A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT’S CHOICE OF FPT UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In Marketing By Mr. Nguyen Thanh Duoc ID: MBA04008 International University - Vietnam National University HCMC August 2013 A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT’S CHOICE OF FPT UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In Marketing by Mr. Nguyen Thanh Duoc ID: MBA04008 International University - Vietnam National University HCMC August 2013 Under the guidance and approval of the committee, and approved by all its members, this thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree. Approved: ---------------------------------------------Chairperson --------------------------------------------Advisor ---------------------------------------------Committee member --------------------------------------------Committee member ---------------------------------------------Committee member --------------------------------------------Committee member Acknowledgements This thesis would not be completed without the help and support of the people I have benefited from during the preparation and completion of this study. First and foremost, I would like to express my whole-hearted gratefulness to my advisor, Dr. Nguyen Quynh Mai. It was her invaluable advice, encouragement and inspiration that motivated me from the very beginning to the end of this study. I also thank to the academic staff of School of Business, International University HCMC for their help with the data collection. I really appreciate the support of my colleagues at FPT University HCMC so that I could pursue this study. I also would like to thank my classmates of IU-MBA04 for their motivation and sharing when I faced some challenges and problems. I am especially thankful to the students who voluntarily took part in the interviews and taking the survey. Without their help I would not have completed this study. Last but not least, I owe my wife and little daughter a debt of gratitude. They always silently support and sacrifice the quality time we should have had together for my study. Nguyen Thanh Duoc – August 2013 i Plagiarism Statements I would like to declare that, apart from the acknowledged references, this thesis either does not use language, ideas, or other original material from anyone; or has not been previously submitted to any other educational and research programs or institutions. I fully understand that any writings in this thesis contradicted to the above statement will automatically lead to the rejection from the MBA program at the International University – Vietnam National University Hochiminh City. ii Copyright Statement This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognize that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author’s prior consent. © Nguyen Thanh Duoc/ MBA-04008/2013 iii TABLE OF CONTENT List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................ viii Abbreviation..................................................................................................................... ix Abstract ..............................................................................................................................x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 1.1. Background of the study ......................................................................................1 1.2. Statement of problem ...........................................................................................3 1.3. Study objectives ...................................................................................................5 1.4. Research Questions .............................................................................................5 1.5. Significance of the study ......................................................................................6 1.6. Scope and Limitation of the study ........................................................................6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................8 2.1 College choice theories............................................................................................8 2.1.1 Economic models ............................................................................................9 2.1.2 Sociological models ...................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Combined models ......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Influencing Factors of College Choice ................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Student characteristics ................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Significant people ......................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 University characteristics .............................................................................. 15 2.2.4 University communication to prospective students......................................... 19 2.3 Study on College Choice Undertaken in Vietnam ................................................... 20 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................. 23 3.1 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Student Characteristics .................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 Significant people ......................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 University characteristics .............................................................................. 25 3.1.4 University communication efforts with prospective students .......................... 26 3.2 Research method ................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Measurement ......................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................ 28 iv 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Qualitative Study........................................................................................... 28 First draft questionnaire - Pilot Test ............................................................... 31 Final draft Questionnaire ............................................................................... 32 3.5 Population and sampling ....................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Target population .......................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Sampling ....................................................................................................... 33 3.6 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 33 3.7 Data analysis technique ......................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS....................................................... 35 4.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 35 4.1.1 Survey Response Rate ................................................................................... 35 4.1.2 Demographic profile ..................................................................................... 36 4.2 Reliability Analysis ................................................................................................ 42 4.3 Indentifying most influential factors ....................................................................... 42 4.4 Analyzing most influential factors .......................................................................... 44 4.4.1 Difference of influential factors among students by GPA ............................... 45 4.4.2 Difference of influential factors among students by living areas..................... 48 4.4.3 Difference of influential factors among students by household income .......... 51 4.4.4 Difference of influential factors among students by university ....................... 57 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 62 5.1 Main Findings ....................................................................................................... 62 5.1.1 Most influential factors on student’s choice of university ............................... 62 5.1.2 Difference of most influential factors among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income ..................................................... 65 5.1.3 Difference of most influential factors between FPT University students and students from other universities .................................................................................. 67 5.2 Implications........................................................................................................... 67 5.2.1 What to communicate.................................................................................... 68 5.2.2 Who to communicate..................................................................................... 68 5.2.3 How to communicate .................................................................................... 69 5.2.4 How to stay competitive ................................................................................ 69 5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ......................................... 70 REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 71 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 78 v List of Tables Table 1: Higher Education Institutions in Vietnam, 2000 – 2012 1 Table 2: Students of Higher Education in Vietnam, 2000 - 2012 2 Table 3: Factors of Significant People 25 Table 4: Factors of University Characteristics 26 Table 5: Factors of University Communication efforts 27 Table 6: Reliability statistics of pilot data 32 Table 7: Response rate 36 Table 8: Frequency and percentage of respondents by gender 36 Table 9: Grade 12 GPA 37 Table 10: University Entrance Examination Scores 38 Table 11: Living area distribution 39 Table 12: Parents' level of education 40 Table 13: Household income 41 Table 14: Reliability Test 42 Table 15: Means of all factors 43 Table 16: Results of mean comparison with test value = 3.5 44 Table 17: Mean difference of university reputation among students by grade12 GPA 46 Table 18: Difference of influential factors among students by grade 12 GPA 47 Table 19: Mean difference of lecturers’ qualification among students by living areas 49 Table 20: Mean difference of university reputation among students by living areas 50 Table 21: Difference of influential factors among students by living area 51 vi Table 22: Mean difference of employment opportunity among students by household income 53 Table 23: Mean difference of educational facility among students by household income 54 Table 24: Mean difference of English instruction language among students by household income 56 Table 25: Difference of influential factors among students by household income 57 Table 26: Mean difference of educational facility among students by university 58 Table 27: Mean difference of English instruction language among students by university 59 Table 28: Mean difference of university reputation among students by university 60 Table 29: Difference of influential factors among students by university 61 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Chapman’s (1981) Model of Influences on Student College Choice 12 Figure 2: Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-phase model of college choice 13 Figure 3: Conceptual framework of factor influencing student choice of university 23 viii Abbreviation HCMC: Ho Chi Minh City HEI: higher education institute IT: Information Technology IU: International University MOET: Ministry of Education and Training SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ix Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the factors influencing student’s choice of university. This study also compared the most influencing factors among students by grade 12 GPA, living area and household income. Finally it compared the influence of these factors between first-year students of FPT University and two other universities to see if there were any significant differences among different groups of students. The main research method applied in this study was quantitative study. Through One-sample T-Test and analysis of variance, the results showed that the most influencing factors are employment opportunity, educational facility, English instruction language, lecturers’ qualification, university reputation, cost, and admission opportunity. Results also indicated that there were more similarities than differences of most influencing factors among students by grade 12 GPA, living area, household income and university. Key words: factors, choice of university, FPT University x This page is intentionally left blank xi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION This chapter will describe with background of the study which provides some facts and figures of higher education in Vietnam. Next it will discuss the problems FPT University is facing. Then it will mention the study objects, research questions, and significance of the study. Finally it ends with the scope and limitation of the study. 1.1. Background of the study With the Government’s policy of socialization of education, higher education is no longer the domain of public institutions. Since Thang Long Private University received her official decision of establishment in 1994, there have been a number of private colleges and universities founded (Lam Quang Thiep, 2009). The 2000s period saw a booming growth of new higher education institutions (HEIs). Table 1: Higher Education Institutions in Vietnam, 2000 – 2012 Year 2000 - 2001 2005 - 2006 2011 - 2012 Institution 178 279 419 3-year college 104 154 215 Public 99 142 187 Private 5 9 28 University 74 125 204 Public 57 100 150 Private 17 25 54 Source: MOET (2012) Table 1 shows that in the 1999 – 2000 academic years, there were only 178 public and private HEIs of which 156 were public institutions and 22 were private 1 ones. Ten years later the total number of HEIs increased to 419 of which 337 were public institutions and 82 were private in the academic year of 2011-2012 (MOET, 2012). The socialization and expansion of higher education has increased the number of both public and private HEIs and the participation of foreign universities in Vietnam by setting up campuses in Vietnam or offering twining programs with a local university in Vietnam. This phenomenon has provided more chances for students to pursue their higher education. The Table 2 illustrates the number of students of higher education over the period 2000 and 2012. In the academic session 2000 -2001 there were 918,228 students at all institutions of higher education. After five years, this number was 1,387,107 and after ten years, this number was 2,204,313 students, 2.4 times as many as of that in 2000 – 2001. Table 2: Students of Higher Education in Vietnam, 2000 - 2012 Year 2000 - 2001 2005 - 2006 2011 - 2012 Institution 918,228 1,387,107 2,204,313 3-year college 186,723 299,294 Public 171,922 277,176 613,933 Private 14,801 22,118 142,359 University 731,505 1,087,813 1,448,021 Public 642,041 949,511 1,258,785 Private 89,464 138,302 189,236 756,292 Source: MOET (2012) 2 The entrance to higher education in Vietnam is determined through a National Entrance Examination like in some other countries such as China, Japan, Greece, Iran and Turkey (Tatar & Oktay, 2006). Universities in Vietnam recruit students according to their scores of this examination but not less than floor scores set by MOET. Besides the advantages of increasing number of HEIs, the growth of HEIs has increased the competitive nature of higher education industry for undergraduate students in Viet Nam. According to Tran and Cao (2009) the number of students graduating from high school remains at 1.1 million in recent years. After recruiting new students for the 2012 – 2013 academic session, many public universities and private universities could not recruit enough students to run their training programs (Lam, 2012). 1.2. Statement of problem As a matter of facts the higher education industry in Vietnam is experiencing aggressive competitiveness among higher education institutions. While public universities offer new academic programs to attract more students, private universities promise to offer financial aid packages, such as scholarships up to 100 percent tuition waiver for qualified students (Phan, 2012). The strategies deployed by many institutions are considered short-term or temporary. Although HEIs invest a huge amount of money on recruiting strategies, many of the institution are not confident to what extent their strategies are successful or what they will be like next year. Every year graduating high school students have to make two critical decisions in their lives. According to Johnson and Chapman (cited in Beswick, 1989) first they have to decide whether or not to continue with higher education, second 3 they have to choose which HEI to attend. Based on some statistics by MOET, around one million graduating high school students take annual National Entrance Examination to University. However, the field of college choice and factors associated with college choice has not been studied much in the context of Vietnam. Identifying the most influencing factors that recent graduating high school students have considered is the ultimate goal of this study. FPT University (Hereafter called the University), established in 2006 by FPT corporation, is a young private university. Its mission is to train high quality labor force in information technology and related industries for FPT Corporation and other businesses in Vietnam and worldwide. The University provides training courses in three campuses in Ha Noi, in Da Nang and in Ho Chi Minh City. The University offers undergraduate degrees in Software Engineering, Computer Science, Electronic and communication, Graphic Design, Information Security and Safety, Information System, Hotel Management, Business Administration and Finance. To be accepted to the University, students must fulfill two academic requirements. First students must obtain score at least equal to MOET floor score in the national entrance examination to universities. Second students must pass the University’s own entrance examination. Competitive pressure has forced the University to spend hundreds of millions of Vietnam dong on marketing programs all year round to attract students all over Vietnam. However, in an interview with an FPT University recruiting representative, he stated that for the last two years the University could recruit only between seventy and eighty percent of expected number of new students. In other words at the moment the University is facing strong competition from other HEIs to attract and recruit prospective students. 4 1.3. Study objectives The purpose of this study is - To explore factors that are most influential to students’ choice of university; - To compare and contrast the most influential factors among students by characteristics - To compare and contrast the most influential factors influencing student’s choice of FPT University and other universities; - To provide suggestions on recruitment strategies to FPT administrators. The main purpose of this study is to explore factors that are most influential to students’ choice of university. Next focusing on the most influential factors the researcher compares and contrasts to see if there are any differences of these factors among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income. Then the researcher continues to compare and contrast whether or not there are any differences of these factors between FPT University students and students from other universities. Finally, the findings from above analysis help formulate suggestions for FPT administrators on recruiting strategies. 1.4. Research Questions The following questions are addressed in this study: 1. What factors most influence student’s choice of university? 2. Are there any differences of most influential factors among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income? 3. Are there any differences of most influential factors between FPT University students and students from other universities? 5 1.5. Significance of the study In terms of academic benefits the study has potential to contribute to the field of college choice research. The findings may increase knowledge about factors that are considered influential in Vietnam. In terms of practical significance findings of this study will provide meaningful insights about factors affecting student’s choice of university to HEIs, high schools and those who are involved in recruiting and consulting. Particularly, the results would help FPT University plan more effective marketing programs in attracting new students. The survival of a college or university depends on the number of students who are recruited every year and number of students who successfully complete the programs. Therefore, institutions should attempt to recruit students who will succeed in their higher education (Beswick, 1989). Hossler & Palmer (2008) also emphasized the importance of understanding factors to college choice: … “It is critical for admission professionals to understand factors that shape the college decision-making process and the stages students move through as they make decisions.”.. Knowing and understanding factors that students consider influential are very important to high schools and counselors. This knowledge would enable counselors to help students make appropriate choice (Beswick, 1989). 1.6. Scope and Limitation of the study The participants in this study was limited to freshmen students of FPT University in Ho Chi Minh City, International University, a one of the top public universities and Hoa Sen University, one of the top private universities in Ho Chi Minh City. 6 These three universities emphasize on innovation and the use of English as a medium in higher education. First year students were chosen as the subject of this study because it is assumed that first-year undergraduate students will still remember the process they underwent in deciding to continue to university. Much research on student college choice has been conducted on high school age students in Vietnam and other countries. However, researchers have recently revealed that evaluation of student’s choice process after they enter the university is more appropriate than previously suspected. For example, Brennan (cited in Kusumawati, 2013) suggested that students were surveyed during the early weeks of their first semester in order to limit the potential for cognitive dissonance influencing the type of information the student had access to and to attempt to limit the types of issues they felt were important in their decision. The data was collected through a survey at one point in time (cross-sectional study). Therefore, the findings were valid only to students of three chosen universities in Ho Chi Minh City. It could not be generalized to other students in other locations nor in other HEIs. 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter discusses some college choice theories and popular models in the world. Then it presents some typical influential factors from previous studies. Finally this chapter provides results from other research on college choice undertaken in Vietnam recently. 2.1 College choice theories College choice – also known as university choice – is referred to as a process that involves three decisions that students finishing high school education must make: whether to attend college after high school; selecting a particular institution; and applying (Hossler et al., 1989, as cited in Schwartz, 2011). For Hossler and Gallagher (1987, cited in Schwartz, 2011) college choice is a rank order decision, a process by which students choose a particular institution to attend from a set of institutions to which they have been admitted. The importance and value of higher education is unquestionable as increased education leads to higher salaries, longer working lives, more career mobility, and a higher quality of life. Students are now more careful when considering the important choice of which higher education institution to attend and which program to follow (Leslie and Brinkman, 1988 and Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; as cited in Vrontis et al., 2007). Vrontis et al. (2007) express that looking at higher education as a process, it is apparent that given the above parameters, the customer in this process is the student. On the other hand, the providers, the educational institutions, just like any other industry with customers, have as a primary purpose to satisfy their customers. Relying on fundamental marketing concepts, it becomes apparent that once institutions identify the needs and wants of the customer, the task of satisfying these 8 needs and wants becomes more feasible (Eagle and Brennan, 2005, cited in Vrontis et al., 2007). Punj and Staelin (1978) state that ‘little is known about the underlying student buying behavior and how they select a college’. A number of researchers try to understand and explain this student behavior. Chapman (1981) was the first to develop a model intended “to assist college administrators responsible for recruitment policy to identify the pressures and influences they need to consider in developing institutional recruiting policy, and to aid continued research in the area of student college choice” (Vrontis et al., 2007). Over the years several theoretical models attempt to describe the factors that influence a student’s choice of a specific institution of higher education. The college choice models include the following: (1) economic models; (2) sociological models; and (3) combined models (Fernandez, 2010). 2.1.1 Economic models According to Hossler and Palmer (2008) college choice models that use economics as a lens approach college decision making as a rational process. These researchers explain economic studies view going to college as an investment decision and assume students seek to gain the maximum return on their investment. Similarly, Fernandez (2010) expresses that students choose a college based on the level of value that each institution offers by comparing costs with perceived benefits. She indicates that the underlying assumption of the economic models is that students will select a particular institution if the benefits of attending the institution are greater than the perceived benefits of enrolling in other institutions. The economic models look at the influence of tuition costs and financial aid on college choice. For example, there are noteworthy differences in the way students 9 from low-income families and those from higher-income families respond to college costs (Paulsen and St. John, cited in Hossler and Palmer, 2008) 2.1.2 Sociological models College choice models that draw on sociological approaches tend to focus on individual actions of students in the college choice process. These models often examine the influence of others, campus climate, cost, and academic programs on student choices. Many of these studies are longitudinal, focusing on the stages students go through when deciding on a college. These models also provide insight into the timing of various aspects of the decision-making process (Hossler and Palmer, 2008). Jackson (1982) expresses that the sociological models specify a variety of social and individual factors leading occupational and educational aspiration. Different from economic models, sociological models describe a process that considers decision determinant developed through a student’s life. Sociological approaches to college choice typically emphasize the ways in which socio-economic characteristics influence students’ decisions (Fernandez, 2010). In Manski and Wise (1983)’s view, sociological approaches do not offer a framework for examining how individuals ultimately decide whether to aspire to tertiary education, apply for admission to a set of colleges, or enroll in a particular college or university (cited in Fernandez, 2010). However, Hossler and Palmer (2008) reason that in a lot of college choice studies economic and sociological approaches are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they have a great deal in common and are combined to help explain college choice. Economic models (reflecting the influence of cost on students’ decision-making) and sociological models (demonstrating the influence of interrelated factors influencing 10 college aspirations) were combined in later studies to reflect a more comprehensive view of students’ college choice (Kinzie et al. (2004). 2.1.3 Combined models Two popular combined models of college choice are Chapman Model and Hossler and Gallagher Model. 2.1.3.1 Chapman’s model Chapman’s (1981) model (figure 1) proposes that a student’s general expectation of college life forms when various student characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and scholastic aptitude, interact with external influences from significant others or college characteristics. Chapman separates the choice as being a model of two stages—that of the pre-search and search stage. In the first stage, factors like family income have a direct effect on which colleges are considered. In addition, students appear to favor colleges that enroll students with academic ability similar to their own. During the second stage, the search stage, students gather information about specific institutions. He concluded that there are three external influences that affect a student’s college choice. These are: (1) Significant persons: friends, parents, and high school personnel. (2) Fixed college characteristics: cost, location, availability of program. (3) College efforts to communicate with students: written information, campus visits and admission /recruitment activities. 11 Figure 1: Chapman’s (1981) Model of Influences on Student College Choice 2.1.3.2 Hossler and Gallagher’s model Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-stage model (figure 2) emphasizes aspiration, search, and choice. In the first phase, Predisposition, students decide whether to go to college or to pursue another alternative. In the first stage, familial, societal and economic factors encourage students to attend a college. In the second stage, Search, students proactively explore and gather information about the various higher educational institutions and then decide to apply to certain institutions. They evaluate their academic and financial capabilities in relation to these potential choices. In the last stage, Choice, students choose one institution to attend based on a ranking and rating of each institution available (cited in Chia, 2011). 12 Wagner and Fard (2009) view that the major differences between the models are the descriptions of the intervening variables or characteristics and the ways they define institution activities to encourage student enrollment. Figure 2: Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-phase model of college choice Another line of research on college choice emphasizes how institutional characteristics, such as cost, size, distance, the quality of academic programs, and the availability of financial aid influence college decision-making (Avery and Hoxby, 2004; Lipman Hearne Inc., 2006; Manski and Wise, 1983; Montgomery, 2002; Long, 2003, 2004; Niu, Tienda & Cortes, 2006, cited in Niu, 2006). The literature concerning the choice of whether or not to pursue postsecondary education is numerous, but of little relevance to this study since this study aimed to examine factors influencing choices between institutions being made by individuals who have already enrolled at a university. Therefore the rest of the literature review will focus on findings of influencing factors related to External Chapman’s (1981) model and in Hossler and Gallagher’s model, and other related studies in Vietnamese context. 13 2.2 Influencing Factors of College Choice 2.2.1 Student characteristics Previous research on college choice proves that academic ability affects student’s application decisions. Researchers like Hossler et al., and Paulsen (cited in Desjardins et al., 1999) found that as students’ academic ability and household income increase, students are more likely to choose highly selective and high cost universities. 2.2.2 Significant people Research by Hossler et al. in 1999 (cited in Burns, 2006) on significant persons to a student college choice showed that 43% of respondents reported that they spoke with friends, teachers, counselors, or parents about college. The results revealed that teachers and counselors played an important role in assisting students learn about specific institutions. Johnston (2010) examined data from undergraduate students who rated the influence of various sources of information on their decision to enroll at a university. This researcher also considered data from a survey of university employees who predicted the responses of the students. Results showed that high school teachers, counselors, friends in high school, friends at university, relatives, siblings and parents were rated from important to very important source of influence. Particularly Furukawa (2011) cited that the parental educational background plays the most significant role in shaping the decision of students in the college choice process. According to Hayden (cited in Burns, 2006), opinions of friends and former students weigh heavily on the minds of African American college applicants when deciding between colleges. 14 In the context of Asia, parents play an important role in student’s choice of a university. Research by Tan (2009) showed that parents were the most influential people in helping students select in the Philippines. Kusumawati (2013) conducted a qualitative study of the factors influencing student choice of an Indonesian public university. Preliminary results indicated that students considered 25 criteria for selecting an Indonesian public university. One of the five most important factors was parents. In the case of Malaysia, Sidin et al. (2003) explored the factors influencing the college choice decision with the participation of 210 first year undergraduate students from four public universities and four private ones. The findings showed that friends and schoolmates have the greatest influence over students in making a college choice. Parents and relatives also seem to be very influential over the decision. 2.2.3 University characteristics Location According Servier (1986, cited in Sia, 2010) research has consistently shown that college or university location can be a major factor for potential student’s decision to apply and enroll. Location of the institution has a significant influence on the college choice of high school students according to Wajeed and Micceri (1997). Their research at the University of South Florida (USF) suggested that geographic locations (proximity) is a primary motivating factor for students choosing to attend USF. Other researchers (Absher & Crawford, 1996; Servier, 1994) also stated that some students may be looking for a school close to their hometown or place of work for convenience and accessibility (cited in Sia, 2010). 15 Cost issues Cost-related issues seem to have more importance as years go Joseph & Joseph (2000, cited in Sia, 2010). For instance, in 1979 Houston (cited in Sia, 2010) found they were at the bottom of the scale, while later in 1993 and in 1998 Webb and Joseph & Joseph ( cited Sia, 2010) respectively found that they were one of the most important elements. Jackson (1986, cited in Sia, 2010) concluded that price is a negative influence on college choice. Other researchers (Holsworth and Nind, 2005; Maringe , 2006; and Soutar and Turner ,2002, cited in Sierra, 2012) also concluded in various empirical studies that cost is one of the most important factors that students take into account when choosing a university. In another research by Kusumawati (2013) cost is also rated as one of the most important factors to students of an Indonesian public university. In the case of Thailand, Kitsawad (2013) found that living expenses factor was regarded rather important by most respondents in his study on factors affecting student's choice of university in Thailand. Financial Aids/ Scholarships Leslie and Brinkman (1988, cited in Heller, 2001) examined the role of financial aid in three decisions that students make: 1) the decision whether to enroll in college or not (access); 2) what institution to attend (choice); and 3) whether to continue their enrollment from one year to the next (persistence). Their key conclusions were that financial aid, and in particular grants, had a positive effect on both access and persistence, and encouraged students to enroll in more expensive institutions. They also found that financial aid had the largest influence on the decisions of low-income students. 16 As a matter of fact, Yusof’s study (2008, cited in Sia, 2010) found that financial assistance offered by university as one of the four very important attributes expected from a particular higher education institution of choice. Thus, students who receive financial aid awards are more likely to enter college (Jackson, 1988; Litten, 1982; Manski & Wise, 1983, cited in Sia, 2010). For example, in a study on how institutional grant aid impacts college choice, Hurwitz (2012) concluded that students from lower-income families tend to be substantially more sensitive to financial aid in the college choice process. Academic Issues and Reputation Previous studies show that academic issues and reputation have great influence on university choice. For instance, in the USA researchers like Holsworth and Nind (2005) and Maringe (2006) find in various empirical studies that the most important factors that students take into account when choosing a university: the reputation of the university, faculty, the qualification of teaching staff (Sierra, 2012). According to Soutar & Turner (2002, cited in Kitsawad 2013) reputation and academic quality were two of the outstanding predictors of university choice in Western Australia. Keling (2007, cited in Sia 2010) also stated that the most influential factor that students will evaluate in selecting their choice of institution was reputation of the institution. Peterson (1990, cited in Kitsawad, 2013) noted that the brighter students considered faculty and staff as more significant in the decision-making process. Sierra (2012) studied the factors influencing a student's decision to pursue a communications degree in Spain. Three hundred and forty four students of various private and public universities offering communication science degrees participated in the survey. Findings showed that the leading criteria for Spanish students 17 interested in pursuing studies in communication sciences were a university’s reputation and excellence and the quality of its educational programs. Type of university Type of university, in terms of public private university is an influencing factor on student’s choice of university. In 2010 Fernandez conducted a study to investigate factors influencing the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains Malaysia, a public university. In this study Fernandez (2010) examined the reasons students pursue higher education; the sources of information used by students to help choose a tertiary institution, the factors that influence students’ choice of public versus private institutions, and the factors that influence students’ decision to study at Universiti Sans Malaysia. The results revealed that a student's preference for a public institution is influenced primarily by considerations of quality of education and pecuniary factors. In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice of university. Respondents were asked about their opinions and perceptions on type of university that would influence their choice. Results of this study suggested that a public university was considered as more important for their choice of university by the low, the average, and the high GPA respondents. A private university was considered to be a less important factor for university choice for the average and high level of GPA respondents but those with low GPA seemed to prefer a private university. The respondent with average and high GPA, on the other hand, preferred the public university. Educational facilities The importance of facilities on students' choice of institution has been noted in previous researchers’ papers. Absher and Crawford (1996, cited in Sia, 2010) 18 stated that educational facilities such as classrooms, laboratories and libraries are important in a student’s selection of a college or university. Price et al. (2003) stressed facilities were perceived as having an important influence on students’ choice of institutions. In a similar research on the influence of campus facilities on university choice for students in Hong Kong, Lau (2005) found that among the top 16 influencing factors on choice of university, seven factors were facilities-related factors. These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground, the availability of quiet areas, and quality of lecture halls, IT facilities, health services and areas for self-study. Yamamoto’s (2006) findings also show that physical factors and facilities are two of the important criteria for university selection for Turkish students. Employment opportunities The prospect of future employment is one of the reasons that motivate students in both developing and developed countries to pursue higher education. Joseph and Joseph (1998) noted that career opportunities greatly influenced potential students when choosing a university in New Zealand. Along with other factors, employment opportunities are perceived very important by high school students in the Philippines (Tan, 2009). Job prospect was also rated as one of the top important factors influencing student choice of a university in Indonesia (Kusumawati, 2013). In various empirical studies in the USA show that career opportunities are the most important factors that students consider when selecting a university (Sierra, 2010). 2.2.4 University communication to prospective students In a study by Yamchuti (2002, cited in Kitsawad, 2013) on factors influencing college choice on the newly opened private colleges in Thailand, this researcher stated that college marketing efforts impact student's decisions to enroll at 19 newly opened private colleges in Thailand. This does not mean that all communication channels create the same effect on students. For instance, in the Malaysian context, Sidin et al. (2003) explored the degree of influence by external sources on students' choice of university from 210 respondents of four public universities and four private establishments. These researchers found that newspapers, college promotional material are more influential than college counselors and representatives, magazines and Television and radio. College promotional material and representatives have a moderate influence over students. Television and radio seem to have the least influence among the ten sources on students' college choice decision. One of the methods that higher education institutions employ is inviting potential students to visit their campuses. The importance of campus visit was noted in Sia’s (2011) paper as follows: “…A campus visit provides value to both the student and the institution. A campus visit ensures a good match between the student and the college. Students come to campus with certain expectations such as meeting current students who are like them or instructors who show an interest in them. The personal attention received by the student during a campus visit is a major motivator for college choice decision. In this study, the campus visit is rated by a large number of students as the most important source of information in their college search and choice process.” The influence of campus visit was found in previous studies (Hosslers et al, 1990; Lay and Maguire, 1981, cited in Sia, 2011). 2.3 Study on College Choice Undertaken in Vietnam Research on college choice has been carried out in many countries over the years. However; there is a lack of research done in this field of study in Vietnam. 20 In 2009 Tran and Cao conducted a quantitative study on college choice of senior high school students in Quang Ngai province. There were 227 respondents in this research, and the finds showed that five groups of factors affecting high school students’ choice of college. These factor groups are ranked from strongest to weakest: job opportunities, available information of the college, personal characteristics, significant influencing people, and college characteristics. In 2011 Nguyen carried out another similar quantitative research on college choice of senior high school students in Tien Giang Province as part of master thesis. This researcher suggested a model with 8 groups of factors to explore students’ college choice: (1) university attributes, (2) availability of various academic programs, (3) employment opportunities, (4) university efforts to communicate with students, (5) university reputation, (6) acceptance opportunities, (7) significant persons and (8) personal characteristics. The results indicated that the most important factor is the availability and attraction of training programs; the less important factors are college characteristics, ability to meet expectation, college’ effort to communicate with students, and college reputation. This study also concluded that high school students chose HEIs with more considerations. In other words, most of them chose universities or colleges that offer majors matching their ability and interests. In short, previous studies on college choice identify a number of factors that are related to students’ choice of HEIs. First in terms of student characteristics, academic ability and household income control student’s choice of universities or colleges. Second, in terms of significant people, parents, siblings, relatives, high school teachers, counselors and friends play an important role in student choice. Third university characteristics, especially location, cost, financial aids/ scholarships, 21 academic issues/ reputation, university type, educational facilities and employment opportunities, are criteria that students use to evaluate an HEI. Finally communication efforts of institutions also impact students’ application decision. 22 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter will describe the conceptual framework of this study. Then it presents the research method. Finally the measurement, questionnaire design, population and sampling, data collection and analysis techniques are discussed. 3.1 Conceptual Framework Following the discussion in the literature review, the research proposed the conceptual framework of factors influencing students’ choice of university as shown in figure 3. In this framework student characteristics are controlling variables, while significant people, university characteristics and university communication efforts are independent variables. Figure 3: Conceptual framework of factor influencing student choice of university 23 Literature review shows that there are two ways to study the influence of factors to choice of university. The first way is that researchers (Joseph and Joseph (1998); Nguyen, 2011; Tran and Cao, 2009; Wagner and Fard, 2009) propose a research model and hypotheses, and next ask respondents indirectly to measure the influence. Then by analysis such as regression the hypotheses and models are tested. This method is often applied when the research subjects are high school students who have not made the final decision of preferred university. The second way is to ask the respondents directly to measure the influence of factors. Then by descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and/ or mean comparison researchers are able to find the results. This method is more appropriate in case the respondents have made the final decision on what university to enroll. Previous researchers succeeding in using this method are Burns (2006), Heren et al. (2011) and Sierra (2012), just a few to name. After considering the two methods above the researcher decided to apply the second method in his research for two reasons. First, the subjects of this research are first-year students who did make a final decision of the preferred university. Second, in the case of Vietnam student’s final choice of university may be different from their initial decision because of the nature of national entrance examination to higher education. This examination is held after students apply to universities, so in case they do not have chances with their first choice, they will switch to second or third choice of university. 3.1.1 Student Characteristics Previous studies noted student characteristics together with external influences play an important role on student choice of university (Chapman, 1981; Hossler and Gallagpher, 1987; and Schoenherr, 2009). Three student characteristics, 24 grade 12 GPA, living area and house hold income, which were explored in this study played the role of controlling variables in student’ choice of university. 3.1.2 Significant people During the selection of a university students received comments and advice from family members, friends, teachers, counselors (Chapman, 1981). These people influence students at different levels. Six items as shown in table 3 are adapted from previous studies. Table 3: Factors of Significant People Significant people Adapted from… 1. Parents Beswick (1989) 2. Siblings Chapman (1981) 3. Relatives Kusumawati (2013) 4. High school teachers Schoenherr (2009) 5. Counselors Sidin et al. (2003) 6. Friends Tan (2009) 3.1.3 University characteristics There are a number of university characteristics that students may have considered when decide to choose a university to apply for admission. Ten university characteristics as shown in table 4 are adapted from findings of previous studies. 25 Table 4: Factors of University Characteristics University characteristics Adapted from 1. Location Beswick (1989) 2. Cost Chia (2011) 3. Scholarships Fernandez (2010) 4. University reputation Kusumawati (2013) 5. Public university Joseph and Joseph (1998) 6. Lecturers’ qualification Nguyen (2011) 7. Extra curriculum activities Schoenherr (2009) 8. Course variety Sia (2010) 9. Educational facility Sierra (2012) 10. Employment opportunity Tan (2009) Tran and Cao (2009) Yamamoto (2006) 3.1.4 University communication efforts with prospective students In order to attract new students every HEI has to communicate with prospective students. HEIs send their representatives to high schools to promote their institutions. HEIs may advertise their programs on media and they give away printed recruiting materials such as, flyers, brochures, leaflets. Another way to communicate with prospective students is that HEIs invite prospective students visit campuses. These efforts and activities, at some extent, affect students’ choice of a university. Five items as shown in table 5 are adapted from previous studies. 26 Table 5: Factors of University Communication efforts University communication efforts with students Adapted from… 1. Recommendation of university representatives Beswick (1989) 2. University websites Chapman (1981) 3. Advertisements on TV, radio, newspapers, Fernandez (2010) Internet 4. Printed recruiting materials (flyers, brochures, leaflets) Sia (2010) Tran and Cao (2009) Nguyen (2011) 5. Campus visits 3.2 Research method The main research method that applied in this study is quantitative research. According to McDonough (1997, cited in Sia, 2011), traditionally, educational researchers prefer the quantitative approach for the field of university choice. Actually, a high number of previous researchers like Joseph and Joseph (1998), Price et al. (2003), and Sia (2011), just a few to name, have successfully applied quantitative method to study university choice. First qualitative method was used to explore any new factors affecting students’ choice of university. The questions for interview consisted of several open-ended questions mainly asking who and what influenced students during the selection of a university. The findings from qualitative research would add to the input of questionnaire design in the quantitative research. Then the first draft of the questionnaire was designed and went through a pilot test to check the comprehensibility and wording of the questions. 27 Next the quantitative research was conducted with the final version of the questionnaire. The quantitative method is used to collect data to answer research questions. 3.3 Measurement In this research the researcher aims to identify the most influential factors so the researcher asks respondents directly about the influence of factors. Three groups are significant people, university characteristics and university efforts to communicate with prospective students. The levels of influence is measured on a five-point Likert scale from 1 to 5, in which 1 is not influential and 5 is strongly influential. Therefore, influential factors are ones whose mean is equal to or greater than 3.5. Besides, student characteristics are also explored to find the difference of influencing factors among students categorized by grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income. 3.4 Questionnaire Design Previous studies have identified a number of variables related to student’s choice of university. However, it was essential to explore if there were any new factors influencing student’ choice of university through qualitative study before conducting a survey in this research 3.4.1 Qualitative Study In the qualitative study, nine freshmen students of FPT University were interviewed face to face. Following is the report of their answers in the interviews. 1. How many colleges/ universities did you apply to? What were they? 28 Out of nine students eight students applied to at least two universities and colleges, and only one student applied to one university – FPT University as he was a student at a military college at the time he applied. 2. What did you know about these institutions before you applied to? Before applying to their preferred institutions the interviewees knew about entry requirements of previous years, location, academic programs, costs, graduation requirements, job opportunities, type of college, scholarship, language of instruction, high rate of recruited students annually, and facilities. One of the interviewee mentioned, “I knew Ton Duc Thang University and Finance and Marketing University offer good academic programs. These universities are also equipped with good facilities.” Another interviewee stated, “Bach Khoa University is very famous, especially with Information Technology training. This university offers various academic programs. FPT University is a private Vietnamese university but offers international standard programs. “I know FPT University uses textbooks in English; the tuition fee is very high; but this university offers scholarships of one hundred percent tuition waiver”, said another student. 3. Who influenced you to apply to these institutions? The people that influenced the interviewees’ choice of college were family members, friends, older students from the same high school and high school teachers. One of the interviewee said that he applied to Ho Chi Minh University of Medicine and Pharmacy to fulfill his parents’ dream. They would like him to become a doctor. However, one interviewee responded that nobody affected his choice of college. His parents let him make his own decision based on the list of colleges suggested by high 29 school teachers. In another interview, one student said that his high school teachers did not encourage him to apply to FPT University because it was too new and young. Only one interviewee stated that he applied to FPT University because of his mother advice. 4. What influenced you to apply to these institutions? Other factors that affected these interviewees’ choice of college are institution’s reputation, student population size, job opportunities after graduation, academic quality, admission opportunity based on previous years’ accepted scores, facilities, location, cost, student services and scholarships. One of the interviewee said that she like the student service staff when she paid a visit to the FPT University campus. Beside those factors, one interviewee said that she was impressed with confident and professional students FPT University in game show Rung Chuong Vang – a game show for college students. This also affected her choice of FPT University. It seemed most students mentioned job opportunities as one of the reason why they applied to their preferred institution. 5. How many institutions did you get offer from? Besides FPT University these interviewees were also accepted to other institutions. 6. What specific factors made you choose to study at this institution (FPT University)? The specific factors that made these interviewees choose to study at FPT University were high percentage of employed graduates, English instruction language, better facilities, extra curriculum activities, reputation in Information Technology training, job opportunities, academic programs with international 30 standards, scholarships and location. Some interviewees appreciated the fact that FPT University students learn two foreign languages. One interviewee said that she was going to study aboard for a master degree and she wanted to be familiar with international standard programs so she chose to study at FPT University to get some experience. Another interviewee said that, “I chose FPT University Ho Chi Minh because I was offered scholarship.” Besides mentioning factors which are identified from literature review, the responses from the interviews provided some more factors that influence students’ choice of university. These factors include student services, English instruction language, admission opportunity, preparation for graduate study and news about events of the university. These factors were included under university characteristics. 3.4.2 First draft questionnaire - Pilot Test The first draft of the questionnaire (see appendix) was created based on literature review and findings from the qualitative study. The questionnaire was divided into two sections as follows. Section 1 focused on respondents’ background and family. This section explored the background information of respondents in terms of gender, high school academic ability, living areas, parents’ level of education, and family income. Section 2 aimed to measure factors of influence to student choice during the selection process of a higher institution. Three groups of influencing factors were measured. These were influencing people, university characteristics and university efforts to communicate with prospective students. The pilot test was carried out to check the wording, as well as the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. Totally thirty FPT University students were invited to answer the questionnaire. 31 The researcher observed and asked respondents if they had any problems in understanding the questionnaire. They all reported that they did not find any difficulties in understanding the questions and their options. The reliability analysis of pilot data is shown in the table below Table 6: Reliability statistics of pilot data Factors Number of items Cronbach's Alpha Significant people 7 0.845 University characteristics 15 0.772 University communication 6 0.796 As shown in the table above Cronbach’s Alpha of three groups of factors is greater than 0.7. This result suggests that the items within each group of factors have relatively high internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003). Therefore the measurement is reliable and can be used to carry out in a larger scale. 3.4.3 Final draft Questionnaire The final draft of the questionnaire (see Appendix, p. 77) is not different from the first draft because first, the comprehensibility requirement was met. Second, the reliability analysis of pilot test proved that the measurement of the questionnaire meets the requirement of the reliability. 3.5 Population and sampling 3.5.1 Target population The population of this study was first-year students at FPT University HCM and International University and Hoa Sen University in Ho Chi Minh City. As mentioned in the scope and limitation of the study, first-year students were chosen because they 32 just went through the selection of university so it is assumed that they better recalled what factors influenced them. The reasons for choosing International University and Hoa Sen University are they have some similarities with FPT Universities. First, in terms of instruction language these three universities emphasize the use of English in their training programs. Second, in terms of history of education, IU and FPT University were established in the same period of time, in 2003 and 2006 respectively; while Hoa Sen University received the university status in 2006. Third, these three universities attract students in similar training programs such as Business and Engineering. Finally these three universities offer attractive scholarships to prospective students. 3.5.2 Sampling The population of first-year students of these three universities is just under 4000, of which about 350 students are from FPT University, about 1500 students from International University and about 2000 students from Hoa Sen University. According to Bartlett et al. (2001) with continuous data, alpha = 0.01, t-value = 2.58 and margin of error = .03, the required sample size for a population size of about 4000 in this study was at least 198. The type of sampling design employed in this study was non-probability because of three reasons: cost, feasibility and time (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). Specifically, and Convenience and Snowball were used in sampling methods. One hundred questionnaires were distributed to each chosen university. 3.6 Data collection The instrument for data collection was a self-administrated questionnaire (see Appendix, p. 77). The questionnaire was designed to ascertain: - The demographic profile of the students. 33 - The factors influence students’ choice of university. To get the information, the researcher visited three universities and invited firstyear students to answer the survey questionnaire. Besides, the researcher also asked students to introduce other first-year students who could take the survey in a voluntary manner. The actual number of respondents in this research is 220 which include 71 respondents from International University, 60 respondents from Hoa Sen University and 87 respondents from FPT University. 3.7 Data analysis technique Data would be collected by the researcher and be analyzed by SPSS. Before being analyzed, data would be screened to delete outliners to secure reliability. Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze demographic data. Next reliability test would be used to check reliability of measure. One-sample T-Test was run to identify most influential factors to students’ choice of university. Finally ANOVA test was used to analyze the difference of most influential factors among different groups of students categorized by grade 12 GPA, living areas, household income and universities. 34 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This chapter focuses on the analysis quantitative research. First, through descriptive statistics the response rate and the demographic information of the respondent are described. Next, the reliability of the measurement is presented by Cronbach’s alpha. Then most influential factors are shown. Finally, the most influencing factors to students’ choice of university are analyzed and presented. 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 4.1.1 Survey Response Rate Table 7 gives an overview of the survey response rate. There were 300 questionnaires distributed of which 100 questionnaires were sent to students of each university. Out of 300 distributed questionnaires 257 ones were returned with the response rate as high as 85.7 percent. The response rate of FPT University students was the highest with 97 percent, followed by International University students with 86 percent and Hoa Sen University with 74 percent. The total valid response rate is just above 85 percent. Once again the valid response rate of FPT University students is the highest, followed by International University and Hoa Sen University students with 89.7 percent, 84.8 percent and 81 percent respectively. The incomplete responses are responses in which some questions are left without answer and invalid responses are responses in which mostly or all questions are answered with the same options. For examples, all factors receive the same point of scale. 35 Table 7: Response rate International University Hoa Sen University FPT University Total Number of 100 questionnaires 100 100 300 Number of response 86 74 97 257 Response rate 86% 74% 97% 85.7% Number of 73 valid response 60 87 220 Valid response rate 81% 89.7% 85.6% 84.8% 4.1.2 Demographic profile 4.1.2.1 Gender Table 8 below shows the frequency and percentage of respondents by gender. As be shown there are 111 male respondents accounted for 50.5 percent of the respondents and 109 respondents are female equivalent to 49.5 percent of the respondents. Table 8: Frequency and percentage of respondents by gender Gender Frequency Percentage Male 111 50.5 Female 109 49.5 Total 220 100 36 4.1.2.2 Grade 12 GPA As can be seen in Table 9, the largest group of respondents is the group with grade 12 GPA from 7.0 to 7.9 on the scale of 10 points. This group accounts for nearly 46 percent of the respondents. The second large group is the respondents with grade 12 GPA equal to or higher than 8.0 with 45 percent. Finally the percentage of respondents who had grade 12 GPA less than 7.0 is only 9.5 percent. In general, more International University respondents had better grade 12 GPA than those of other two universities. Particularly almost nearly 60 percent of International University respondents had grade 12 GPA from at least 8.0. FPT University has nearly 40 percent of respondents with grade GPA from at least 8.0 and Hoa Sen University with only about 37 percent. In other words, about 50 percent of students who chose Hoa Sen and FPT University are fairly good; nearly 60 percent of students who chose IU are good students. Table 9: Grade 12 GPA Grade 12 GPA University Total < 7.0 7.0 – 7.9 ≥ 8.0 Frequency 5 25 43 73 Percentage 6.8% 34.2% 58.9% 100.0% Hoa Frequency 8 30 22 60 Sen Percentage 13.3% 50.0% 36.7% 100.0% Frequency 8 45 34 87 Percentage 9.2% 51.7% 39.1% 100.0% Frequency 21 100 99 220 Percentage 9.5% 45.5% 45.0% 100.0% IU FPT Total 37 4.1.2.3 University Entrance Exam Score Table 10 illustrates the University Entrance Examination Scores of all respondents. Over 60 percent of respondents had scores from 15 to less than 20 points. About 24 percent of respondents had scores from 20 to 25 points. Approximately 10 percent of respondents had scores less than 15 points. Finally only 1.7 percent had scores of 25 points and above. Table 10: University Entrance Examination Scores University Entrance Examination Scores University Total < 15 15 - < 20 20 - < 25 25 – 30 Frequency 2 34 35 2 73 Percentage 2.7% 46.7% 49.9% 2.7% 100% Hoa Frequency 7 44 8 1 60 Sen Percentage 11.7% 73.3% 13.3% 1.7% 100% Frequency 15 61 11 0 87 Percentage 17.2% 70.1% 12.7% 0.0% 100% Frequency 24 139 54 3 220 Percentage 10.9% 63.2% 24.5% 1.7% 100% IU FPT Total The distribution of FPT University respondents by University Entrance Examination Scores is quite similar to that of Hoa Sen University respondents. However, the percentage of FPT respondents with high scores is lower than that of International University respondents. For instance, over 50 percent of International University respondents had scores from 20 points and above while just about 13 percent of FPT University had those scores. 38 This result also supports the idea that students of IU are better than Hoa Sen and FPT University. 4.1.2.4 Living areas When distributed by living areas as shown in table 11, the largest proportion is respondents who come from in central cities. The second largest group is respondents from provincial cities. The third and the fourth are from towns and rural areas. Table 11: Living area distribution University Living areas Total IU Hoa Sen FPT Frequency 3 4 6 13 Percentage 4.1% 6.7% 6.9% 5.9% Frequency 9 8 19 36 Percentage 12.3% 13.3% 21.8% 16.4% Provincial Frequency 32 20 26 78 city Percentage 43.8% 33.3% 29.9% 35.5% Frequency 29 28 36 93 Percentage 39.7% 46.7% 41.4% 42.3% Frequency 73 60 87 220 Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Rural area Town Central city Total Respondents of FPT University and Hoa Sen University have similar patterns to respondents of three universities. Meanwhile, the largest group of International University respondents comes from provincial cities with about 43 percent. The 39 second biggest group is from central cities. The third and the fourth are towns and rural areas respectively. 4.1.2.5 Parents’ level of education Table 12 shows information about parents’ level of education of the researched students. In general more fathers have higher level of education than mothers. For example, the group of fathers with a bachelor degree is the largest groups with about 37 percent while the group of mothers with high school is the largest with 35 percent. Another example is that more fathers have postgraduate degrees than mothers who have a postgraduate degree with 13.6 percent and 6.8 percent respectively. Table 12: Parents' level of education Frequency Percentage Father Mother Father Mother Less than high school 34 38 15.5% 17.3% High school 55 77 25.0% 35.0% Diploma 19 19 8.6% 8.6% Bachelor 82 71 37.3% 32.3% Postgraduate 30 15 13.6% 6.8% Total 220 220 100% 100% Education level 4.1.2.6 Household income Table 13 provides information about household income of respondents from the three universities. More parents earns at least 15 million Vietnam Dong a month 40 than parents who earn less than 15 million Vietnam Dong a month, around 60 percent versus 40 percent. Table 13: Household income University Household income Total IU Hoa Sen FPT Frequency 11 5 17 33 Percentage 15.1% 8.3% 19.5% 15.0% Frequency 19 13 27 59 Percentage 26.0% 21.7% 31.0% 26.8% Frequency 11 20 18 49 Percentage 15.1% 33.3% 20.7% 22.3% Frequency 8 8 11 27 Percentage 11.0% 13.3% 12.6% 12.3% Frequency 24 14 14 52 Percentage 32.9% 23.3% 16.1% 23.6% Frequency 73 60 87 220 Percentage 100% 100% 100.0% 100% [...]... 2012) also concluded in various empirical studies that cost is one of the most important factors that students take into account when choosing a university In another research by Kusumawati (2013) cost is also rated as one of the most important factors to students of an Indonesian public university In the case of Thailand, Kitsawad (2013) found that living expenses factor was regarded rather important... were that financial aid, and in particular grants, had a positive effect on both access and persistence, and encouraged students to enroll in more expensive institutions They also found that financial aid had the largest influence on the decisions of low-income students 16 As a matter of fact, Yusof’s study (2008, cited in Sia, 2010) found that financial assistance offered by university as one of the... certain institutions They evaluate their academic and financial capabilities in relation to these potential choices In the last stage, Choice, students choose one institution to attend based on a ranking and rating of each institution available (cited in Chia, 2011) 12 Wagner and Fard (2009) view that the major differences between the models are the descriptions of the intervening variables or characteristics... influence students decision to study at Universiti Sans Malaysia The results revealed that a student's preference for a public institution is influenced primarily by considerations of quality of education and pecuniary factors In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice of university Respondents were asked about their opinions and... These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground, the availability of quiet areas, and quality of lecture halls, IT facilities, health services and areas for self -study Yamamoto’s (2006) findings also show that physical factors and facilities are two of the important criteria for university selection for Turkish students Employment opportunities The prospect of future employment... influential to students choice of university Next focusing on the most influential factors the researcher compares and contrasts to see if there are any differences of these factors among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income Then the researcher continues to compare and contrast whether or not there are any differences of these factors between FPT University students. .. prefer a private university The respondent with average and high GPA, on the other hand, preferred the public university Educational facilities The importance of facilities on students' choice of institution has been noted in previous researchers’ papers Absher and Crawford (1996, cited in Sia, 2010) 18 stated that educational facilities such as classrooms, laboratories and libraries are important in a. .. helping students select in the Philippines Kusumawati (2013) conducted a qualitative study of the factors influencing student choice of an Indonesian public university Preliminary results indicated that students considered 25 criteria for selecting an Indonesian public university One of the five most important factors was parents In the case of Malaysia, Sidin et al (2003) explored the factors influencing. .. the university, faculty, the qualification of teaching staff (Sierra, 2012) According to Soutar & Turner (2002, cited in Kitsawad 2013) reputation and academic quality were two of the outstanding predictors of university choice in Western Australia Keling (2007, cited in Sia 2010) also stated that the most influential factor that students will evaluate in selecting their choice of institution was reputation... conducted a study to investigate factors influencing the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains Malaysia, a public university In this study Fernandez (2010) examined the reasons students pursue higher education; the sources of information used by students to help choose a tertiary institution, the factors that influence students choice of public versus private institutions, and the factors that ... top 16 influencing factors on choice of university, seven factors were facilities-related factors These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground, the availability... primarily by considerations of quality of education and pecuniary factors In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice. .. significant others or college characteristics Chapman separates the choice as being a model of two stages—that of the pre-search and search stage In the first stage, factors like family income have a