Senior level business student college selection factors.

O'Neal, Larry R. ; Watts, Larry R.

ABSTRACT

This research, completed in 2001, identifies market segments based on students' classification of influence variables affecting their selection of a particular university: Stephen F. Austin State University. This study has identified through the use of factor analysis, seven groups of student selection factors, which meet preestablished statistical criteria. The seven groups of student selection factors were analyzed and assigned descriptive names. The two largest student segments, each comprising 25.4%, were named quality of lifers and local scholars. The other 49.2 % were divided among five smaller student segments named recruits, socialites, advice seekers, value seekers, and location seekers.

INTRODUCTION

The flat or declining student enrollments at many of our nation's universities since the early 1990's has been well documented (Bisoux, 2001; Boyd & Halfond, 1993; Francis & Hampton, 1999; Green, 1995; Kotler & Andreasen, 1991; Lovelock, 1992). One of the main reasons for this has been the steadily shrinking annual supply of 18-year-old high school graduates due to long term demographic trends, specifically declining birthrate trends (Kotler & Fox, 1985; Wilkie, 1994). In 1994 the age group of 18 to 24-year-olds numbered about 7 million fewer than in 1980, a drop of 23 percent! This presents an appalling picture to university administrators and faculty. Even though the number of 18-year-old high school graduates began to decline after 1982, which was the last group of baby boomers to graduate from high school, most universities held steady, or slightly increased their enrollments, until the early to mid 1990's. Several factors such as more women entering college, more older students (age 25 and over) and a surge in part-time students contributed to keeping most universities enrollments steady or slightly increasing during the long years of steadily declining numbers of 18 years old high school graduates. By the mid1990's the relentless demographic trends began catching up with many universities. Many universities in the United States began experiencing declining enrollment and turned to marketing strategies to slow or reverse this trend (Wilkie, 1994).

Declines in student enrollment have occurred at most of the nation's business schools during the decade of the 1990's. For most business schools the peak enrollment year was 1987 when 24 percent of all freshmen entering college indicated they were planning to major in business; however, by 1994 this figure had declined to 19 per cent. Translated into a headcount, the number of entering freshmen planning to major in business dropped by some 175,000 students annually between 1987 and 1994 (Green, 1995). It was projected that these declines in business student enrollments would continue through the end of the 20th century (Green, 1994). It was also projected that it would be the fall of 2000 before demographic trends would lead to an increase in 18-year-olds entering our nation's business schools (Green, 1994; Wilkie, 1994). Nevertheless, business school administrators and faculty were cautioned not believe that the demographic upturn sparked by rising numbers of "Boom II" students will bring back the enrollment increases of the 1960's and 1970's. Beginning in the fall semester of 2000 the yearly increase in 18-year-olds graduating from high school was projected to be small and was projected to grow slowly from year to year after the beginning of the new millennium (Green, 1994).

AACSB, the International Association for Management Education, based in St. Louis, Missouri, published an annual report of the total number of business graduates with bachelors', masters and doctoral degrees, based on data released annually by the U. S. Department of Education. In the Winter 2001 edition of AACSB- The International Association for Management Education Bulletin, page19, a table shows detailed data starting with 1972, which reveals the total number of Business School graduates with bachelor's degrees peaked in the 1991-92 academic year at 256,603 (AACSB, 2001). The number of Business School graduates has steadily declined since then with 233,119 bachelor's graduates in the 1997-98 academic year, the most recently available year with complete data. This is a total of more than 23,000 fewer students per year graduating from business schools with bachelors' degrees, or a decline of about 9.15%. Also, the total number of bachelors' degrees awarded by all United States colleges and universities reached an all time high of 1,184,406 in the 1997-98 academic year, up from 1,136,553 bachelor's degrees awarded in the 1991-92 academic year (AACSB, 2001). This is an increase of 4.04% in all college degrees awarded while bachelors' degrees in business declined 9.15% during the same period. Interestingly, during the 1990's the total number of bachelors' degrees awarded by all colleges and universities in the United States increased very slowly and unevenly from year to year, and even declined in some academic years, such as 1994-95. Also, business graduates as a percentage of all college graduates have declined from a high of 24.4% in 1987-88 to 19.6% in the 1997-98 academic year, a drop of 20% (AACSB, 2001).

BACKGROUND

One way to begin understanding flat or declining student enrollments at United States universities and business schools since the early 1990's is to look at reasons students give for attending a particular college. The Chronicle of Higher Education has published an annual survey of college freshmen since 1966 that lists 22 reasons noted as very important in selecting the college the student actually attended (Chronicle of Higher Education, 20001). This annual survey is conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles Higher Education Research Institute. The results of Fall 2000 study are based on the responses of 269,413 new freshmen students at 434 four-year colleges and universities in the United States (Chronicle of Higher Education, 20001). The following individual reasons for attending college are listed in order of their importance for the 2000 survey. 1) This college has a very good academic reputation, 2) College's graduates get good jobs, 3) Wanted to go to a school about the size of this college, 4) Offered financial assistance, 5) College's graduates gain admission to top graduate/professional schools, 6) College has a good reputation for its social activities, 7) College offers special education programs, 8) Offers merit-based scholarships, 9) Low tuition, 10) Wanted to live near home, 11) Offered need based scholarship, 12) Rankings in national magazines, 13) My relatives wanted me to come here, 14) Attracted to the religious affiliation/orientation of this college, 15) Admitted through an early-action or early-decision program, 16) Information from a Web site, 17) High school counselor advised me, 18) My friends are attending, 19) Not offered aid by first choice, 20) Offered athletic scholarship, 21) My teacher advised me, and 22) Not accepted anywhere else.

Unfortunately this annual survey published in The Chronicle of Higher Education and other similar types of surveys usually only list individual reasons that students may give for attending a university or business school. Many university administrators and faculty have come to realize that students may have several different groups of reasons for attending a particular university. In recent years flat or declining enrollments and the realization that many students may want different combinations of benefits from a university has led to the adoption of marketing strategy and tactics by many universities (Bisoux, 2001; Wilkie, 1994). For universities, market segmentation is a marketing strategy of dividing the total market of students into distinct groups of students with similar needs that require different educational benefits. Items used in traditional image studies (i.e. measuring the importance students place on key criteria for selecting a university) can be used for such benefit segmentation (Absher, Crawford & Gatlin, 1993).

Image study literature has identified five important factors that make up image (Absher, Crawford & Gatlin, 1993). They are: 1) Images are unique mental representations of how that person perceives the world. 2) Images are more often based on subjective impressions rather than definitive knowledge. 3) There is a close relationship between the messages received and the images formed. It is important for universities to send a clear, consistent message to its students if it wishes to create, support or change an image. 4) The image a university holds of itself may not correspond to the image students hold of the university. 5) Rarely is a persons image of something based on one attitude alone. Rather an image will most likely be based on a combination of several attitudes. Attitudes also tend to be related to each other in a systematic manner. Attitudes will cluster in a definable pattern that can be examined through image research (Absher, Crawford & Gatlin, 1993; Erickson, Johansson & Chao, 1984; Gardner, 1975).

UNIVERSITY IMAGE STUDIES

A number of studies have reported on methodology and results of university image measurement research (Brown, 1991; Huddelston & Karr, 1982; Struckman-Johnson & Kinsley, 1985). Brown (1991) stressed the use of marketing strategy to maintain and enhance the image of a university. Brown suggested using a system of image assessment that would provide a basis for an institution's image development.

Only a limited number of university image studies have used such assessments as the basis for clustering students holding similar images of a university (Absher, Crawford & Gatlin, 1993; (Absher & Crawford, 1995; Mullett, 1985/1986; O'Neal & Watts, 1996; Struckman-Johnson & Kinsley, 1985). It was confirmed by Absher, Crawford & Gatlin (1993), Absher & Crawford, 1995, and Wilbur (1978) that most universities have identifiable images. Universities can use their image to serve as a foundation for development of a positioning strategy to guide recruitment of students and communications activities. Wilbur (1978) grouped students according to their answers to a list of 24 adjectives describing different aspects of a university. Mullett (1985/1986) used 35 image attributes for segmenting students with similar image perceptions.

Brown (1991) used 17 university image components that were identified through the use of factor analysis in a study of students conducted at Ball State University. The 17 components were investigated from the standpoint of measuring the importance of each in predicting a student's selection of a university. They were in order of importance: 1) quality of education, 2) recreational activities, 3) educational facilities, 4) faculty, 5) advising, 6) reputation, 7) hospitality/ friendliness, 8) cost, 9) job placement, 10) physical attractiveness, 11) social activities, 12) campus organizations, 13) convenient and accessible location, 14) arts and entertainment, 15) community surroundings, 16) intercollegiate athletic facilities, 17) intercollegiate athletics.

Absher, Crawford & Gatlin (1993) believed, based on their background research, that it was not enough to just rely on individual variables that students use in the selection of a university, such as the 17 variables listed above from the Brown (1991) study, or the 22 variables listed above in The Chronicle of Higher Education (2001) study. Researchers should identify the combinations of selection variables that appeal to different groups of students (see Figure 1 below for an example). These combinations of selection variables would better identify the kaleidoscope of needs and benefits students use to select a university. The Absher (1993) study was a survey of 363 randomly selected students attending The University of North Alabama. They used Factor Analysis using a VARIMAX rotation method that identified nine groups of students (market segments) with similar combinations of needs for benefit variables used to select the university they chose to attend. The first two groups of students totaled fifty-five percent of all the students sampled. The nine groups of students (market segments) identified in the Absher, Crawford & Gatlin (1993) study are listed in Figure 1.

METHOD

This study reports on exploratory research, conducted in the Fall Semester 2001, at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), Nacogdoches, Texas. SFA is a regional, state-supported university, of 11,000 students located in the East Texas pine forests. This study follows the methodology developed by Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993). The Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) study was done at the University of North Alabama, a medium sized regional state university similar in many ways to Stephen F. Austin State University. The researchers who conducted this exploratory study in the fall of 2001 at SFA, assumed that the results of this study of senior level business students would be similar to the results of another exploratory survey of senior level business students, these same researchers conducted at SFA in fall of 1995 (O'Neal & Watts, 1996).

Subjects

To capture the perceptions of students who had successfully persisted through a prescribed baccalaureate curricula, the subjects for this study were 109 SFA senior level undergraduate business majors. The students were enrolled in the five sections of Business Policy/Strategy taught during the fall semester of 2001. The Business Policy/Strategy class is the capstone course for the undergraduate business degree with enrollment restricted to graduating seniors. Two majors tied for the largest number of students participating in this survey. They were Marketing majors, numbering 29 (26.6%), and General Business also numbering 29 (26.6%). This study attempted to help explain why these 109 graduating seniors, who were business majors, chose to attend Stephen F. Austin State University. Descriptive statistics for the subjects are presented in Table 1.

Measures

An instrument developed by Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) was used to collect perceptions of college selection variables. This questionnaire was developed from Brown's (1991) study that identified seventeen image components important in predicting a student's choice of a college. Using focus group interviews, Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993), expanded the instrument to include 29 items considered important in students' selection of a college or university. The 29 college selection variables used in the questionnaire are presented in Table 2.

Procedure

The instrument was administered in the fall semester of 2001. Participation was voluntary with no rewards or inducements offered. On a predetermined date, the professors announced in class that they had been asked to participate in a significant study. Students were told that the intent of the study was to better understand what factors were considered important when choosing to attend the university. Students were asked to take a few moments to complete the survey and were thanked in advance for their participation. Instructions informed students that statements on the questionnaire represented factors commonly used when electing to attend a university. They were then asked to indicate on a five-point scale (5 =Very Important, 1 =Not At All Important) how important each factor was in their decision to attend this university. The results are presented in Table 3.

Analysis

Consistent with the work of Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) data gathered from this survey during the fall semester 2001 at SFA were analyzed using the Factor Analysis procedure. The method used for factor extraction was principle component analysis coupled with VARIMAX rotation. A brief description of how this procedure works now follows. Essentially the selection variables were grouped together, using Factor analysis and VARIMAX rotation, into a bundle of benefits whenever student responses rated several selection variables very high (5) and at the same level (5). These bundles of benefits groupings are made up of the exact selection variables that were most important to this group of students in choosing a university. Factor loadings of less than .5 were eliminated from consideration. The factor loading on the 29 selection variables are presented in Table 4.

RESULTS

This exploratory study, conducted in the fall of 2001, was designed to help determine which variables were most important to business students in the selection of Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) and was to be compared to results of a similar study conducted during the fall semester of 1995 at SFA. Both studies followed the methodology developed by Absher, Crawford & Gatlin (1993).

For the fall 2001 study the factor analysis identified seven different groups of students (market segments) that were senior business majors who were attending Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA). The assigned names, percentages, and descriptions of the student groups (market segments) are presented in Table 5.

Highlights of the findings of the 2001 study are summarized as follows. The two largest groups of selection variables (groups 4 and 6) made up 50.8% of the students in this survey and were named "Local Scholars" and "Quality of Lifers." The business students surveyed rated these five selection variables highest and at the same high level: 1) the relatively small size of the university, 2) the physical attractiveness of the university, 3) small class sizes, 4) overall reputation of the school, and 5) convenient and accessible location. It is indicated by these findings that these senior business students surveyed in 2001selected SFA mainly because of these five selection variables: the size of the university (SFA is medium size), the physical attractiveness (SFA has beautiful huge trees and azaleas), the size of classes (SFA has mostly small class sizes), the reputation of the university (SFA is fully accredited, the business school is accredited by AACSB), and the convenient location (SFA is located approximately midway between Dallas and Houston).

When examining the findings of this study done at SFA in 2001 as compared to the findings of the 1995 study (O'Neal & Watts, 1996) the reader must note that the exact same research method and the exact same questionnaire were used in both studies. In both studies senior level business students were the particular group of students that were surveyed. When one compares the findings of the 1995 and 2001 studies it is apparent that both studies at SFA identified exactly 7 groups of selection variables that influenced students to attend SFA; however, several of the 7 groups of selection variables are different from one study to the next. In the 1995 study the largest 2 groups of selection variables were Quality of Lifers and Local Scholars. These same two groups of selection variables were also the largest in the 2001 study. This finding indicates that in both the 1995 and 2001 studies the business students surveyed were most influenced in their selection of SFA by quality of life variables and location variables. It must be noted that even though the Quality of Lifers and Local Scholars were the two largest groups of selection variables in both the 1995 and the 2001 studies, the percentages that indicate the strength of importance for these variables had in influencing students to attend SFA were different from one study to the next. For example, the Local Scholars group of selection variables was 34% in the 1995 study and 25.4% in the 2001 study.

The 1995 study had two groups of selection variables that were not found in the 2001 study: Peer Advice Seekers (15%) and Adult Advice Seekers (15%). However, the 2001 study had one group called Advice Seekers (4%), that was much smaller than either of the two 1995 advice groups. This finding of the 2001 study indicates that these business students were more likely to make up their own mind and not seek the advice of others in selecting a university when compared to the business students surveyed in 1995. Another finding that is different between the two studies is the selection variable labeled Location Seekers, described by the influence of the community in which the university is located. This selection factor, Location Seekers, did not exist as a separate selection variable in the 1995 study. Apparently the business students surveyed in 2001 felt the community in which the college is located, Nacogdoches, Texas, was an important reason for attending SFA. Nacogdoches, Texas, has a population of 30,000, is located in the pine wood forests of East Texas and is a historic community called the oldest town in Texas. This 2001 study indicates our students like the community they live in while attending college.

We believe an important finding of this 2001 study is the group of selection variables labeled Recruits. Recruits are those students who attended SFA because they were actively recruited by the university. In the 1995 study this group of selection variables comprised only 1% of the students, and in 2001 it was 5%. This finding indicates that SFA's new recruiting efforts that began in the mid 1990's, have had some success in attracting more business students to the university. This information from the 1995 study and the 2001 study is a valuable measure of the effectiveness of SFA's recruiting efforts for that six-year period.

Essentially, the results of the two studies conducted at SFA in 1995 (O'Neal & Watts, 1996) and 2001, had several important differences that have been explored above. In addition, if Table 5 is examined (Selection Factors) of the 1995 SFA study (O'Neal & Watts, 1996) and compare it to the results found in Table 5 (Selection Factors) of the 2001 study it can be seen that the groups of selection factors identified in the two different studies have different combinations of selection variables. The disparate findings of the two studies indicate that over six years time business students had some different groups of reasons, and some of the groups of reasons had different levels of importance, in influencing business student attendance at SFA. The results of the two studies conducted at SFA in1995 and 2001 were somewhat different.

In one respect the findings of the two studies done at SFA in 1995 and 2001 were similar. Both studies indicate that using individual variables only to describe reasons for students attendance at a particular university may not be sufficient. Groups of variables (benefits of attending a university), bundled together, may be a more effective way, and a more sophisticated method, of identifying reasons students attend a particular university.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings of the Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) study, compared to the findings the two studies conducted at SFA in 1995 (O'Neal & Watts, 1996) and 2001, tend to indicate that each university should do their own studies in order to determine the group of selection factors most important to students in choosing a particular university. Studies using the same methodology were done at what appeared to be similar universities that resulted in different findings about student selection factors. The findings of this 2001 study at SFA when compared to the Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) study tends to indicate that each university is unique and that its students may have their own unique reasons for attending that particular university. It will take further research to better support these findings. Determinations of which market segments of students are largest, and what educational benefits they want should help each university focus its marketing strategy used to attract and satisfy students. The information found in the Absher, Crawford and Gatlin, (1993) study, and the two studies conducted at SFA in 1995 (O'Neal & Watts, 1996) and 2001, may also suggest changes necessary to help universities attract new and different student market segments.

Thus it is recommended that additional research of student university selection variables using the research methodology described in this study be conducted at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) in the future. The findings of this study, completed in the fall semester of 2001, and the Absher, Crawford and Gatlin (1993) study indicates that it is not enough to identify the individual variables that students use in the selection of a university (see Table 3 for example). Researchers should consider using research methods that identify combinations of selection variables that differentiate market segments of students (see Table 5 for example). A comparison of Table 3 and Table 5 for this 2001 study indicates that different groups of students have different combinations of reasons for selecting a particular university. College administrators should have an understanding of these combinations of university selection variables. This information should assist in the development of a comprehensive marketing strategy for a university.

It is hoped that university administrators will be encouraged to embrace the methodology used in this study to track changes in the university's image and in the benefits wanted by its students. Also, according to a more recent study by Absher & Crawford (1995) comparisons using this methodology can be made with other relevant groups such as alumni, faculty, staff, prospective high school students and others, to check for consistency of images among the publics of a university.

REFERENCES

AACSB (2001, Winter). Business and management graduates. AACSB- The International Association for Management Education Bulletin, 19.

Absher, K., Crawford, G. & Gatlin K. (1993). Identifying college selection factors among students of a regional university. Proceedings of the Southwest Business Symposium, 419-430.

Absher, K. & Crawford, G. (1995). University product/service management: How should relevant publics be evaluated? Proceedings of the Southwest Business Symposium, 543-549.

Bisoux, T. (2001, November/December). Niche marketing makes its mark. BizEd, 44-47.

Boyd, D. & Halfond, J. (1993). The coming metamorphosis of American business schools. College and University, 68(1), 4-10.

Brown, J. (1991, Spring). Identifying benefit segments among college students. The Journal of College Admission, 30-33.

Chronicle of Higher Education (2001). This year's freshmen at 4-year colleges: A statistical profile. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(20), A48.

Erickson, G., Johansson, J. & Chao, P. (1984, September). Image Variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: Country-of-origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 694-699.

Francis, J. & Hampton, M. (1999). Resourceful responses: The adaptive research university and the drive to market. Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 625-641.

Gardner, P. (1975). A study of the attitudes of Harding college alumni with an emphasis on donor and non-donor characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.

Green, K. (1995, Spring). The Business school enrollment declines in the 1990's. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business Bulletin, 8-9.

Huddelston, T. & Karr, M. (1982, Summer). Assessing college image. College and University, 354-370.

Kotler, P. & Andreasen, A. (1991). Strategic Marketing For Nonprofit Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kotler, P. & Fox, K. (1985). Strategic Marketing For Educational Institutions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lovelock, C. (1992). Managing Services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mullett, G. (Fall1985/Winter1986). Product positioning applied to colleges: Methodology and results. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 97-133.

O'Neal, L. & Watts, L. (1996). College selection factors: A study of senior level business students. Proceedings of the Southwest Business Symposium, 398-407.

Struckman-Johnson, C. & Kinsley, S. (1985, Summer). Assessment and comparison of college image among high school seniors, college students and alumni. College and University, 316-327.

Wilbur, F. (1978). Administrative opinions concerning utilization of marketing strategies in management of higher education institutions in the united states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University.

Wilkie, W. (1994). Consumer Behavior. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Larry R. O'Neal, Stephen F. Austin State University

Larry R. Watts, Stephen F. Austin State University

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Students Surveyed Number of Students
Surveyed = 109

Major Freq Percent Age Freq Percent

Accounting 21 9 8.3
Economics 22 46 42.2
Finance 23 26 23.9
General
Business 24 8 7.3
International 25 4 3.7
 Business
Management 26 6 5.5
Marketing 29 1 .9
 30 2 1.8
Admission Path Freq Percent 31 1 .9
1st Term Freshman 53 48.6 35 2 1.8
Jr. College 6 5.5 37 1 .9
 Transfer
University Transfer 47 43.1 40 1 .9
Mature Student 3 2.8 43 1 .9
 Status 46 1 .9
Sex Freq Percent Employment Freq Percent
Male 64 58.7 Work Part-Time 66 60.6
Female 45 41.3 Work Full-Time 15 13.8
 Do Not Work 28 25.7

Table 2: Summary of Response Means
(Order of appearance in the questionnaire)

 Min. Max. Mean s.d.

 1. Advice of parents or relatives 1.0 5.0 3.12 1.39
 2. Advice of high schools friend(s) 1.0 5.0 2.21 1.19
 3. Advice of high school counselor(s) 1.0 5.0 1.98 1.15
 4. Advice of college friend(s) 1.0 5.0 2.59 1.50
 5. Advice of high school teacher(s) 1.0 5.0 2.16 1.27
 6. Advice of employer 1.0 5.0 1.96 1.37
 7. Advising system at college 1.0 5.0 2.48 1.43
 8. Effectiveness of college recruiter 1.0 5.0 1.96 1.28
 9. Advertising or published materials 1.0 5.0 2.44 1.35
10. Admission standards 1.0 5.0 3.00 1.35
11. School's interest in me 1.0 5.0 2.70 1.40
12. Job placement services available 1.0 5.0 2.30 1.44
13. Types of academic programs 1.0 5.0 3.28 1.39
14. Size of school 1.0 5.0 3.66 1.22
15. Convenient and accessible location 1.0 5.0 3.93 1.18
16. Physical attractiveness of school 1.0 5.0 3.43 1.22
17. Community in which college is located 1.0 5.0 3.28 1.32
18. Small size classes 1.0 5.0 3.81 1.27
19. Safety factor on campus 1.0 5.0 2.94 1.43
20. Overall reputation of school 1.0 5.0 3.33 1.18
21. Faculty qualifications 1.0 5.0 2.84 1.43
22. Overall quality of education 1.0 5.0 3.51 1.24
23. Low cost of attending school 1.0 5.0 3.85 1.23
24. Availability of financial aid or 1.0 5.0 3.41 1.57
 scholarships
25. Hospitality/Friendliness on campus 1.0 5.0 3.34 1.23
26. Social activities on campus 1.0 5.0 2.79 1.40
27. Campus organizations 1.0 5.0 2.76 1.33
28. Arts and entertainment available 1.0 5.0 2.16 1.16
29. Intercollegiate athletics 1.0 5.0 2.33 1.42

Scale: Importance in Decision, 5 = Very, 1 = Not at All

Table 3: Rank Order of Selection Variables
(Ranked from most to least important)

 Mean

 1. Convenient and accessible location 3.93
 2. Low cost of attending school 3.85
 3. Small size classes 3.81
 4. Size of school 3.66
 5. Overall quality of education 3.51
 6. Physical attractiveness of school 3.43
 7. Availability of financial aid or scholarships 3.41
 8. Hospitality/Friendliness on campus 3.34
 9. Overall reputation of school 3.33
10. Types of academic programs 3.28
11. Community in which college is located 3.28
12. Advice of parents or relatives 3.12
13. Admission standards 3.00
14. Safety factor on campus 2.94
15. Faculty qualifications 2.84
16. Social activities on campus 2.79
17. Campus organizations 2.76
18. School's interest in me 2.70
19. Advice of college friend(s) 2.59
20. Advising system at college 2.48
21. Advertising or published materials 2.44
22. Intercollegiate athletics 2.33
23. Job placement services available 2.30
24. Advice of high schools friend(s) 2.21
25. Arts and entertainment available 2.16
26. Advice of high school teacher(s) 2.16
27. Advice of high school counselor(s) 1.98
28. Advice of employer 1.96
29. Effectiveness of college recruiter 1.96

Scale: Importance in Decision, 5 = Very, 1 = Not at All

Table 4: Factor Loading on the 29 Selection Variables

 Factor Loadings ***

Variable * Communality ** F1 F2 F3 F4

1 .410 .490
2 .673 .631
3 .702 .631
4 .792 .811
5 .791 .785
6 .703 .680
7 .741 .679
8 .752 .700
9 .654 .710
10 .627
11 .645 .624
12 .638 .720
13 .647 .627
14 .761 .722
15 .763
16 .530 .634
17 .637
18 .632 .745
19 .729 .574
20 .690 .556
21 .753 .682
22 .733 .589
23 .721
24 .683
25 .761 .553
26 .855 .869
27 .827 .798
28 .700 .673
29 .774 .743

 Factor Loadings ***

Variable * Communality ** F5 F6 F7

1 .410
2 .673
3 .702
4 .792
5 .791
6 .703
7 .741
8 .752
9 .654
10 .627
11 .645
12 .638
13 .647
14 .761
15 .763 .840
16 .530
17 .637 .660
18 .632
19 .729
20 .690
21 .753
22 .733
23 .721 .789
24 .683 .652
25 .761
26 .855
27 .827
28 .700
29 .774

* See Table 2 of listing of variables.

** Communality is the amount of retained variation per variable via
factor analysis.

*** Factor loadings less than 0.49 were eliminated.

Table 5: Identification of Factors, Descriptions and Names

 Approximate Suggested
Factor Variables Percentage Name

1 Advising system at college, Recruits
 Effectiveness of college
 recruiter,
 Advertising or published
 materials,
 School's interest in me, Job
 placement service available,
 Types of academic programs,
 Safety factor on campus,
 Faculty qualifications,
 Overall quality of education

2 Hospitality/friendliness on Socialites
 campus,
 Social activities on campus,
 Campus organizations,
 Arts and entertainment available,
 Intercollegiate athletics

3 Advice of parents or relatives, Advice
 Advice of high school friends, Seekers
 Advice of high school counselor,
 Advice of college friends,
 Advice of high school teacher,
 Advice of employer

4 Size of school, Quality of
 Physical attractiveness of school, Lifers
 Small class sizes,
 Overall reputation of school

5 Low cost of attending school, Value
 Availability of financial aid or Seekers
 scholarships

6 Convenient and accessible location Local
 Scholars

7 Community in which college is Location
 located Seekers

 Figure 1 Absher, Crawford and Gatlin Study [2] Student Groups,
 Names and Descriptions

 1. "Warm Friendlies" (37%). They are seeking a warm friendly
 environment and security. They are concerned with the size of
 university classes, costs and personal safety.

 2. "Local Classroomers" (18%). They are concerned with convenience
 and accessibility in their community. They are also concerned with
 the quality of the university, academic reputation and faculty.

 3. "Socialites" (11 %). They are looking for social opportunities
 at the university they plan to attend. They are more interested in
 the fun side of university life. They plan to be involved in the
 various social activities, and campus organizations.

 4. "Advice Seekers I" (9%). These students obtain advice from a
 wide variety of sources. These include: parents or relatives, high
 school counselors and college friends.

 5. "Recruits I" (6%). These students affected are by direct efforts
 of the university. They are most influenced by the advising system,
 advertising or published materials and admission standards.

 6. "Recruits II" (6%). These students are also affected by direct
 efforts of the university. They are most influenced by
 interpersonal activities such as the effectiveness of college
 recruiters, and their perception of the university's interest in
 them.

 7. "Advice Seekers II" (5%). These students rely heavily on advice
 from acquaintances. This group limits its sources of advice to high
 school friends and high school teachers.

 8. "Money Matters" (5%). These students are concerned with the
 financial aspects of university selection. They rely heavily
 availability of financial aid, scholarships or the advice and the
 assistance of an employer.

 9. "Extras Oriented" (3%). These students are interested in what
 the university can do for them, such as job placement activities or
 arts and entertainment.