Marketing UVSC: How Prospective Students View the College
Jeff E. Hoyt
Andrea B. Brown
Background
Colleges and universities promote society’s well-being through education; however, as
organizations, they have self interests in avoiding budget cuts and declining enrollments.
Colleges and universities compete with each other in the educational market for resources,
prestige, and students. From a marketing perspective, an institution needs to (1) establish its
image or market position, (2) identify the competition, (3) determine the needs of various market
segments, and (4) develop a marketing plan for promoting its educational services (Paulsen,
1990). This research draws upon this marketing framework to study the factors that influence
student college choice.
A student’s decision to attend college is comprised of a number of stages, and several
models have been proposed to outline the process (Cabrera and La Nasa, 2000; Chapman, 1981;
Hossler and Gallagher, 1987; Jackson, 1982; Kotler and Fox, 1985; Litten, 1982). Hossler,
Braxton, and Coopersmith (1989), Paulsen (1990), and Bateman and Spruill (1996) provide
reviews of various college choice models. For the purposes of this study, college choice is
perceived as having three stages: predisposition, search, and choice (Hossler and Gallagher,
1987). The interest here is primarily in the choice phase and how an institution can effectively
market itself to students.
The discussion below will proceed first with a literature review on market analyses,
market segmentation, and the identification of choice factors important to students. This will be
followed by the methods and findings on one institution’s image and market position, its
competition, and relevant market segments. The analysis concludes with a discussion of the
results and how the information can be used to develop a marketing plan for the college. This
research contributes to college choice literature by identifying several factors that are important
to consider in college choice surveys; thus, expanding upon the work of Paulsen (1990). Market
segmentation demonstrates significant differences in the importance of college choice factors by
geographic location, gender, academic ability, and parental income levels.
Market Analysis
Clark and Hossler (1990) explain how institutions position themselves in the market. For
example, a college can position itself “as an elite college…, a low-cost pathway to upward
mobility…, [or] church-related school” (Clark and Hossler, 1990, p. 78). According to Kotler
(1982) an institution markets itself by “designing the organization’s offerings in terms of the
target markets’ needs and desires, and… using effective pricing, communication, and distribution
to inform, motivate, and service the markets” (p. 6).
As a part of its marketing plan, an institution must determine who to contact in an effort
to influence student college choice decisions. Although research has found that friends,
relatives, teachers, and fellow employees of prospective students have an influence on college
choice (Allen, 1984; Brookdale, 1983; Campbell and Smith, 1985; Cibik, 1982; Lucas, 1984;
Hollenbeck, 1988; Johnson, Stewart and Eberly, 1991; Stoyanoff, 1980), institutions typically do
not have immediate access to these individuals. Colleges and universities can use the American
College Testing Program Student Profile (ACT Profile) information to contact students as well
as parents, when the student lists the institution on their choice set. The institution may contact
students who applied but failed to enroll at the institution, using data from the admission
application. Staff may participate in college visit days with students at local high schools. Other
possibilities include contact with high school counselors or employers in the area. Parents may
have the greatest influence on a student’s college choice (Brookdale, 1983; Carnegie Foundation,
1986; Lucas, 1984; Seegmiller, 1975), and they have an effect on whether a student attends a
community college, four-year institution, or highly selective private college (Conklin and Dailey,
1981; Keller and McKewon, 1984). Despite strong parental influence, the high school counselor
can also be an important source of information for many students (Bradshaw, Espinoza and
Hausman 2001; Stoyanoff, 1980).
Colleges and universities can encourage visits to campus, which has been shown to be a
very powerful factor in student college choice (Jonas and Popovics, 1990; Kellaris and Kellaris,
1988). Receipt of the semester course schedule in the mail has proven highly effective (Lucas,
1984). The college web site has become one of the most helpful or influential sources of
information (Seymour, 2000). Colleges and universities also inform students via college guides,
brochures and college catalogues sent in the mail (Jonas and Popovics, 1990; Johnson, Stewart,
and Eberly, 1991; Stoyanoff, 1980). Other possibilities involve activities or events on campus,
literature at work or in the high schools, advertisements in the newspaper, on radio, or television,
student telemarketing, scholarship interviews, early registration programs, and use of alumni
networks (Abrahamson and Hossler, 1990; Lucas, 1984). Although the junior year is typically
when students “become familiar with the characteristics of different colleges and universities,”
students may begin receiving information in their sophomore year of high school (Bradshaw,
Espinoza, and Hausman, 2001; Chapman, 1981, p. 63).
Although focus groups and student interviews are useful in obtaining valuable qualitative
information about student perceptions of an institution, an understanding of the student market
also involves quantitative analysis and survey research. Institutions may develop their own inhouse survey or use one of the standardized instruments available such as The Admitted Student
Questionnaire (ASQ) or Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshmen Survey (CIRP).
The Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus (ASQ Plus) also allows institutions to obtain student
ratings on competing institutions. The ACT Profile and the College Board’s Student Descriptive
Questionnaire (SDQ) provide information on college choice; however, the number of questions
regarding institutional characteristics is more limited compared with the ASQ or CIRP.
Students do not rate the importance of college characteristics on the SDQ; whereas, this is part of
the other instruments. Matthews and Hadley (1993) developed The Student Perceptions of
Institutional Quality (SPIQ) instrument to compare several state instit utions on several measures
of quality. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in its National Educational
Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS) also requests information on college choice factors.
Data from these surveys are obtained from high school students who will be either
matriculants or non- matriculants at colleges. The typical information sought from surveys not
only includes student perceptions about colleges and universities, but also data on high school
preparation, student characteristics, majors, interests, financial aid offers, institutions where
students will attend, the effectiveness of recruiting methods, sources of information used by
students, the influence of people in the choice process, and so on.
Researchers may not only ask how important various factors are in a student’s choice of
an institution, but also the extent to which a specific institution is believed to have these
attributes—the expectancy value model (Braxton, 1990; Cook and Zallocco, 1983; Muffo and
2
Whipple, 1982). Other researchers have measured a student’s conception of an “ideal college”
and then compared institutions against it—ideal point preference model (Braxton, 1990;
Coombs, 1964; Kuntz, 1987). When the same student rates two competing institutions, the
researcher can calculate a difference score. This score is valuable in prediction and is used to
display a balance sheet on competing institutions (Litten, 1979; Welki and Navratil, 1987).
The draw rate is a descriptive statistic showing whether a competitor is outdrawing
another institution or attracting more students who have both institutions in their choice set (Lay
and Maguire, 1980; Lolli and Scannell, 1983). “A ratio of 1.00 indicates an even draw; whereas,
a ratio considerably above 1.00 means that the competitor is being outdrawn” (Braxton, 1990, p.
89).
Advanced statistics provide further understanding of the data. Researchers may use
regression, discriminant, probit and logit analysis to predict matriculation at the institution
(Maguire and Lay, 1981; Perry and Rumpf, 1984; Smith and Matthews, 1990; Trusheim,
Crouse, and Middaugh, 1990; Welki and Navratil, 1987). Factor analysis (which can combine
several measures into a construct) may be used to identify market segments or to combine
several related questions into one factor for prediction (Absher and Crawford, 1996; Douglas,
Powers, and Choroszy, 1983; Maguire and Lay, 1981). Multi-dimensional scaling produces a
visual map of institutions, which shows the similarity or dissimilarity among competing
institutions (Braxton, 1990; Coombs, 1964; Kuntz, 1987; Leister, 1975; Litten, 1979).
Regardless of the methods, the ultimate goal is to gain a clear picture of an institution’s image
and its position relative to competitors.
Market Segmentation
Market segmentation is the process “of identifying groups of students who are most
likely to respond positively to the mission and image of [the college]” (Clark and Hossler, 1990,
p. 77). The purpose of segmentation is to identify differences in the attitudes and perceptions of
students in each market segment to either emphasize those aspects most attractive to the
particular segment, or to “adjust the characteristics of the college” in an effort to make the
institution more appealing (Paulsen, 1990, p. vi).
Kotler (1982) identifies several types of segmentation: demographic, geographic,
psychographic, and behavioral. The first two involve creating subgroups based on location or
student characteristics. “Attitudes and lifestyles” distinguish students in psychographic segments
(Braxton, 1990, p. 88). “Behavioral segmentation entails the division of markets into groups
based on their knowledge, attitude, or use of a particular product” (Braxton, 1990, p. 88).
Several studies have been conducted tha t differentiate among student groups, with
demographic segmentation being the most common. For example, research shows that Black
and/or Hispanic students are more responsive to grants and scholarships and are more cost
conscious in their college selectio n than Anglo students (Cibik, 1982; Johnson, Stewart, and
Eberly, 1991; Lewis and Morrison, 1975; Litten, 1982; Smith and Matthews, 1990; St. John and
Noell, 1989). Cibik (1982) reports that “Black, Mexican American, and American Indian groups
all indicated that the 'percentage and kinds of minority students at the college' was more
important to them" (p. 101). American Indian students rated admission requirements higher in
importance than did other groups. In a study by Hearn (1984), Blacks “were less likely to
attend… more selective institutions” (p. 25). He found a substantial difference in income levels
between Black and Anglo students.
3
Socioeconomic status or income level is another common category for demographic
segmentation. In several studies, students from low and middle income groups were less likely
to attend selective and more costly institutions (Hearn, 1984; Maguire and Lay, 1981; Manski
and Wise, 1983; Paulsen, 1990; Zemsky and Oedel, 1983; Spies, 1978; St. John, 1990; Tierney,
1980, 1982, 1983).
Citing several studies, Paulsen (1990) reports that academically gifted students are more
likely to attend highly selective and out-of-state institutions (Dahl, 1982; Gilmour, Spiro and
Dolich, 1978; Hearn, 1984; Jackson, 1978; Zemsky and Oedel, 1983). The choice factors more
important to these students include academic reputation, quality of the student body, availability
of honors programs, and scholarship awards (Baksh and Hoyt, 2001; Bradshaw, Espinoza, and
Hausman, 2001; Keller and McKewo n, 1984; Litten, 1982; Litten and Brodigan, 1982; Litten,
Sullivan, and Brodigan, 1983; Maryland Commission, 1996).
For older and part-time working adults, location and vocational training appear to be
more important (Amarillo College, 1980). Daigle (1982) finds that older, non-traditional
students “are attracted primarily by practical concerns (program availability… convenience,
close to home, and work)” (p. 15). However, these studies conflict regarding the importance of
cost to older students.
Johnson, Stewart, and Eberly (1991) and Lewis and Morrison (1975) cite several choice
factors by gender but a clear pattern does not seem to emerge from the results. Religious
differences are explored by Litten and Brodigan (1982), but the results may be primarily
influenced by the economic status of the groups (Paulsen, 1990).
Two studies found in the literature employed what could be called behavioral
segmentation, grouping students by parental education level and attendance at private high
schools (Gilmour, Spiro, and Dolich, 1978; Litten, 1982). However demographic segmentation
by income level achieves similar findings. Education level and attendance at private high
schools are both associated with income level.
Psychographic segmentation appears to be less common. Absher and Crawford (1996)
used factor analysis to group students as practical minded, advice seekers, campus magnets,
good-timers, and warm friendlies. These students had characteristics that led them to select
particular institutions. Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith (1989) evaluated students based on
their social class, which again generally compliments findings of studies that group students by
income level.
Citing studies using geographic segmentation, Paulsen (1990) reports that a student living
out of the local market area is more likely to attend when he/she is male, the parents have higher
levels of education and higher income levels, and the student’s educational aspirations and
academic ability are higher (Gilmour, Spiro, and Dolich, 1978; Ihlanfeldt, 1980; Rosenfeld and
Hearn, 1982; Tierney, 1984; Zemsky, Shaman and Berberich, 1980; Zemsky and Oedel, 1983).
Hodges and Barbuto (2002) report that a campus visit may be a more important factor in the
college choice decision of rural students.
Identifying College Choice Factors
Although the literature review provided an understanding of the marketing framework
and analytical methods, it raised concerns about the limited number of choice factors used by
many institutions when surveying students. The authors found 27 studies with less than ten
choice factors. This was contrasted against studies with 20 or more choice factors (Absher and
4
Crawford, 1996; Cibik, 1982; Douglas, Powers, and Choroszy, 1983; Jonas and Popovics, 1990;
Maryland Commission, 1996; Metlay et al., 1974; Tatham, 1979).
Standardized instruments had a limited set of factors, with the CIRP survey being the
most comprehensive. The ACT Profile has six factors with an “other” category. The ASQ Plus
details 13 choice factors on college characteristics with the possibility of entering other
individualized factors. The NELS has 15 choice factors (excluding parent’s prior attendance and
counting questions centering on location once). The CIRP survey lists 17 choice factors for
rating institutional characteristics (excluding those focusing on the influence of relatives,
teachers, high school counselors, private counselors, and the web site). The SPIQ has twenty
factors.
A more comprehensive set of factors could result in improved prediction and a more
accurate picture of those institutional characteristics students believe are important in the college
selection process. A determination of the factors that researchers should include on instruments
also seemed particularly relevant. Therefore, the choice factors on in- house instruments are
summarized below and then compared with choice factors on standardized instruments. The
literature review resulted in a total of twenty-two studies (including the current study) using ten
or more factors (Table 1).
Using these studies, the number of times a factor placed in the number one spot, top
three, top five and top ten was summarized. The factors were then sorted in a spreadsheet so that
the factors appearing most frequently in the number one spot were listed first, followed by those
factors appearing most frequently in the top three, top five, and top ten. Only choice factors
from studies with 15 or more factors were allowed to be listed in the top ten category. The
studies varied in terms of the scale that students used to rate institutions; thus, the final ranking
was used to summarize the findings, regardless of the underlying scale. Standard categories
were inductively developed from the alternative ways to ask questions, and results reflect
institutional characteristics rather than the influence of individuals external to the institution or
sources of information. The studies used different survey methods, sampling methods, and
sample sizes, and were conducted on different student populations. The results represent the
ratings of 30,614 students in 18 states.
Nine factors placed in the number one category across several studies (the most frequent
listed first): academic reputation, location, quality of instruction, availability of programs,
quality of faculty, costs, reputable program, financial aid, and job outcomes. These factors also
frequently placed within the top three, top five, and top ten categories. A measure of the cost of
attendance was the only factor included on all four of the standardized instruments discussed
above.
The next twelve most important factors across the twenty-two studies were: variety of
courses offered, size of the institution, surrounding community, availability of graduate
programs, student employment opportunities, quality of social life, class size, graduate school
outcomes, extracurricular programs, friendly/personal service, affiliation, admission
requirements, and attractiveness of campus facilities. Several of these choice factors are no t
included on standardized instruments. Several factors included on the standardized instruments
also never made the top ten ranking. Due to these results, the researchers believe that more work
is needed to develop a standardized instrument for studying college choice. The authors also
believe that in- house instruments provide useful information that supplements national data sets.
5
Table 1. College Choice Studies Summary Table
Author(s), Year
1
Factors
1
Survey
Method
Sampling
Method
Sampling
College students
HS seniors
College students
In-class
Mailed
Random
Population
Population
675, NR
3,505, 60%
3,013, 76%
Location
Respondents
Alabama
Alaska
Texas
2
Absher & Crawford, 1996
Alaska Commission, 1983
Amarillo College, 1980
Brookdale Community
College, 1983
Canale et al., 1996
Cibik, 1982
Cook & Zallocco, 1983
Cunningham & Fickes,
2000
Daigle, 1982
Douglas, Powers &
Choroszy, 1983
23
13
11
Institution
Community
colleges
High schools
Community college
12
11
30
15
High schools
Local high schools
High schools
Colleges
New Jersey
New York
Arizona
Ohio
HS seniors
HS juniors/seniors
HS students
Freshmen
In-class
Random
HS visits
Random
18
16
State college
Colleges
Pennsylvania
California
Non-attendees
College students
Mailed
In-class
Population
Random
851, NR
8,564, NR
28
High schools
Arizona
Gifted HS seniors
Population
165, 52%
Hoyt & Brown, 2002
Johnson, Stewart & Eberly,
1991
24
State colleges
Utah
New freshmen
Mailed
Phone
mailed
Random
494, 45%
13
Midwest
Freshmen
Orientation
Population
3,708, 55%
Jonas & Popovics, 1990
Lucas, 1984
MacKenzie, 1985
Maryland Commission,
1996
McCullagh, 1989
McMaster, 1984
21
18
15
University
Independent
college
Community college
University
Wisconsin
Illinois
California
Freshmen
College students
Admitted students
Mailed
Mailed
Phone
Population
Random
Random
100, 43%
440, 88%
726, 78%
21
17
14
High schools
University
Community college
Maryland
Iowa
New Jersey
Mailed
In-class
Mailed
Population
Population
366, 61%
205, NR
228, 22%
Metlay et al., 1974
32
University
New York
HS seniors
Undergraduates
Non-attendees
Freshmen/
transfers
Population
1,211, 29%
Smith and Matthews, 1990
14
University
Southwest
Phone
Tatham, 1979
Terkla and Wright, 1986
20
12
Local high schools
University
Kansas
Massachusetts
Freshmen
HS juniors &
seniors
Admitted students
Only factors measuring institutional characteristics are included in the total.
2
The sample size is listed first followed by the response rate, NR = response rate not reported.
Mailed
Random
Population
712, NR
543, NR
708, NR
241, NR
544, 71%
2,000, NR
1,615, 55%
College choice factors failing to make the top ten may still be particularly important to
specific market segments. As research presented above demonstrates, honors programs may be
an important criterion for gifted students; whereas minority students may place a greater value on
diversity. Evening courses may be very important for older working adults, and athletes may
rate the quality of athletic facilities higher in importance.
The relative rankings of choice factors will vary for private colleges and institutions
affiliated with a religious denomination, as evidenced by national results from the ASQ (Sax et
al, 2001). When analyzing four studies conducted at community colleges, community college
students rate location and cost considerations as more important, along with the ability to transfer
credit and admission requirements (Absher and Crawford, 1996; Amarillo College, 1980; Lucus,
1984; McMaster, 1984). However, academic reputation was still the second most important
criteria.
National norms for the ASQ, also show that students at public four-year institutions rank
academic reputation, job outcomes, costs, and financial aid among the most important college
choice factors (Sax et al., 2001). However, other variables such as quality of social life and
extracurricular programs rank high using the ASQ, at least partly due to the fewer number of
choice factors considered on the instrument.
Methods
The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) at Utah Valley State College (UVSC)
developed its own in- house instrument through a process of collecting surveys from other
institutions, developing a draft instrument, and reviewing it with the student recruitment officers
on campus (see appendix). The wording on the questionnaire was modified for matriculants and
non- matriculants; however, the questionnaire was largely the same for both groups of students.
The OIR did not include the following relevant choice factors, which were found to be in the top
20 for other studies: job outcomes, surrounding community, graduate school outcomes,
friendly/personal service. Despite failing to include a few relevant variables, the OIR study
ranks among research considering the most college choice variables (20 or more).
UVSC is a public institution that enrolled 23,609 students during the fall of 2002.
Students on average were 23 years of age. About 57% were males, and 43% were females. The
student population was predominantly Caucasian (91%).
ACT provided data on all high school students who completed the ACT and had UVSC
in their choice set during the 1999-2001 school years. The data were joined with information
from the National Student Loan Clearing House (NSLCH), the Utah State Board of Regents
(USBR), and a private university in the area (BYU) to identify the college that students selected
for their college career. This data was also joined with other information available from the
UVSC Student Information System (SIS).
The final sample for the survey was taken from all 2001 Utah high school graduates who
had UVSC in their choice set and attended college in the state. The state college attended was
initially identified with data from USBR and BYU. Of the 1,098 randomly selected prospective
students, the OIR obtained responses from 494 students (45% overall response rate). The OIR
selected four samples using stratified random sampling by geographic area with the following
results: (1) live outside Utah County, matriculants (N = 148, response rate 44%), (2) live
outside Utah County, non-matriculants (N = 111 , response rate 38% (3) live in Utah County,
matriculants, (N = 129, response rate 52%, and (4) live in Utah County, non- matriculants (N =
106, response rate 48%). The goal was to achieve at least 100 respondents in “each major
subgroup and 20 to 50 in each minor subgroup” as recommended by Sudman (1976) (Borg and
Gall, 1989, p. 233). The OIR gave non-matriculants a free Blockbuster movie pass to encourage
their response to the mailed survey and follow-up phone calls.
There was no difference in the average ACT score when comparing respondents and nonrespondents, and there were only small differences between the groups in the average age of
students, gender, and high school GPA. Therefore, it is believed that the random samples are
generally representative of students with UVSC in their college choice set.
The results are presented first using descriptive statistics to illustrate student ratings of
college choice factors. Important findings using demographic segmentation are presented in the
analysis using ANOVA and t-tests. Individual t-tests were not run unless the ANOVA was
significant (Keppel, 1991). If the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances shows significance,
equal variances are not assumed for the t-test and the results of the non-parametric test are
reported. This research is exploratory reporting both significance levels: p<=.05 and p<=.01.
Findings
The choice factors important to students who attended UVSC are presented for various
market segments using geographic and demographic segmentation. To avoid the presentation of
too many tables, results on all choice factors are only presented by geographic origin. The major
differences for other groups are then highlighted without presentation of tables. A choice factor
is highlighted if the following criteria are met: (1) There is at least a half point difference in the
averages among the groups, (2) The factor places in the top ten ranking for at least one of the
groups, and (3) The difference between means test is significant at the .05 or .01 level.
Choice Factors Important to Matriculants
There are differences in the factors important to students attending UVSC compared to
other students nationally. The overall reputation of the school never makes the top ten for
matriculants at UVSC (Table 2); whereas, similar measures of overall academic reputation are
the number one factor nationally for students at four- year institutions (Sax et al, 2001).
Educational quality is still important to UVSC matriculants with the quality of the program in the
student’s intended major making the top ten. About 98% of matriculants rated the quality of
education at UVSC as good to excellent. However, only 19% of students attending the college
rated UVSC’s educational offerings as “high quality.” Thus, UVSC could improve its academic
reputation.
UVSC students rate the cost of tuition and ability to work while attending school, as two
of the most important factors in their choice to attend UVSC. Receiving a scholarship is another
financial consideration rated among the top ten. Despite rising tuition, the cost of tuition at
UVSC is lower than other four-year options in the state, which appears to be an important
characteristic of the college in attracting students. Matriculants from Utah County rate the
ability to live at home or commute daily as their number one choice factor, likely due to the cost
savings of living at home. The availability of a student’s major or program also rates in the top
ten. A good quality program at a competitive price is a fitting description of what students are
looking for at UVSC. However, UVSC students appear to be more cost conscious than other
students at four-year institutions nationally (Sax et al, 2001).
8
Table 2. Important Choice Factors for UVSC Matriculants
Choice Factors
Ability to live at home or commute daily
Ability to work while attending school
Availability of your major/program of study
Cost of tuition
Prior credits taken awarded at the school
Variety of course offering times (night, weekend, internet, etc.)
Quality of program in your intended major
Receiving a scholarship
Safety
Small class sizes
Quality of faculty/faculty’s commitment to teaching
Type of institution (private, public, 4-year, 2-year, etc.)
Ease in obtaining financial aid/loans
Admissions policy
Availability of graduate programs
Knew more about it than other schools
Overall reputation of the school
Availability of special programs for academically talented students
Religious considerations
Friends attending school there
Attending a small school (<4,000 students)
Work study or part-time employment opportunities at the school
School traditions, activities, or social scene
Impressions from a campus visit or other personal contacts
Athletic programs offered
Parent(s) felt it was the best choice
Other relatives attended school there
Ability to commute home on weekends
Teacher or counselor recommended it
Availability of housing
Availability of sororities/fraternities, other clubs and organizations
Living away from home
Parents attended school there
Sample Size
*Significant p <=.01, Scale 1=Very Important to 5 Not Important
Within
County
1.63
1.74
1.90
1.91
1.96
1.97
2.21
2.22
2.33
2.34
2.45
2.45
2.47
2.52
2.65
2.69
2.86
2.89
2.98
3.02
3.11
3.15
3.22
3.28
3.36
3.39
3.40
3.54
3.57
3.64
3.74
3.88
4.20
129
Outside
County
3.29
2.12
2.18
1.77
2.59
2.37
2.29
2.20
2.28
2.30
2.16
2.54
2.86
2.55
2.66
3.01
2.64
2.97
3.04
3.09
3.19
3.35
3.12
3.12
3.47
3.41
3.37
2.23
3.90
2.44
3.91
2.45
4.68
147
Difference
1.66*
0.38
0.28
-0.13
0.63*
0.40
0.08
-0.01
-0.05
-0.04
-0.29
0.09
0.39
0.03
0.01
0.32
-0.22
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.21
-0.10
-0.16
0.12
0.02
-0.03
-1.32*
0.33
-1.21*
0.17
-1.43*
0.48
The variety of course offering times (night, weekend, internet, etc.), small class sizes, and
safety of the campus also rate in the top ten factors, regardless of where the student comes from
in Utah. The choice factor, variety of course offering times, was not included in any of the other
studies reviewed in the literature and should be considered more broadly in the college choice
research. UVSC attempts to provide a wide range of courses in the evenings and is experiencing
dramatic growth in distance education. This flexibility is particularly important for working
students. The college is known for its small class sizes purposely built into the construction of
the facilities. The buildings, book store, and various departmental offices are also connected via
9
an in-door, interconnected walkway, which may contribute to the feeling of safety on campus.
The crime rate in the county is also low.
The campus has an extensive high school concurrent enrollment program, which appears
to encourage attendance at the college. Matriculants from Utah County rate prior credits at
UVSC among the top ten reasons for selecting the institution. Students outside Utah County
have fewer opportunities to pursue high school concurrent enrollment credit at UVSC.
The open ended qualitative responses support the ratings of specific choice factors. The
location, particularly being close to home is the most frequent open ended response followed by
the institution being a less expensive option, receipt of a scholarship, and availability of
programs. Matriculants often reported attendance at UVSC because a sibling was currently
enrolled or because the student previously earned concurrent enrollment credit at the institution.
Students like the atmosphere at UVSC.
There were generally small differences in factors considered important between students
living in Utah County compared to students from outside the county. One expected difference is
that students from outside the county like the ability to commute home on weekends (t = 7.552,
p<=.01); yet, the students value being able to live away from home (t = 8.889). Thus, the
availability of housing becomes more important for out-of-county students (t = 8.023, p>=.01).
Students living in the local area generally place greater importance on their ability to live at
home while attending college (t = 10.371, p<=.01). As mentioned above, prior high school
concurrent enrollment credit is more of a factor for students from Utah county (t = 4.059,
p<=.01).
From fall 1998 to fall 2002, the percentage of males attending UVSC increased from 54
to 57%. Thus, recruiting more females would help balance out the student body. The safety of
the campus is substantially more important to females attending UVSC (1.98, N = 169) than
males (2.82, N = 106, t = 5.657 p<=.01). Campus safety fails to make the top ten list for males
attending the college.
Safety is of even greater importance to female matriculants from outside Utah County
(1.97) compared to male matriculants from outside the county (3.05, N = 42, t = 5.308, p<=.01).
Females from outside Utah County rank the cost of tuition as their number one criteria (1.62),
higher in importance than the rating by males (2.17, t = 3.443 p<=.01). Small classes are more
important to females outside the county (2.14) than for males (2.69, t = 2.542 p<=.05), and the
factor does not make the top ten list for males outside the county.
UVSC administrators have expressed an interest in attracting students with greater
academic ability. The analysis separated students attending UVSC by academic ability using
ACT composite scores: (1) <=19 Low Ability N = 124, (2) 20-23 Average Ability N = 96, and
(3) >=24 High Ability N = 56. Receiving a scholarship is ranked as the most important college
choice factor for high ability students attending UVSC (1.80), but it fails to make the top ten for
low ability students (2.43, t = 2.700).
Students with low ability and average ability are more concerned with the variety of
course offering times (2.10, t = 2.966 p<=.01 and 1.99, t = 3.389 p<=.01 respectively) contrasted
with high ability students (2.70). Students with lower aptitude also rate the importance of the
cost of tuition as more important (low ability 1.72, t = 3.452 p<=.01, average ability, 1.67, t =
3.474 p<=.01) also contrasted with high ability students (2.38). High ability students may expect
to receive a scholarship, offsetting tuition costs and the need to work while attending college;
whereas, students with lower ability may not expect this same assistance.
10
The ACT Student Profile was used to segment students by parental income level: (1)
$36,000 or less N=72, (2) $36,000 to $60,000 N=100, and (3) $60,000 or more N=92. Receiving
a scholarship does not place in the top ten for high income students and is less important (2.63)
compared with middle income (2.03, t = 3.025 p<=.01) and low income students (2.01, t = 2.735,
p <=.01). The ease in obtaining financial aid/loans is more important to low income students
(2.33, t = 3.198, p<=.01) and middle income students (2.60, t = 2.104 p<=.05) compared with
high income students (3.03).
There are no substantial differences in college choice factors when separating students by
degree aspirations and whether they came from a small town (less than 10,000). Results are not
evaluated by county due to small sample sizes for those pursuing less than a four- year degree.
About 91% of the matriculants want to pursue a bachelors degree or higher. Only 4% of
matriculants were minority students resulting in sample sizes too small for meaningful analysis.
This research also focuses on recent high school graduates; therefore, segmentation by age is not
evaluated in the study.
Results for Competing Institutions
The ACT data file included a total of 6,718 high school graduates in 2001 who had
UVSC in their choice set, with 1,491 ( 22%) ultimately attending the college. Students attended
primary competing institutions as follows: 778 (12%) Brigham Young University in Provo
(BYUP), 453 (7%) Brigham Yo ung University in Idaho (BYUI), 393 (6%) Salt Lake
Community College (SLCC), 358 (5%) Utah State University (USU), 328 (5%) Snow College
(Snow), 259 (4%) Dixie College (Dixie), 229 (3%) Southern Utah University (SUU), 189 (3%)
University of Utah (UU), 97 (1%) College of Eastern Utah (CEU), and 42 (.6%) Weber State
University (WSU). The addition of four- year degrees at the BYU Idaho campus could have a
substantial impact on UVSC college enrollment in the future.
The enrollment patterns for several student subgroups among the above institutions
demonstrate that UVSC attracts a good share of students across various income groups, from
rural versus urban areas, students of color, and students pursuing a wide variety of majors (see
appendix). However, UVSC is less successful in attracting high ability students who are most
likely to attend BYU. UVSC is also more likely to attract students working more hours while
pursuing a college education. Analysis of the ACT data emphasized the possible benefits of
using the data to recruit students desiring specific majors, minority students, or high ability
students, particularly among the substantial number of students (1,738 26%) who failed to attend
any college (using NSLCH, BYU, and USHE data). Of those failing to attend college, 460 or
27% reported that UVSC was their first choice, 470 (27%) selected UVSC as their second choice
institution, with the remaining 47% rating UVSC further down the list.
The choice factors important to non- matriculants at other four- year institutions provide
additional insight for student recruitment. Measures of quality fail to make the top five for
UVSC matriculants, and only one measure of quality reaches the top ten (Table 2). However,
three measures of quality (quality of program in your intended major, overall reputation of the
school, quality of the faculty/faculty’s commitment to teaching) place in the top five for nonmatriculants (Table 3). Thus, students attending elsewhere place a greater emphasis on quality
rather than location and cost issues. Religious considerations make the top ten, which is likely
due to attendance at BYU, a religiously affiliated institution. The availability of programs or
majors is the number one choice criteria for non-matriculants. Safety of the campus also appears
in the top ten for non-matriculants.
11
Table 3. Choice Factors: Students Attending Other Four-year Institutions
Choice Factors
Availability of your major/program of study
Quality of program in your intended major
Type of institution (private, public, 4-year, 2-year, etc.)
Overall reputation of the school
Quality of faculty/faculty’s commitment to teaching
Receiving a scholarship
Safety
Cost of tuition
Ability to work while attending school
Religious considerations
Variety of Course Offering Times (night, weekend, internet, etc.)
Knew more about it than other schools
Availability of housing
Ease in obtaining financial aid/loans
Impressions from a campus visit or other personal contacts
Prior credits taken awarded at the school
Availability of special programs for academically talented students
Living away from home
Admissions policy
Availability of graduate programs
Ability to commute home on weekends
Work study or part-time employment opportunities at the school
School traditions, activities, or social scene
Ability to live at home or commute daily
Small class sizes
Friends attending school there
Other relatives attended school there
Parent(s) felt it was the best choice
Teacher or counselor recommended it
Athletic programs offered
Attending a small school (<4,000 students)
Parents attended school there
Availability of sororities/fraternities or other clubs and organizations
Sample Size
*Scale 1=Very Important to 5 Not Important
Average Rating*
1.72
1.84
1.88
2.01
2.20
2.22
2.30
2.31
2.37
2.46
2.54
2.58
2.61
2.62
2.66
2.78
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.82
2.88
2.97
2.99
3.01
3.15
3.28
3.32
3.35
3.61
3.68
3.94
3.95
4.14
147
Students reported reasons for attending another institution on an opened ended question.
The most frequent reason given is a scholarship offer at another institution or failure to receive a
scholarship from UVSC. This is followed by the failure of UVSC to offer a major of interest to
students. Other frequent reasons involve student wishes to live near home or away from home.
Living at home was a cheaper option for students, and tuition was less at some community
colleges. After location and cost considerations, students often wanted to attend institutions with
their friends. Non- matriculants also rated the academic reputation of their selected institution
higher than UVSC.
12
Non-matriculants were asked what UVSC could do to encourage them to attend or
improve. The most common responses are categorized as follows (in rank order): offer more
scholarships, increase mailings (shows interest and provides needed information), improve the
academic reputation of UVSC, offer a wider variety of majors, visit more high schools, and offer
more four-year degrees.
Students with UVSC on their choice list frequently cited interest in the following fouryear majors on the ACT Profile that are not offered at UVSC (rank order): visual and
performing arts, physical therapy/assisting, communications, engineering, pre- medicine, music
performance, architecture, architectural drafting/CADD, agricultural sciences, interior design,
dance, art, and pre-dentistry. UVSC offers a general behavioral science degree. Majors in the
social sciences such as political science, sociology, economics, and anthropology are frequent ly
offered by other four-year institutions (NCES, 2000). Music, theatre, art, and dance are also
common four-year degrees in the visual and performing arts that are not offered by UVSC. Premedicine preparation is informally provided through the biology program; however, it is not
listed as an option in the recent college catalogue.
Student Sources of Information
The current study shows that friends, parents, teachers, and counselors have less
influence on college choice than other factors. However, an effective recruitment program
would involve parents, high school counselors, students, and possibly employers. The website is
the most influential source of information for prospective students followed by a campus visit
(Table 4). The least influential sources of information are advertisements using journals,
newspapers, radio or television. The latter may be more effective in promoting a general public
image rather than influencing potential students to select a particular institution.
Table 4 also shows the percentage of students who fail to use specific sources of
information. It is noteworthy that about 70% of students use guide books to obtain information
on colleges. The OIR recently reviewed several college guides and sent in requests for the
publishers to update information that was outdated. Some publications reported that UVSC did
not offer four- year degrees.
Table 4. Importance of Information Sources
Sources
Total
Not Used
Website
481
Campus visit
482
College catalogue or
schedule
481
Personal contact
481
College guide books
481
Direct mailings
483
Visits to high schools
483
Special event attendance
483
Publications at high schools
483
College night
480
Advertisements in journals
482
Radio, TV, newspaper
480
*Scale 1 = Very Important to 5 = Not Important
Percent
Average Rating*
74
116
15.4%
24.1%
2.41
2.53
79
162
134
64
137
124
109
219
227
232
16.4%
33.7%
27.9%
13.3%
28.4%
25.7%
22.6%
45.6%
47.1%
48.3%
2.60
2.66
2.74
2.77
2.83
2.93
2.95
3.36
3.46
3.58
13
Summary and Conclusion
The current study shows that recent high school graduates attend UVSC primarily
because it is close to home and a less expensive option. Students can work while attending
college with a variety of course offering times (night, weekend, internet, etc.), which gives
working students flexibility. Scholarships are available. Class sizes are generally small, and the
campus provides a safe environment. The college offers a good number of majors and programs
with a positive image; however, respondents stated that UVSC could improve by offering
additional four-year degrees and majors. The college is currently positioning itself as a
comprehensive four-year institution.
Despite a generally positive image, it appears that the institution could also improve its
academic reputation. With an increase in its academic reputation or educational quality, UVSC
could attract additional students who currently decide to attend other four- year institutions in the
state. Brigham Young University, a highly selective private institution, is UVSC’s main
competing institution (Provo and Idaho campuses). UVSC appears to be viewed as a ‘safety
school’ for many students desiring to attend Brigham Young University. Although the quality of
education can be improved in various ways, it generally requires greater resources to offer
competitive salaries for hiring the best faculty, to reduce the number of adjunct faculty teaching
courses, or to improve specific programs. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
measures faculty interaction with students, and student participation in learning experiences.
The national comparisons could provide baseline data for promoting increased quality of
education on campus.
Given limited resources, an approach commonly used by colleges and universities is to
target additional resources to specific academic departments to create peaks or high quality
programs (Geiger, 1993). The institution then becomes a recognized leader in specific fields of
study and actively advertises its position to the community.
Another approach to increasing educational quality is focusing on job outcomes. Clark
and Hossler (1990) state that “each time admissions officers… discuss in detail the job
placement rate, the acceptance rate to graduate schools, or the average earnings of alumni who
graduated…, they are helping to reduce the risk of school choice” (p. 81). The OIR has
completed its second annual survey of recent graduates. The placement rates are high for UVSC
graduates (Office of Institutional Research, 2001). Data on the last two graduating classes is
now available for reporting salary information by major. More extensive use and publication of
this information could enhance the image of the college.
Given the cost consciousness of current matriculants and the importance of scholarships
in attracting students to UVSC, the institution should continue to place a high priority on
financial aid services. Scholarships are necessary to attract high ability students, as this is the
most important college choice factor for high ability students at UVSC. Prior research shows
that scholarship offers increase of the likelihood of attendance by gifted students (Baksh and
Hoyt, 2001). An emphasis on scholarships by institutional advancement could benefit students
and recruitment efforts. UVSC could also retain a competitive price advantage if tuition at the
college remains lower than other four- year institutions in the state.
Given the results of this study, publications and recruitment efforts should project a
consistent image of UVSC, particularly highlighting quality programs and quality initiatives,
faculty interest in students, availability of financial aid, night, weekend, and distance learning
options, and the addition of new four-year programs. The job placement rates and salaries of
recent graduates should be provided to prospective students. When recruiting in the local area,
14
the proximity to home, cost savings, and benefits of concurrent enrollment credit could be
highlighted. Whereas, the ability to commute home on weekends, the quality of off- campus
housing (possibly presenting brochures), and benefits of living away from home in Utah County
could be explored with students out of the county. Additionally, highlighting the safety of the
campus and small class sizes should be accentuated, particularly with female students.
As stated previously, there were about 1,738 high school graduates in 2001 with UVSC
on their choice list, who failed to attend college the next academic year. UVSC could contact
non-enrolling students each year to encourage their attendance at the college. UVSC could also
fully utilize the ACT Profile data from high school juniors and seniors by purchasing the ACT
Information Manager (AIM) software. The software could be used to obtain addresses to more
aggressively recruit students in specific segments, such as minority students, high ability
students, or those interested in specific majors. The latter may be particularly useful when
initiating new four-year degree programs. Through consistent marketing UVSC can maintain or
increase its enrollment in the future, improve its academic reputation, and promote a new image
as a quality, comprehensive four- year college.
15
Works Cited
Abrahamson, T. D., and Hossler, D. 1990. Applying marketing strategies in student
recruitment. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, & Associates, (Eds.), The Strategic
Management of College Enrollments (pp. 100-118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Absher, K., and Crawford, G. Spring. 1996. Marketing the community college starts with
understanding students’ perspectives. Community College Review. 23(Spring):
59-68.
Alaska State Commission on Postsecondary Education, Juneau. 1983. Alaska High
School Seniors Survey Report, June 1983. (ED 239 538).
Allen, D. F. 1984. Pre-College Characteristics of Fall 1984 UNCW Freshman. (ED 261
601)
Amarillo College, Texas. 1980. Student Profile, Fall 1978. (ED 195 292).
Baksh, A., and Hoyt, J. E. 2001. The effect of academic scholarships on college
attendance. College & University. 76(4): 3-8.
Bateman, M., and Spruill, D. 1996. Student decision-making: Insights from the college
choice process. College Student Journal. 30: 182-186.
Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. 1989. Educational Research. New York: Pitman.
Bradshaw, G., Espinoza, S., and Hausman, C. 2001. The college decision- making of
high achieving students. College & University. 77(2): 15-22.
Braxton, J. M. 1990. Doing effective market research. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, and
Associates, (Eds.), The Strategic Management of College Enrollments (pp. 8699). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookdale Community College Office of Research and Development. 1983. Report of
Results of Brookdale Community College High School Survey. (ED 233 772).
Cabrera, A. F., and La Nasa, S. M. 2000. Understanding the college choice of
disadvantaged students. New Directions for Institutional Research. (No. 107):
23-29.
Campbell, W. E., and Smith M. P. 1985. Current Student Survey Report. (ED 259 792).
Canale, J. R., Dunlap, L., Britt, M., and Donahue, T. 1996. The relative importance of
various college characteristics to students in influencing their choice of a college.
College Student Journal. 30 (June): 214-216.
16
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1986. How do students choose
a college? Change. (January/February): 29-32.
Chapman, D. W. 1981. A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher
Education. 52(5): 490-505.
Cibik, M. A. 1982. College information needs. College & University. (Fall): 97-102.
Clark, C. R., Hossler, D. 1990. Marketing in nonprofit organizations. In Hossler, D.,
Bean, J. P., and associates (Ed.s), In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, & Associates, (Eds.),
The Strategic Management of College Enrollments (pp. 68-85). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Conklin, M. E., Dailey, A. R. 1981. Does consistency of parental educational
encouragement matter for secondary school students? Sociology of Education. 54
(October): 254-262.
Cook, R. W., Za llocco, R. L. 1983. Predicting university preference and attendance:
Applied marketing in higher education administration. Research in Higher
Education. 19(2): 197-211.
Coombs, C. H. 1964. A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Cunningham, S., and Fickes, P. 2000. Non-Matriculant Survey Report, 1988. (ED 439
755).
Dahl, R. W. 1982. College attendance and institutional choice. Results from the
Kentucky longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the
Association of Institut ional Research, Denver, June. (ED 220 227).
Daigle, S. L. 1982. Student Needs and Priorities Survey, 1981 Summary of Findings.
(ED 262 680).
Douglas, P., Powers, S., and Choroszy, M. 1983. Factors in the choice of higher
educational institutions by academically gifted seniors. Journal of College
Student Personnel. (November): 540-545.
Espinoza, S., Bradshaw, G., and Hausman, C. 2002. The importance of college choice
factors from the perspective of high school counselors. College & University.
77(4): 19-23.
Geiger, R. L. 1993. Research and Relevant Knowledge. New York: Oxford University.
Gilmour, J. E., Spiro, L. M., and Dolich, I. J. 1978. How High School Students Select a
College. (ED 208 705).
17
Hearn, J. C. 1984. The relative roles of academic, ascribed, and socioeconomic
characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education. 57: 22-30.
Hodges, T. D., and Barbuto, J. E. 2002. Recruiting urban and rural students: Factors
influencing the postsecondary education institution choices of rural versus urban
high school students. College & University. 77(3): 3-10.
Hollenbeck, K. 1988. A Model of Postsecondary and Adult Student Choice Behavior.
(ED 328 768).
Hossler, D., and Gallagher, K. S. 1987. Studying student college choice: A three-phase
model and the implications for policymakers. College & University. (Spring):
207-221.
Hossler, D., Braxton, J., and Coopersmith, G. 1989. Understanding student college
choice. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. 5: 231-288.
Ihlanfeldt, W. 1980. Achieving Optimal Enrollment and Tuition Revenues. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jackson, G. A. 1978. Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher
Education. 49(6): 548-574.
Jackson, G. A. 1982. Public efficiency and private choice in higher education.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4(2): 237-247.
Johnson, R. G., Stewart, N. R., and Eberly, C. G. 1991. Counselor impact on college
choice. The School Counselor. 39(November): 84-91.
Jonas, P. M., and Popovics, A. J. 1990. Students’ Perceptions of an Independent
College. (ED 327 104).
Kellaris, J. J., and Kellaris, W. K. 1988. An exploration of the factors influencing
students’ college choice decision at a small private college. College & University.
(Winter): 187-197.
Keller, M. J. and McKewon, M. P. 1984. Factors Contributing to Postsecondary
Enrollment Decisions of Maryland National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists.
Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education. Chicago, IL.
Keppel, G. 1991. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall.
18
Kotler, P., and Fox, K. F. 1985. Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuntz, S. S. 1987. A study of student’s cognitive structure for colleges. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Washington, DC.
Lay, R., and Maguire, J. 1980. Identifying the competition in higher education—two
approaches. College & University 56(1): 71-85.
Leister, D. V. 1975. Identifying institutional clientele. Journal of Higher Education.
46(4): 381-398.
Lewis, G. H., and Morrison, S. 1975. A Longitudinal Study of College Selection.
Technical Report No. 2. Pittsburgh: School of Urban and public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University, May 1974.
Litten, L. H. 1979. Market structure and institutional position in geographic market
segments. Research in Higher Education. 11(1): 59-83.
Litten, L. H. 1982. Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model
of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education. 53(4): 383-402.
Litten, L. H. and Brodigan, D. L. 1982. On being heard in a noisy world: Matching
messages and media in college marketing. College & University. 57(3): 242263.
Litten, L. H., Sullivan, D., and Brodigan, D. L. 1983. Applying Market Research in
College Admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Lolli, A., and Scannell, J. 1983. Admissions market research: An alternative to decline
in the eighties. College & University. 58: 135-151.
Lucas, J. A. 1984. Student Characteristics as Compared to the Community Profile, Fall,
1983. (ED 250 033).
MacKenzie, B. L. 1985. The College Selection Process of Freshmen Admitted to UC
Davis: The Range of Choice. (ED 256 269).
Maguire, J. and Lay, R. 1981. Modeling the college choice process: Image and
decision. College & University. (Winter): 123-139.
Manksi, C. F., and Wise, D. A. 1983. College Choice in America. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
19
Maryland Commission. 1996. Maryland State Higher Education Commission. Survey of
College Plans of Maryland High Ability Students, 1996. (ED 408 922).
Matthews, M J., and Hadley, T. D. Fall 1992/Winter 1993. The relationship between
and institution’s perceived quality and student’s application sets. College &
University 67(1): 22-30.
McCullagh, J. G. 1989. The University of Choice: Social Work Students at UNI. (ED
314 980).
McMaster, A. 1984. A Study of Applicants Who Did Not Attend, Fall 1983. Technical
Report 84-07. (ED 245 735).
Menard, S. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Quantitative Applications in
the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Metlay, W., Lichtenstein, P., Ferrarra, P., List, P., McArdle, J. 1974. The Accepted
Applicant Survey-1972 and 1973: Important Criteria in Choosing a College, and
Perceptions of Hofstra by Students Who Did Not Attend. Report No. 107. (ED
101 609).
Muffo, J. A., and Whipple, T. W. 1982. The Use of an Expectancy Value Model in
Studying a University’s Image. Paper presented at the annual forum of the
Association of Institutional Research, Denver, Col., May.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2000. Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System. Completions Survey. Washington D.C.: National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Office of Institutional Research. 2001. Quality of the UVSC Experience: Alumni Survey
Results 1999-2000 Graduating Class.
Paulsen, M. B. 1990. College Choice: Understand ing Student Enrollment Behavior.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: The George
Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Perry, R. F., and Rumpf, D. L. 1984. Predicting the likelihood of matriculation for
college applicants. Research in Higher Education. 21(3): 317-328.
Rosenfeld, R. A., and Hearn, J. C. 1982. Sex differences in the significance of economic
resources for choosing and attending a college. In Pamela Perun, (Ed.), The
Undergraduate Woman: Issues in Educational Equity. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath & Company.
20
Sax, L. J., Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Mahoney, Kathryn M. 2001.
The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2001. Los Angeles:
University of California Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
Seegmiller, J. F. 1975. Impressions of CEU as Expressed by Local High School
Graduates. (ED 118 162).
Seymour, L. 2000. Giving the web the new college try: Students online surf to sample
life on campus. The Washington Post. 28 March: A11.
Smith, K. 1990. A comparison of the college decisions of two-year and four-year college
students. College & University. 65(Winter): 109-126.
Smith, S., and Matthews, T. 1990. How do students choose a particular college? A
survey of admitted students: College Student Journal. 25(4): 482-488.
Spies, R. 1978. The Effects of Rising Costs on College Choice. A Study of the
Application Decision of High Ability Students. New York: The College Board.
St. John, E. P. 1990. Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the high
school and beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher Education. 31: 161176.
St. John, E. P., and Noell, J. 1989. The effects of student financial aid on access to
higher education: An analysis of progress with special consideration of minority
enrollments. Research in Higher Education. 30(6): 563-581.
Stoyanoff, E. M. 1980. Marketing Questionnaire Reveals Motivation of Student Sample.
(ED 194 135).
Sudman, S. 1976. Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press.
Tatham, E. L. 1979. Using Research and Planning in Marketing at Two Year Colleges:
Analyzing Enrollment Trends, Retention, or Students and Educational Needs. (ED
168 667).
Terkla, D. G., and Wright, S. M. 1986. Enrollment Management: Factors that Influence
College Choice. (ED 280 389).
Tierney, M. L. 1980. The Impact of financial aid on student demand for public/private
higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 51(5): 527-545.
--------. 1982. The impact of institutional net price on student demand for public and
private higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2(4): 363-383.
21
--------. 1983. Student college choice sets: Toward an empirical characterization.
Research in Higher Education. 18(3): 271-284.
--------. 1984. Competitive structure of selected college student markets. College &
University. 59: 229-244.
Trusheim, D., Crouse, J., and Middaugh, M. 1990. College applicants’ attitudes and
enrollment decisions. Research in Higher Education. 31(3): 295-305.
Welki, A. M., and Navratil, F. J. 1987. The role of applicants’ perceptions in the choice
of college. College & University. (Winter): 147-160.
Zemsky, R., and Oedel, P. 1983. The Structure of College Choice. New York: College
Entrance Examination Board.
Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., and Berberich, M. A. 1980. Toward an understanding of
collegiate enrollments: A first test of the market segment model. Journal of
Education Finance. 5: 355-374.
22
24
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions
UVSC
Count
Characteristics
Female
Male
Low Ability
Average Ability
High Ability
First Choice
Other Choice
Pursing Associates
Pursing Bachelors
Not Work
Work 1-10 Hours
Work 11-20 Hours
Work 21-30 Hours
Work 31 Or More
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Rural
Urban
White
Minority
Out-of-State
In-State
861
630
648
565
277
691
774
121
1277
98
222
714
306
53
240
471
563
427
942
1369
122
231
1260
Row %
22.1%
22.3%
24.1%
23.9%
16.7%
44.3%
15.2%
20.2%
22.4%
17.0%
18.3%
23.7%
25.6%
23.3%
21.8%
22.4%
22.8%
19.7%
23.5%
22.0%
25.1%
13.4%
25.2%
BYUP
Count
491
287
49
221
507
40
729
11
715
158
204
269
52
9
68
147
401
139
567
747
31
412
366
Row %
12.6%
10.2%
1.8%
9.4%
30.4%
2.6%
14.3%
1.8%
12.5%
27.3%
16.8%
8.9%
4.4%
4.0%
6.2%
7.0%
16.3%
6.4%
14.1%
12.0%
6.4%
23.9%
7.3%
BYUI
Count
340
113
147
190
116
35
414
32
390
68
134
172
37
6
54
123
193
125
284
445
8
297
156
Row %
8.7%
4.0%
5.5%
8.1%
7.0%
2.2%
8.1%
5.4%
6.8%
11.8%
11.0%
5.7%
3.1%
2.6%
4.9%
5.8%
7.8%
5.8%
7.1%
7.1%
1.6%
17.2%
3.1%
USU
Count
282
76
120
144
94
43
314
21
321
40
76
163
50
6
49
87
160
130
200
336
22
71
287
Row %
7.2%
2.7%
4.5%
6.1%
5.7%
2.8%
6.2%
3.5%
5.6%
6.9%
6.3%
5.4%
4.2%
2.6%
4.4%
4.1%
6.5%
6.0%
5.0%
5.4%
4.5%
4.1%
5.7%
SUU
Count
163
66
91
89
48
34
195
20
192
13
42
111
36
6
44
90
50
124
84
218
11
18
211
Row %
4.2%
2.3%
3.4%
3.8%
2.9%
2.2%
3.8%
3.3%
3.4%
2.2%
3.5%
3.7%
3.0%
2.6%
4.0%
4.3%
2.0%
5.7%
2.1%
3.5%
2.3%
1.0%
4.2%
UU
Count
115
74
49
69
71
14
173
7
174
18
38
87
34
4
26
57
87
44
134
169
20
18
171
Row %
3.0%
2.6%
1.8%
2.9%
4.3%
.9%
3.4%
1.2%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
1.8%
2.4%
2.7%
3.5%
2.0%
3.3%
2.7%
4.1%
1.0%
3.4%
WSU
Count
Row %
30
12
18
14
10
3
39
3
36
.8%
.4%
.7%
.6%
.6%
.2%
.8%
.5%
.6%
10
21
7
1
4
15
19
17
21
37
5
.8%
.7%
.6%
.4%
.4%
.7%
.8%
.8%
.5%
.6%
1.0%
42
.8%
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions (Continued)
UVSC
Count
Major of Interest
Health Sciences
Business &
Management
Visual &
Performing Arts
Elementary
Education
Education
Psychology
Nursing
(registered/BSN)
Teacher Education
Physical
Therapy/Assisting
Computer
Programming
Software
Engineering
Social Sciences
Communications
Engineering (preengineering)
Medicine (premedicine)
Music Performance
Computer &
Information Science
Dental Hygiene
Architecture
Human/Family &
Consumer Science
Community &
Personal Services
Row %
BYUP
Count
Row %
BYUI
Count
Row %
USU
Count
Row %
SUU
Count
Row %
UU
Count
Row %
102
22.1%
49
10.6%
33
7.2%
27
5.9%
25
5.4%
22
4.8%
72
23.6%
31
10.2%
15
4.9%
9
3.0%
9
3.0%
9
3.0%
40
19.1%
21
10.0%
20
9.6%
15
7.2%
11
5.3%
4
46
37
26
22.2%
19.9%
19.8%
30
26
15
14.5%
14.0%
11.5%
26
11
5
12.6%
5.9%
3.8%
19
15
8
9.2%
8.1%
6.1%
8
10
3
3.9%
5.4%
2.3%
40
25
33.9%
22.3%
10
10
8.5%
8.9%
7
11
5.9%
9.8%
7
7
5.9%
6.3%
2
5
22
19.8%
7
6.3%
6
5.4%
1
0.9%
1
31
25
17
29.0%
25.0%
17.2%
3
16
21
2.8%
16.0%
21.2%
7
2
8
6.5%
2.0%
8.1%
1
5
7
0.9%
5.0%
7.1%
26
26.8%
12
12.4%
4
4.1%
2
25
21
26.0%
24.4%
19
20
19.8%
23.3%
6
5
6.3%
5.8%
24
18
11
29.3%
24.3%
15.3%
8
5
5
9.8%
6.8%
6.9%
5
5
3
12
17.4%
9
13.0%
9
13.2%
2
2.9%
WSU
Count
Row %
4
0.9%
1.9%
1
0.5%
5
4
3
2.4%
2.2%
2.3%
1
2
0.5%
1.1%
1.7%
4.5%
3
6
2.5%
5.4%
1
0.8%
0.9%
5
4.5%
6
2
6.0%
2.0%
5
2
3
4.7%
2.0%
3.0%
1
1.0%
2.1%
3
3.1%
3
3.1%
3
4
3.1%
4.7%
3
4
3.1%
4.7%
6
4
6.3%
4.7%
1
1.0%
6.1%
6.8%
4.2%
2
4
5
2.4%
5.4%
6.9%
2
2
2.4%
2.7%
1
1
3
1.2%
1.4%
4.2%
1
1
1.2%
1.4%
5
7.2%
4
5.8%
3
4.3%
1
1.4%
5
7.4%
4
5.9%
1
1.5%
1
1.5%
1
1.5%
27
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions (Continued)
UVSC
Count
Major of Interest
Accounting
Science
Business Administration &
Management
Law (pre-law)
Trades & Industrial
Business & Office
Architectural Drafting/CADD
Engineering Related
Technologies
Computer Science
Agricultural Sciences
Interior Design
Airplane Piloting &
Navigation
Secondary Education
Dance
Art
Dentistry
(pre-dentistry)
Biology
Photography
Drama/Theatre Arts
BYUP
Row %
Count
USU
BYUI
Row %
Count
Row %
SUU
Count
Row %
10
12
16.4%
19.7%
9
9
14.8%
14.8%
4
5
6.6%
8.2%
3
5
4.9%
8.2%
8
14
22
14
19
13.8%
24.1%
37.9%
25.0%
34.5%
9
7
15.5%
12.1%
1
2
1.7%
3.4%
6
4
10.7%
7.3%
7
5
12.5%
9.1%
4
4
1
4
13
12
12
6
24.5%
23.5%
24.0%
13.0%
7
7
2
8
13.2%
13.7%
4.0%
17.4%
1
2
3
3
3.9%
6.0%
6.5%
17
9
12
8
37.8%
20.5%
27.3%
18.6%
2
6
4
2
4.4%
13.6%
9.1%
4.7%
1
3
1
2.2%
6.8%
2.3%
13
6
6
5
33.3%
15.8%
17.6%
15.6%
6
7
1
5
15.4%
18.4%
2.9%
15.6%
1
2
5
2
2.6%
5.3%
14.7%
6.3%
UU
Count
Row %
3
4.9%
6.9%
6.9%
1.7%
7.1%
2
3.4%
1
5
1
1.7%
8.9%
1.8%
1.9%
2
1
5
3.8%
2.0%
10.0%
8
17.4%
4
1
4
9.1%
2.3%
9.3%
4
3
2
10.5%
8.8%
6.3%
4
2
2
9.1%
4.5%
4.7%
2
1
5.1%
2.6%
3
9.4%
WSU
Count
Row
%
1
2
1.6%
3.3%
3
1
1
1
1
5.2%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.8%
2
1
1
2
3.8%
2.0%
2.0%
4.3%
1
2
3
2.2%
4.5%
6.8%
1
2
1
Count
Row %
2
3.3%
1
1.7%
1
2.0%
1
2.2%
1
1
2.2%
2.3%
1
2.3%
2.6%
5.3%
2.9%
28
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions
Not Attending
Count
Characteristics
Female
Male
Low Ability
Average Ability
High Ability
First Choice
Other Choice
Pursing Associates
Pursing Bachelors
Not Work
Work 1-10 Hours
Work 11-20 Hours
Work 21-30 Hours
Work 31 Or More
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Rural
Urban
White
Minority
Out-of-State
In-State
Row %
683
1055
896
565
277
460
1272
241
1383
79
243
791
400
103
335
613
544
655
954
1585
153
353
1385
17.5%
37.4%
33.3%
23.9%
16.7%
29.5%
24.9%
40.3%
24.3%
13.7%
20.0%
26.2%
33.5%
45.4%
30.4%
29.1%
22.1%
30.1%
23.8%
25.4%
31.5%
20.5%
27.7%
SLCC
Count
233
160
188
137
68
67
324
45
325
9
41
201
99
19
68
130
142
68
294
347
46
10
383
Row %
6.0%
5.7%
7.0%
5.8%
4.1%
4.3%
6.3%
7.5%
5.7%
1.6%
3.4%
6.7%
8.3%
8.4%
6.2%
6.2%
5.8%
3.1%
7.3%
5.6%
9.5%
0.6%
7.7%
SNOW
Count
246
82
151
110
67
48
279
35
279
38
76
139
54
4
68
139
78
163
147
301
27
12
316
Row %
6.3%
2.9%
5.6%
4.7%
4.0%
3.1%
5.5%
5.9%
4.9%
6.6%
6.3%
4.6%
4.5%
1.8%
6.2%
6.6%
3.2%
7.5%
3.7%
4.8%
5.6%
0.7%
6.3%
DIXIE
Count
161
98
135
86
38
44
215
26
214
18
46
119
46
6
59
81
71
114
124
240
19
24
235
Row %
4.1%
3.5%
5.0%
3.6%
2.3%
2.8%
4.2%
4.3%
3.8%
3.1%
3.8%
3.9%
3.9%
2.6%
5.4%
3.8%
2.9%
5.2%
3.1%
3.9%
3.9%
1.4%
4.7%
CEU
Count
62
35
43
31
23
15
82
9
85
4
15
55
19
1
24
41
23
58
33
91
6
2
95
Row %
1.6%
1.2%
1.6%
1.3%
1.4%
1.0%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
0.7%
1.2%
1.8%
1.6%
0.4%
2.2%
1.9%
0.9%
2.7%
0.8%
1.5%
1.2%
0.1%
1.9%
Other Colleges
Count Row %
228
135
156
139
67
65
293
27
309
35
66
176
53
9
63
113
135
109
221
347
16
278
85
5.9%
4.8%
5.8%
5.9%
4.0%
4.2%
5.7%
4.5%
5.4%
6.1%
5.4%
5.8%
4.4%
4.0%
5.7%
5.4%
5.5%
5.0%
5.5%
5.6%
3.3%
16.1%
1.7%
29
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions (Continued)
Not Attending
Count
Health Sciences
Business & Management
Visual &
Performing Arts
Elementary Education
Education
Psychology
Nursing (registered/BSN)
Teacher Education
Physical Therapy/Assisting
Computer Programming
Software Engineering
Social Sciences
Communications
Engineering (pre-engineering)
Medicine (pre-medicine)
Music Performance
Computer & Information
Science
Dental Hygiene
Architecture
Human/Family & Consumer
Science
Community & Personal
Services
92
88
Row %
20.0%
28.9%
SLCC
Count
25
23
Row %
5.4%
7.5%
SNOW
Count
30
17
Row %
6.5%
5.6%
DIXIE
Count
16
14
Row %
3.5%
4.6%
48
25
37
37
23
26
42
23.0%
12.1%
19.9%
28.2%
19.5%
23.2%
37.8%
11
5
7
11
8
1
13
5.3%
2.4%
3.8%
8.4%
6.8%
0.9%
11.7%
7
24
11
7
7
10
8
3.3%
11.6%
5.9%
5.3%
5.9%
8.9%
7.2%
12
5
12
6
3
4
4
5.7%
2.4%
6.5%
4.6%
2.5%
3.6%
3.6%
42
22
18
24
17
13
39.3%
22.0%
18.2%
24.7%
17.7%
15.1%
4
4
6
8
3
6
3.7%
4.0%
6.1%
8.2%
3.1%
7.0%
2
6
6
1
4
2
1.9%
6.0%
6.1%
1.0%
4.2%
2.3%
4
7
2
4
1
2
24
16
26
29.3%
21.6%
36.1%
6
10
6
7.3%
13.5%
8.3%
1
2
5
1.2%
2.7%
6.9%
16
23.2%
5
7.2%
4
25
36.8%
9
13.2%
2
CEU
Count
13
2
Row %
2.8%
0.7%
Other Colleges
Count
Row %
22
4.8%
16
5.2%
19
10
12
9
2
4
2
9.1%
4.8%
6.5%
6.9%
1.7%
3.6%
1.8%
3
2
1
5
3
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
4.2%
2.7%
3.7%
7.0%
2.0%
4.1%
1.0%
2.3%
3
1
3
3
3
2.8%
1.0%
3.0%
3.1%
3.1%
5
4
5
7
5
5
4.7%
4.0%
5.1%
7.2%
5.2%
5.8%
1
8
2
1.2%
10.8%
2.8%
2
2.4%
2
2.8%
5
2
4
6.1%
2.7%
5.6%
5.8%
1
1.4%
5
7.2%
4
5.8%
2.9%
2
2.9%
2
2.9%
5
7.4%
30
Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions (Continued)
Not Attending
Count
Major of Interest
Accounting
Science
Business Administration &
Management
Law (pre-law)
Trades & Industrial
Business & Office
Architectural Drafting/CADD
Engineering Related
Technologies
Computer Science
Agricultural Sciences
Interior Design
Airplane Piloting & Navigation
Secondary Education
Dance
Art
Dentistry
(pre-dentistry)
Biology
Photography
Drama/Theatre Arts
Accounting
Row %
SLCC
Count
Row %
SNOW
Count
Row %
DIXIE
Count
Row %
CEU
Count
Row %
19
14
31.1%
23.0%
3
1
4.9%
1.6%
3
2
4.9%
3.3%
1
4
1.6%
6.6%
20
18
26
6
16
34.5%
31.0%
44.8%
10.7%
29.1%
3
5
2
4
1
5.2%
8.6%
3.4%
7.1%
1.8%
1
1
2
2
2
1.7%
1.7%
3.4%
3.6%
3.6%
3
1
1
5
5
5.2%
1.7%
1.7%
8.9%
9.1%
20
16
15
10
17
6
12
15
37.7%
31.4%
30.0%
21.7%
37.8%
13.6%
27.3%
34.9%
2
4
4
2
1
3.8%
7.8%
8.0%
4.3%
2.2%
2
2
3
4
3.8%
3.9%
6.0%
8.7%
3
5.7%
2
3.9%
2
5
4.5%
11.6%
4
2
3
9.1%
4.5%
7.0%
4
1
1
1
2
1
8.0%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
4.5%
2.3%
2
2
4.5%
4.7%
2
13
9
8
8
4.7%
33.3%
23.7%
23.5%
25.0%
2
1
4.7%
2.6%
2
4.7%
1
2.3%
1
2.6%
3
2
8.8%
6.3%
3
2
8.8%
6.3%
1
3.1%
3
1
8.8%
3.1%
3
1
1
Other Colleges
Count
Row %
4.9%
1.6%
5
1
8.2%
1.6%
1.7%
3
5
1
2
1
5.2%
8.6%
1.7%
3.6%
1.8%
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
1.9%
5.9%
2.0%
2.2%
8.9%
9.1%
2.3%
3
2
6
1
1
7.0%
5.1%
15.8%
2.9%
3.1%
31