TITLE:
School Choice of Computing Students: A Comparative Perspective from Two Universities
AUTHORS:
Rex P. Bringula, Ma. Ymelda C. Batalla, Shirley D. Moraga, Lester Dave R. Ochengco, Kyle N. Ohagan, Rolando R. Lansigan
KEYWORDS:
Competition; Computing Students; Information Technology; Institutional Image; School Choice; School Marketing
JOURNAL NAME:
Creative Education,
Vol.3 No.6A,
October
26,
2012
ABSTRACT: This descriptive study utilized a validated questionnaire to determine the profile of two sets of students and their level of consideration in deciding to enroll in their University. It also determined whether their level of consideration in deciding to enroll in their University significantly differed from each other. It was found out that most of the University of the East (UE) and National University (NU) respondents were male respondents taking up Information Technology. They did not have a home province, lived in Manila and Quezon City, lived in family-owned houses, belonged to a family with five family members, and travelled at least an hour in going to school through jeepneys. On the other hand, they were different in terms of family monthly income (most of the UE respondents belonged to a family with a higher family monthly income) and number of family members who studied in the University (most of the NU respondents had at least one member who studied in the same University). It was also noted that more than a quarter of NU respondents lived near their school. UE and NU respondents agreed that they considered nine and five, respectively, of the eleven institutional image indicators in deciding to enroll in the University. UE respondents had the highest consideration on Admission Process and Course Offering while NU respondents had the highest consideration on Scholarships and Grants. Test of difference between means revealed that the level of considerations of the respondents on the institutional image indicators significantly differed in nine out of the eleven indicators. Thus, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the level of consideration of the respondents in deciding to enroll in the two Universities in terms of institutional image indicators is partially rejected. Conclusions, recommendations, and limitations of the study were also discussed.