Education institutions, especially the higher education section, and the world at large are characterized by global competition for international students. Students are now recognized as the principal “stakeholders” of any higher education institution. These are pressure enough for universities to place hire priority on student education satisfaction and service quality since these are recognized as the most important concepts by many academic researchers as a means of creating competitive advantage and customer loyalty. However, universities cannot know where to start if they do not even know how satisfied the students are, what their perceptions are about the service quality of the university and how each one of the two affects the other. The only way of finding out about this is through research. Therefore this study examines the relationship between service quality and education satisfaction, and then looks at how each of the dimensions of service quality (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance) has an influence on education satisfaction of the business masters GMBA/IMBA students at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology (STUST) and National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), both located in Tainan, Taiwan. These two are some of the best universities recognized by local community, International community and the Taiwanese government at large. Furthermore it compares the two universities in terms of education satisfaction and the quality of service as perceived by the students. A modified SERVQUAL instrument is used to evaluate the service quality of the two universities based on student perceptions. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to develop service quality and student satisfaction model. This study shows that the perception of service quality does have an impact on education satisfaction. The most important dimensions of service quality on education satisfaction for the two universities university are assurance and empathy. Comparing the two universities, it turns out that even though both universities have satisfied students, the highly satisfied are from NCKU than STUST and this is accounted for by the difference in Assurance. All the other factors of service quality were found to be insignificantly different in both universities except for Assurance which is a little bit higher at NCKU. Therefore it is important for higher education systems to make sure students are satisfied by providing the best of service quality.

Education institutions, especially the higher education section, and the world at large are characterized by global competition for international students. Students are now recognized as the principal “stakeholders” of any higher education institution. These are pressure enough for universities to place hire priority on student education satisfaction and service quality since these are recognized as the most important concepts by many academic researchers as a means of creating competitive advantage and customer loyalty. However, universities cannot know where to start if they do not even know how satisfied the students are, what their perceptions are about the service quality of the university and how each one of the two affects the other. The only way of finding out about this is through research. Therefore this study examines the relationship between service quality and education satisfaction, and then looks at how each of the dimensions of service quality (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance) has an influence on education satisfaction of the business masters GMBA/IMBA students at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology (STUST) and National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), both located in Tainan, Taiwan. These two are some of the best universities recognized by local community, International community and the Taiwanese government at large. Furthermore it compares the two universities in terms of education satisfaction and the quality of service as perceived by the students. A modified SERVQUAL instrument is used to evaluate the service quality of the two universities based on student perceptions. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to develop service quality and student satisfaction model. This study shows that the perception of service quality does have an impact on education satisfaction. The most important dimensions of service quality on education satisfaction for the two universities university are assurance and empathy. Comparing the two universities, it turns out that even though both universities have satisfied students, the highly satisfied are from NCKU than STUST and this is accounted for by the difference in Assurance. All the other factors of service quality were found to be insignificantly different in both universities except for Assurance which is a little bit higher at NCKU. Therefore it is important for higher education systems to make sure students are satisfied by providing the best of service quality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background and Motivation ................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 6
1.5 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 7
1.6 Thesis Overview .................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Higher Education in Taiwan - Public Universities versus Private Universities .... 9
2.2. Service Quality ...................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Dimensions of Service Quality .............................................................................. 11
2.4. SERVQUAL .......................................................................................................... 12
2.5. Criticism of SERVQUAL ..................................................................................... 13
2.6. Student Education Satisfaction .............................................................................. 14
2.7. Service Quality and Satisfaction in Universities ................................................... 15
2.8. Relationship between Service Quality and Student Education Satisfaction .......... 16
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Framework ............................................................................................................. 19
3.2. Hypothesis ............................................................................................................. 20
3.3. Construct Measurement ......................................................................................... 20
3.4. Sampling and Data Collection ............................................................................... 28
3.5. Data Analysis Methods .......................................................................................... 28
3.6. Pilot Study .............................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. The Proposed Model ............................................................................................. 29
4.2. Model Assessment ................................................................................................ 30
4.2.1. Measurement Model Assessment ............................................................... 31
4.2.2. Structural Model Assessment ...................................................................... 32
4.2.3. Overall Goodness-of-fit Assessment ........................................................... 33
4.3. Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................ 36
4.3.1. Hypothesis 1-Impact of Assurance on Education Satisfaction .................... 37
4.3.2. Hypothesis 2-impact of Empathy on Education Satisfaction ...................... 37
4.3.3. Hypothesis 3-impact of Tangibility on Education Satisfaction ................... 37
4.3.4. Hypothesis 4-impact of Reliability on Education Satisfaction .................... 38
4.3.5. Hypothesis 5-Impact of Responsiveness on Education Satisfaction ........... 38
4.3.6. Hypothesis 6-Impact of Overall Service Quality on Education Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 38
4.3.7. Hypothesis 7- Comparing Education Satisfaction between Different Universities .................................................................................................. 39
4.3.8. Hypothesis 8-Comparing Dimensions of Service Quality Perception between Different Universities .................................................................... 39
4.4. Comparing Education Satisfaction by Nationalities .............................................. 40
4.5. Summary and Discussions of Results .................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. Conclusions and Management Implications ......................................................... 42
5.2. Limitations Of The Study an Recommendations .................................................. 43
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

Academic Ranking of world universities compiled by Shanghai Jiaotong universityQuacquarelli Symonds Limited guides, top universities, university rankings, guides events http://www.topuniversities.com
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: a review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing [Webdocument], 30(1), 8-32. Available: http://webdb.ucs.ed.ac.uk/operations/honsqm/articles/ServqualButtle.pdf [1995, April 1]
Chang, M. (2012).Taiwan Today.Taiwan’s service sector poised for further development. [Web Document]. Available: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=187196&ctNode=445 (2012, March 03)
Chiang, W. (2012).Ministry of Education, Higher education in Taiwan 2012-2013.[Web Document].Available:http://www.edu.tw [2012, july ]
Chiu, H., Lin, N. (2004). A service quality measurement derived from the theory of needs. The Service Industries Journal. [Web document], 24(1), 187-204. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331301202. [2004,01January]
Clark, N.,(2010) World Education News & Reviews: Education in Taiwan. World education services, 23(4)
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996). Managing service quality in Higher Education: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part2. Managing Service Quality.6(3), 31-35
Elliot, K.M. & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An alternative Approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
Gilmore, A. (2003). Services Marketing and Management. Sage Publications Ltd. London
Graeme, P. (2011). National Student Survey: one-in-10 'dissatisfied' with degree.The telegraph. [Web document]. Available:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8630781/National-Student-Survey-one-in-10-dissatisfied-with-degree.html [2013,05 March].
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications.Europoean Journal of marketing, 18(4),36-44
Hanaysha, J., Hilman, H., Kumar, D., (2012). Service Quality and Satisfaction: Study on International students in universities of North Malaysia. International Journal of Research in management, 3(2), 116-133.
Hair, F., Anderson R., Tatham. R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings.London:Prentice Hall
Hirmukhe, J. (2012). Measuring Internal Customers’ Perceptions on Service Quality using SERVQUAL in Administrative Services.International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications.2 (3). Available: www.ijsrp.org [2012, 01March]
Ijaz, A., Irfan, S., Shabaz, S., Awan, M. ,Sabir, M. (2011). An Empirical Model of Student Satisfaction: case of public sector Business schools. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 7(2), 91-114.
Ilias, A. ,Rahman, R., Razak M., (2008). Service Quality and Student Satisfaction : A case study at Private Higher Education Institutions. Journal of international Business Research (Web document).1(3), 13pages.
Karami, M., Olifati, O. (2011).Measuring Service quality and Satisfaction of students’ perception of service quality in high-ranking business schools in Iran.African Journal of Business Management (Web document), 6(2), 658-669.Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM. [2012, 18January]
Liu,F., Sukwadi, R., Yang, C. (2011). Towards an identification and Classification of Service Quality Attributes in Higher Education. International Journal of e-education, e-Business, e-Management, and e-Learning (Webdocument). 1(2),163-168 Available: http://www.ijeeee.org/Papers/026-Z0011.pdf [2011, 01june]
Lovelock, C., Wright L. (2002).Principles of service marketing and management.Prentice Hall.