School Choice of Computing Students: A Comparative Perspective from Two Universities

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.326161   PDF   HTML     4,454 Downloads   6,815 Views   Citations


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.

Share and Cite:

Bringula, R. , Batalla, M. , Moraga, S. , Ochengco, L. , Ohagan, K. & Lansigan, R. (2012). School Choice of Computing Students: A Comparative Perspective from Two Universities. Creative Education, 3, 1070-1078. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.326161.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Alese, B. K., & Owoyemi, S. O. (2004). Factor analytic approach to internet usage in South—Western Nigeria. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 4, 171-188.
[2] Andre-Bechley, L. (2007). Finding space and managing distance: Public school choice in an urban California district. Urban Studies, 44, 1355-1376. doi:10.1080/00420980701302304
[3] Banya, K., & Elu, J. (2001). The World Bank and financing higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Higher Education, 42, 1-34. doi:10.1023/A:1017584501585
[4] Bashir, Z., Mojoka, M. I., & Mahmood, T. (2011). Comparison of quality indicators in public and private secondary schools of Hazara Region, Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 157-172.
[5] Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 217-230. doi:10.1080/13583883.2002.9967080
[6] Brewer, P., & Carnes, L. (2008). The perceived impact of physical facilities on the student learning environment. Business Education Digest, 17, 3-21.
[7] Bukowska, G., & Siwinska-Gorzelak, J. (2011). School competition and the quality of education: Introducing market incentives into public services: The case of Poland. Economics of Transition, 19, 151-177. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0351.2010.00397.x.
[8] Chapman, R. G. (1986). Toward a theory of college selection: A model of college search and choice behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 246-250.
[9] Dahari, Z. B., & Ya, M. S. (2011). Factors that influence parents’ choice of pre-schools education in Malaysia: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 115-128.
[10] Daily, M. C., Farewell, S., & Kumar, G. (2010). Factors influencing the university selection of international students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14, 59-75.
[11] Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2002). Statistics without Maths for Psychology using SPSS for Windows. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
[12] De Raadt, M. (2004). Searching for tomorrow’s programmers. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 1, 597-603.
[13] Drewes, T., & Michael, C. (2006). How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada. Research in Higher Education, 47, 781-800. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9015-6
[14] Duarte, P. O., Alves, H. B., & Raposo, M. B. (2010). Understanding university image: A structural equation model approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7, 21-36. doi:10.1007/s12208-009-0042-9
[15] Fahim, Y., & Sami, N. (2011). Adequacy, efficiency and equity of higher education financing: The case of Egypt. Prospects, 41, 47-67. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9182-x
[16] Gabriel, S., Cosmin, M., & Marius, P. (2008). What is wrong with our schools? A guide to education reform. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 2, 449-454.
[17] George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 16.0 update (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
[18] Hagel, P., & Shaw, R. (2008). The influence of delivery mode on consumer choice of university. European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 531-536.
[19] Harrison, M. (2005a). Policy forum: Government policy and performance of schools competition, regulation and private schools. The Australian Economic Review, 38, 66-74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8462.2005.00353.x
[20] Harrison, M. (2005b). Public problems, private solutions: School choice and its consequences. Cato Journal, 25, 197-215.
[21] Ho, H.-f., & Wang, F.-Y. (2011). Prestige, parallel or predatory—Pricing strategies amongst Taiwanese universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3, 67-77. doi:10.5539/ijms.v3n3p67.
[22] Hu, S., & Hossler, D. (2000). Willingness to pay and preference for private institutions. Research in Higher Education, 41, 685-701. doi:10.1023/A:1007016620622
[23] Jackson, G. A. (1980). How students pay for college: Temporal and individual variation. Higher Education, 9, 619-632. doi:10.1007/BF02259956
[24] Jimenez, J. D. D. & Salas-Velasco, M. (2000). Modeling educational choices: A binomial logit model applied to the demand for higher education. Higher Education, 40, 293-311. doi:10.1023/A:1004098300436
[25] Kabbani, N., & Salloum, S. (2011). Implications of financing higher education for access and equity: The case of Syria. Prospects, 41, 97-113. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9178-6.
[26] Kanaan, J. H., Al-Salamat, M. N., & Hanania, M. D. (2011). Political economy of cost-sharing in higher education: The case of Jordan. Prospects, 41, 23-45. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9179-5.
[27] Kerstetter, K. M. (2011). Investigating high school band recruitment procedures using educational marketing principles. Journal of Band Research, 46, 1-17.
[28] Khan, F., & Iqbal, M. Z. (2011). Impediments in enhancing the quality of education in public sector higher educational organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 453-465.
[29] Leivisk?, K., & Siponen, M. (2010). Attitudes of sixth form female students toward the IT field. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40, 34-49. on. Prospects, 41, 69-95. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9183-9.
[30] Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutio
[31] Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46, 469-489. doi:10.1023/A:1027381906977
[32] Lenox, T. L., Woratschek, C. R., & Davis, G. A. (2008). Exploring declining CS/IS/IT enrollments. Information Systems Education Journal, 6, 1-11.
[33] Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 466-479. doi:10.1108/09513540610683711.
[34] McCarthy, E. E., Sen, A. K., & Garrity, B. F. (2012). Cross-border education: Factors influencing Canadian students’ choice of institutions of higher education in the United States. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, 7, 446-457.
[35] Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20, 523-535. doi:10.1080/14783360902863713
[36] Nahas, C. (2011). Financing and political economy of higher education: The case of Lebans in students’ retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 303-311.
[37] Novak, J. (2006). Choice matters: What needs to change to make schools competitive? Policy, 22, 23-28.
[38] Padlee, S. F., Kamaruddin, A., & Baharun, R. (2010). International students’ choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2, 202-211.
[39] Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows version 10. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[40] Parker, R. S., Cook, S., & Pettijohn, C. E. (2007). School choice attributes: Positioning a private school. Services Marketing Quarterly, 28, 21-33. doi:10.1300/J396v28n04_02
[41] Pauline, J. (2010). Factors influencing college selection by NCAA Division I, II, and III Lacrosse players. Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 5, 62-69.
[42] Pereda, M., Airey, D., & Bennett, M. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The experience of overseas students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 6, 55-67. doi:10.3794/johlste.62.160.
[43] Reddy, M. (2011). Determinants of student choice of business schools in India: A factor analytic investigation. International Journal of Management, 28, 751-762.
[44] Rizvi, S. A. A., & Khan, M. N. (2010). The uniqueness of educational marketing. Journal of Economics and Engineering, 4, 39-43.
[45] Robert, P. (2010). School origin, school choice, and student performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16, 107-129. doi:10.1080/13803611.2010.484972.
[46] Salahuddin, M., Islam, R., Akbar, D., & Raihan, K. M. (2008). How can we increase the quality of private schools in Bangladesh from the perspectives of students and managers? International Journal of Management Perspectives, 2, 1-17.
[47] Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2010). Enrolling in Higher Education: The Perceptions of Stakeholders. Journal of Institutional Research, 15, 9-15.
[48] Sidin, S. Md., Hussin, S. R., & Soon, T. H. (2003). An exploratory study of factors influencing the college choice decision of undergraduate students in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review, 8, 259-280.
[49] Szekeres, J. (2010). Sustaining student numbers in the competitive marketplace. Journal of Higher Educational Policy and Management, 32, 429-439. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2010.511116.
[50] Tsagala, E., & Kordaki, M. (2007). Critical factors influencing secondary school pupil’s decisions to study computing in tertiary education: Gender differences. Education and Information Technologies, 12, 281-295. doi:10.1007/s10639-006-9026-0.
[51] Ud Din, M. N., Murtaza, A., & Khan, F. (2011). Comparative study of quality of education in public and private secondary schools in NWFP. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 416-429.
[52] Ur Rehman, N., Khan, J., Tariq, M., & Tasleem, S. (2010). Determinants of parents’ choice in selection of private schools for their children in District Peshawar of Khyber Pakhunkhwa Province. European Journal of Scientific Research, 44, 177-187.
[53] Vaduva, S. A., Fotea, I. S., Corcea, M., & Lazar, M. (2011). Beyond satisfaction: Engaging students and faculty in a Romanian business school. The Marketing Management Journal, 21, 207-213.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.