
BASED ON EPSBED (SELF EVALUATION DOCUMENT)
(Case Study on Profile of MIPA)

By:
Yulius Andri Sulistyanto
G14051588

Final Research Report
For the partial fulfillment for the degree of Bachelor of Statistics
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Bogor Agricultural University

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
2009

v

Title

:

Name
NRP

:
:

PROFILE OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDY PROGRAMS IN
INDONESIA BASED ON EPSBED (SELF EVALUATION
DOCUMENT)

(Case Study on Profile MIPA)
Yulius Andri Sulistyanto
G14051588

Approved by:

Advisor I,

Advisor II,

Dr. Ir. Asep Saefuddin, M.Sc
(NIP. 195703161981031004)

Dr. Ir. Hari Wijayanto, MSi
(NIP. 196504211990021001)

Acknowledged by:
Head of Department of Statistics,

Dr. Ir. Hari Wijayanto, MSi

(NIP. 196504211990021001)

Passed examination date:

vi

BIOGRAPHY
The author was born in Klaten, July 31st, 1987, as the second child of Aloysius Sumisno and
Yuliana Maryatun. He successfully graduated from SMAN 1 Klaten in 2005. At the same year, he
was accepted to be a student of Department of Statistics, Bogor Agricultural University. He took
minor program of Management. During his study, he joined some extra curricular organized by
Gamma Sigma Beta (GSB), Keluarga Mahasiswa Katolik IPB (KeMaKI), and Keluarga
Mahasiswa Klaten (KMK). From February to April 2009, he followed field practice at CV.
Crescent Communication.

vii

PREFACE
I would like to thank God for everything I have experienced and also for kindness to finish this
thesis. I would also like to say thank to Asep Saefuddin and Hari Wijayanto for guidance,

attention, and patience so this final research report titled ‘Profile of Undergraduate Study
Programs in Indonesia Based On EPSBED (Self Evaluation Document) (Case Study on Profile of
MIPA)’ can be successfully finished. This report contains profile or existing condition of
institutions and study programs in Indonesia based on EPSBED documents.
This thesis could not be completed without too many supports and sacrifices of my beloved
family. I deliver my appreciation to everyone: Statistics Department’s lecturers and staff, Crescent
staff, EPSBED team, and Dikti staff. I also want to share my love and happiness to Ardhita for
loving and caring; friends at Statistics Department, KeMaKI (Keluarga Mahasiswa Katolik IPB),
and KMK (Keluarga Mahasiswa Klaten) for togetherness; all of my friends, and to everyone in the
world.
At last, I wish this thesis gives new experience and benefit to you read it. Once again, I thank
you.

Bogor, November 2009

Author

viii

CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
Background........................................................................................................................ 1
Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................... 1
Study Program Evaluation Based on Self-Assessment Evaluation........................................ 1
Study Program ................................................................................................................... 1
Spearman Rank Correlation ................................................................................................ 1
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 2
Source of Data.................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2
DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 2
Number of Institutions ........................................................................................................ 3
Number of Study Programs................................................................................................. 3
Quality of Reporting........................................................................................................... 4
Data of Lecturers ................................................................................................................ 5
Lecturers by Status........................................................................................................ 5

Lecturers by Academic Title and Last Education ........................................................... 6
Lecturers per Study Program ......................................................................................... 6
Data of Students ................................................................................................................. 7
Students per Study Program .......................................................................................... 7
Ratio between Number of Students and Lecturers ............................................................... 8
Data of Alumni................................................................................................................... 9
Ratio between Number of Alumni and Students ............................................................. 10
Ratio between Number of Candidate and Capacity .............................................................. 11
Comparison between Rsl and Rcc ......................................................................................... 12
Science-Field of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (MIPA) ............................................... 13
Data of Lecturers .......................................................................................................... 13
Data of Students............................................................................................................ 13
Ratio between Number of Students and Lecturers .......................................................... 14
Ratio between Number of Candidate and Capacity......................................................... 15
Study Program of Statistics ................................................................................................. 15
Data of Lecturers and Students ...................................................................................... 15
Data of Candidate and Capacity..................................................................................... 16
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 18
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................... 19

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Distribution of institutions by region .................................................................................... 3
2. Distribution of study programs by science-field .................................................................... 3
3. Distribution of study programs by region.............................................................................. 4
4. Average of number of study programs organized by an institution by region ......................... 4
5. Distribution of lecturers by last education ............................................................................. 6
6. Ratio between number of students and lecturers per study program by science-field. ............. 8
7. Ratio between number of students and lecturers per study program by region ........................ 9
8. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity per study program by science-field ............ 11
9. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity per study program by region. ..................... 12
10. Distribution of study programs under MIPA based on reporting of year 2007-1 ................... 13
11. Ratio between number of students and lecturers at MIPA.................................................... 14
12. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity at MIPA .................................................. 15
13. Ratio between number of students and lecturers at Statistics ............................................... 16
14. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity at Statistics .............................................. 17

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Scatter plot of institution and population percentage based on region .................................... 3
2. Percentage of study programs reported the result .................................................................. 5
3. Status reporting of PTN and PTS .......................................................................................... 5
4. Percentage of reporting by science-field ............................................................................... 5
5. Percentage of reporting by region ......................................................................................... 5
6. Distribution of lecturers by status of lecturer......................................................................... 6
7. Average of number of lecturers by academic title.................................................................. 6
8. Average of number of lecturers per study program by science-field....................................... 6
9. Average of number of lecturers per study program by region ................................................ 7
10. Average of number of students per study program by science-field. .................................... 7
11. Average of number of students per study program by region ............................................... 8
12. Scatter plot of Rsl of natural science-field at PTN and PTS. ................................................. 8
13. Scatter plot of Rsl of social science-field at PTN and PTS. ................................................... 9
14. Scatter plot of Rsl of region at PTN and PTS. ...................................................................... 9
15. Average of number of alumni per study program by science-field ....................................... 10
16. Average of number of alumni per study program by region ................................................. 10
17. Scatter plot of Ras of science-field at PTN and PTS ............................................................. 10
18. Scatter plot of Ras of region at PTN and PTS....................................................................... 11

19. Scatter plot of Rcc of science-field at PTN and PTS ............................................................. 11
20. Scatter plot of Rcc of region at PTN and PTS ....................................................................... 12
21. Scatter plot of natural science-field of Rsl and Rcc. ............................................................... 12
22. Scatter plot of social science-field of Rsl and Rcc.................................................................. 13
23. Average of number of lecturers per study program under MIPA .......................................... 13
24. Average of number of students per study program under MIPA .......................................... 14
25. Scatter plot of Rsl of MIPA study programs at PTN and PTS ............................................... 14
26. Scatter plot of Rcc of MIPA study programs at PTN and PTS .............................................. 15
27. Proportion of lecturers according to academic title .............................................................. 15
28. Proportion of lecturers according to last education .............................................................. 16
29. Numbers of candidate and capacity for each institution of study program of Statistics ......... 16
30 Scatter plot of institutions of Rsl and Rcc ............................................................................... 17

x

LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
1. Table of region code, provinces included and population ...................................................... 20
2. Names of public institution (PTN) based on region ............................................................... 21
3. Distribution of study programs by region and science-field ................................................... 22
4. Percentage of reporting from year 2005-1 to 2007-2 for every science-field. ......................... 23
5. Average of number of lecturers per study program by science-field....................................... 24
6. Box plot of number of lecturers per study program by science-field ...................................... 25
7. Average of number of lecturers per study program by region ................................................ 26
8. Box plot of number of lecturers per study program by region ................................................ 27
9a. Average of number of lecturers per study program by science-field and region at PTN ........ 28
9b. Average of number of lecturers per study program by science-field and region at PTS ........ 29
10. Average of number of students per study program by science-field ..................................... 30
11. Box plot of number of students per study program by science-field ..................................... 31
12. Average of number of students per study program by region ............................................... 32
13. Box plot of number of students per study program by region ............................................... 33
14a. Average of number of students per study program by science-field and region at PTN ....... 34
14b. Average of number of students per study program by science-field and region at PTS ....... 35
15a. Standard measurement from Dikti..................................................................................... 36
15b. Classification of science field ........................................................................................... 36
16a. Ratio between number of students and lecturers per study program by science-field
and region at PTN............................................................................................................ 37
16b. Ratio between number of students and lecturers per study program by science-field
and region at PTS ............................................................................................................ 38
17. Box plot of number of alumni per study program by science-field ....................................... 39
18. Box plot of number of alumni per study program by region................................................. 40
19. Ratio between number of alumni and student by science-field ............................................. 41
20. Ratio between number of alumni and student by region ...................................................... 41
21a. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity per study program by science-field and
region at PTN .................................................................................................................. 42
21b. Ratio between number of candidate and capacity per study program by science-field and
region at PTS................................................................................................................... 43
22. Tables of descriptive statistics of number of lecturers per program study under MIPA ......... 44
23. Box plot of number of lecturers per study program under MIPA ......................................... 45
24. Tables of descriptive statistics of number of students per program study under MIPA ......... 46
25. Box plot of number of students per study program under MIPA .......................................... 47
26. Tables of descriptive statistics of ratio between number of students and lecturers per study
program under MIPA....................................................................................................... 48
27. Tables of descriptive statistics of ratio between number of candidate and capacity per study
program under MIPA....................................................................................................... 49
28. List of institutions organize study program of Statistics....................................................... 49
29. Distribution of lecturers at study program of Statistics ........................................................ 50
30. Number of students for every institution organizes study program of Statistics .................... 51

1

INTRODUCTION
Background
Self evaluation program is defined as an
internal evaluation of study program
conducted to give quality assessment and
assurance of the program. The result can be
used to update basic data of higher education
institution and study program in form of
comprehensive profile. It can also be used to
arrange plan and correction of study program
continuously, internal quality assurance of
higher education institution and study
program, and also preparation of internal or
external
evaluation.
Beside
internal
evaluation, data of self evaluation becomes a
basic of Study Program Evaluation Based on
Self-Assessment
Evaluation
(Evaluasi
Program Studi Berbasis Evaluasi Diri –
EPSBED) that was stated by SK Dirjen Dikti
No. 034/2002.
EPSBED documents are reported by
private higher education institution (PTS)
through local Kopertis, while public higher
education institution (PTN) directly reports to
Ditjen Dikti every semester. It was initially
started from 2002 and now enters 13th
semester (odd semester of academic year
2008/2009). EPSBED is important due to
several reasons such as consideration of BANPT accreditation, requirement of competition
grants (PHK-PMP, A1 and A2, Inherent, TIK,
PKM, etc), and as formulation of policies of
higher education in Indonesia. Government of
Indonesia recently focuses on revitalization
some fields need to be developed such as
agriculture, basic science, social, etc.
At present, EPSBED is not maximized yet
in use whereas it can offer more information
of study program’s profile. This research
explored data of EPSBED generally and field
of basic sciences (mathematics and natural
sciences) specifically. The results of analysis
are to be used to know profile of institutions
generally. It can also be used as consideration
in composing government policies concerned
at institutions and study programs.
Objectives:
The general objective of this research was
to know the existing condition of institutions
and study programs in Indonesia, summarize
data of institutions, study programs, lecturers
and students. The specific was to summarize
science-field of Mathematics and Natural
sciences (MIPA) and study program of
Statistics based on EPSBED documents. It

was also to evaluate the data according to
criteria of Dikti.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Study Program Evaluation Based on SelfAssessment Evaluation
Study Program Evaluation Based on SelfAssessment Evaluation (Evaluasi Program
Studi Berbasis Evaluasi Diri – EPSBED)
means internal evaluation conducted by study
program. It can be used as supporting of
BAN-PT accreditation and requirement of
competition grants and any programs of
Higher Education (Dikti). Regulations related
to EPSBED are UU No. 20/2003, SK Menteri
184/U/2001,
SK
Dirjen
Dikti
08/Dikti/Kep/2002, and SK Dirjen Dikti
34/Dikti/Kep/2002 (Arsyad, 2008).
EPSBED documents only include
institutions under Directorate General of
Higher Education, Department of National
Education, while institutions under other
departments are not included.
Study Program
Definition of study program based on
KEPMEN234/U/2000 is totality of study plan
as manual of academic/professional education
implementation that be held based on
curriculum also be aimed in order that
students achieving best knowledge, skill, and
behavior appropriate with curriculum target.
Higher
education
institutions
are
categorized into five classes that are academy,
higher school, polytechnics, institute, and
university. Based on KEPMEN234/U/2000,
generally, academy and higher school
organize at least one study program,
polytechnics organizes at least three study
programs. An institute organizes at least six
study programs and a university organizes at
least ten study programs.
Spearman Rank Correlation
Spearman rank correlation is used to
decide whether observed sample data provide
sufficient evidence to conclude that, in the
sampled population, the variables of interest
are associated (Daniel, 1978). It is based on
the ranks of observations, and it can assume
value between -1 and 1. Spearman rank
correlation is represented by symbol rs. The
hypotheses are (one-sided):
H0: X and Y are independent
H1: There is a direct (or indirect)
relationship between X and Y.

2

The test statistics is

rs  1 

d

6

Rsl 
2
i



n(n 2  1)

where



n

d i2 

 R( X )  R(Y )

2

i

i

i 1

Reject H0 at the α level if the computed value
of rs is greater than the critical value or if the
p-value is less than the α level of significant.
The test statistics is also the measure of
association. As such, it is strictly speaking a
measure of the degree of correspondence
between ranks of the sample observations
rather than between the observations
themselves (Daniel, 1978).
When the rank of X is the same as the rank
of Y for every pairs of observations (perfect
direct relationship), all the differences di will
be equal to zero, and rs will be equal to +1.
Conversely, when the rank of one variable
within each pair of observations (Xi, Yi ) is the
reverse of the other (perfect inverse
relationship), rs will be equal to -1.
METHODOLOGY
Source of Data
The research used data of EPSBED from
Dikti that consisted of institutions, study
programs, lecturers, and students data. The
research only used data four semesters from
2005 to 2007.
Methodology
The steps were:
A. According to general objective:
i. Summarizing and interpreting quality of
reporting and descriptive statistics such
as tables, graphs, and pictures of
EPSBED documents (institutions, study
programs, lecturers, and students) based
on specific categories such as status of
institution, region, and science-field and
also classifying science-field or region
according to criteria of Dikti.
ii. Computing and interpreting the ratios
that were calculated by formula:
 Ratio between number of students
and lecturers per study program.
The value means number of
students taught by a lecturer. The
quality was determined based on
Dikti’s criteria.

number of students
number of lecturers

Ratio between number of candidate
and capacity. The value means the
quality of study program. Higher
value indicates greater performance
or attractiveness of study program.
The quality was also determined
based on Dikti’s criteria.

Rcc 


number of candidate
number of capacity

Ratio between number of alumni
and students. High value indicates
high performance.

Ras 

number of alumni
number of students

iii. Computing
and
interpreting
the
Spearman rank correlation between PTN
and PTS for Rsl and Rcc by either sciencefield or region (Daniel, 1978):
1. Each X (ratio at PTN) was ranked
relative to all other observed values
of X, from smallest to largest in
order of magnitude. The rank of ith
value of X was denoted by R(Xi).
2. Each Y (ratio at PTS) was ranked
relative to all other observed values
of Y, from smallest to largest in
order of magnitude. The rank of ith
value of Y was denoted by R(Yi ).
3. If ties occurred among the X’s or
among the Y’s, each tied value was
assigned the mean of the rank
positions for which it was tied.
4. The test statistics (rs) was computed
by the previous mentioned formula.
B. According to specific objectives (using
EPSBED documents with the highest
percentage of reporting):
i. Summarizing
and
interpreting
descriptive statistics such as tables,
graphs, and pictures of MIPA and also
classifying study program according to
criteria of Dikti.
ii. Computing the ratios that were
calculated by same formula of the
previous section (section A).
C. Conclusions
DISCUSSION
The data originally consisted of four parts
that were data of institutions (academy, higher

3

Number of Institutions
Not every institutions or study programs
reported the result of self evaluation every
semester. According to the data, there are
2,861 institutions, consist of 82 PTN and
2,779 PTS. PTN only consist of polytechnics,
institutes, and universities. PTS consist of all
classes of institutions but academies and
higher schools dominated. Table 1 shows the
distribution of institutions by region.
Appendix 1 shows region code, provinces
included, and population.
Table 1 Distribution of institutions by region.
Region
PTN
PTS
Total (%)
Region I
6
304
310 (10.8)
Region II
5
195
200
(7.0)
Region III
4
310
314 (11.0)
8
Region IV
454
462 (16.1)
Region V
3
136
139
(4.9)
Region VI
6
256
262
(9.2)
298
309 (10.8)
Region VII
11
Region VIII
8
112
120
(4.2)
Region IX
10
292
302 (10.6)
Region X
7
209
216
(7.5)
Region XI
8
136
144
(5.0)
Region XII
6
77
83
(2.9)
Total
82
2,779 2,861 (100)
According to Table 1 above, region IV
(West Java and Banten) covers the highest
number of institutions. Region VII (East Java)
covers the highest number of PTN. Region
XII (Maluku, North Maluku, Papua, and West
Irian Jaya) covers smallest number of
institutions. It indicates that education
development in Indonesia is still unbalance
between west and east region. Public
institutions (PTN) are only 2.87% of total
institutions. Names of public higher education
institution (PTN) are listed in Appendix 2
based on region.
It is interesting to know scatter plot of
institution and population percentage based on
region. Figure 1 shows that region under
dashed line has percentage of institution less
than percentage of population. It also shows
that region II, VIII, XI, and XII tend to be
ideal since they have similar percentage of
institution and population. Regions IV, VI,
VII have percentage of population higher than

institution, there maybe lack of institution or
overpopulated. Others have percentage of
institution higher than population. From
Figure 1, region III (DKI Jakarta) covers large
number of institutions though owns relative
small percentage of population.



IV

15.00

institution (%)

school, polytechnics, institute, and university),
study programs, lecturers, and students. Data
of students was frequently changed due to
many new input and output students.



III






I
IX

VII

10.00



5.00



V





X



VI

II

XI
VIII

XII

0.00
5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

population (%)

Figure 1 Scatter plot of institution and
population percentage based on
region.
Number of Study Programs
Based on EPSBED, there are 9,274
undergraduate study programs (S-1) in
Indonesia. Number of study programs of PTN
are 1,955 (21%), and PTS are 7,319 (79%)
study programs. Distribution of study
programs by science-field can be seen in
Table 2.
Table 2 Distribution of study programs by
science-field.
Science-Field
PTN
PTS
Total
Agriculture
287
636
923
Art
52
106
158
Computer
31
736
767
Culture and
116
193
309
Letters
125 1,424 1,549
Economy
Education
626 1,146 1,772
Health
83
405
488
Law
36
297
333
MIPA
189
203
392
Other Science
2
3
5
Psychology
17
84
101
Religion and
2
31
33
Philosophy
Social
146
719
865
Technique
243 1,336 1,579
Total
1,955 7,319 9,274

4

Table 2 above shows the distribution of
study programs according to science-field.
Education covers highest number of study
programs. For PTN, the first rank is sciencefield of Education with 626 study programs;
the next rank is Agriculture with 287 study
programs. For PTS, first rank is Economy
with 1,424 study programs; the next is
Techniques with 1,336 study programs. From
the column total of Table 2, three sciencefields cover study programs at most are
Education
(1,772
study
programs),
Techniques (1,579 study programs), and
Economy (1,549 study programs). Education
and Economy describe that both science-fields
are common interest of Indonesian. Sciencefield of Other Science covers study program at
the least for both PTN and PTS.
Distribution of study programs by region
can be seen in Table 3. Four regions that
cover study programs at most are region VII
(East Java), region IV (West Java and
Banten), region IX (Sulawesi), and region III
(DKI Jakarta). Region VII, IV, and III are
relatively overpopulated thus there are quite a
lot of study programs. However, region IX
covers high number of study programs since
there are significant numbers of PTN which
usually organize many study programs too.
Conversely, Region XII (Maluku, North
Maluku, Papua, West Irian Jaya) is least of all
since there covers smallest number of PTS
beside under populated.
Table 3 Distribution of study programs by
region.
Region
PTN
PTS
Total
Region I
156
805
961
Region II
118
437
555
Region III
Region IV

123
187

900
1,108

1,023
1,295

Region V

134
179
232

308
510

442
689
1,350
517
1,034
606

Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X

269
151

1,118
384
765
455

Region XI

156
117

272
257

428
374

1,955

7,319

9,274

Region XII
Total

133

Appendix 3 shows the distribution of study
programs by region and science-field.

Education covers highest number of study
programs (Table 2) and the highest number is
in region VII (East Java) with 292 study
programs (Appendix 3). It is appropriate with
Table 3.
Table 4 below shows the number of study
programs organized by an institution for every
region. The highest value for PTN is 44.7 in
Region V (DI Yogyakarta). Three PTN in
region V are Gadjah Mada University (69
study programs), State University of
Yogyakarta (53 study programs) and
Indonesia Institute of Art of Yogyakarta (12
study programs). PTN organizes roughly more
than 20 study programs. It may be caused by
available classes of PTN that are polytechnics,
institutes, and universities. These three classes
at least organize three study programs.
Meanwhile, PTS is dominated by academies
and higher schools so that only organize small
number of study programs.
For PTS, it is only about two or three
study programs for every institution. The
highest ratio is 3.8 in Region VII (East Java).
This little number describes that private
institutions which are dominated by
academies and higher schools generally tend
to focus on certain fields.
Table 4 Average of number of study programs
organized by an institution by region.
Region
PTN (rank)
PTS (rank)
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV

26.0
23.6
30.8
23.4

(5)
(6)
(2)
(7)

Region V
Region VI

44.7
29.8
21.1
16.6
26.9
21.6
19.5
19.5

(1)
(3)
(9)
(12)
(4)
(8)
(10)
(11)

Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Region XI
Region XII

2.6
2.2
2.9
2.4
2.3
2.0
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.2
2.0
3.3

(6)
(9)

(4)
(7)
(8)
(11)

(1)
(2)
(5)

(10)
(12)
(3)

Quality of Reporting
Every semester study programs must
report the result of evaluation to Dikti.
However, not all study programs did
regularly. Figure 2 shows study programs that
reported the result of evaluation to Dikti. Each
year consisted of two semesters.
From Figure 2 below, year 2007-1 is the
highest percentage of reporting that is

5

100,00
80,00
60,00
40,00
20,00
-

100,00
80,00

74,83

76,94

74,39

77,47

75,53

60,00

Sciences. Science-field of Law is on the top, it
is most frequently of reporting. The value is
84.53%. The highest reporting is in year 20061 (Appendix 4). For Other Sciences, roughly
only one of six study programs conducts
reporting. Other Science covers small number
of study programs.

65,87

40,00
27,57

Health
Techniques
Math & Natural…
Agriculture
Computer
Ecomony
Social
Psychology
Law
Religion &…
Cultures and …
Education
Art
Other Sciences

77.47%. Actually, this research only used data
from year 2005 to 2007 due to percentage of
reporting of year 2008 semester 1 fell away
sharply. From 2005 to 2007, at the same year,
reporting of odd semester seems higher than
next semester. The odd semester is the
beginning of academic year so there are many
data change. It encourages institution to report
more on the odd semester than even semester.

20,00

Figure 4 Percentage of reporting by sciencefield.

-

Percentage of Reporting

Figure 2 Percentage of study programs
reported the result.
It can also be categorized to status of
institutions, over year, PTN has done more
reporting than PTS, the difference is about
12.36%, graphically can be seen in Figure 3. It
is probably caused by management system of
reporting that is different between PTN and
PTS.

Percentage of reporting by region can be
seen in Figure 5. Region VI (Central Java)
owns the highest percentage, about 86.24%;
and then region V (DI Yogyakarta) is 82.62%.
The lowest value is 62.02% in region I (NAD
and North Sumatra). Institutions in Java are
relatively more diligent than outside Java.
90,00
80,00
70,00
60,00
REG I
REG II
REG III
REG IV
REG V
REG VI
REG VII
REG VIII
REG IX
REG X
REG XI
REG XII

50,00
100
90
80
70
60
50
40

Figure 5 Percentage of reporting by region.

2005-1 2005-2 2006-1 2006-2 2007-1 2007-2

PTN

PTS

Figure 3 Status reporting of PTN and PTS.
According to science-field, average of
reporting percentage from year 2005-1 to
2007-2 can be seen in Figure 4. Range of
reporting percentage is approximately 60% 80%, excluding science-field of Other

Data of Lecturers
Data of lecturers consisted of name of
lectures of institutions; equipped by some
attributes that identify every lecturer. For
undergraduate programs (S-1), there are
65,535 names of lecturer consist of 41,581
(63%) males and 23,954 (37%) females.
Lecturers by Status
Status of lecturers is categorized into BHMN
lecturers, PNS PTN, PNS-DPK, and dosen

6

tetap yayasan. Distribution of lecturers
according to status is shown in Figure 6.
BHMN lecturers are only 0.13% (83 lecturers)
and all are from University of Indonesia.

D-2
D-3
D-4
NON-AKA

12%
17%
71%

BHMN Lecturer
PNS-DPK Lecturer
Dosen Tetap Yayasan
PNS PTN

Figure 6 Distribution of lecturers by status of
lecturer.
Lecturers by Academic Title and Last
Education
Figure 7 shows number of lecturers by
academic title. PTN lecturers are higher than
PTS at academic title except at non jabatan.
Most of PTN lecturers are lektor kepala
(32.3% of PTN lecturers) and most of PTS
lecturers are non jabatan (38.9% of PTS
lecturers). Guru besar in Indonesia is only
1,732 (2.64%).
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Non Asisten Lektor Lektor Guru
Jabatan Ahli
Kepala Besar

PTS

Profesi
S-1
S-2
S-3
Sp-1
Sp-2
Total

1
6
9
1

0
9
11
4

1
15
20
5

428
13,298
26,935
5,330
439
185
46,632

61

489
23,242
35,156
5,883
531
193
65,535

9,944
8,221
553
92
8
18,903

Lecturers per Study Program
By reporting of year 2007-1, average of
number of lecturers per study program by
science-field can be seen in Figure 8. It shows
that the averages at PTN are always higher
than PTS; Science-field of Computer is equal
for PTN and PTS with 12 lecturers. The
highest value at PTN is at Health with 52
lecturers. At PTS, the highest is 24 lecturers at
Law.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

agriculture
art
computer
culture and…
economy
education
health
law
MIPA
other science
psychology
religion and …
social
technique

0%

PTN

Table 5 Distribution of lecturers by last
education.
Lecturer’s
last
PTN
PTS
Total
education

PTN

PTS

Figure 7 Average of number of lecturers by
academic title.

Figure 8 Average of number of lecturers per
study program by science-field.

According to last education, lecturers are
categorized into ten classes. From Table 5,
lecturers that have last education below
Profesi is too less. Most are S-2 for PTN
lecturers and S-1 for PTS lecturers. This result
indicates that almost lecturers are well
educated. Last educations in Table 5 are in
order from lowest to highest.

Appendix 5 and 6 show the values and box
plot respectively. The box plot shows that
PTN contains outliers and extreme values
fewer than PTS. Science-fields of Agriculture
and Health at PTN apparently have more
diversity than others. At PTS, the outliers and
extreme values spread to all science-field. It
indicates great variety about the number of
lecturers per study program at PTS.

7

Average of number of lecturers per study
program by region can be seen in Figure 9. By
region, averages at PTN are also higher than
PTS. For PTN, the values are about 20 or
more; for PTS, the values are about 10
lecturers per study program. Appendix 7 and 8
show the values and box plot respectively.
Box plot shows that PTN owns range wider
than PTS but fewer at outliers and extreme
values.
40

among variables, this research only used the
most data of reporting, that was year 2007-1.
Based on EPSBED data of year 2007-1,
number of student is 2,343,455, consists of
1,203,422 (51%) males and 1,140,033 (49%)
females.
Students per Study Program
Average of number of students per study
program by science-field is available in Figure
10. From chart, there are four science-fields
which have higher average at PTS that are
Art, Computer, Education, and Other Science.

30
800

10

600

0

400

PTN

PTS

Figure 9 Average of number of lecturers per
study program by region.
Appendix 9 shows average of number of
lecturers per study program by science-field
and region. Some entries are blank since there
are no study programs appropriate to certain
region. Appendix 9a shows that Health at
PTN which has the highest number of
lecturers (Figure 8) is highest in region I with
88 lecturers per study program. However, the
highest number is 108 lecturers per study
program in region IV at Law. Furthermore,
region VIII which has the highest number of
lecturers (Figure 9) is highest at Agriculture
with 60 lecturers per study program.
Appendix 9b shows that Law at PTS
which has highest number of lecturers (Figure
8) is highest in region II with about 32
lecturers per study program. Region V (DI
Yogyakarta) which has the highest number of
lecturers (Figure 9) is highest Computer with
23 lecturers per study program.
Data of Students
Data of students were more complex since
it was often updated. It included data from the
beginning of EPSBED program to the newest.
The research only used data four semesters
from 2005 to 2007. It can not be concluded
that for the recent year, the data is more
complete. It depends on the institutions and
study programs.
Data of student was classified by
institutions and study programs. To compare

200
0

agriculture
art
computer
culture and …
economy
education
health
law
MIPA
other science
psychology
religion and…
social
technique

Reg I
Reg II
Reg III
Reg IV
Reg IX
Reg V
Reg VI
Reg VII
Reg VIII
Reg X
Reg XI
Reg XII

20

PTN

PTS

Figure 10 Average of number of students per
study program by science-field.
According to Figure 10, the highest value
for PTN is 732 students at Economy and for
PTS is 598 students at Law, Appendix 10
shows the data in detail. Box plot in Appendix
11 shows that there are more outliers and
extreme values in PTS of student’s number.
The both box plot indicate large diversity
about number of student, it may conditionally
depend on the study program itself. Compared
with data of lecturers in Figure 8, Economy at
PTN apparently lacks of lecturers or maybe
too many students. Agriculture at PTN and
PTS seem to be ideal between number of
lecturers and students.
From Figure 11 below, according to
region, the highest value for PTN is 725
students in Region III (DKI Jakarta) and for
PTS is 442 students per study program in
Region V (DI Yogyakarta). The lowest value
for both PTN and PTS are in Region XII
(Maluku, North Maluku, Papua, West Irian
Jaya) with 194 students and 196 students per
study program respectively. Appendix 12 and
13 show the result in detail. The box plot
(Appendix 13) shows that PTS has more
outliers and extreme value than PTN.
Compared with data of lecturers in Figure 9,
PTN in region III does not seem to be ideal

8

Reg I
Reg II
Reg III
Reg IV
Reg IX
Reg V
Reg VI
Reg VII
Reg VIII
Reg X
Reg XI
Reg XII

800
600
400
200
0

PTN

PTS

Figure 11 Average of number of students per
study program by region.
Appendix 14 shows average of number of
students per study program by science-field
and region. For PTN (Appendix 14a),
Economy at PTN which has the highest
number of students is highest in region III
(DKI Jakarta) with 1,667 students per study
program. From data of student year 2007-1,
study program of Management in Universitas
Terbuka has so many students that are 7,897
students. Region III only has eight study
programs under Economy. For PTS
(Appendix 14b), Law is highest in region VI
(Central Java) with 758 students per study
programs.
Ratio between Number of Students and
Lecturers
Ratio between number of students and
lecturers per study program by science-field
(Rsl) can be seen in Table 6. Rsl means average
number of students per lecturer. Numbers in
parentheses symbolize rank of Rsl. For PTN,
science-field of Other Science is the best on
ratio; a lecturer only teaches about seven or
eight students. It is only a study program at
science-field Other Science PTN that is
Pembangunan Wilayah in Gadjah Mada
University. For PTS, the best is Agriculture.
From Table 6, Other Science at PTS owns
worst ratio, 77.0. It is also only a study
program that is Tourism and Hotel
Management in STIE BIITM Kuta Badung.
There are 77 students but only one lecturer
available.
The computed rs is 0.191 and p-value is
0.256 which is greater than α level of
significant (0.10), accept H0. It concludes that
Rsl at PTN and PTS by science-field are
independent.

Table 6 Ratio between number of students and
lecturers per study program by
science-field.
Science-Field
PTN
PTS
Agriculture
Art
Computer
Culture and
Letters
Economy
Education
Health
Law
MIPA
Other Science
Psychology
Religion and
Philosophy
Social
Technique

9.7
9.0
24.6

(3)
(2)
(11)

10.0
24.1
25.8

(1)
(8)
(10)

18.1

(7)

19.7

(6)

33.6
22.3
22.3
32.0
12.5
7.9
17.6

(14)
(9.5)
(9.5)
(12)
(4)
(1)
(6)

25.2
37.3
19.3
28.2
14.0
77.0
26.3

(9)
(13)
(5)
(12)
(3)
(14)
(11)

18.6

(8)

13.5

(2)

33.2
16.5

(13)
(5)

22.3
15.7

(7)
(4)

Figure 12 shows scatter plot of ratio
between number of students and lecturers per
study program (Rsl) at PTN and PTS from
science fields categorized natural science by
Dikti. Dashed lines separate categories
according to Dikti.

25.00





comp uter


health

education

20.00

PTN

because of so many students but little number
of lecturers.



techn ique

15.00



10.00



10.00

MIPA

agriculture
20.00

30.00

PTS

Figure 12 Scatter plot of Rsl of natural sciencefield at PTN and PTS.
According to Figure 12 and standard
measurement from Dikti shown in Appendix
15a, Agriculture is very good since the ratio
under 10.0. MIPA and Technique are good for
PTN and PTS. Computer and Education are
poor for PTN and PTS. Science-field of
Health at PTS is better than at PTN. Dikti
made different criteria for natural and social
sciences (Appendix 15b).

9





at PTN; it means every lecturer roughly holds
46 students.
The computed rs is -0.172 and p-value is
0.256 which is greater than α level of
significant (0.10), accept H0. It concludes that
ratio at PTN and PTS by region are
independent.
Figure 14 shows scatter plot of Rsl region
at PTN and PTS. Dikti did not arrange criteria
based on region. It may assume that relative
small value means high performance. PTN in
region III (DKI Jakarta) owns less
performance and so do PTS in region I and X.

economy
social

law

30.00

PTN

25.00


health



education

20.00


relig

culture

psychology

15.00

10.00



15.00

art
30.00



45.00

60.00

other

75.00



III

PTS
40.00

Figure 13 shows scatter plot of Rsl of
social science-field at PTN and PTS. Sciencefield of Religion and Philosophy, Culture and
Letters, Psychology and Health are good for
both PTN and PTS since the ratio between
16.0-30.0. Art, Other Science, and Education
at PTN are better than at PTS. However,
Social, Economy, and Law at PTS are better
than at PTN according to criteria of Dikti.

PTN

Figure 13 Scatter plot of Rsl of social sciencefield at PTN and PTS.

30.00




IV

VIVII



20.00






II
XI






10.00
20.00

V

X



I

IX

VIII

XII
22.50

25.00

27.50

30.00

PTS

Table 7 Ratio between number of students and
lecturers per study program by region.
Region
PTN
PTS
Reg I
16.2 (4.5)
31.6 (12)
Reg II
18.0
(7)
20.7
(3)
Reg III
45.6 (12)
24.1
(9)
Reg IV
26.2 (11)
21.7
(6)
Reg V
26.0 (10)
23.0
(7)
Reg VI
21.5
(9)
20.1
(1)
Reg VII
20.8
(8)
20.4
(2)
Reg VIII
12.9
(2)
23.1
(8)
Reg IX
14.7
(3)
24.5 (10)
Reg X
17.6
(6)
29.9 (11)
Reg XI
16.2 (4.5)
21.3
(5)
Reg XII
9.4
(1)
21.0
(4)
Table 7 shows ratio between number of
students and lecturer per study program for
every region. Region XII (Maluku, North
Maluku, Papua, West Irian Jaya) seems to be
the best for PTN with nine students per
lecturers; and for PTS, Region VI (Central
Java) is the best with value of 20.1. Region III
(DKI Jakarta) has the highest ratio with 45.6

Figure 14 Scatter plot of Rsl of region at PTN
and PTS.
Appendix 16 shows ratio between number
of students and lecturers per study program by
science-field and region. Some entries are
blank since there are no study programs
appropriate to certain region. At PTN, the
highest ratio between number of students and
lecturers is 33.6 at Economy (Table 6). From
Appendix 16a, it is shown that region IV
(West Java and Banten) tend to have highest
ratio at Economy. At PTS, the highest ratio is
77.0 at Other Science (Table 6) and from
Appendix 16b, it is only in region VIII (Bali,
NTB, and NTT). Appendix 16a also shows
that only region V (DI Yogyakarta) covers all
science-fields at PTN.
Data of Alumni
Figure 15 shows average of number of
alumni per study program by science-field.
For PTN, the highest number is 51 alumni at
Economy and then is 49 alumni at Law. For
PTS, the highest number is 39 alumni at Law.
The lowest numbers for both PTN and PTS

10

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

science-fields are in a cluster with ratio about
0.05. Economy and Other Science seem to be
outliers. Economy is good at PTN while Other
Science is good at PTS. Economy at PTS is
dominated by big universities such as
University of Indonesia, Gadjah Mada
University, Diponegoro University, Bogor
Agricultural University, etc.
Other Science is good at PTS since there is
only one study program that is Tourism and
Hotel Management in STIE BIITM Kuta
Badung. It has 16 alumni and 77 students.
However, Other Science at PTS owns zero
ratio. It is caused no number of alumni at
study program of Pembangunan Wilayah in
Gadjah Mada University that is the only one
study program under Other Science.

Religion and…
Other Sciences
Cultures And …
Economy
Law
Education
Health
Computer
Math and…
Agriculture
Psychology
Art
Social
Techniques