Master of Public and Private Management
Master of Public and Private Management (M.P.P.M)
Learning from the real-world evidence
- To produce graduates possessing theoretical and practical knowledge of administration with the practical ability to apply knowledge suitable with work in government agencies, state enterprises and private organisations.
- To produce executives and leaders with morality, ethics and a sense of social responsibility in the public and private sectors.
- To promote the exchange of knowledge, experiences, opinions and attitudes among public and private sector personal, leading to cooperation for the country’s sustainable development.
ELO 1 Explain concepts and theories on public and private management.
ELO 2 Apply management knowledge and techniques to support the operation of public
and private organisations on the ground of morality and ethics.
ELO 3 Analyse operational problems and challenges to equip public and private
organisations with the readiness for economic, social and political changes.
ELO 4 Strengthen the change agent capacity to create cooperation towards the
achievement of organisational goals.
ELO 5 Develop the academic research’s findings and suggestions to enlarge and
communicate such knowledge to the stakeholders of both public and private
organisations.
Applicants must hold a bachelor’s degree or are studying in last semester (and to graduate before first intake start) in any field from a university or institution accredited by the Office of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation.
- Hold a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent from educational institutes accredited by the Office of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, or the Office of the Civil Service Commission, or organizations with standard accreditation or with accreditation recognized by the National Institute of Development Administration.
- Have required professional experience in accordance with the announcement of the Institute.
- Pass selection criteria set by the Institute through written exam and/or interview.
- Presentation Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Delivery of content | –Fluent, smooth, easy and quick for audience to get the points -Uses proper pauses and puts timely emphasis on words or important information to hold audience’s attention. -Speaks at the right pace. | –Fluent, smooth, easy for audience to get the points -Uses proper pauses. -Speaks at the right pace. | –Not eloquent with occasional halts. -Speaking too fast to understand or too slowly. | –Unsmooth or frequently repeats words like ‘Uh’ and ‘Ah’. -Many halts. -Speaks too fast to understand or too slowly. |
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Independent Study Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy ** | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the facts. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the topic / research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect
| – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard (75-100%) | Standard (50-74%) | Close to Standard (25-49%) | Below Standard (0-24%) *
|
|
|
| shallow analytical skill. |
|
Coherence of content | Complete coherence | Incoherent in some parts | Incoherent in most of the content | Complete incoherence |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Content amount | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. | Completely inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. |
Credibility of reference information sources | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | Some reference sources are short of credibility such as blogs or websites with unverified names of writers and / or other details failing to build credibility for the information on the blogs or websites as proven facts. | Low credibility and / or no reference to sources of information. |
Student participation | Regular participation | Frequent participation | Occasional participation | Little participation / No participation |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
** Factors taken into account are as follows :
1.Research question / Research objective
2.Literature review
3.Methodology
4.Information analysis
5.Discussion on results and conclusion / recommendations
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Take-home examination – Report – Essay Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the fact. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the topic / research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect shallow analytical skill. | – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Coherence of content | Complete coherence | Incoherent in some parts | Incoherent in most of the content | Complete incoherence |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Content amount | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. | Completely inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. |
Credibility of reference information sources | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | Some reference sources are short of credibility such as blogs or websites with unverified names of writers and / or other details failing to build credibility for the information on the blogs or websites as proven facts. | Low credibility and / or no reference to sources of information. |
Participation of students in group work ** | Regular participation | Frequent participation | Occasional participation | Little participation / No participation |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
** In case of group work on assigned reports, an individual student’s opinion report corresponding to the content of the assigned report is used as a measure of participation.
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Closed-book examination Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the fact. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect shallow analytical skill. | – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
Date published: April 9th, 2019
Study at Bangkok classes
Track A: 97,000 THB
Track B: 218,000 THB
Study at Chon Buri Provincial class
Track B: 214,500 THB
1. Executives in the public and private sector.
2. Politicians and political officials.
3. Professionals in public and private organizations.
4. Lecturers or academics in the social sciences.
5. Independent workers.
- Original Bachelor’s Degree certificate.
- Original complete official transcript(s) of undergraduate studies.
- Original certificate in a program before Bachelor degree (High school).
- Original complete official transcript(s) of a program before Bachelor degree (High school).
- Copy of passport (Non-Thai applicants).
- Evidence of any change of name (if applicable).
- One 1-inch photo taken no more than six months prior to application date.
- Applicants are required to submit a test score of either 500 for TOEFL, 5.5 IELTS, 500 NIDA TEAP or score result from the Test of English Proficiency that conducted by standard organization or representative of the government from applicants’ country (Applicant might get the permission to not provide evidence of English Proficiency or might require to attend English Foundation in case of failure from this English criteria, considered by course committee and shall approve by the Dean.
(Required for English programme’s applications).
GSPA’s Bangkok Office
Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA)
National Institute of Development Administration
Navamindradhiraj Buliding
10-11th Floor, 148 Moo3
Seri Thai Road, Klong-chan
Bangkapi, Bangkok 10240
Tel: 0 2 727 3909, 0 2 727 3871 Fax: 0 2375 9164
Email: sirin.p@nida.ac.th
Chon Buri Provincial Office
Interior College Damrong Rajanupab Institute, Ministry of Interior Building. 3rd floor.
135 Moo3 Soi Banglamuang 2 Sub-district,
Banglamuang, Banglamuang district, Chon Buri 20150
Tel. 038-240244-5 Fax. 038-240244