Factors influencing the university selection of international students.
Daily, Cynthia M. ; Farewell, Stephanie ; Kumar, Gaurav 等
INTRODUCTION
The number of international students pursuing secondary education
at United States (U.S.) universities has been increasing over the past
25 years, and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
However, these students have a plethora of choices among universities in
the U.S. and foreign countries. Universities must distinguish themselves
if they hope to obtain the most desirable students from around the
world. An investigation of the factors that are most important in
university choice is an important step in allocating resources to
attract the most desirable international students. Our study found that
opportunities for post-graduate employment, availability of financial
aid, reputation of the institution, accessibility of information on the
institution and AACSB accreditation of the institution were the most
important factors for international students. However, further
investigation shows that international students may not fully understand
the meaning of accreditation by AACSB.
There were 565,039 international students enrolled in U.S. higher
education institutions in 2004-2005 (eduPASS). These students represent
more than two hundred countries and were equally divided between those
pursuing undergraduate degrees and those seeking graduate/professional
degrees (edupass.org). Florida (2005, 99) provides an overview of the
impact of foreign scholars on the economy of the U.S.
i. Foreign-born scientists and engineers made up nearly a quarter
of the science and engineering workforce (22 percent) in 2000, up from
14 percent in 1990. Foreign-born engineers make up about 40 percent of
all U. S. engineering professors.
ii. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of international students
among all bachelor's-degree holders in the U.S. increased from 11
to 17 percent; the percentage with a master's degree from 19 to 29
percent; and PhDs from 24 to 38 percent.
iii. By the early 2000s, nearly a third of all graduate students in
science and engineering were from outside the United States, including
more than half of all PhDs in engineering, computer science, life
sciences, and the physical sciences.
The continued growth of international scholars as consumers of U.S.
higher education programs highlights the need to better understand this
phenomenon. Previous research has examined factors that "push"
a student to pursue educational opportunities abroad and
"pull" the student to a particular host county (e.g., Mazzarol
and Soutar, 2002; Lee and Tan, 1984; Agarwal and Winkler, 1985; McMahon,
1992). Although Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) investigate factors
influencing institutional choice, the research stream has not been
extended to business schools in particular. We investigate the relevance
of previously identified factors to foreign scholars in their choice of
a business school, given that an international student has decided to
pursue a business degree in the U.S. In addition, we investigate whether
international students understand the meaning of The Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AASCB) accreditation and whether
accreditation is a factor that international students report as
important in the choice of a business school.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A significant stream of research has been amassed in an attempt to
better understand the factors that influence the decision of individuals
to pursue secondary education overseas rather than in their home
country. While early studies commented on the post-World War II increase
in international students, Cummings (1984) was one of the first to
examine patterns of migration and immigration for secondary education.
Subsequent research has increased the breadth of factors considered and
the change across time.
McMahon (1992) examined the expansive phase of international
education that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. The study
hypothesized and found that the decision to study abroad by students
from 18 developing nations could be explained by both "push"
and "pull" factors; however, there were differences for the
lower and higher income subsets, as well as, longitudinally. The
"push" model examines the dynamics of the home country,
encompassing factors that cause the individual to seek an education
abroad. "Push" model factors which were negatively correlated
include the home country's relative economic strength and the lack
of available educational opportunities in the home country. The degree
of involvement in international trade and the government's
educational emphasis were positively correlated "push"
factors. The "pull" model examines the dynamics of the host
country and the factors that make it relatively more attractive to
international students seeking a non-domestic education. Results of
tests of the "pull" model find that students' attraction
to a host country was positively correlated with the relative size of
the students' home country economy compared to the host country and
the host nation political interests in the home country; whereas, host
nation support via scholarships or other financial assistance was
negatively correlated (McMahon, 1992).
Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) suggest that the decision process of a
student wanting to pursue higher education in a foreign country consists
of at least three distinct stages. In stage one, the decision to study
internationally, rather than domestically is made. This initial decision
is influenced by the "push" factors previously identified by
McMahon (1992). The second stage involves the selection of a host
country. The selection of a host country is influenced by: (1) host
country knowledge and awareness, (2) recommendations of family and
friends, (3) costs (monetary and social), (4) physical and economic
environment, (5) geographic proximity to the home country, and (6) the
presence of family and friends currently or formerly residing in the
host country (Mazzarol et al., 1997, cited in Mazzarol and Soutar,
2002). Finally, in the third stage, the student decides the university
at which to pursue a higher education. Again, a variety of
"pull" factors determine this decision.
Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) reports the results of four separate
studies undertaken and published by Australian Education International,
Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs in which students
from four countries (Indonesia, Taiwan, India, and China) were surveyed
to examine factors which influence the selection of a host country. The
results of these studies show that at least fourteen factors, grouped
into six categories, influence the decision to pursue an international
education and these factors appear to be important, regardless of the
student's home country. Two factors were significant in the
decision to study abroad. First, students had the perception that an
education abroad was superior to a domestic education. Second, they felt
a greater awareness of "Western culture" could be achieved
through international study. Factors which significantly influenced the
student's choice of host country included: (1) the accessibility of
information on the host country, (2) the student's existing
perception of the host country, (3) perception of educational quality,
and (4) whether the degree would be recognized when the student returned
home. Further, recommendations from family and friends were important to
the selection decision. Costs, monetary and social, were also a
consideration in the selection decision; specifically, the availability
of part-time work, a low crime-rate and the presence of an existing
international student population representing the student's home
country impacted the selection. Environment was ranked as important to
the decision with environment encompassing not only the climate, but
also perceptions of whether the host country was an exciting place to
live and whether the host country would provide a studious environment.
Finally, the presence of friends and relatives currently studying in the
host country was important to the selection decision.
Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) also investigate the factors which
influence the selection of an Australian educational institution for
international and domestic students. This sample included primarily
business majors (84 percent), which is reflective of the entire
population of university students in which 71 percent were business
majors at the time (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002). In comparing domestic
and international students it was found that the international students
ranked six variables as more important in their selection of a host
institution than local students. Those six variables "were the
quality and reputation of the institution, the recognition of the
institution's qualifications in their own country, the
international strategic alliances the institutions had, the quality of
the institution's staff, its alumni base and its existing
international student population" (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002:87).
CURRENT STUDY
We are not aware of any previous research that has examined the
factors that foreign students consider when choosing a business school
in the U.S. Therefore, we investigate the relative importance of
"push" and "pull" factors previously identified as
important and extend the assessment to include the relevance of AACSB
accreditation in the student's choice of a business school.
Although evidence suggests that accreditation is a significant factor in
the selection of a graduate business institution for domestic students
(Webb, 1993), its impact on the decision of international students has
not been examined.
Moreover, research has shown that, recruiters perceive
institutional accreditation to be an indication of the program's
quality (Hardin and Stocks, 1995). Kim et al. (1996) found that salaries
were higher for students graduating from accredited programs. Given that
the previous studies have found that it is important for the degree
qualifications to be recognized in the student's home country it
seems likely that students will perceive accreditation to be important.
This is because accreditation is an internationally recognizable proxy
for program quality.
The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit universities,
but rather grants permission to accrediting agencies. These accrediting
agencies may specialize in regional accreditation (e.g., Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools), program type (e.g., American
Association of the Collegiate Schools of Business), or educational type
(e.g., Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training or
Distance Education and Training Council). While there are other
accrediting agencies such as The Association of Collegiate Business
Schools and Programs (ACBSP), we choose to focus specifically on AACSB
accreditation because we believe it has the highest "brand
name" recognition to begin a research stream on the relative
importance of accreditation to international students. Additionally,
previous research (Hardin and Stocks, 1995) has shown that AACSB
accreditation is considered important by the employers and Webb (1993)
provides evidence that accreditation is a significant factor in the
selection of a graduate business institution for domestic students. Most
of the other listed agencies indicate that their accreditation assesses
whether the institution complies with minimum quality standards. For
example, "The DETC Accrediting Commission identifies and accredits
distance education and training institutions that have attained and
maintained the standards deemed necessary to operate a minimum level of
quality" (Distance Education and Training Council website).
However, "AACSB International accreditation represents the highest
standard of achievement for business schools, worldwide" (AACSB
website). Given the disparate meanings conveyed by accreditation
(minimum standards versus highest standards) and its potential to impact
the institutional selection process, we test whether participants know
the meaning of AACSB accreditation, as defined by The AACSB.
METHOD
Participants
We desired a sample size of 42 or more survey respondents. The
target sample size relates to an alpha level of 0.05 for analysis of
variance and power of about 0.70 to detect a large effect (Myers and
Well, 2003, p157). To achieve the desired sample size, students from
eight university business schools in the United States were surveyed
during the 2006-2007 academic year. The business schools selected
represent a 'convenience sample' of the population of business
schools in the U.S., as they were selected based upon the authors'
current and former affiliations. International student program offices
provided email addresses for international students who had declared
business majors. Students were contacted via email requesting their
participation in this study. This email assured the individuals of their
anonymity, reminded them that participation was strictly voluntary, and
provided a link to the survey which was hosted on the Survey Monkey
website. The initial email resulted in 22 responses. A reminder email
was sent ten days after the initial email, which resulted in 28
responses. Hence, 50 respondents provided complete surveys.
Instrument
As mentioned previously, the objective of the present study is to
investigate the factors that influence the decision of a foreign student
to select a business institution in the U.S. In addition, we examine
whether AACSB accreditation contributes to this decision by the
students. The survey instrument (see Appendix A) included three
sections. The first section included two questions, one addressing the
decision factors and another question allowing respondents to give
additional information about one of the decision factors. Section II
assessed the respondent's understanding of accreditation, while the
final section gathered demographic data. Participants were also provided
with an open response question to indicate other factors that they
deemed relevant to their decision process, which were not included on
the survey instrument.
The first question in Section I asked the respondents to rate the
importance of the 17 decision factors when selecting a business degree
program. The instrument used a 6 point Likert scale, with 1 being little
or no importance and 6 being extremely important. This is in contrast to
the Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) study which used a 7 point Likert scale.
Previous research (Lee et al., 2002) demonstrated that a cultural
response bias exists when using Likert scales. In particular, Lee et al.
(2002) found that participants from China and Japan were more likely to
be indifferent to questions, as evidenced by the use of the scale
mid-point than participants from the U.S. To minimize the risk of
cultural disposition to the mid-point of the scale, a six point scale
was used.
The instrument included factors that Mazzarol and Soutar (2002)
identified as important for either the selection of a host country or
host institution. The first factor in the instrument (the number of
international students) was found to significantly influence the foreign
scholar's decision to choose a particular institution in Mazzarol
and Soutar (2002). Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) examined the accessibility
of information about the host country using four separate factors, each
of which was significant. Because our participant population has already
decided to study in the U.S. we assess the single factor (accessibility
of information on the institution). In addition, four factors that they
found to be not important were included (tuition cost, accessibility of
information, cost of living, and recommendations by non-family members
(agents)). Four additional factors were added (availability of financial
aid, athletic scholarships, AACSB accreditation, and the opportunity for
post-graduation employment) to assess their impact in the decision
process based on the authors' beliefs from their interactions with
foreign scholars. Factor 15 (urban/rural setting) was included to
incorporate the trade-off between 'an exciting place to live'
and 'quiet studious environment' that were previously
identified as important in the host country selection decision.
Therefore, this instrument builds on previous research and provides a
model that can be used in future studies. After the participants
assessed the relative importance of each decision factor they were
allowed to progress to the next section.
In the second section, a multiple choice question was used to test
the respondent's understanding of AACSB accreditation. The website
of AACSB International states that "AACSB accreditation represents
the highest standard of achievement for business schools,
worldwide," and that institutions that earn this accreditation
confirm their commitment to quality and continuous improvement through a
rigorous and comprehensive peer review. The survey asked "Based on
your understanding of AACSB accreditation, which of the following
statements is true: (1) AACSB is the highest standard of excellence in
Business Education (correct response); (2) AACSB represents the minimum
standards required for Business education programs; (3) I do not know
about AACSB accreditation."
RESULTS
Since the sample used in this study represents a convenience
sample, the results cannot be projected onto the population as a whole.
However, the results can be a first step in increasing our understanding
of factors that might influence university choice among international
students. Respondents to our survey represent 27 countries. Table 1
presents the countries represented in this sample and the number of
responses (if greater than 1) from each country. The students responding
provided a varied sample of nationalities.
The highest number of responses came from students that identified
India as their home country. This is consistent with overall population
of international students in the U.S., wherein, students from India
represent the largest proportion of the total international student
population (eduPASS).
Demographic information reveals that respondents are evenly divided
between the genders, with 25 males and 25 females. Most of the
respondents were single (32 or 64%), 16 were married (32%) and two were
divorced. All of the respondents were business majors with accounting
majors representing the largest group (20.8% majoring in accounting).
The breakdown of majors and the number in each major are presented in
Table 2.
Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the responses to
each factor split by whether the response indicated some degree of
importance (points 4 through 6 on the Likert scale) or unimportant
(points 1 through 3 on the Likert scale). Table 3 provides the
descriptive statistics for the importance of each factor to the
student's selection of a business school. Using t-tests to examine
the difference between the mean response to each decision factor
indicates that these factors can be divided into three groups. The most
important decision factors are the opportunities for post-graduation
employment, financial aid and reputation of the institution. These three
factors are not significantly different from each other but
significantly more important ([alpha] = .04) than the second group of
factors--all having a degree of importance to the students. The second
group of decision factors includes accessibility of information on the
institution, AACSB accreditation, tuition, cost of living in the area
and public safety in the area. These five factors are not significantly
different from each other, but significantly more important ([alpha] =
.02) than the third group of factors--all of which are relatively
unimportant to the respondents. The number of international students at
the institution and availability of athletic scholarships were the least
important decision factors.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Several analysis of variance (ANOVA) studies revealed some
interesting information about the subjects. The ANOVA model used for all
studies utilizes Tukey's HSD (a conservative test) for pairwise
comparisons, which is appropriate for unequal group sizes. An ANOVA with
decision factors 1-17 as the dependent variables and gender as the
independent variable showed significant differences ([alpha]=0.044)
between males and females only on their response to the importance of
tuition amount. Females place more importance on the amount of tuition
([mu]=4.80; sd=1.61) than did the male respondents ([mu]=3.72; sd=2.05).
An ANOVA with decision factors 1-17 as the dependent variables and
marital status as the independent variable showed significant
differences between groups (married, divorced or single) and their
responses to three of the questions (see Table 4)
Accessibility of information was marginally more important to the
married subjects than it was to the single subjects. AACSB accreditation
was equally important to the married and single subjects, but not as
important for those two individuals that were divorced. Recommendations
by parents/relatives were considered more important by the married
respondents than they were by the single respondents.
The mean response to whether or not AACSB accreditation was
important was 4.42 making it more than marginally important. Table 5
reports the results of an analysis of variance between the importance of
AACSB accreditation and the subject's understanding of AACSB
accreditation. Tukey's HSD for post-hoc pairwise comparisons
reveals that respondents that did not know what accreditation meant
found it significantly less important than those that thought that it
was the highest standard and those that thought that it was the minimum
standard. There was no significant difference in the importance of AACSB
accreditation between those that thought this accreditation to be
highest standard (which it is) and those that thought this accreditation
to be the lowest standard (which it is not).
The mean response to whether or not post-graduation employment
opportunities are important was 4.98 making this the most important
factor of this study. As can be seen in Table 6, an analysis of variance
between the importance of post-graduation employment opportunities and
whether or not the individual intends to return to his (her) home
country revealed that all groups (those that plan to return, those that
do not plan to return and those that are undecided) found
post-graduation employment to be equally important.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the relative importance of 17 decision
factors, including AACSB accreditation, to international students
pursuing a business degree in the U.S. The factors that are found to be
the most important include opportunities for post-graduation employment,
availability of financial aid, and reputation of the institution. These
three factors are statistically more important than the second set of
factors, which include accessibility of information, AACSB
accreditation, tuition, cost of living in the area and public safety.
However, the factors in the second group each have mean responses
ranging from 4.10 to 4.50 meaning that respondents find these factors to
be important to their decision regarding university of attendance. The
remaining factors have mean responses ranging from 2.64 to 3.46 and
although they are important to some respondents, they are found to be
less important than the previously mentioned factors.
We find mixed results in comparing the results of this study to
research using university students studying abroad in countries other
than the U.S. The results of this study confirmed some of the findings
observed by Mazzarol and Soutar (2002). The mean response for,
'accessibility of information on the institution' and
'reputation of the institution were consistent with previous
research. The mean responses for factors 5 and 6,
'friends/relatives attending the university' and 'living
in the area', respectively, were consistent with previous research
in that they were less important than other factors in the selection of
a host country. Further, the response on 'public safety in the
area' was consistent with prior research.
On the other hand, some results contradicted those observed by
Mazzarol and Soutar (2002). While 'the number of international
students' was previously shown to be significant, we find that this
is not the case for our participants. The results of this study find
that 'tuition' and 'financial aid' were
significantly important to the selection process while prior research
found that those factors were only of moderate importance. The
'cost of living in the area' factor is slightly more important
than the results of previous studies. The 'climate' in the
area was found to be less important than the results of previous
research. The responses on 'Recommendation by
parents/relatives' and 'recommendation by non-family
members' were not consistent with prior research, wherein we find
that these factors were less important for our participants than
participants in the Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) studies.
We find that while international students do not necessarily
understand the meaning of AACSB accreditation, they do understand that
accreditation is an important consideration in the selection of a
business school. This may mean that AACSB International needs to better
market the meaning of accreditation to potential students, to recruiting
agencies, and international student information websites. For example, a
web query provided a link to eduPASS.org. At this site (eduPass(b))
visitors are given the information that "The U.S. government does
not monitor the quality of U.S. colleges and universities, as does the
ministry of education in other countries. Instead, the U.S. Department
of Education approves accrediting agencies. These accrediting agencies
review a school's educational program for quality, and certify that
the school meets a minimal set of standards." While this definition
of accreditation as a minimum standard may be true for some accrediting
agencies it is not in line with the definition provided by AACSB.
Therefore, given that many international students may begin their search
for a host country and host institution using an internet search it is
easy to see how they may misinterpret the meaning of accreditation. In
addition, the colleges which are accredited by AACSB should emphasize
the importance of this accreditation so that the prospective students
consider this factor in their decision.
This study contributes to the existing body of literature on the
decision factors of importance to international students in the
selection of a host institution. We have extended the body of knowledge
to specifically examine business school students. The information
gathered on the impact of AACSB accreditation should be relevant to both
institutions and the AACSB as an impetus to improve their marketing
efforts.
Accessibility of information on the institution (mean of 4.50) was
important to participants and this issue is one that can be easily
addressed by universities. Besides making sure that they are listed on
sites such as eduPASS.org, universities can provide links from their
home page for prospective international students. Information can be
provided about their institution, as well as the factors found in this
study to be important to prospective international students.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
As with all research, interpretation of this study's results
is subject to several limitations, including: the use of a non-random
sample and conducting the assessment after rather than before the
participants had decided on a business school. In addition, it is hard
to isolate the effect of AACSB accreditation given that schools that are
accredited often have other factors which affect the school's
'attractiveness' to international students. While the results
cannot be projected to the entire population of international students
studying in the U.S., the information can provide insights into their
business school selection criteria and provide the basis for further
study.
The most important factor in our study was opportunities for
post-graduation employment. Upon further examination we found no
significant differences in importance when subjects are divided
according to whether they plan to return home after graduation. Further
research should be more specific and ask about opportunities in their
home country and their host country. Given that this study and previous
research on host country institution selection have surveyed students
that were currently studying in the host country, there is possibly a
self-selection bias impacting the relative importance of some factors.
Future research could also examine this possible self-selection bias by
examining the factors that students attending AACSB accredited
institutions around the globe consider important in the selection of an
educational institution. Further, future research could include
experiments that isolate the effect of 'accreditation' on
educational institution choice. In addition, research could focus on
factors that students report to be important apriori (both at the
undergraduate and graduate level, as well as, for traditional and
non-traditional age undergraduate students). The results could then be
compared to the factors inherent to the educational institution chosen.
Finally, international students could be surveyed at the completion of
their studies to determine which factors they felt should have been
important in the selection of a U.S. educational institution.
APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS
The following is a list of the survey questions:
(Section I)
1. Indicate how important each of the following factors were in
your choice of university/college (on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being of
little or no importance and 6 being of extreme importance).
* The number of international students
* Accessibility of information on the institution
* Reputation of the institution
* AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business)
accreditation
* Friends/relatives attending the university
* Friends/relatives already living in the area
* Tuition
* Financial aid
* Availability of athletic scholarships
* Cost of living in the area
* Opportunity for post-graduation employment
* Public safety in the area
* Climate
* Public/Private institution
* Urban/rural setting
* Recommendation by parents/relatives
* Recommendation by non-family members
2. If you received recommendations from non-family members, please
indicate the relationship (i.e. teacher, trusted friend, employer,
etc.):
(Section II)
3. Based on your understanding of AACSB accreditation, which of the
following statements is true:
* AACSB is the highest standard of excellence in Business
Education.
* AACSB represents the minimum standards required for Business
education programs.
* I do not know about AACSB accreditation.
(Section III)
4. Gender
* male
* female
5. Marital status
* married
* single
* divorced
* other
6. Country of Origin
* Mexico
* Canada
* India
* France
* Italy
* other (please specify)
7. Do you plan to return to your home country after completing your
education?
* yes
* no
* undecided
8. What is your primary major?
* Accounting
* Economics
* Finance
* Management
* Marketing
* Information Systems
* Other (please specify)
9. What is your minor?
* Accounting
* Economics
* Finance
* Management
* Marketing
* Information Systems
* Other (please specify)
10. Please provide any comments about other factors that you think
were important to your decision that are not included in the above list.
AUTHORS' NOTES
Authors names appear in alphabetical order. All authors contributed
equally.
The authors would like to thank participants at the Allied
Academies' 2008 Spring International Conference and participants at
the American Accounting Association 2008 Annual Meeting Research
Interaction Forum.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, V.B. and D.R. Winkler (1985), Foreign Demand for United
States higher education: A study of developing countries in the eastern
hemisphere, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(3), pp.623-44.
Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business.
www.aacsb.edu.
Cummings, W.K. (1984), Going overseas for higher education: the
Asian experience, Comparative Education Review, 28(2), pp. 241-257.
Distance Education and Training Council.
www.detc.org/quickfacts.html. Last accessed 9/13/07.
Edupass.org (a), Advantages of a US education. Downloaded from
http://www.edupass.org/admissions/advantages.phtml. Last accessed
7/23/07.
Edupass.org.(b) Choosing a school. Downloaded from
http://www.edupass.org/admissions/schoolsearch.phtml. Last accessed
9/6/07.
Florida, R.L.( 2005) The flight of the creative class: the new
global competition for talent (New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
Inc.).
Hardin, J. and M. Stocks (1995), The effect of AACSB accreditation
on the recruitment of entry-level accountants, Issues in Accounting
Education, 10(1), pp. 83-95.
Kim, K., J. Rhim, W. Henderson, N. Bizal, and G. Pritman (1996),
AACSB accreditation: a positive signal in accounting job markets, The
Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 32(2) pp. 123-134.
Lee, J.W., P.S. Jones, Y. Mineyama, and X.E. Zhang (2002) Cultural
differences in responses to a Likert scale, Research in Nursing and
Health, 25(4), pp295-306.
Lee, K.H. and J.P. Tan (1984), The International flow of third
level lesser developed country students to developed countries:
determinants and implications, Higher Education, 13(6), pp. 687-707.
McMahon, M.E. (1992), Higher education in a world market: an
historical look at the global context of international study, Higher
Education, 24(4), pp. 465-82.
Mazzarol, T., S. Kemp, and L. Savery (1997), International students
who choose not to study in Ausralia: an examination of Taiwan and
Indonesia, (Australian International Education Foundation, Canberrra).
Mazzarol, T.W. (1998), Critical success factors for International
education marketing, International Journal of Education Management,
12(4), pp. 163-75.
Mazzarol, T.W. and G.N. Soutar (2002), "Push-pull"
factors influencing International student destination choice,
International Journal of Education Management, 16(2), pp. 82-90.
Myers, J.L. and A.D. Well (2003), Research Design and Statistical
Analysis, 2nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Webb, M.S. (1993). Variables influencing graduate business
students' college selections, College and University: The Journal
of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, Winter, pp. 38-46.
Cynthia M. Daily, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Stephanie Farewell, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Gaurav Kumar, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Table 1: Number of Respondents by Country
Argentina (2)
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China (2)
Croatia
Czech Republic (3)
Fiji Islands
India (13)
Jamaica
Japan (4)
Lebanon
Mexico
Moldova
Nepal
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Serbia, Europe
Slovakia
Taiwan
Thailand
Togo (West Africa)
Turkey (4)
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
No Response (1)
Table 2: Number of Respondents by Major
Accounting (11) Information Systems (6)
Management (8) Economics (5)
Marketing (7) International Business (4)
Finance (6) Other Business Majors (3)
Number of respondents in parentheses
Table 3: Mean Responses by Factor
Q# Factor Mean Standard
Deviation
11 Opportunities -post-graduation employment 4.98 1.50
8 Financial Aid 4.90 1.54
3 Reputation of the institution 4.82 1.10
2 Accessibility of information on the institution 4.50 1.43
4 AACSB Accreditation 4.42 1.72
7 Tuition 4.26 1.90
10 Cost of living in the area 4.26 1.44
12 Public Safety in the area 4.10 1.52
17 Recommendation by non-family members 3.46 1.43
6 Friends/relatives already living in the area 3.28 1.71
15 Urban/rural setting 3.26 1.56
5 Friends/relatives attending the university 3.24 1.76
13 Climate 3.20 1.63
14 Public/private institution 3.14 1.64
16 Recommendation by parents/relatives 3.14 1.58
9 Availability of athletic scholarships 2.70 2.04
1 The number of international students 2.64 1.48
Q# Factor Paired Samples
T-test (2-tailed)
11 Opportunities -post-graduation employment 0.73
8 Financial Aid 0.72
3 Reputation of the institution 0.04
2 Accessibility of information on the institution 0.78
4 AACSB Accreditation 0.65
7 Tuition 1.00
10 Cost of living in the area 0.35
12 Public Safety in the area 0.02
17 Recommendation by non-family members 0.57
6 Friends/relatives already living in the area 0.94
15 Urban/rural setting 0.94
5 Friends/relatives attending the university 0.88
13 Climate 0.83
14 Public/private institution 1.00
16 Recommendation by parents/relatives 0.21
9 Availability of athletic scholarships 0.87
1 The number of international students
(1=Little or no importance to decision; 6 =Extremly important)
Table 4: The Impact of Marital Status on Responses
Question: How important
were these factors in
your choice of Group Comparisons Tukey's
university/college? (mean and standard deviation) HSD
2. Accessibility of Married ([mu]=5.13; sd=0.96) 0.082
information on the & Single ([mu]=4.19; sd=1.53)
institution
4. AACSB Accreditation Married ([mu]=4.81; sd=1.64) 0.025
& Divorced ([mu]=1.50; sd=0.71)
Divorced ([mu]=1.50; sd=0.71) 0.047
& Single ([mu]=4.41; sd=1.64)
16. Recommendation by Married ([mu]=3.81; sd=1.47) 0.096
parents/relatives & Single ([mu]=2.81; sd=1.57)
Table 5: Importance of AACSB Accreditation by Groups
Comparisons (means and standard deviations) Tukey's HSD
Highest Standard ([mu]=4.94; sd=1.73) and unknown 0.002
([mu]=3.12; sd=1.38)
Minimum Standard ([mu]=5.31; sd=1.20) and unknown 0.000
([mu]=3.12; sd=1.38)
Highest Standard ([mu]=4.94; sd=1.73) and 0.726
Minimum Standard ([mu]=5.31; sd=1.20)
Table 6: Post-graduation Employment Opportunities
Comparison of the importance of post-graduation employment Tukey's
opportunities according to whether or not the individual HSD
plans to return to their home country.
Yes ([mu]=4.69; sd=1.75) and No ([mu]=5.00; sd=1.63) 0.865
Yes ([mu]=4.69; sd=1.75) and Undecided ([mu]=5.13; sd=1.33) 0.690
No ([mu]=5.00; sd=1.63) and Undecided ([mu]=5.13; sd=1.33) 0.969
