Marketing UVSC: How Prospective Students View the College

Transcription

1 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

2 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 institutions 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

3 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 that 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 selection 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

4 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 McKewon, 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

5 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 not 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

6 Table 1. College Choice Studies Summary Table Author(s), Year Factors 1 Institution Location Respondents Survey Method Sampling Method Sampling 2 Absher & Crawford, Community colleges Alabama College students In-class Random 675, NR Alaska Commission, High schools Alaska HS seniors Population 3,505, 60% Amarillo College, Community college Texas College students Mailed Population 3,013, 76% Brookdale Community College, High schools New Jersey HS seniors In-class Random 712, NR Canale et al., Local high schools New York HS juniors/seniors 543, NR Cibik, High schools Arizona HS students HS visits Random 708, NR Cook & Zallocco, Colleges Ohio Freshmen 241, NR Cunningham & Fickes, State college Pennsylvania Non-attendees Mailed Population 851, NR Daigle, Colleges California College students In-class Random 8,564, NR Douglas, Powers & Choroszy, High schools Arizona Gifted HS seniors Mailed Population 165, 52% Hoyt & Brown, State colleges Utah New freshmen Phone mailed Random 494, 45% Johnson, Stewart & Eberly, University Midwest Freshmen Orientation Population 3,708, 55% Independent college Wisconsin Freshmen Mailed Population 100, 43% Jonas & Popovics, Lucas, Community college Illinois College students Mailed Random 440, 88% MacKenzie, University California Admitted students Phone Random 726, 78% Maryland Commission, High schools Maryland HS seniors Mailed Population 366, 61% McCullagh, University Iowa Undergraduates In-class 205, NR McMaster, Community college New Jersey Non-attendees Mailed Population 228, 22% Metlay et al., University New York Freshmen/ transfers Population 1,211, 29% Smith and Matthews, University Southwest Freshmen Phone Random 544, 71% HS juniors & Tatham, Local high schools Kansas seniors 2,000, NR Terkla and Wright, University Massachusetts Admitted students Mailed Population 1,615, 55% 1 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.

7 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 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 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

8 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

9 Table 2. Important Choice Factors for UVSC Matriculants Choice Factors Within County Outside County Difference 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 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

10 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 = , 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 = 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 = p<=.01). Small classes are more important to females outside the county (2.14) than for males (2.69, t = 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) 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 = p<=.01 and 1.99, t = 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 = p<=.01, average ability, 1.67, t = 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

11 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 = 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 = 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 Young 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

12 Table 3. Choice Factors: Students Attending Other Four-year Institutions Choice Factors Average Rating* Availability of your major/program of study 1.72 Quality of program in your intended major 1.84 Type of institution (private, public, 4-year, 2-year, etc.) 1.88 Overall reputation of the school 2.01 Quality of faculty/faculty s commitment to teaching 2.20 Receiving a scholarship 2.22 Safety 2.30 Cost of tuition 2.31 Ability to work while attending school 2.37 Religious considerations 2.46 Variety of Course Offering Times (night, weekend, internet, etc.) 2.54 Knew more about it than other schools 2.58 Availability of housing 2.61 Ease in obtaining financial aid/loans 2.62 Impressions from a campus visit or other personal contacts 2.66 Prior credits taken awarded at the school 2.78 Availability of special programs for academically talented students 2.80 Living away from home 2.81 Admissions policy 2.82 Availability of graduate programs 2.82 Ability to commute home on weekends 2.88 Work study or part-time employment opportunities at the school 2.97 School traditions, activities, or social scene 2.99 Ability to live at home or commute daily 3.01 Small class sizes 3.15 Friends attending school there 3.28 Other relatives attended school there 3.32 Parent(s) felt it was the best choice 3.35 Teacher or counselor recommended it 3.61 Athletic programs offered 3.68 Attending a small school (<4,000 students) 3.94 Parents attended school there 3.95 Availability of sororities/fraternities or other clubs and organizations 4.14 Sample Size 147 *Scale 1=Very Important to 5 Not Important 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

13 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 frequently 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 Percent Average Rating* Website % 2.41 Campus visit % 2.53 College catalogue or schedule % 2.60 Personal contact % 2.66 College guide books % 2.74 Direct mailings % 2.77 Visits to high schools % 2.83 Special event attendance % 2.93 Publications at high schools % 2.95 College night % 3.36 Advertisements in journals % 3.46 Radio, TV, newspaper % 3.58 *Scale 1 = Very Important to 5 = Not Important 13

14 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

15 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

16 Works Cited Abrahamson, T. D., and Hossler, D Applying marketing strategies in student recruitment. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, & Associates, (Eds.), The Strategic Management of College Enrollments (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Absher, K., and Crawford, G. Spring Marketing the community college starts with understanding students perspectives. Community College Review. 23(Spring): Alaska State Commission on Postsecondary Education, Juneau Alaska High School Seniors Survey Report, June (ED ). Allen, D. F Pre-College Characteristics of Fall 1984 UNCW Freshman. (ED ) Amarillo College, Texas Student Profile, Fall (ED ). Baksh, A., and Hoyt, J. E The effect of academic scholarships on college attendance. College & University. 76(4): 3-8. Bateman, M., and Spruill, D Student decision-making: Insights from the college choice process. College Student Journal. 30: Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D Educational Research. New York: Pitman. Bradshaw, G., Espinoza, S., and Hausman, C The college decision-making of high achieving students. College & University. 77(2): Braxton, J. M Doing effective market research. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, and Associates, (Eds.), The Strategic Management of College Enrollments (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookdale Community College Office of Research and Development Report of Results of Brookdale Community College High School Survey. (ED ). Cabrera, A. F., and La Nasa, S. M Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students. New Directions for Institutional Research. (No. 107): Campbell, W. E., and Smith M. P Current Student Survey Report. (ED ). Canale, J. R., Dunlap, L., Britt, M., and Donahue, T The relative importance of various college characteristics to students in influencing their choice of a college. College Student Journal. 30 (June):

17 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching How do students choose a college? Change. (January/February): Chapman, D. W A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education. 52(5): Cibik, M. A College information needs. College & University. (Fall): Clark, C. R., Hossler, D 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 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conklin, M. E., Dailey, A. R Does consistency of parental educational encouragement matter for secondary school students? Sociology of Education. 54 (October): Cook, R. W., Zallocco, R. L Predicting university preference and attendance: Applied marketing in higher education administration. Research in Higher Education. 19(2): Coombs, C. H A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley, Cunningham, S., and Fickes, P Non-Matriculant Survey Report, (ED ). Dahl, R. W College attendance and institutional choice. Results from the Kentucky longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association of Institutional Research, Denver, June. (ED ). Daigle, S. L Student Needs and Priorities Survey, 1981 Summary of Findings. (ED ). Douglas, P., Powers, S., and Choroszy, M Factors in the choice of higher educational institutions by academically gifted seniors. Journal of College Student Personnel. (November): Espinoza, S., Bradshaw, G., and Hausman, C The importance of college choice factors from the perspective of high school counselors. College & University. 77(4): Geiger, R. L Research and Relevant Knowledge. New York: Oxford University. Gilmour, J. E., Spiro, L. M., and Dolich, I. J How High School Students Select a College. (ED ). 17

18 Hearn, J. C The relative roles of academic, ascribed, and socioeconomic characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education. 57: Hodges, T. D., and Barbuto, J. E Recruiting urban and rural students: Factors influencing the postsecondary education institution choices of rural versus urban high school students. College & University. 77(3): Hollenbeck, K A Model of Postsecondary and Adult Student Choice Behavior. (ED ). Hossler, D., and Gallagher, K. S Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College & University. (Spring): Hossler, D., Braxton, J., and Coopersmith, G Understanding student college choice. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. 5: Ihlanfeldt, W Achieving Optimal Enrollment and Tuition Revenues. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Jackson, G. A Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher Education. 49(6): Jackson, G. A Public efficiency and private choice in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4(2): Johnson, R. G., Stewart, N. R., and Eberly, C. G Counselor impact on college choice. The School Counselor. 39(November): Jonas, P. M., and Popovics, A. J Students Perceptions of an Independent College. (ED ). Kellaris, J. J., and Kellaris, W. K An exploration of the factors influencing students college choice decision at a small private college. College & University. (Winter): Keller, M. J. and McKewon, M. P 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 Design and Analysis: A Researcher s Handbook. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. 18

19 Kotler, P., and Fox, K. F Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuntz, S. S 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 Identifying the competition in higher education two approaches. College & University 56(1): Leister, D. V Identifying institutional clientele. Journal of Higher Education. 46(4): Lewis, G. H., and Morrison, S A Longitudinal Study of College Selection. Technical Report No. 2. Pittsburgh: School of Urban and public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, May Litten, L. H Market structure and institutional position in geographic market segments. Research in Higher Education. 11(1): Litten, L. H Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education. 53(4): Litten, L. H. and Brodigan, D. L On being heard in a noisy world: Matching messages and media in college marketing. College & University. 57(3): Litten, L. H., Sullivan, D., and Brodigan, D. L Applying Market Research in College Admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Lolli, A., and Scannell, J Admissions market research: An alternative to decline in the eighties. College & University. 58: Lucas, J. A Student Characteristics as Compared to the Community Profile, Fall, (ED ). MacKenzie, B. L The College Selection Process of Freshmen Admitted to UC Davis: The Range of Choice. (ED ). Maguire, J. and Lay, R Modeling the college choice process: Image and decision. College & University. (Winter): Manksi, C. F., and Wise, D. A College Choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 19

20 Maryland Commission Maryland State Higher Education Commission. Survey of College Plans of Maryland High Ability Students, (ED ). Matthews, M J., and Hadley, T. D. Fall 1992/Winter The relationship between and institution s perceived quality and student s application sets. College & University 67(1): McCullagh, J. G The University of Choice: Social Work Students at UNI. (ED ). McMaster, A A Study of Applicants Who Did Not Attend, Fall Technical Report (ED ). Menard, S Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Metlay, W., Lichtenstein, P., Ferrarra, P., List, P., McArdle, J 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 (ED ). Muffo, J. A., and Whipple, T. W 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) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Completions Survey. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Office of Institutional Research Quality of the UVSC Experience: Alumni Survey Results Graduating Class. Paulsen, M. B College Choice: Understanding 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 Predicting the likelihood of matriculation for college applicants. Research in Higher Education. 21(3): Rosenfeld, R. A., and Hearn, J. C 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

21 Sax, L. J., Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Mahoney, Kathryn M The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute. Seegmiller, J. F Impressions of CEU as Expressed by Local High School Graduates. (ED ). Seymour, L Giving the web the new college try: Students online surf to sample life on campus. The Washington Post. 28 March: A11. Smith, K A comparison of the college decisions of two-year and four-year college students. College & University. 65(Winter): Smith, S., and Matthews, T How do students choose a particular college? A survey of admitted students: College Student Journal. 25(4): Spies, R 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 Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the high school and beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher Education. 31: St. John, E. P., and Noell, J 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): Stoyanoff, E. M Marketing Questionnaire Reveals Motivation of Student Sample. (ED ). Sudman, S Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press. Tatham, E. L Using Research and Planning in Marketing at Two Year Colleges: Analyzing Enrollment Trends, Retention, or Students and Educational Needs. (ED ). Terkla, D. G., and Wright, S. M Enrollment Management: Factors that Influence College Choice. (ED ). Tierney, M. L The Impact of financial aid on student demand for public/private higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 51(5): The impact of institutional net price on student demand for public and private higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2(4):

22 Student college choice sets: Toward an empirical characterization. Research in Higher Education. 18(3): Competitive structure of selected college student markets. College & University. 59: Trusheim, D., Crouse, J., and Middaugh, M College applicants attitudes and enrollment decisions. Research in Higher Education. 31(3): Welki, A. M., and Navratil, F. J The role of applicants perceptions in the choice of college. College & University. (Winter): Zemsky, R., and Oedel, P The Structure of College Choice. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., and Berberich, M. A Toward an understanding of collegiate enrollments: A first test of the market segment model. Journal of Education Finance. 5:

23

24 24

25

26 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions UVSC BYUP BYUI USU SUU UU WSU Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Characteristics Female % % % % % % 30.8% Male % % % % % % 12.4% Low Ability % % % % % % 18.7% Average Ability % % % % % % 14.6% High Ability % % % % % % 10.6% First Choice % % % % % 14.9% 3.2% Other Choice % % % % % % 39.8% Pursing Associates % % % % % 7 1.2% 3.5% Pursing Bachelors % % % % % % 36.6% Not Work % % % % % % Work 1-10 Hours % % % % % % 10.8% Work Hours % % % % % % 21.7% Work Hours % % % % % % 7.6% Work 31 Or More % 9 4.0% 6 2.6% 6 2.6% 6 2.6% 4 1.8% 1.4% Low Income % % % % % % 4.4% Middle Income % % % % % % 15.7% High Income % % % % % % 19.8% Rural % % % % % % 17.8% Urban % % % % % % 21.5% White % % % % % % 37.6% Minority % % 8 1.6% % % % 5 1.0% Out-of-State % % % % % % In-State % % % % % % 42.8%

27 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions (Continued) UVSC BYUP BYUI USU SUU UU WSU Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Major of Interest Health Sciences % % % % % % 4 0.9% Business & Management % % % 9 3.0% 9 3.0% 9 3.0% Visual & Performing Arts % % % % % 4 1.9% 1 0.5% Elementary Education % % % % 8 3.9% 5 2.4% 1 0.5% Education % % % % % 4 2.2% 2 1.1% Psychology % % 5 3.8% 8 6.1% 3 2.3% 3 2.3% Nursing (registered/bsn) % % 7 5.9% 7 5.9% 2 1.7% 3 2.5% 1 0.8% Teacher Education % % % 7 6.3% 5 4.5% 6 5.4% Physical Therapy/Assisting % 7 6.3% 6 5.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.9% 5 4.5% Computer Programming Software Engineering % 3 2.8% 7 6.5% 1 0.9% 5 4.7% Social Sciences % % 2 2.0% 5 5.0% 6 6.0% 2 2.0% Communications % % 8 8.1% 7 7.1% 2 2.0% 3 3.0% 1 1.0% Engineering (preengineering) % % 4 4.1% 2 2.1% 3 3.1% 3 3.1% Medicine (premedicine) % % 6 6.3% 3 3.1% 3 3.1% 6 6.3% 1 1.0% Music Performance % % 5 5.8% 4 4.7% 4 4.7% 4 4.7% Computer & Information Science % 8 9.8% 5 6.1% 2 2.4% 2 2.4% 1 1.2% 1 1.2% Dental Hygiene % 5 6.8% 5 6.8% 4 5.4% 2 2.7% 1 1.4% 1 1.4% Architecture % 5 6.9% 3 4.2% 5 6.9% 3 4.2% Human/Family & Consumer Science % % 5 7.2% 4 5.8% 3 4.3% 1 1.4% Community & Personal Services % 2 2.9% 5 7.4% 4 5.9% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 27

28 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Four-Year Institutions (Continued) UVSC BYUP BYUI USU SUU UU WSU Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Major of Interest Accounting % % 4 6.6% 3 4.9% 1 1.6% Science % % 5 8.2% 5 8.2% 3 4.9% 2 3.3% 2 3.3% Business Administration & Management % % 1 1.7% 4 6.9% 2 3.4% 3 5.2% 1 1.7% Law (pre-law) % % 2 3.4% 4 6.9% 1 1.7% Trades & Industrial % 1 1.7% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% Business & Office % % % 4 7.1% 5 8.9% 1 1.8% Architectural Drafting/CADD % 4 7.3% 5 9.1% 1 1.8% 1 1.8% Engineering Related Technologies % % 1 1.9% 2 3.8% 2 3.8% Computer Science % % 2 3.9% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% Agricultural Sciences % 2 4.0% 3 6.0% % 1 2.0% Interior Design % % 3 6.5% % 2 4.3% 1 2.2% Airplane Piloting & Navigation % 2 4.4% 1 2.2% 1 2.2% 1 2.2% Secondary Education % % 3 6.8% 4 9.1% 4 9.1% 2 4.5% 1 2.3% Dance % 4 9.1% 1 2.3% 1 2.3% 2 4.5% 3 6.8% Art % 2 4.7% 4 9.3% 2 4.7% 1 2.3% Dentistry (pre-dentistry) % % 1 2.6% 2 5.1% 1 2.6% Biology % % 2 5.3% % 1 2.6% 2 5.3% Photography % 1 2.9% % 3 8.8% 1 2.9% Drama/Theatre Arts % % 2 6.3% 2 6.3% 3 9.4% 28

29 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions Not Attending SLCC SNOW DIXIE CEU Other Colleges Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Characteristics Female % % % % % % Male % % % % % % Low Ability % % % % % % Average Ability % % % % % % High Ability % % % % % % First Choice % % % % % % Other Choice % % % % % % Pursing Associates % % % % 9 1.5% % Pursing Bachelors % % % % % % Not Work % 9 1.6% % % 4 0.7% % Work 1-10 Hours % % % % % % Work Hours % % % % % % Work Hours % % % % % % Work 31 Or More % % 4 1.8% 6 2.6% 1 0.4% 9 4.0% Low Income % % % % % % Middle Income % % % % % % High Income % % % % % % Rural % % % % % % Urban % % % % % % White % % % % % % Minority % % % % 6 1.2% % Out-of-State % % % % 2 0.1% % In-State % % % % % % 29

30 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions (Continued) Not Attending SLCC SNOW DIXIE CEU Other Colleges Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Health Sciences % % % % % % Business & Management % % % % 2 0.7% % Visual & Performing Arts % % 7 3.3% % % Elementary Education % 5 2.4% % 5 2.4% 3 1.4% % Education % 7 3.8% % % 2 1.1% % Psychology % % 7 5.3% 6 4.6% 1 0.8% 9 6.9% Nursing (registered/bsn) % 8 6.8% 7 5.9% 3 2.5% 5 4.2% 2 1.7% Teacher Education % 1 0.9% % 4 3.6% 3 2.7% 4 3.6% Physical Therapy/Assisting % % 8 7.2% 4 3.6% 2 1.8% Computer Programming Software Engineering % 4 3.7% 2 1.9% 4 3.7% 3 2.8% 5 4.7% Social Sciences % 4 4.0% 6 6.0% 7 7.0% 1 1.0% 4 4.0% Communications % 6 6.1% 6 6.1% 2 2.0% 3 3.0% 5 5.1% Engineering (pre-engineering) % 8 8.2% 1 1.0% 4 4.1% 3 3.1% 7 7.2% Medicine (pre-medicine) % 3 3.1% 4 4.2% 1 1.0% 3 3.1% 5 5.2% Music Performance % 6 7.0% 2 2.3% 2 2.3% 5 5.8% Computer & Information Science % 6 7.3% 1 1.2% 1 1.2% 2 2.4% 5 6.1% Dental Hygiene % % 2 2.7% % 2 2.7% Architecture % 6 8.3% 5 6.9% 2 2.8% 2 2.8% 4 5.6% Human/Family & Consumer Science % 5 7.2% 4 5.8% 1 1.4% 5 7.2% 4 5.8% Community & Personal Services % % 2 2.9% 2 2.9% 2 2.9% 5 7.4% 30

31 Table 5. Recruitment of Students: Other Institutions (Continued) Not Attending SLCC SNOW DIXIE CEU Other Colleges Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Major of Interest Accounting % 3 4.9% 3 4.9% 1 1.6% 3 4.9% 5 8.2% Science % 1 1.6% 2 3.3% 4 6.6% 1 1.6% 1 1.6% Business Administration & Management % 3 5.2% 1 1.7% 3 5.2% 3 5.2% Law (pre-law) % 5 8.6% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% 5 8.6% Trades & Industrial % 2 3.4% 2 3.4% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% Business & Office % 4 7.1% 2 3.6% 5 8.9% 2 3.6% Architectural Drafting/CADD % 1 1.8% 2 3.6% 5 9.1% 1 1.8% Engineering Related Technologies % 2 3.8% 2 3.8% 3 5.7% 1 1.9% Computer Science % 4 7.8% 2 3.9% 2 3.9% 3 5.9% Agricultural Sciences % 4 8.0% 3 6.0% 4 8.0% 1 2.0% Interior Design % 2 4.3% 4 8.7% 1 2.2% 1 2.2% Airplane Piloting & Navigation % 1 2.2% 1 2.2% 4 8.9% Secondary Education % 4 9.1% 1 2.3% 4 9.1% Dance % 2 4.5% 2 4.5% 2 4.5% 2 4.5% 1 2.3% Art % % 3 7.0% 1 2.3% 2 4.7% Dentistry (pre-dentistry) 2 4.7% 2 4.7% 2 4.7% 1 2.3% 3 7.0% Biology % 1 2.6% 2 5.1% Photography % 1 2.6% % Drama/Theatre Arts % 3 8.8% 3 8.8% 3 8.8% 1 2.9% Accounting % 2 6.3% 1 3.1% 2 6.3% 1 3.1% 1 3.1% 31