Purpose: The study intended to offer evidence for three propositions: whether deemed and state universities differ in their educational offerings; whether the worth of educational offerings depends on the appropriateness of fee perception by students; and whether the relationship between the "perception of fee appropriateness" and "education offerings" is dependent on the type of university. Design: Experimental design was adopted to address the research concern - "appropriateness of fee charged will stimulate value proposition in management education." We used factorial MANOVA to explore three effects (Main Effect 1: it is hypothesized that deemed and state universities differ in their educational offerings; Main Effect 2: Worth of educational offerings depends on the appropriateness of fee perception by students; Interaction Effect: Relationship between "perception of fee appropriateness" and "education offerings" is dependent on the type of university [interaction effect is not zero]). Findings: The results of factorial MANOVA revealed a major finding that if students feel they are charged appropriately, they will rate educational offerings, academic excellence, infrastructure, career aspirations, and skills acquired, as superior. Research Limitations: The study did not include management students of private universities and autonomous colleges. The study was cross-sectional in time dimension and not longitudinal, and hence, a causal relationship could not be established. Originality/Value: It is the first study to use factorial MANOVA to test two main effects and one interaction effect with respect to educational offerings of deemed and state universities.

1. Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2010). The knowledge society : A sustainability paradigm. Cadmus, 1(1), 28-41.
2. Aggarwal, R. (2017). Economics of e-learning in higher education: The Indian case. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(6), 40-48. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374</a>
3. Bohra, N. S. (2013). Enhancing quality of management education in the average Indian business school through shared responsibility. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 6(2), 32-39. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2013/v6i2/59972 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2013/v6i2/59972</a>
4. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Kajaste, M., Prades, A., & Scheuthle, H. (2015). Impact evaluation from quality assurance agencies’ perspectives: Methodological approaches, experiences and expectations. Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), 270-287.
6. Kaul, N. (2011). Management education in India-A case study. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2(1), 533-552.
7. Khatri, P., & Raina, K. (2019). Education, state, and psychology: A study of students’ pre- and post-perceptions of training intervention. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 12(12), 38-48. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2019/v12i12/149271 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2019/v12i12/149271</a>
8. Kulkarni, M. N. (2010), Management education in India-Need for quality standards. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.iodonline.com/Articles/Designteaching%202%20SIT.pdf target="_blank">http://www.iodonline.com/Articles/Designteaching%202%20SIT.pdf</a>
9. Kumar, A. A., & Shekhar, V. (2017). Invigorating knowledge sharing in higher education: Indian initiatives. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(9), 7-15. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i9/118235 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i9/118235</a>
10. Ladd, T. D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2010). Quantum computers. Nature, 464(7285), 45-53.
11. Leiber, T. (2018). Impact evaluation of quality management in higher education: A contribution to sustainable quality development in knowledge societies. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 235-248.
12. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
13. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Palety, P. (2009, October 7). India’s B-schools : Growth in quantity, not quality. Wall Street Journal India. Retrieved from <a href=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125481622759367069 target="_blank">https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125481622759367069</a>
15. Porter, T., & Córdoba, J. (2009). Three views of systems theories and their implications for sustainability education. Journal of Management Education, 33(3), 323-347.
16. Rao, P. S., & Hans, K. (2011). Comparative analysis of accreditation systems in management education in India (NBA AND SAQS). Aweshkar Research Journal, 12(2), 17-30.
17. Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA ? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 208-224. <a href=https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788843 target="_blank">https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788843</a>
18. Seyfried, M., & Pohlenz, P. (2018). Assessing quality assurance in higher education : Quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 258-271.
19. Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1542-1571.