A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION

OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

Mohar bin Yusof
Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia
mohar@unitar.edu.my
Siti Nor Bayaah binti Ahmad
Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia
ctnor11@unitar.edu.my

Misyer bin Mohamed Tajudin

Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia
misyer64@unitar.edu.my

R. Ravindran
Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia
ravindran@unitar.edu.my

ABSTRACT

The higher education landscape in Malaysia has gone through substantial changes. With
improvements in the quality of education and better academic performance at the primary and
secondary school level, the demand for tertiary education has increased many fold. The
increased public demand for tertiary education and the governments aspiration to position
Malaysia as a regional centre of academic excellence have led to the higher education market
becoming monopolistically competitive. The purpose of the research was to examine the
expectations on higher education institutions among three groups of respondent i.e. prospective
students, parents of prospective students and first year university students, and to identify the
factors influencing their preferences in selecting a particular higher education institution.
KEY WORDS: Preferences, Higher Education Institutions, Expectations, Higher Education
Market, Market Research

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

27

INTRODUCTION

Over the span of ten years or so, the higher education landscape in Malaysia has gone through
substantial changes. With improvements in the quality of education and better academic
performance at the primary and secondary school level, the demand for tertiary education has
increased many fold. The high level of demand for higher education can be attributed to a
complex interaction of three main sets of factors; social, political and economic, operating at both
personal and societal levels. At the personal level, higher education is seen as the key to jobs
which pay good salaries, confer social status and prestige, and provide avenues for social
mobility. At the societal level, the Malaysian government is using higher education programmes to
restructure Malaysian society in order to have a more indigenous population pursuing higher
education, thus enabling them to improve their livelihood later (Ghazali and Kassim, 2003).
Nevertheless, the increased public demand for tertiary education and the governments
aspirations to position Malaysia as a regional centre of academic excellence have led to the
higher education market becoming monopolistically competitive. Currently, there are 20 public
universities, 15 private universities, 1 private Open University, 17 private university colleges, 4
foreign university branch campuses and 486 private colleges (http://www.mohe.gov.my). Given
the growth of the higher education sector, it is imperative that higher education institutions
understand the factors that influence students and parents selection of a particular university in
order to remain competitive, market-oriented and customer focused.
Therefore, the objectives of this study were:1. To examine the attributes of a higher education institution which determine the
preference towards a particular university or college among three groups of respondents
i.e. prospective students, parents of prospective students and first year university
students;
2. To identify the factors influencing the preferences of the three corresponding groups in
selecting a higher education institution.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study takes into consideration a number of models in the literature that describe student
decision making and attitude development in the secondarytertiary education transition (Paulsen
1990, Chapman 1981). Many of them focus on the early processes of choice formation and the
social, economic and cultural factors that shape educational aspirations. From a rather different
perspective, other studies have centered principally on the decision of whether or not to go on to
university, rather than on the specific reasons why students select a preferred institution or
course (Williams et. al., 1980; 1993; Carpenter & Western, 1984; 1989; Hayden & Carpenter,
1990; Baldwin et. al., 1991; DEET, 1993; 1994; ANOP, 1994; McInnis & James, 1995; HarveyBeavis & Elsworth, 1998).
In the Malaysian higher education environment, Baharun (2002) found that students selection of
a university was mainly determined by types of academic programmes available, quality of
education, administration standards, faculty qualification, and convenient and accessible location.
Based on a preliminary study of final year management students, he argued that these selection
factors should guide university administrators in developing the preferred image of their
universities. In examining internationalization strategies for higher education institutions, Ghazali
and Kassim (2003) developed a model of foreign student demand for Malaysian higher education
and observed that course characteristics, country characteristics, administrative processes, and
costs are important determinants of locational decisions to pursue post-secondary education in
Malaysia.

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

28

There are many studies examining demand for higher education and factors contributing to this
demand, however, to our knowledge no studies have investigated and compared preference
towards a higher education institution between three targeted groups of customers namely
prospective students, parents of prospective students and first year university students.
Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by providing preliminary insights into the
perception of these three distinct groups of customers with regards to factors deemed important
and preferred in their institution selection.
For the purpose of this study, a hypothetical model for higher education aspiration and university
application was employed which comprised three stages:
the formation of educational aspirations and the intention to go to university;
the acquisition of specific information and identification of a limited set of tertiary options
based on perceived interests, aptitude and attainability; and,
the final decision.

METHODOLOGY

The responses were gathered from prospective students, parents of prospective students and
first year university students, thus comprehensively covering pre-application and post-application
to a higher education institution. Prospective students refer to students who were about to
complete secondary school education and who were at the crossroads in choosing the place to
further their studies. Parents of prospective students refer to the actual parents of prospective
students who answered the studys questionnaire. And, first year university students refer to
students who were undergoing their first year in a university. Data was collected and analyzed
during the period of June 2005 to June 2007. A total of 900 questionnaires were distributed in
Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Two techniques were used, including a single mail-out with no
follow-up reminder letter and an administrator-assisted survey. The survey resulted in a
conveniently selected sample of 402 respondents, garnering a response rate of 45 percent.
A questionnaire-based approach was taken in order to obtain data on peoples preferences
towards a particular university. A common questionnaire was administered to all three groups of
respondents. It had three main components, explained below, in addition to items collecting
relevant demographic information. The questionnaire was designed to discover:
how respondents ranked the different attributes which corresponded to the higher
education institution of choice; and,
the key determinants of choice.
The demographic information was obtained to prepare for further subgroup analysis covering
gender, ethnic group, and income level.
The questionnaire took applicants sequentially through the conceptual model of choice that
guided our thinking, asking them questions about the following five groups of possible factors or
influences:
Financial factors such as the perception on course fee, the availability of scholarships
and loans, and the willingness to bear the financial cost involved in education;
Location such as the availability of integrated transportation facilities, the geographical
area (rural, urban, or suburban), and proximity to family home or workplace;
Physical infrastructure such as the perception on relative facilities at public and private
universities, the relationship between facilities and student academic performances, and
the basic amenities required;
Industry expectations such as the perception on exposure to education, the training, skills
and type of degree offered (local, twinning, or foreign); and

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

29

Promotions such as the perceived effectiveness of the various universities promotional

campaigns through open days, advertisements, printed documents, education fairs and
road shows, and seminars or conferences.

All respondents were asked to rate the extent of the influence using a 5-point Likert-scale (from
Very Important to Not At All Important, and Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

RESULTS

Preference towards a Higher Education Institution

All the three groups were given 18 attributes and asked to rank them. These ranks were counted
and converted into scores. The total scores were sorted in descending order, and the results with
their contribution in terms of percentages are given in Table 1, 2 and 3. The sorted scores were
ranked in descending order. All the 18 attributes were classified into three groups. Group 1
categorized the very important attributes the respondents expected from a particular higher
education institution of choice (contribution score more than 7%). The second group showed the
moderately important attributes the respondents expected from a higher education institution of
choice (contribution score between 5% and 7%). The third group demonstrated the least
expected items (contribution score less than 5%).
For prospective students (refer to Table 1), it is interesting to note the four variables which fall
under the very important attributes group. Attributes of a higher education institution deemed
very important by prospective students include the availability of the required programme, the
academic reputation of the university, the quality of lecturers at the university and finally the
financial assistance offered by the university. Though we expected the cost of tuition, opportunity
to work part-time, location and industrial affiliation etc., to be important, these were placed in the
second group by the corresponding prospective students. It also seemed that other attributes like
international recognition, affiliation or collaboration with foreign universities and infrastructure
were not so important for prospective students.

Table 1
What Prospective Students Expect from a Chosen University or College
Attributes

Score

q1
q3
q5
q2

Availability of required programme at the university/college

Academic reputation of the university/college
Quality of the faculty/lecturers
Financial assistance offered by the university/college

1992
1905
1865
1850

8.57
8.20
8.03
7.96

q6
q9
q4
q7
q8
q10

University/college being part of a larger industrial group

Location of the university/college
Opportunity to work part time while studying
Cost of tuition
Admission procedure
Mode of teaching [Evening, Week end, Internet etc.,]

1326
1314
1312
1257
1213
1195

5.71
5.66
5.65
5.41
5.22
5.14

q13

International recognition of the university programmes

1154

4.97

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

30

q15
q12
q18
q16
q11
q14
q17

Type of university/college [public/private]

Affiliation or collaboration with a foreign university
Infrastructural facilities of the university/college
Employment assistance provided by the university/college
Impression from campus visits
Friends/relatives/teachers recommendations
Promotional activities of the university/college
Total

1144
1096
1017
981
965
855
790

4.92
4.72
4.38
4.22
4.15
3.68
3.41

23231

100

The parents of prospective students (refer to Table 2) would also prefer a university where the
required programme is offered, which was similar to the expectation of prospective students.
Other very important attributes were financial assistance to students, quality of faculty or
lecturers and the academic reputation of the university. Attributes deemed moderately important
by parents of prospective students comprised the cost of tuition, admission policy, mode of
teaching, part-time employment opportunities, collaboration with foreign universities and
impression of the campus. While international recognition of the universitys programmes, type of
university or college, infrastructural facilities, employment assistance etc. were deemed to be not
so important.
The same variables chosen as very important by prospective students and parents of prospective
students were also chosen by first year university students. Factors deemed very important in the
selection of a higher education institution by first year university students (refer to Table 3)
included the availability of the required programme, academic reputation of the institution,
financial assistance, quality of the faculty or lecturers, opportunity to work part time and cost of
tuition. On the other hand, admission procedure, affiliation to a foreign university and mode of
teaching fell into the moderately important attributes group. While, the other items such as
impression from campus visits, friends relatives or teachers recommendation, internal
recognition, being part of a large industry group, employment assistance etc. were deemed least
important.

Table 2
What Parents of Prospective Students Expect from a Chosen University or College
Attributes
q1

Score

2150

8.87

q2
q5
q3

Availability of required programme/course at the

university/college
Financial assistance offered by the university/college
Quality of the faculty/lecturers
Academic reputation of the university/college

1952
1930
1863

8.05
7.96
7.68

q6
q7
q8
q4
q10
q9

Cost of tuition
Admission policy of the university/college
Mode of teaching [Evening, Week end, Internet etc.,]
Availability of part time employment opportunities
Affiliation or collaboration with a foreign university
Impression from campus visits

1583
1531
1481
1366
1324
1265

6.53
6.31
6.11
5.63
5.46
5.22

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

31

q11
q13
q18
q14
q17
q15
q12
q16

International recognition of the University Programmes

Type of university/college [Public/Private ]
Infrastructural facilities of the university/college
Employment assistance provided by the university/college
Location of the university/college
University/college being part of a larger industrial group
Friends/relatives/teachers recommendations
Promotional activities of the university/college
Total

1175
1156
1059
945
935
925
901
704

4.85
4.77
4.37
3.90
3.86
3.82
3.72
2.90

24245

100.00

Table 3
What First Year University Students Expect from a Chosen University or College
Attributes

Score

1241

10.25

q3
q2
q5
q4
q6

Availability of required programme at the University /

College
Academic reputation of the University / College
Financial assistance offered by the University / College
Quality of the faculty / lecturers
Opportunity to work part time while studying
Cost of tuition

1191
1180
1033
966
852

9.84
9.75
8.53
7.98
7.04

q7
q10
q8

Admission procedure
Affiliation or Collaboration with a Foreign University
Mode of teaching [Evening, Week end, Internet etc.,]

845
690
647

6.98
5.70
5.34

q9
q12
q11
q15
q14
q13
q16
q17
q18

Impression from campus visits

Friends / relatives / teachers recommendations
International recognition of the University Programmes
University / College being part of a larger Industrial Group
Employment assistance provided by the University / College
Type of University / college [ public / private ]
Promotional activities of the University / College
Location of the University / College
Infrastructural facilities of the University / College

601
503
477
404
347
339
283
275
232

4.96
4.15
3.94
3.34
2.87
2.80
2.34
2.27
1.92

12106

100.00

q1

Total

Significant Factors Influencing Preference towards a Particular Higher Education

Institution
Stepwise regression analysis was conducted with preference towards a higher education
institution taken as the dependent variable while factors like finance, location, industry
expectations, facilities at the university and promotional factors were used as independent
variables. The advantage of stepwise regression is that it takes the significant variable first and

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

32

keeps the other variables in reserve and later another significant variable is included. By this
iteration method, the R2 values are given stepwise so that one can observe the contribution of
each independent variable to the model (Malhotra, 1999; Hair, Jr. et. al., 2000; Sekaran, 2005).
2

Table 4 shows the results of R for the stepwise regression analysis on the response by
2
prospective students. Interestingly, finance is significant with a R of 25%. The second factor is
2
industry expectation. Ceteris paribus, finance produces a R of 25% and when industry
2
expectation is added the R goes up by 8% and reaches 33% when both finance and industry
expectation variables are added. The contribution of the other variables is negligible. The F
values and the variance explained by ANOVA in Table 5 are significant which means the
independent variables chosen for this study and the model fit were well connected and reliable.
Further, the t values for both finance factors and industry expectation factors in Table 6 are more
than 2.33 which imply they are significant at the 1% level.

Table 4
Variance Explained by Factors in Institution Selection: Prospective Students

Model
1
2

R Square

Adjusted R
Square

Std. Error of
the Estimate

R Square
Change

0.50
0.25
0.25
4.11
0.25
0.57
0.33
0.32
3.91
0.07
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation

1
2

F Change

Sig.

45.52
15.01

0.000
0.000

Table 5
ANOVA and F Values for Institution Selection: Prospective Students

Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
1
2

F
Sum of Squares Mean Square
768.98
768.98
45.52
2,297.65
16.89
3,066.63
998.91
499.46
32.61
2,067.72
15.32
3,066.63
137
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation

Sig.
0.000

0.000

Table 6
Dominant Attributes in Institution Selection: Prospective Students

Model
1

(Constant)
Finance Factors

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
19.80
2.91
0.68
0.10
0.50

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

Sig.

6.80
6.75

0.000
0.000

33

(Constant)
10.88
3.60
Finance Factors
0.49
0.11
0.27
0.07
Industry Expectation
Dependent Variable: Preference towards a particular university

3.02
4.54
3.87

0.36
0.31

0.003
0.000
0.000

Meanwhile, for parents of prospective students, as shown in Table 7, the first iteration
demonstrates that industry expectation is the first independent variable which enters the model
and it produces a R2 of 39%. In the second iteration, finance enters the model which adds to the
2
2
R by 4% and finally, location enters the model. The R improves by 1% because of this variable.
Other factors like promotion and facilities do not significantly contribute to institution selection.

Table 7
Variance Explained by Factors in Institution Selection: Parents of Prospective Students

Model
1
2
3
1
2
3

Std. Error of
R Square
Adjusted R
R
R Square
Sig.
the Estimate
Change
F Change
Square
0.627
0.393
0.389
3.708
0.393
92.735
0.000
0.672
0.452
0.444
3.536
0.059
15.214
0.000
0.684
0.468
0.457
3.497
0.016
4.242
0.041
Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation
Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation, Finance Factors
Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation, Finance Factors, and Location Factors

The ANOVA test in Table 8 conveys the goodness of fit of the variables chosen for testing
university preference among the parents of prospective students. In addition, all the three
iterations show significant F values which implies that the variables selected fit the model well.
Since the F value decreases, it can be taken that the quality of the model improves considerably
with the inclusion of other independent variables. Here, variables like industry expectation,
finance factors and location factors fit well in studying parents mindsets regarding the selection of
a higher education institution for their children.

Table 8
ANOVA and F Values for Institution Selection: Parents of Prospective Students
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
1
Regression
1,275.057
1,275.06
Residual
1,966.174
13.75
Total
3,241.231
2
Regression
1,465.328
732.66
Residual
1,775.904
12.51
Total
3,241.231
3
Regression
1,517.193
505.73
Residual
1,724.039
12.23
Total
3241.2313
144.00
1
Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

F
92.74

Sig.
0.000

58.58

0.000

41.36

0.000

34

2
3
4

Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation, Finance Factors

Predictors: (Constant), Industry Expectation, Finance Factors, and Location Factors
Dependent Variable: Preference towards a particular university

The dominant factors in institution selection by parents of prospective students are also given in
Table 9. The t values are important for interpretation. In the first iteration, the t value was 9.63
and significant. This t value is the error level present in the model which takes university
preference as the dependent variable and industry expectation as the independent variable. In
the second iteration when finance is added, the t value for industry expectation comes down to
6.08 and finance shows a t value of 3.90. The t value decrease (or error level decrease) is not
only because of the addition of finance but also because of the interaction or the joint contribution
of industry expectation and finance. Similarly, when an additional variable, location, is added to
the model, the t values of both industry expectation and finance come down to 4.6 and 3.8
respectively. This implies that the contribution of the model improves further.

Table 9
Dominant Attributes in Institution Selection: Parents of Prospective Students

Model
1
(Constant)
Industry Expectation
2

(Constant)
Industry Expectation
Finance Factors

Unstandardized
coefficients
15.956
0.469

Std. Error
2.469
0.049

10.154
0.344
0.422

(Constant)
8.735
Industry Expectation
0.288
Finance Factors
0.407
Location Factors
0.249
Dependent Variable: Preference towards a particular university

Beta
0.627

t
6.463
9.630

Sig.
0.000
0.000

2.785
0.057
0.108

0.460
0.295

3.646
6.086
3.900

0.000
0.000
0.000

2.839
0.062
0.107
0.121

0.385
0.284
0.150

3.077
4.646
3.799
2.060

0.003
0.000
0.000
0.041

As for first year university students, the step-wise regression as shown in Table 10 produced the
2
2
following R . In the first step, it takes finance as important with a R of 11%. In the second round,
2
industry expectation is included in the model as a significant factor and the R goes up to 17.2%.
2
In the final round, location is included and the R reaches 20%. These results imply that the
model fit is not very strong, even though the three independent variables are significant, as the
2
overall R is only 20%.

Table 10
Variance Explained by Factors in Institution Selection: First Year University Students

Model
1

R
0.326

Std. Error
Adjusted
of the
R Square R Square Estimate
0.106
0.099
6.419

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

R Square
Change
0.106

F Change
13.911

Sig.
0.000

35

2
3
1
2
3

0.414
0.172
0.157
6.206
0.065
9.155
0.003
0.447
0.200
0.179
6.125
0.028
4.083
0.046
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation, and Location Factors

Table 11 demonstrates the results of the ANOVA test for first year university students responses.
As stepwise regression is applied to all the three runs with the additional variables at each step
the F values drop slowly indicating improvements in the model fit. Though the model fit is robust,
the sums of squares explained by the independent variables are less than the unexplained sums
2
of squares. This is the main reason for the poor R given in Table 10. We propose that a rigorous
questionnaire and carefulness while answering by the respondents will improve the results.

Table 11
ANOVA and F Values for Institution Selection: First Year University Students
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
573.15
1
573.15
13.91
0.000
Residual
4,820.45
117
41.20
Total
5,393.60
118
2
Regression
925.74
2
462.87
12.02
0.000
Residual
4,467.86
116
38.52
Total
5,393.60
118
3
Regression
1,078.94
3
359.65
9.59
0.000
Residual
4,314.66
115
37.52
Total
5,393.60
118
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation
Predictors: (Constant), Finance Factors, Industry Expectation, and Location Factors
Dependent Variable: Preference towards a particular university

Model
1

1
2
3
4

In addition, Table 12 shows the overall regression results of the first year university students
questionnaire. The beta coefficient decreases for finance when more independent variables are
added to the model. For instance, finance first showed a beta coefficient of 32.6%, however,
when industry expectation is added to the model, it declines to 30%. When the third variable,
location, is added, it further declines to 28%. Similarly, industry expectation was 26% at first and
later decreases to 23%. These decreases are attributed to the interaction of the independent
variables. Similarly the t values also decline gradually when more independent variables are
added to the model. This implies that the contribution of the model improves further.

Table 12
Dominant Attributes in Institution Selection: First Year University Students
Standardized
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

Sig.

36

Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
34.025
4.111
Finance Factors
0.393
0.105
2
(Constant)
27.056
4.594
Finance Factors
0.361
0.102
Industry Expectation
0.518
0.171
5.741
3
(Constant)
19.940
Finance Factors
0.340
0.102
Industry Expectation
0.453
0.172
Location Factors
0.129
0.064
Dependent Variable: Preference towards a particular university

Beta

0.326
0.300
0.257
0.282
0.225
0.173

8.277
3.730
5.890
3.526
3.026
3.473
3.342
2.630
2.021

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.010
0.046

DISCUSSION

This study was undertaken to compare and contrast three groups namely prospective students,
parents of prospective students and first year university students, covering pre-application and
post-application to a higher education institution, in terms of their preferences toward a higher
education institution and factors influencing selection of the institution. The study produced
several interesting observations and results. Nevertheless, the findings of this study are limited in
terms of their generalizability to the population of prospective students, parents of prospective
students and first year university students, given that the group samples were taken only from
Kuala Lumpur and certain areas in Selangor, and given the small size of the samples and the
sampling techniques used.
First, the three groups identified the same four attributes as the very important attributes
expected from a particular higher education institution of choice. These attributes were the
availability of the required programme, the academic reputation of the university, the quality of the
faculty or lecturers and the financial assistance offered by the university. In fact, the availability of
the required programme was chosen as the top most important attribute by all groups. Based on
this, we can say that the respondents were well-informed about their institution of choice and had
already made up their minds about the programme they wanted to apply for or be admitted into.
Further, the results clearly showed that the respondents expected quality in education and not
quantity. And, perceived quality of education was derived from the academic reputation of the
university or college and the quality of its faculty or lecturers. Financing was still an important
factor even though the respondents were not too worried about the cost of education, distance or
international recognition. This meant that they were willing to pay and bear the higher costs of
education as long as financing was available and they got to study in their preferred programme.
Secondly, it is surprising to note that the infrastructural facilities of the university or college were
placed among the least expected items by all groups. In fact, the first year university students in
this survey considered it the least important of all. It seems that the word infrastructure might not
have been properly understood by the respondents because it actually includes very important
items like the library, computer laboratories, software, classroom equipment etc. The authors had
thought that this attribute would have been considered among the very important attributes but it
seemed to be otherwise. Apart from that, six other attributes were also identified as the least
expected items by all groups namely international recognition of the university programmes, the
type of university or college (whether private or public), employment assistance provided by the
institution, friends/relatives/teachers recommendations and the promotional activities of the
institution.

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

37

Thirdly, among the five groups of factors thought to influence the preference towards a higher
education institution in the model of this study, three factors have been found to contribute
significantly to institution selection. They are finance, industry expectation and location. This
finding corresponds to reality given that tuition fees and the cost of living have increased
considerably over the years. Fees charged by private higher education institutions are quite high
and many people may not be able afford to pay without financing. The graduate unemployment
issue may have also influenced the minds of prospective students, parents and existing university
students. Nowadays, people are more concerned about the skills-training provided in a higher
education institution. Most importantly, the skills must be those required by industry.

CONCLUSION

The mindset that higher education is needed to get a good job and to have a good life may still be
prevalent among our students and parents, thus, factors that facilitate the achievement of this
objective will highly influence preference towards a higher education institution. Overall, the
expectations of a higher education institution from the three different groups of people surveyed
in this study are similar. And factors influencing their selection of a higher education institution are
also similar. The results and findings of this study may provide university or college administrators
and marketers with some insight into the factors to focus on or highlight when it comes to offering
or marketing education programmes.
Given the nature of the higher education market, which has become monopolistically competitive,
higher education institutions have been aggressively competing for students. Some institutions
have actually spent a lot of money in offering infrastructural facilities and conducting a lot of
promotional activities such as advertisements, participation in education fairs and exhibitions and
giving promotional discounts. The authors believe that it is time for our administrators and
marketers to realize that the target groups have become very selective and are more wellinformed and decisive in making their choices especially those from the urban areas and middle
income families. Further research is encouraged along the same lines and parameters to enable
us to better understand consumer perceptions and behaviours concerning the selection of higher
education products and institutions.

Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance given by the University to carry out
this research.

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

38

REFERENCES
ANOP (1994). Young peoples attitudes to post-compulsory education and training. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Govt. Pub. Services
Baharun, R. (2002). A study of market segmentation in tertiary education for local public higher
learning institutes. Malaysian Management Review, 37(1).
Baldwin, G., et. al. (1991). Unmet demand for higher education places in Victoria and
Queensland. Australian Government Publishing Services (AGPS), Canberra.
Carpenter, P., & Western, J. (1984). Transition to higher education. Australian Journal of
Education, 28(3),249-272.
Carpenter, P., & Western, J. (1989). Starting a career: The early attachments of young people.
(ACER Research Monograph No. 36) Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice process. Journal of Higher Education,
10(5), 490-505.
DEET (1993). NSW Year 1012 students attitudes to post-compulsory education and training.
Canberra. Australian: Government Publishing Services.
DEET (1994). Young peoples attitudes to post-compulsory education and training.(Higher
Education Series, Occasional Paper No. 11). Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Services.
Ghazali, M.H.M.Z., & Kassim, M.S. (2003). The development of global education in Malaysia:
Strategies for Internationalization. Malaysian Management Review, 38(2).
Hair, J.F., Jr., Bush, R.P., & Ortinau, D.J. (2000). Marketing research: A practical approach for
the new millennium. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Hayden, M., & Carpenter, P. (1990). From school to higher education in Australia. Higher
Education, 20, 175196.
Harvey-Beavis, A., & Elsworth, G. (1998). Individual demand for tertiary education: Interests and
fields of study. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
rd

Malhotra, N.K. (1999). Marketing research: An applied orientation (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McInnis, C., & James, R. (1995). First year on campus: Diversity in the initial experiences of
Australian undergraduates. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services
Paulsen, M.B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior.(ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 6). Washington, DC: The George Washington University,
School of Education and Human Development.

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

39

Sekaran, U. (2005). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4

York: John Wiley & Sons.

th

ed.). New

Williams, T., Clancy, J., Batter, M., & Girling-Butcher, S. (1980). School, work and career:
Seventeen- year olds in Australia (ACER Research Monograph No. 6) Hawthorn,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Williams, T., Long, M., Carpenter, P., & Hayden, M. (1993). Entering higher education in the
1980s. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services

UNITAR E-JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2008

40