Education 2013, 3(1): 7-14

DOI: 10.5923/j.edu.20130301.02

University Choice: Implications for Marketing and

Positioning
Joseph Kee Ming Sia

School of Business, Curtin University, M iri, 98009, Sarawak, M alaysia

Abstract The research upon which this paper was based was aimed at find ing out the factors students consider important
in their college choice decision and to provide marketing implications for educational ad min istrators. Sijil Tinggi
Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM), General Cert ificate of Education Advanced Level (GCE A -Level), Un ited Examination
Cert ificate (UEC), d iplo ma holder and university foundation year participated in the study. Four hundred sixty three
questionnaires were used for analysis of which the survey was based on five-point Likert scale. Results suggested that
prospective students consider programme, cost (financial aid), location, high school personnel, peers and friends and campus
visit as important criteria in their college choice decision. The findings have imp licat ions for private higher education
institutions (PHEIs) positioning in a recruit ment market, and for a reconsideration of marketing and recruit ment strategy at
institutional levels. Future research suggested to be carried out is on other aspects that influence student college choice
decision such as university ranking, academic achievement, educational consultant, and accreditation. Also, future studies
can explore a med iating variable such as parents’ expectation and encouragement on college choice decision. Lastly,
exploring the college choice decision research in a qualitative manner would also be a direction of future research.
Keywords Prospective Students, College Choice Decision, Marketing in Higher Education

job prospects, lower costs, affiliat ion of the institutions and

1. Introduction institutions’ campus environment and atmosphere largely
influenced students’ decision to select higher education
In t h e M alay s ian h ig h er edu cat io n en v iro n men t , institution. Reference[49] studied on first-year students who
researchers have studied the college choice decision from a have enrolled in one Un ited Kingdom programme and two
variety o f perspect ives and have ident ified a nu mber of Australian programme of a private higher institution of
variab les associated wit h the stud ents ’ co llege cho ice learning in Kuala Lu mpur. It was concluded that programme
d ecis ion p rocess. Reference[4] cond uct ed a stud y on evaluation (programme suitability, cost), college effort to
management students studying at Public Higher Education communicate with students (campus visit) and academic
Institutions (PUHEs) and it was found out that students’ expectation influences students on college choice decision.
selection of a university was mainly determined by types of Reference[21] conducted a study on students’ college choice
acad emic p rog rammes availab le, qu ality o f educat ion, decison of higher education in Kuala Lu mpur and were
ad min is t rat io n st and ards , facu lt y q u alificat io n an d limited to the students in Teikyo’s language Institute (IBT)
conv en ient and access ib le locat io n . A y ear lat er,[55] and the International Islamic University (UIA). In their study,
conducted a study on first-year undergraduate students from it was found out that course information, financial
Klang Valley and the result ind icated that academic quality, consideration and the institution’s facilities were the most
facilit ies, campus surroundings and personal characteristics influential factors when students were making a decision to
are important factors for students on college choice decision. study in a higher institution of learning.
Reference[3] con du cted a s imilar s tud y as p er st udy The empirical findings above have revealed numerous
conducted by[4] and [55]. Ho wever, their populations of factors that influence students in college choice decision.
study were students who had enrolled in foundation studies However, they were not consistent and varied fro m one
prog rammes , d ip lo ma p rog rammes and underg rad uates research to another research. As noted by ([45], p.11), “…
studies in PHEIs. It was reported that reputation and quality the determinant factors that cause students to choose to
of the institution, nature of the institutions, future graduate attend a particular higher learn ing institution are
undertermined.”
* Corresponding author:
[email protected] (Joseph Kee Ming Sia)
In addition, the research conducted focused mainly on
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/edu post-purchase behaviour rather than pre-decision behaviour.
Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved The result may be different if the research were to be
8 Joseph Kee M ing Sia: University Choice: Implications for M arketing and Positioning

conducted among prospective students. This concurs with introduced the model that incorporated multip le strands of
the literature review wh ich reported that evaluative criteria thought on the subject at that point. Moreover, he developed
might change as the consumption process proceeds, since the model fro m two t rends in higher education in the early
consumers may have mo re knowledge regarding so me 1980s, an expected decline in college applicat ions and
products attributes that were not anticipated before the enrolments and an increase in funding to “develop more
buying process began[33]. Therefore, the set of evaluative sophisticated marketing strategies, more appealing
criteria after making the purchase would not remain the same programmes and better recruitment literature” ([8], p.490).
as those used before the purchase. To further elaborate, By analysing these trends, Chap man had a threefold purpose:
consumers’ satisfaction appraisal in the pre-purchase stage (a) to review and add to the current research on student
should differ fro m that in the post-purchase stage. This college choice decision; (b) to assist those responsible for
occurs because the issues that consumers care about in the setting recruitment policy to better identify the factors that
pre-purchase stage differ fro m those in the post-purchase influence the applicants’ college choice decision and (c) to
stage. A study conducted by[65] supported the statement assess the importance of printed recruit ment materials and
made by[33]. Reference[65] reported that there are admission recruitment on college choice decision[13]. The
differences in criteria between prospective students variables which were studied are still demonstrated to be
(pre-purchase stage) and existing students (post-purchase salient in the college choice of individual[56]. Hence,
stage) in choosing higher learn ing institution. In their Chap man’s model o f co llege choice provides an organized
findings, first year students have six important variables system to analyze the factors that influence an ind ividual’s
when choosing higher learning institution namely i) college choice.
availability of required programme at the university The following is the discussion of various studies
(10.25%) 1; ii) academic reputation of the university (9.84%); regarding some of the main determinants of college choice
iii) financial assistance offered by the university (9.75%); iv) decision. It is noted that the selection of variables for this
quality of the faculty/lecturers (8.53%); v) opportunity of study was influenced by[8].
work part t ime while studying (7.98%) and vi) cost of tuition Friends
(7.04%). However, the prospective students only have four To some extent, peers do influence students’ college
variables namely i) availab ility of required programme at the choice decision. Several studies ([13],[43],[62]) examined
university (8.57%); ii) academic reputation of the university the relationship between student interaction with other
(8.20%); iii) quality of facu lty/lecturers (8.03%) and iv) college-bound students and their college participation. These
financial assistance offered by the university (7.96%). As studies suggested that the more a student interacts with other
revealed by[16], the standard of comparison consumers students with college plans, the more likely he or she will be
utilize in the pre-and post-purchase stage are also dissimilar. to consider going to college. On the other hand,[31]
In conclusion, a body of literature has examined the suggested a correction between non-college bound students
factors perceived to be important for students in college and their non college bound peers. These researchers stated
choice decision. The education literature has focused on that students with peers with no college plans influence the
researching existing students who are currently studying in predisposition phase of students’ college choice decision.
higher education institutions. In short, previous studies Their research also found that students who were not
mostly focus on the outcomes of the college choice decision planning to attend a HEI were mo re likely to consult their
at the post-purchase stage. There is a lack of attention to peers. While parental encouragement is still considered the
early stages of the college choice decision[49]. Concurring greatest influence on college attainment, the effect of
the statement made by ([49],[21], p.64) noted “An emp irical student’s peers does add an additional dynamic to the overall
research addressing the pre-purchase stage, particularly need college choice process for high school students.
recognition for private higher education in Malaysia is much According to[23], opinions of friends and former students
needed.” Therefore, th is study is conducted to fill the gap, weigh heavily on the minds of college applicants when
that is, to shed more light on evaluative criteria by deciding between colleges. These studies and others
prospective students when selecting a tertiary institution and expound upon the knowledge that the more a high school
to provide implications for educational ad min istrators. student interacts with other students with college plans, the
more likely they are to consider going to college.
Reference[53] and[24] found that approximately 27% of
2. Literature Review the students turned to their friends and neighbours for their
HEI choice. Th is is because formal sources of interpersonal
Studies of college choice decision have typically focused
informat ion such as agents, experts, university staff and
on the issue of factors influencing students’ decision about
counselors are less easily accessed than informal sources
which institution to attend. Reference[8] model of college
such as friends, family, neighbours and relatives. However,
choice provides a comprehensive model to explore the
formal sources may be more believable if the product is
factors that exist in the college choice decision. He
perceived to be highly technical and high involvement[9].
1
Consequently, this study hypothesises that friends is a
Ranking of Scores: a) above 7% = the very important attributes; b) 5% - 7% =
significant factor that influences college choice decision.
the moderate important attributes; c) Less than 5% = the least important items.
 Education 2013, 3(1): 7-14 9

H1 There is a significant relationship between friends The geographic location of an institution, or its pro ximity
and college choice decision. to home, is another factor that has bearing on students’
High school personnel college choice. A study by[37] revealed that an important
There have been numerous studies on the impact of factor in student predisposition to attend college is the close
guidance counselors in the college selection process. proximity of a higher education to home. It was found that a
Research indicates that students will d iscuss the college low-cost, nearby college was an impo rtant stimulator of a
selection process with their counselors, but that the influence student’s decision to further his or her education.
of these counselors varies greatly ([22],[29],[30],[31]. Reference[62] also found that the location of an institution
Teachers have everyday access to the students and a has a significant influence on the college choice decision.
number of students see these adults as additional, or Thus, this study hypothesises that there is a significant
sometimes primary, sources of info rmation on h igher relationship between location and college choice decision.
learning institutions. Nu merous research studies have H4 There is a significant relationship between location
confirmed that students look at teachers as part of their and college choice decision.
informat ion gathering process ([2],[10],[48]). However, Programmes
other studies have shown that teachers are not as important as Students’ selection of an institution of higher education is
guidance counselors in the college selection process[56]. also related to another institution characteristic, the type of
However, surprisingly, other research contrasts the role of programmes o ffered by the institution. Reference[26]
teachers and counselors in influencing student on college suggested that the suitability of p rogrammes is the most
choice decision[61]. Indeed, ([28], p.259) suggested that important consideration in students’ college choice.
“counselors and teachers have very little influence upon the
Reference[35] found that prospective students compared
stimuli stage of most high school students.”
programmes offered by various institutions to assess their
Based on the findings mentioned above, it is hypothesises
suitability. Students evaluate programmes based on the
that high school personnel has a significant influence on
following criteria: selection of courses[58]; availability of
college choice decision.
courses and entry requirements[5]; quality and variety of
H2 There is a significant relationship between high
education[62]; and quality and flexib ility of degree/course
school personnel and college choice decision.
combinations[25]. As a result, this study hypothesises that
Cost (financi al ai d)
there is a significant relationship between programmes and
According to[6], research consistently shows a significant
negative relationship between tuition increases and college choice decision.
enrolment. Reference[12] found out that flexib ility of fee H5 There is a significant relationship between
payment, availability of financial aid, and reasonable programmes and college choice decision.
accommodation costs exert a significance influence on Campus visit
college choice decision. The campus visit is often a college or university’s best
Reference[44] reviewed that cost-related issues seem to recruit ing tools. It is a major factor in the decision-making
have more importance as years go by. For examp le,[32] process[61]. Reference[27] found that the campus visit was
found they were at the bottom of the scale, wh ile in[43] they the most important factor influencing student’s enrollment
are one of the most important elements. Reference[41] decision.
concluded that price is a negative influence on co llege choice A campus visit provides value to both the student and the
while financial aid to reduce costs is a positive influence. institution. A campus visit ensures a good match between the
A study conducted by[65] found that financial assistance student and the college. Students come to campus with
offered by universities as one of the four very important certain expectations such as meeting current students who
attributes expected fro m a particular h igher education are like them or instructors who show an interest in them.
institution of choice. Thus, students who receive financial The campus visit is often a college or university’s best
aid awards are more likely to enter college ([42],[50],[52]). recruit ing tools. It is a major factor in the decision-making
According to research done by[28], 70% of students and process[61]. Reference[27] found that the campus visit was
87% of parents indicated that they were either “well the most important factor influencing a student’s enrollment
informed” or “informed” about financial aid programmes decision. The personal attention received by the student
and their eligib ility for financial aid. So me theorists cited during a campus visit was a major motivator for college
that receiving aid is more important than the amount of aid choice decision. In their study, the campus visit was rated by
received, because that aid becomes the substantive way the a large nu mber of students as the most important source of
institutions communicate that “we want to be part of our informat ion in their college search and choice process. The
community” ([40],[1],[15]). As a result, this study influence of the campus visit was similar in a study by[46].
hypothesises that cost has a significant influence on college Consequently, this study hypothesises that campus visit has a
choice decision. significant influence on college choice decision.
H3 There is a significant relationship between cost and H6 There is a significant relationship between campus
college choice decision. visit and college choice decision.
Location
10 Joseph Kee M ing Sia: University Choice: Implications for M arketing and Positioning

3. Methodology • High school counselors encourage me to attend higher

education
The primary methodology applied will be a quantitative • High school counselors or teachers discuss the
approach. Traditionally, educational research has importance of university with me
emphasized the quantitative approach, especially in the field • High school teachers encourage me to attend university
of college choice research[54]. Quantitative descriptive 3) Cost (Financial A id)
research describes what is, describing, recording, analyzing • Un iversity makes financial aid (scholarship or loan)
and interpreting conditions that exist. It involves some type available to its students
of co mparison or contrast and attempts to discover • University offers an education at reasonable cost
relationship between non-manipu lated variables. So me type • University makes flexib le payment of fees to its students
of statistical analysis is used to describe the results of the • University makes acco mmodation available at
study. reasonable costs
The population of the survey consisted of those • University offers scholarships
prospective students who have yet to be admitted into the 4) Location
PHEIs enrolling in undergraduate programmes. In other • University has an ideal location
words, these students will be able to obtain a degree • University is strategically located
automatically if they complete all academic requirements • Location of university is convenient and accessible
upon graduation. Students who will be complet ing their • University has excellent campus layout
secondary education and who were at the crossroads in • University has excellent campus size
choosing the place to further their studies were used in this • Campus of university is attractive
study in an effort to capture their thoughts regarding college 5) Programmes
choice decisions because they are experiencing the process • University has flexibility in allowing switching of
of choosing and enrolling in a college. As such, a concern majors
over fading memories will not be an issue. Targeted samp le • Un iversity has degree programmes with flexible
of this study was students who were cu rrently attending or structure and content
have completed STPM, GCE A-level, UEC, dip lo ma holder • Un iversity has specialised programmes of study
and university foundation year. The targeted sample was available
defined as such, as these groups of people have the highest • University has flexible entry requirements
possibility of continuing their study at PHEIs[45]. • University has practical components in degree
A total of 463 questionnaires were collected fro m the programme
students for analysis. According to[59], the samp le size • University has a range of degree
larger than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most • University has the availability of required degree
research. The numbers are considered effect ive based on the programme
research question investigated[7]. 6) Campus visit
The instrument was a structured self-ad ministered • Impression of campus visit before enrolment
questionnaire that was distributed to the respondents in the • Impression of campus during the open day
form of survey and then collected back for use as the primary • The attractiveness of the campus during the campus visit
data. • The size of the campus during the campus visit
Basically, the questionnaires contained two sections: • Nu mber of students during the campus visit
Section A: Factors that affect college choice decision The five-point Likert scale, in increasing order, ranging
Section B: Respondents demographic in formation fro m 1 as “strongly disagree”, 2 as “disagree”, 3 as
The survey questionnaire used in collect ing the data was “somewhat agree”, 4 as “agree” and 5 as “strongly agree” are
adapted fro m the questionnaires developedby[45],[64],[44], used in the questionnaire. These formats can be found in
[51],[63],[4],[14],[17],[55],[35]. The 34 items included to section A of the questionnaire. Reference[19] reco mmended
measure 6 variables are as follows: that Likert scales are the best designs when using
1) Friends self-ad min istered surveys, personal interviews, or most
• Advice fro m friends to continue their studies in online methods to collect the data. By definit ion, the Likert
university scale is an ordinal scale format asking respondents to
• Advice fro m peers indicate whether they agree or disagree about a given object
• Advice fro m friends who have been studying in by rating a series of mental belief or behavioural belief
university statement[19]. Reference[11] noted that there were few
• Advice fro m classmates advantages of using Likert Scales, that is, it contains items
• Most friends are attending university that are easily understood and quantified, acco mmodates
• Most friends are attending university neutral or undecided responses, provides a meaningful way
2) High school personnel to group a series of items, and enables co mputation of overall
• Advice fro m high school teachers scores.
• Advice fro m high school counselors The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version
 Education 2013, 3(1): 7-14 11

16) was used to analyze the collected data. Data was component analysis with varimax rotation was carried out on
screened and cleaned in order to identify any significant 34 items; suppressed at 0.5. To obtain the o rthogonal rotation
outlier and missing value. Descriptive statistics were factors, varimax method is the best analytical approach[18].
emp loyed to calculate the mean o f the response to each of the The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KM O) measure of sampling
indicators or the variables in the questionnaire. The adequacy of this analysis shows the score of 0.916 as shown
frequency was also calculated to understand the breakdown in table 2 indicating that the degree of intercorrelation and
of the respondents. As the research question was to analyze the appropriateness of using factor analysis as
the underlying dimensions of the variables, factor analysis meritorious[18]. As a result, all the variables survived; 6
was used. items for peer and friends, 5 items for high school personnel,
Fro m the sample, 39.6 percent are male and 60.4 percent 5 items for cost (financial aid), 6 items for location, 7 items
are female. Therefore, it could be said that the female for programme and 5 items for campus visit.
respondents were one third of the total respondents. The analysis of the factors that attract prospective students
Fro m the comp lete answered questionnaire collected, it to study in PHEIs shows there are six factors. The most
was found that the majority of the respondents were Chinese. influential factor is “programme” with average mean score
The percentage of Chinese respondents was 80.7 percent, 8.4 of 3.79. The leading most influential criteria that made up
percent were Iban respondents, 4.7 percent were Malay this factor is “University has the availability of required
respondents, and 6.2 percent were categorised as others. degree programme” as it has the highest mean score of 3.96.
Fro m the data on educational level of the respondents, This indicates that the key motivation that drives the
38.4 percent of the respondents were STPM holders, 19 prospective students to study in PHEIs is the availability of
percent of the respondents were GCE A-level holders, 8.9 degree programme. The availab ility of the degree
percent of the respondents were UEC holders, 14.9 percent programme means students are able to study at a specific
of the respondents were diploma holder and 18.8 percent of course that suit their interest and ambit ion. Thus, it is
the respondents were university foundation holder. This essential that PHEIs offer a wide range of degree
result indicates that most of the respondents are STPM programmes to suit different needs of students.
holders. While acknowledging that availability of degree
programme is most important, the students are very mindful
of the cost (financial aid) as they don’t want to be burdened
4. Findings and Discussions by the fees though the degree programme meets their
The objectives of this research are to explore factors expectation. This is evident fro m the second most influential
influencing college choice decision and to provide marketing that is “cost (financial aid).” This factor has the average
implications to educational ad ministrators. The means score mean score of 3.75. A mong the criteria that make up this
of the 34 items were first analysed. All the 34 items have the factor, the most influential criteria is “university offers
mean score of mo re than 3. Therefore all the items are scholarships” as it has the mean score 3.95. This provides the
included for reliability test. evidence that the next major mot ivation that drive the
The study started with one run for each construct. All prospective students to choose a particular institution is
items were maintained as Cronbach’s Alpha value for the six because the PHEIs offer scholarship with suitability of
constructs were greater than 0.7 as shown in table 1 wh ich is degree programme. Prospective students are assumed to be
consistent with[57] and[11]. cost conscious. They are willing to enrol in PHEIs that
provides education at a reasonable cost. Furthermo re, these
Table 1. Reliability test and average mean score students are likely to prefer PHEIs that provides them with
Cronbach’s Average Mean score of financial aid.
Factors The third factor is the “location.” It is noted that most
Alpha the factor
Programme 0.898 3.79 influential criteria in this factor is “university has an ideal
Cost (financial aid) 0.917 3.75 location” and “university is strategically located” with both
Location 0.912 3.68 the mean score of 3.75
High school personnel 0.935 3.52 The fourth key factor is the “high school personnel” wh ich
Peers and friends 0.838 3.43
has the average mean scores of 3.52. The criterion that is
Campus visit 0.889 3.42
most influential that make up this factor is “high school
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test counselors or teachers discuss the importance of university
with me” with the mean score of 3.64. Thus, prospective
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .916
students on college choice decision are influenced by a group
Approx. Chi-Square 12810.222 of significant people such as high school teachers and
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 561.000 counselors.
Sig. .000 The fifth key factor is “peers and friends” with the average
mean score 3.43. The leading criterion in th is factor with
Subsequently, factor analysis was conducted. To begin mean score 3.64 is “advice fro m friends who have been
with the data reduction process the six construct, princip le studying in university.”
12 Joseph Kee M ing Sia: University Choice: Implications for M arketing and Positioning

Finally, the last factor is the “campus visit” with average programmes, marketers of PHEIs should also make every
mean score of 3.42. The most attractive characteristic in the effort to co mmun icate and update the high school personnel
mean score of 3.57 is “imp ression of campus visit before of their latest programmes and scholarships available. Th is is
enrollment.” imperative so that the high school personnel are able to
influence the students which may lead to the decision to
enrol in the institution.
5. Strategic Implications Campus visit
PHEIs should hold “open day” on an annual basis
It is established that, in order of importance, students
whereby potential students can visit the institution to
consider programme, cost (financial aid), location, high
experience the campus and commun icate with the current
school personnel, peers and friends and campus visit to be
students and staff. Th is gives the opportunity for the
the most important in making decisions before they actually
potential students to obtain further information on
select a higher learn ing institution. The marketing
programmes o ffered by the institution. To the institution, this
implications for each of the variables mentioned shall be
event may be deemed as an excellent opportunity to identify
discussed below.
potential students for a relationship marketing student
Programmes
recruit ment programme. It should also be considered that
As programmes are considered the most important
“open day” provide a suitable means to reach home college
attribute when students pursuing their studies, PHEIs should
students – a market that may easily be forgotten in the
offer various programmes to match the needs of the potential
recruit ment drive.
students. Thus, in the event of promoting the programmes to
the prospective students during the education fairs or any
other educational pro motional events, it is imperat ive to 6. Conclusions
focus on the above attribute so that students would be able to
Fro m the marketing perspective, higher learn ing
make a better decision on which programme to study and
institutions authorities must be aware of the requested
enrol in the marketed PHEIs.
students’ needs and students’ selection criteria. Higher
Cost learning institutions should strive to ensure that students are
Preparing to give what students want is the first step in given a holistic educational experience and not just paper
applying market ing concepts to higher education. As qualification. In doing all these, higher learn ing institutions
students view cost as an important factor in their decision to must deliver quality services that will serve the needs and
enrol in PHEIs, the institutions of higher education should expectations of prospective students[34].
strategise their marketing efforts to meet the expectation of Using the criteria and marketing imp licat ions mentioned
the students. For instance, PHEIs can offer full or part ial above, institutions of higher learning could revise their
scholarships to students depending on their results at entry strategy in market ing services. Higher institution
requirement level. For students who are not getting the administrators and policy makers can now check how far
scholarships, the PHEIs can render their service by assisting they are providing their services in terms of customer
the students to apply for bank loan or Perbadanan Tabung orientation. What area should they improve in order to
Pendidikan Tinggi National (PTPTN) loan. provide better education for future generations? Findings
Location fro m the study can help policy makers and administrators
Fro m marketing positioning standpoint, marketing efforts develop a better marketing strategy in attracting and
should be channelled to promote the convenience and retaining students[30].
attractiveness of the campus location. For instance, when Future research could be carried out on other aspects that
market ing undergraduate programmes to prospective influence student college choice decision such as university
students, effort should be made to exp lain exp licit ly to the ranking, academic achievement, educational consultant, and
students places near the campus. Students are more inclined accreditation. Another direction for future studies is
to study in an environ ment that is convenient and accessible exploration of med iating variable such as parents’
to certain p lace such as supermarket. When exp laining the expectation and encouragement on college choice decision .
campus location to the students, attempt should be made to Exp loring the college choice decision research in a
describe the campus layout, size and appearance. qualitative manner would also be a direction for future
High School Personnel, Peers and friends research. It allows for a deeper exp loration of the college
In order to strengthening the position in the market, PHEIs choice decision. A qualitative research methodology would
should provide information about their programmes not only allo w the researcher to tease out potential variables and
to potential students but also high school personnels, peers influences in the college choice decision of prospective
and friends. Informat ion should also be made available to the students. By probing deeper in interview questions, the
social media such as facebook, twitter and blog. This is researcher would be able to gather more information about
because the social media have become popular sources of how prospective students priorit ised their college rankings
informat ion for the students, high school personnel, peers and were able to select institution of higher learning in which
and friends. When visiting the high schools to promote the to enrol.
 Education 2013, 3(1): 7-14 13

prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluaton experiences.

Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 548-560.

[17] Grieve, K. A. (2009). Urban African American M ale High

REFERENCES School Students’ Educational Aspirations for College and the
influence of family, school and peers. Unpublished PhD’s
[1] Abrahamson, T. D. & Hossler, D. (1990). Applying thesis, The University of Toledo.
marketing strategies in student recruitment. In D. Hossler &
J.P. Bean & Associates (Eds). The strategic management of [18] Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C.
college enrollments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (1998). M ultivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
Publishers. River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
[2] Alexander, K. & Eckland, B. (1975). Basic attainment [19] Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P. & Ortinau, D. J. (2006). M arketing
processes: A replication and extension. Sociology of Research: Within a Changing Information Environment (3rd
Education, 48, 57-95. ed.). New York: M cGraw-Hill Irwin.

[3] Ancheh, K. S. B., Krishnan, A. & Nurtjahja, O. (2007). [20] Hassan, M .A., Azmi, M .Z. & Mohamad, M .S. (2008). Factors
Evaluative criteria for selection of private universities and influencing students’ choice of higher institutions of learning.
colleges in M alaysia. Journal of International M anagement Paper presented at the Educational Research Seminar for
Studies, 2(1), 1-11. Students 2008. 120-126.

[4] Baharun, R. (2002). A study of market segmentation in [21] Hassan, F. & Sheriff, N. (2006). Students’ need recognition
tertiary education for local public higher learning institutes. for higher education at private colleges in M alaysia: An
M alaysian M anagement Review, 37(1), 1-8. exploratory perspective. Sunway Academic Journal, 3, 61-71.

[5] Bourke, A. (2000). A model of the determinants of [22] Hawkins, D. & Clinedinst, M . (2006). The state of college
International trade in higher education. The Service Industries admission. Alexandria, VA : National Association of College
Journal, 20(1), 110-138. Admission Counseling.

[6] Cabrera, A.F. & La Nasa, S.M . (2000). Using national [23] Hayden, M . (2000). College choice influences: Urban high
databases to study the college choice of low-SES students. school students respond. Community college. Journal of
Papers presented at the Annual M eeting of the Association for Research and Practice, 24, 487-494.
Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.
[24] Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a
[7] Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., and Sekaran, U. (2001). competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the
Applied business research:Qualitative and quantitative literature on higher education marketing. International
methods (1st ed.). Queensland, John Wiley. Journal of Public Sector M anagement, 19(4), 316-338.

[8] Chapman, D. (1981). A model of student college choice. [25] Holdswoth, D., & Nind, D. (2005). Choice M odelling New
Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490-505. Zealand High School Seniors' Preferences for University
Education. Journal of M arketing for Higher Education. 15(2),
[9] Coccari, R.L. & Javalgi, R. G. (1995). Analysis of students’ 81-104.
needs in selecting a college or education in a changing
environment. Journal of M arketing for Higher Education, [26] Hooley, G.J. & Lynch, J.E. (1981). M odelling the student
6(2), 27-39. university choice process through the use of the conjoint
measurement techniques. European Research, 9(4), 158-170.
[10] Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high
schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic [27] Hossler, D., Bean, J.P., & Associates (1990). The strategic
Books. M anagement of College Enrollments. San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
[11] DeVellis, R, F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and
applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. [28] Hossler, D., Braxton, J. & Coopersmith, G. (1989).
Understanding student college choice. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
[12] Foskett, N., M aringe, F. & Roberts, D. (2006). Changing fee Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 5,
regimes and their impact on student attitudes to higher 231-288, New York: Agathon Press.
education. Higher Education Academy, 13(2), 23-31.
[29] Hossler, D., & Litten, L. (1993). M apping the higher
[13] Falsey, B. & Haynes, B. (1984). The college cannel: Private education landscape. New York: College Board.
and public schools reconsidered. Sociology of Higher
Education, 57, 111-122. [30] Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college:
How social, economic, and educational factors influence the
[14] Filter, S. (2010). The choice-of-college Decision of decisions students make. Baltimore, M aryland: The John
academically Talented Students. PhD Thesis. The George Hopkins University Press.
Washington University, Proquest, UM I Number: 3397600
[31] Hossler, D., & Stage, F. K. (1987). An analysis of student and
[15] Freeman, K. (1997). Increasing African Americans’ parent data from the pilot year of the Indiana college
participation in higher education: African American students’ placement and assessment center. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
perspective. Journal of Higher Education UK, 22(2), 23-31. College Placement and Assessment Center.

[16] Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D. [32] Houston, M . (1979). Cognitive structure and information
W., & Burns, M . J. (1994). Comparing consumers’ recall or search patterns of prospective graduate business students.
14 Joseph Kee M ing Sia: University Choice: Implications for M arketing and Positioning

Advances in Consumer Research, VII, October, 552-557. [49] Leow, Y. M . Ismail, N., Chen, C. H., Lim, T. M . & Ng, F. L.
(2007). Choice criteria for private tertiary programmes at a
[33] Huang, Wen-Yeh (2006). M easuring Customer Pre-purchase private higher education institution. Paper presented at
Satisfaction. PhD Thesis. Purdue University. ProQuest LLC, International Colloquium on Business & M anagement
UM I Number: 3251631. (ICBM ) 2007, Bangkok, Thailand.
[34] Hussin, S. R., Tan, H. S. & M d. Sidin, S. (2000). M arketing [50] Litten, L. (1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool:
Analysis of the Higher Education Service Sector in M alaysia: some refinements in model of student choice. Journal of
Consumer perspective. Pertanika Journal Social Science & Higher Education, 4, 378.
Humanities, 8(1), 1-6.
[51] Liu, Jianguo (2005). Factors influencing students’ choice of
[35] Ismail, N., Hassan, F., M ohamad Sheriff, N. & M ohamad selected private universities in China. PhD Thesis. Bringham
Daud, N. (2010). Determining M ediating Effect of Young University, Proquest, UM I Number: 3189180
Information Satisfaction on International Students’ College
Choice” Empirical Evidence in M alaysia’s University. [52] M anski, C. & Wise, D. (1983). College Choice in America.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, Cambridge, M A: Harvard University Press.
3(1), 51-63.
[53] M aringe, F. (2006). University and course choice:
[36] Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Survey Question Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. The
Bank: M ethods Fact Sheet 1 International Journal of Educational M anagement, 20(6),
466-479.
[37] Kohn, M ., M anski, C. & M undel, D. (1976). An empirical
investigation of factors influencing going behaviors. Annual [54] M cDonough, P.M . (1997). Buying and selling higher
of Economic and Social measurement, 54(4), 391-419. education: The social construction of the college applicant.
Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 427-445.
[38] Kotler, P. (1976). Applying M arketing Theory to College
Admissions. In College Entrance Examination Board, A Role [55] M d. Sidin, S., Hussin, S. R. & Tan, H. S. (2003). An
for M arketing in College Admission, 54-72, New York: exploratory study of factors influencing the college choice
College Entrance Examination Board. decision of undergraduate students in M alaysia. Asia Pacific
M anagement Review, 8(3), 259-280.
[39] Krampf, R. F. & Heinlein, A. C. (1981). Developing
marketing strategies and tactics in higher education through [56] National Post-Secondary Education Cooperative (NPEC).
target market research. Decision sciences, 12(2) 175-193. (2007). Deciding on postsecondary education. Final report
(NPEC 2008-850). Washington, DC: Department of
[40] Jackson, G. (1982). Public efficiency and private choicer in Education.
higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
4(2), 239. [57] Nunnaly, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York,
M cGraw-Hill Book Company.
[41] Jackson, G. A. (1986). Workable, comprehensive models of
college choice. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of [58] Qureshi, S. (1995). College Accession Research: New
Teaching: National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.: variables in an old equation. Journal of Professional Services
Spencer Foundation, Chicago. M arketing, 12(2), 163-170.

[42] Jackson, G. A. (1988). Did college choice change during the [59] Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the
seventies? Economics of Education Review, 7(1), 15-27. behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.
[43] Joseph, M ., & Joseph, B. (1998). Identifying need of potential
students in tertiary education for strategy development. [60] Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill
Quality Assurance in Education, 6(2), 90-96. building approach (4th ed.). John wiley & sons Inc., U.S.
[44] Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (2000). Indonesian students’ [61] Sevier R.A. (1992). Recruiting African-American
perceptions of choice criteria in selection of a tertiary undergraduates: A national survey of the factors that affect
institution: strategic implications. International Journal of intuitional choice. College and university, 68, 48-51.
Educational M anagement, 14(1), 40-44.
[62] Shanka, T., & Quintal, V., & Taylor, R. 2005. Factors
[45] Lau, S. H. (2009). Higher education marketing concerns: Influencing International Students' Choice of an Education
Factors influencing M alaysian students’ intention to study at Destination - A Correspondence Analysis. Journal of
higher educational institutions. M aster Thesis. University of M arketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 31-46.
M alaya.
[63] Urbanski, R. A. (2000). Factors influencing student college
[46] Lay, R. & M aguire, J. (1981). Coordinating market and choice at a Northeastern M innesota Tribal College.
evaluation research on the admission rating process. Research Unpublished dissertation, University of M innesota.
in Higher Education, 14(1), 71-85.
[64] Wagner, K. & Fard, P. Y. (2009). Factors influencing
[47] Lay, R & M aguire, J. (1981). M odelling the college choice: M alaysian Students’ intention to study at a higher educational
Image and decision. College and University, 56, 113-126. institution. E-leader Kuala Lumpur 2009.

[48] Lee, V., Chow-How, T., Burkham, D., Gevert, D., & [65] Yusof, M ., Ahmad, S. N. B., Tajudin, M . & Ravindran, R.
Smerdon, B. (1998). Sector differences in high school course (2008). A study of factors influencing the selection of a higher
taking: A private school or Catholic school effect. Sociology education institution. UNITAR e-journal, 4(2), 27-40.
of Education, 71, 314-345.