Asia Pacific Management Review (2003) 8(3),259-280

An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing the

College Choice Decision of Undergraduate
Students in Malaysia
Samsinar Md. Sidin*, Siti Rahayu Hussin** and Tan Ho Soon***
The higher education services industry in Malaysia has been given a boost in the 1990s
by the Governments policy liberalization and quite ironically, the Asian financial crisis. More
students are now opting to study locally instead of going abroad. However, with the myriad of
institutions and courses around, it is very difficult to understand how students select colleges of
their choice.
This study seeks to explore the criteria with which students select their tertiary institutions. In essence, we would try to establish the ranking of variables thought to be important for
college selection. Also, the degree of influence by external sources on students decisions would also be gauged.
A total of 210 respondents from the Klang Valley were surveyed in this study. They comprised first-year undergraduate students from four public universities and four private establishments. The data collected from the survey was analyzed using the SPSS programme. A series of analyses, including descriptive and factor analysis were conducted on the data.
The results validated three of the four hypotheses of the research. It confirms that student selection of colleges actually depends on several criteria, including academic quality, facilities, campus surroundings, and personal characteristics. It also validates the contention that income affects the choice of students along the public-private education divide
Keywords: consumer decision-making ,influence, college choice

1. Introduction
The 1990's have been an exciting period for educational establishments
in Malaysia. The fast-changing educational services scene in this country has
been most breathtaking. Even the most casual observers would have noticed
the mushrooming of private tertiary institutions offering a myriad range of
courses. The already robust scene has been given quite ironically, a further
boost by the recent Asian financial crisis (in late 1997 and 1998), which grounded the dreams of many students planning to study abroad. These students
*

Associate Professor and Head, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of

Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.
**
Lecturer, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and
Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.
***
Former MBA student at Malaysian Graduate School of Management, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, Serdang.

259

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

have turned toward local colleges and universities for further studies. Nevertheless, proprietors and managers of local institutions are still complaining
about stiff contention for students and faculty staff. The competition seems
certain to heat up with the government's liberalization move in allowing the
market entry of foreign universities to Malaysia.
The government of Malaysia, in particular the Ministry of Education
(MOE), has of late been trying to transform Malaysia into a center of excellence for education. Pursuant to this goal, certain policies with regards the educational systems were liberalized. These include the licensing of private institutions of higher learning to confer baccalaureate degrees and to conduct
courses in collaboration with foreign universities. A direct repercussion of
such liberalization has been the mushrooming of private higher educational
establishments throughout the country. The main benefactors seem to be big
corporations such as Tenaga Nasional Bhd, Telekom Malaysia and Petronas.
These corporations have jumped onto the education bandwagon as the educational services industry promises potentially lucrative returns. They also
have the necessary resources and funding to set up campuses and faculties
across the country.
Nevertheless, smaller colleges and establishments have also benefited
from the growing trend of private education. Many of these colleges have
been in existence for the past decade or even longer, although some have
been set up more recently to take advantage of the relaxation of government
policies.
1.1 Problem Statement
Tertiary education is arguably a high-involvement product [6]. For
many students and their parents, it represents a substantial investment in
monetary and temporal terms. Hence, we might safely deduce that prospective students and their sponsors would look carefully into the options
available in the market.
The present financial crisis and economic downturn in Malaysia had
ballooned the cost of studying overseas, hence preventing many students
from going abroad. As such, it is a blessing in disguise for private local
colleges and universities, which are swarmed by anxious students and their
parents. Nonetheless, the scenario is far from plain sailing for the colleges
because they also face immense competition amongst their own.
Educational marketers must therefore attempt to answer some fundam-

260

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

ental questions: why do students select a particular college or university

from the large number of alternatives? In evaluating the many options available to them, how would students (and their sponsors) come to a purchase
decision? On what criteria would they appraise their options? These questions parallel a common marketing question: how do consumers select a
particular product or service? The role of attracting consumers to a product
and having those consumers make a purchase is the most important function
of marketing. Colleges and universities often accomplish this function
without recognizing it as a marketing application [7].
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
1. To explore factors influencing in college decision making.
2. To determine the importance and degree of influence of these external
sources of information.
3. To determine whether demographic factors influence college choice
1.3 Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Gender and ethnicity are not likely to directly affect students' college
choice decision.
Hypothesis 2
The family income of students is likely to affect the college choice
decision in terms of public-private institutions. The lower the average family
income, the less likely students would be opting for private establishments.
Hypothesis 3
Student's college choice decision is affected by the highest university
academic qualification attained thus far. The higher the pre-university qualification, the more likely the student would choose public institutions.
Hypothesis 4
Students perception of various college and academic characteristics
influence higher college choice decision.

261

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

2. Literature Review
2.1 Decision-making Process
College/university choice has been viewed as a three-stage decision
process [3, 4]. During the first stage college aspiration formation - students
develop the predisposition or intention to continue their education beyond
secondary level. Sometime after college aspirations are formed, students enter the second stage - search and application. At this stage, students begin to
acquire information regarding the college attributes that are particularly important to them in deciding which college/university to consider attending.
This phase ends when students decided to apply to a particular set of institutions. After their application and the colleges' acceptance, students enter
the third-stage - actual selection and attendance. During this phase, students
compare and evaluate their preferred alternatives in terms of college attributes most important to them. This phase ends with the final attendance or
enrollment decision [8].
Student choice is a basic and integral part of theory and research on
higher education. For unlike elementary, primary and secondary schools (to
a large extent), post-secondary students have the freedom to choose [10].
They must decide whether to go to college, which college to enroll in, what
to major in, which courses to take, and so on.
2.2 College Selection Criteria
For service marketers, it is critical to understand which cues or attributes of the service offerings are valued most in the decision making process
of current and potential customers. Students were found to select those
colleges that match their selection criteria academically, socially, and
financially [2]. [9] reported that the choice of which college to enroll in
depends on five components: academic programs offered, leadership opportunities in college, perceived good job after graduation, financial aid, and
value for money (cost /benefit analysis). [11] did a survey using a 52-item
questionnaire, which resulted in the clustering of ten criteria for students
selecting a college, namely:
1. Academic programmes available
2. Academic reputation of institution
3. The marketability of the degree conferred
4. Faculty contact time

262

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

5. Accreditations
6. Campus employment
7. Financial aids
8. Placement reputation
9. Completion time
10. Library size
Seventeen college image components were identified in a study using
students at Ball State University [2]. These components were researched by
measuring the importance of each in predicting a student's selection of a college or university. Quality of education, recreational activites, educational
facilities and the faculty members are some of these components. In another
study by [1], twenty-nine college image components were identified in a study of university students at the University of North Alabama These components were investigated by measuring the importance of each in predicting a
student's selection of a college or university. Some of these factors were convenient and accessible location, types of academic programmes, community in which college is located, and overall quality of education.
In a study on service quality in higher education, [5]showed that six
factors that are important to students were:
1. Program issues
2. Academic reputation
3. Physical aspects
4. Career opportunities
5. Geographical location (of institution)
6. Time (i.e. duration of studies)
The program issues category comprises the availability of specialist
programmes, degree flexibility, availability of several course options, and flexible entry requirements. Academic reputation refers to the prestige of the
degree conferred, such as whether it is recognized nationality or internationally. Physical aspects include the quality of facilities for academic, accommodation, sports, and recreation.

263

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

3. Methodology
A survey was conducted using first year students at public and private
universities in Klang Valley as the respondents. Convenience sampling was
used as the sampling method. Enumerators were trained and hired to conduct
face-face interview with these students. Questionnaires were distributed to
90 public universities and 110 private institutions students. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section consisted of questions
pertaining to the demographic as well as background information. The second part of the questionnaire included the semantic differential (SD) Scale
on college selection criteria.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used in the
analysis of primary data. Some of the descriptive statistics used include
frequencies, means and percentages. Other statistical analyses used in this
study were Chi-square analysis and factor analysis.
4. Research Findings
4.1 Respondents' Personal Characteristics
Table 1 Respondent Profile: Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Male

88

14.9

41.9

41.9

Female

122

58.1

58.1

100

Total

210

100.0

100.0

Source: Survey

Table 2 Respondent Profile: Age

Below 18
18 and 19
20 and 21
22 and 23
24 and above
Total

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
8
3.8
3.8
3.8
65
31.0
31.0
34.8
87
41.4
41.4
76.2
33
15.7
15.7
91.9
17
8.1
8.1 100.0
210
100.0 100.0

Source: Survey

The breakdown of respondents by their gender, age, ethnicity, home-

264

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

tates, academic background, and institutions, appear in this section. Frequency and percentage measures are used in reporting figures.
As shown on the table above, female respondents outnumbered males
by 122 (or 58.1%) to 88 (41.9%)
The majority of the respondents were 20 or 21 years old, (41.4%).
31.0% were 18 and 19 years old, and 15.7% are between 22 and 23. 8.1%
were 24 to 28 years old. 76.2% of the sample population were 21 or younger.
Table 3 Respondent Profile: Ethnicity
Frequency Percent
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Total

60
126
24
210

28.8
60.0
11.4
100.0

Valid Cumulative
Percent
Percent
28.6
28.6
60.0
88.6
11.4
100.0
100.0

Source: Survey

126 (or 60%) of the respondents were ethnic Chinese students. 60

respondents (28.6%) were ethnic Malay students, while 24 (11.4%) were
Indians. The higher number of Chinese student respondents was purely by
chance. In private colleges we surveyed, Chinese students form the bulk of
student population
Table 4 Respondent Profile: Academic Qualification

Valid

F5/SPM/O-level
F6/STPM/A-level
Diploma
Bachelors degree
Others
Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

76
69
42
13
10
210

36.2
32.9
20.0
6.2
4.8
100.0

36.2
32.9
20.0
6.2
4.8
100.0

36.2
69.0
89.0
95.2
100.0

Source: Survey

In terms of the highest academic qualification attained, most students

(36.2%) cited the Sijil Pendidikan Malaysia (SPM) or GCE O-levels. A sizable percentage (32.9%) has attained passes in Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia (STPM) or GCE A-levels. (STPM was the traditional university-entry
qualification benchmark in Malaysia.) 20% of the respondents have had a
Diploma, mostly from private colleges. Interestingly, 6.2% of the respondents were university graduates (with bachelors degrees). These students were

265

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

mostly enrolled in public universities for the Diploma in Education course.

They also form the majority of older students in our survey. 4.8% of students
have other forms of qualification, notably professional qualifications or general certificates.
Table 5 Respondent Profile: Monthly Family Income
Frequency Percent
RM1000 or Less
RM1001 to RM2500
RM2501 to RM4000
RM4001 to RM6000
RM6001 or more
total

27
79
52
29
23
210

12.9
37.6
24.8
13.8
11.0
100.0

Valid Cumulative
Percent
Percent
12.9
12.9
37.6
50.5
24.8
75.2
13.8
89.0
11.0 100.0
100.0

Source: Survey

37.6% of the respondents reported earning a monthly family income of

between RM1,001 and RM2,500. 24.8% reported incomes of RM2,501 to
RM4,000. 24.8% mentioned their family incomes exceed RM4,000.
4.2 College Choice Decision Factors
Table 6 College Choice Decision Factors Profile:
Type of Diploma/Degree Conferred
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Certificate
5
2.4
2.4
2.4
Diploma
38
18.1 18.1
20.5
Advanced/HigherDiploma
5
2.4
2.4
22.9
Bachelors degree
146
69.5 69.5
92.4
Masters degree
4
1.9
1.9
94.3
Others
12
5.7
5.7
100.0
Total
210
100.0 100.0
Source: Survey

69.5% of the students surveyed were enrolled in courses leading up to a

bachelor degree. 20.5% would be conferred diplomas or advanced diplomas
upon completing their courses. Interestingly, four respondents (1.9%) would
be conferred masters degree upon graduating. 8.1% of the sample population
would receive certificates or other professional accreditations on graduation.
53.8% of the respondents reported that their degrees would be confered
by local (Malaysian) universities. A further 12.9% would receive their di-

266

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

plomas or degrees from local colleges and institutions. Hence, 66.7% of the
sample population would in other words graduate with a local degree. 31%
of the respondents would have their degrees conferred by foreign universities.
Table 7 College Choice Decision Factors Profile:
Institution Conferring Diploma/Degree
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Local College/institution
27
12.9
12.9
12.9
Local university
113
53.8
53.8
66.7
Foreign college/university
65
31.0
31.0
97.6
Local branch of foreign institution
2
1.0
1.0
98.6
Others
3
1.4
1.4
100.0
Total
210
100.0 100.0
Source: Survey

Table 8 College Choice Decision Factors' Profile:

Number of Visits to Institution Prior to Enrollment
Frequency Percent
Once
Twice
More than
twice
Never
Visited
Total

67
37

Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
31.9
31.9
31.9
17.6
17.6
49.5

28

13.3

13.3

62.9

78
210

37.1
100.0

37.1
100.0

100.0

Source: Survey

The majority of respondents (37.1%) reportedly never visited their present institutions prior to enrollment. 31.9% visited their institutions only
once; 17.6% reported visiting twice, and only 13.3% visited their institutions
more than twice. One respondent cited visiting his college 10 times before
enrolling. Such extreme was, however, a misnomer. Almost all of those who
reported visiting their colleges more than twice only did so three or four
times.
An equal percentage of students (31% each) reported making up their
minds to enroll in an institution within a week and between one to two
weeks. 16.7% said they required two to four weeks to decide. A significant
pro- portion of those surveyed (21.4%) needed more than four weeks to

267

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

decide. This seems to support the contention (Kotler, 1996) that purchasing
education is a high-involvement decision.
Table 9 College Choice Decision Factors' Profile:
Length of Time to Make Decision

Within one Week

Between one and two weeks
Between two and four weeks
More than four weeks
Total
Total

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
65
31.0
31.0
31.0
65

31.0

31.0

61.9

35

16.7

16.7

78.6

45

21.4

21.4

100.0

210

100.0

100.0

Source: Survey

Table 10 College Choice Decision Factors Profile:

Individual Making the Final Decision
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Parent(s)
33
15.7 15.7
15.7
Yourself
159
75.7 75.7
91.4
Sibling(s)/relative(s)
3
1.4
1.4
92.9
Corporate body
1
0.5
0.5
93.3
Government institution
11
5.2
5.2
98.6
Others
3
1.4
1.4
100.0
Total
210
100.0 100.0
Source : Survey

75.7% of the surveyed students reportedly made the final decision to

enroll in a particular institution themselves. 15.7% reported that their parents made the final decision. 5.2% said that the choice of institution was decided for them by the government. The latter were mostly students on government scholarships. Only 3.3% mentioned that the final choice was made by
their siblings, relatives, corporate bodies, or others.
4.3 Factor & Cluster Analyses
Factor analysis was conducted to explore the major factors considered
in decision making regarding college choice. Through this analysis, five

268

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

major components were extracted from the 20 variables. These components

represent 60.192% of the variance. Only factors with Eigenvalues of more
than 1.00 were selected. Table 11 presents rotated sums of squared loadings
of the various factors.
Table 11 Total Variance Explained
Initial

Rotated sum of square

loadings
Factors Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative
%
1
6.322 31,612
31.612
3.113 15.567
15.567
2
1.791
8.955
40.567
3.062 15.310
30.877
3
1.669
8.347
48.914
2.542 12.710
43.586
4
1.228
6.140
55.055
1.668
8.340
51.927
5
1.027
5.137
60.192
1.653
8.265
60.192
6
0.953
4.764
64.956
7
0.886
4.428
69.384
8
0.770
3.852
73.236
9
0.711
3.555
76.791
10
0.621
3.103
79.894
11
0.592
2.961
82.855
12
0.532
2.659
85.513
13
0.497
2.484
87.998
14
0.466
2.330
90.327
15
0.422
2.109
92.436
16
0.394
1.972
94.408
17
0.336
1.679
96.087
18
0.306
1.529
97.616
19
0.289
1.443
99.060
20
0.188
0.940
100.000
Source: Survey Data Analysis

The first factor component as shown in the Table above explains 15.567% of the variance. Similarly, the second, third, fourth, and fifth factor components explain 15.31%, 12.71%, 8.34%, and 8.265% of the total variance
respectively. Altogether, the five factor components explained 60.192% of
the variance. Each of the five factor components was given a name depending on the general characteristics of the factors that fall within it. Table 12
below shows the rotated component matrix using the extraction method of
Principal Component Analysis. Each of the factors having multiple values is
grouped under the iteration where it has the highest value.

269

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

Table 12 Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1
2
3
4
5
Job opportunities
0.681
Availability of courses
0.674
0.324
Time required for completion 0.651 0.309 0.327
Tuition fees
0.616
Entry requirements
0.427
0.358
Availability of part-time studies 0.400
0.311
Marketability of degree
0.347
Quality of teaching
0.783
Library collection
0.767
Institutions reputation
0.739
Facilities
0.663
0.316
Programme structure
0.471 0.472 0.320
Campus size and layout
0.876
Campus attractiveness
0.822
Number of students
0.571
Extra-curricular activities
0.342 0.666
Opportunity to meet friends
0.664
Campus location
0.417
0.308 0.458 0.311
Scholarship/financial aid
0.732
Procedure and policies
0.446
0.566
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Source: Survey Data Analysis

Table 13 below presents the five factor components as derived from the
Varimax rotation method of factor analysis, each given an 'interpretative'
name. Only sum of squared loadings of more than .300 are considered. That,
however, qualifies all the variables (as their values have exceed .300).
The first college choice decision factor has been named "Personal
factors". The choice for this name stems from the fact that every student has
his or her own set of circumstances quite independent from the others, hence
the word 'personal'.
There are seven variables in this factor component namely, 'Job opportunities', 'Availability of course', 'Time required for completion', 'Tuition
fees', 'Entry requirements', 'Availability of part-time studies', and 'Marketability of degree'. Together, they account for 15.567% of the variance. The sec-

270

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

Table 13 College Choice Decision Factors & Variables

College choice decision factor College choice decision variables
1. "Personal factors"
Job opportunities
Availability of course
Time required for compietion
Tuition fees
Entry requirements
Availability of parttime studies
Marketability of degree
2. "Academic quality & facilities" Quality of teaching
Library collection
Institution's reputation
Facilities
Programme structure
3. "Campus"
Campus size and layout
Campus attractiveness
Number of students
4. "Socialization"
Extra-curricular activities
Opportunity to meet friends
5. "Financial aid and procedures" Sholarship/financial aid
Procedures and policies
Source: Survey Data Analysis

ond factor has been named "Academic quality and facilities to reflect variables such as 'Quality of teaching', 'Library collection', 'Institution's reputation', 'Program structure' and 'Facilities'. The second factor group explains
15.31% of the total variance. The third group, which represents 12.71% of
the variance, is named "Campus" as it contains variables such as 'Campus
size and layout', 'Campus attractiveness', and 'Number of students'. The
fourth factor Socialization -- refers to extra-curricular activities on campus as well as the opportunity to meet friends. It represents 8.34% of the
variance. The fifth factor includes variables such as 'Scholarship/financial
aid and 'Procedures and policies'. This refers to the availability (or not) of
financial support plus the ease of which to enroll in the college. This last
component explains 8.265% of the total variance.

271

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

4.4 Comparison of Means

The comparison of means would allow us to establish the following:
1. A ranking of the degree of influence by external sources on the college
choice decision; and
2. The ranking of various variables that affect the college selection of students.
Table 14 Ranking of Degree of Influence by External Sources
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Sources of influence
Mean value
Sources of influence
3.72
Friends & schoolmates
3.50
Parents & relatives
3.21
Newspapers
3.08
Education fairs
2.92
College promotional material
2.90
College counselors & representatives
2.88
School teachers
2.70
Magazines
2.57
Secondary school counselor
2.43
Television & radio

Source: Survey Data Analysis

Note: 5 Very influential
1 Not influential at all

Table 14 above shows the ranking of the degree of influence of external

sources on students' college choice decision. Friends and schoolmates appear
to have the greatest influence over students in making a college choice.
Parents and relatives also seem to be very influential over the decision.
Newspapers and educational fairs came in third and fourth respectively.
College promotional material and representatives have a moderate influence over students, ranking at fifth and sixth place respectively. Television
and radio seem to have the least influence among the ten sources on students'
college choice decision. Table 15 above only lists the top ten variables that
influence students' college choice decision. Students appear to be very
concerned about the quality of teaching, the institution's reputation, and the
marketability of degree in selecting their colleges, as these three variables
rank first, second, and third respectively. Job opportunities (related to
marketability of degree) and tuitions fees also seem to be important
considerations to the students. The lowest ranking variable (with a mean

272

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

value of 2.58) was the availability of part-time studies. This supposedly did
not concern the respondents as they were all full-time.
Table 15 Ranking of Variables Influencing College Choice
Decision by Importance: Top Ten Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Variables influencing college choice Mean value

Quality of teaching
4.55
Institution's reputation
4.20
Marketability of degree
4.19
Job opportunities
4.16
Tuition fees
4.11
Program structure
4.03
Time required for completion
4.01
Facilities
4.00
Availability of courses
3.99
Entry requirements
3.86

* Other lower-ranking (i.e. less influential) factors have been left out.
Source: Survey Data Analysis
Note: 5 Very important
1 Not important at all

4.5 Cross-Tabulations & Chi-Square Tests

Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1
Gender and ethnicity are not likely to affect students' college choice
decision.
As Table 18 shows, the significant values from the Chi-square test were
significant since they are lower then 0.05 (or 95% confidence interval). We
therefore may conclude that Hypothesis 1 is supported , i.e. gender and
ethnicity are not likely to directly affect students' college choice decisions.
Hypothesis 2
The family income of students is likely to affect the college choice decision in terms of public-private institutions. The lower the average family
income, the less likely students would be opting for private establishments.
The Chi-square analysis in Table 17 above shows significant relationship between income levels and the choice of colleges. Particularly, the
lower income group would more likely opt for public institutions. The higher
income group was more likely to choose private education. This provides su-

273

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

pport for the Hypothesis 2.

Table 16 College Choice by Gender and Ethnicity
Variables Public. Inst. Private Inst. Chi-square Significance
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Malay
Chinese
Indian

84
25
59
84
21
53
10

126
63
63
126
39
73
14

8.479

0.035

7.636

0.047

Source: Survey

Table 17 College Choice by Family Income

Variables
Family income
<RM1000
RM1000-2500
RM2501-4000
RM4001-6000
>RM6001

Public Inst. Private Inst. Chi-square Significance

84
126
30.511
0.036
15
12
45
34
18
34
4
25
2
21

Source: Survey

Hypothesis 3
Student's college choice decision is affected by the highest pre-university academic qualification attained thus far. The higher the pre-university
qualification, the more likely the student would choose public institutions.
Table 18

College Choice by Pre-University Academic Qualification

Variables
Public Inst. Private Inst. Chi-square Significance
Qualification
84
126
2.395
0.122
SPM/O level
13
63
STPM/ level
54
15
Diploma
2
40
Bachelors
13
0
Others
2
8
Source: Survey

The significance value (0.112) as shown in Table 18 above indicates

that Hypothesis 3 cannot be supported. Statistically, it cannot be proven that
students with higher pre-university qualifications would choose public instit-

274

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

utions over private establishments. However, at a glance, we see that more

students with STPM/A-level chose public universities instead of private ones;
and more students with only SPM/O-level qualifications chose private colleges instead.
Hypothesis 4
Student's perception of various college and academic characteristics influence his/her college choice decision.
Table 19 Chi-Square Results of College Choice Decision
by Various College Characteristics
Charateristics
Institution's reputation
Library collection
Facilities*
Quality of teaching
Procedures and policies*
Scholarship/financial aid
Availability of courses
Time required for completion
Tuition fees
Job opportunities
Programme structure
Entry requirements*
Availability of part-time studies
Campus location
Campus size and layout
Campus attractiveness
Number of students
Extra-curricular activities*
Opportunity to meet friends
Marketability of degree

Chi-square
12.404
3.207
1.457
9.356
1.216
1.947
1.835
28.449
9.748
4.374
9.231
1.303
6.339
5.366
14.659
8.599
15.189
1.959
9.234
9.887

Significance
0.301
0.062
0.044
0.202
0.031
0.096
0.076
0.365
0.365
0.074
0.205
0.035
0.053
0.145
0.252
0.125
0.205
0.048
0.100
0.176

* Statistically significant factors

Source: Survey

Table 19 above presents a summary of the results of cross-tabulating

each characteristic with students' choice decisions. Four items were shown
to be statistically significant in affecting college choice decision. The four
items are:
Facilities

275

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

Procedures and policies

Entry requirements
Extra-curricular activities
This result supports hypothesis 4 by showing the significance of various
college characteristics in influencing the choice of college. In other words, it
proves that the decision to enroll in a particular college depends on more
than one factor.
5. Discussion on Findings & Conclusion
5.1 Major Findings
It was found that students with only SPM qualification mostly opted for
private institutions of higher learning. This is understandable as usually
public universities only accept candidates with STPM qualification. Students
with STPM however, mostly chose public universities (78.26%). Most students have not visited their institutions prior to enrollment. 31.9% says they
paid only one visit to their colleges.
61.9% of students made their decision to enroll in a college within two
weeks. About 31% each said they decided to enroll within one week, and
another 31% mentioned making decision between one to two weeks.
In terms of gathering information about their colleges, 84.3% reported
gathering the information themselves. A significant proportion (31.9%) also
relied wholly or partially on friends in gathering information. Parents, siblings, and relatives do not seem to play a major role in gathering information
for most respondents.
Five factors, explaining 61% of the total variance were identified.
These factors were named Personal, Academic Quality and Facilities,
Factors, Campus, Socialization, and Financial aid and procedures. A
ranking of means revealed that friends and schoolmates, parents and
relatives were some of the sources of influence on students college choice
decision making. Newspapers were found to be more influential relative to
television and radio.
Hypothesis 1 was supported whereby gender and ethnicity are proven
not likely to affect students' college choice decision. Hypothesis 2 is also
supported whereby the income of the student's immediate family is likely to
affect the college choice decision in terms of public-private institutions. Respondents from the lower family income group are less likely to enroll in pri-

276

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

vate institutions. There is a significant bias in students from higher income

families enrolling in private establishments. Hypothesis 3 is rejected. It cannot be proven that the college choice decision is affected by the highest preuniversity academic qualification thus far attained by the student. There is no
significant support for the premise that students with higher academic qualifications would choose to enroll in public universities. Hypothesis 4 was
partially supported with the findings that factors such as facilities, procedures and policies and entry requirements are some of the significant factors
influencing college choice.
5.2 Implications
The Government, desirous of turning Malaysia into a center of excellence for education, has taken momentous strides in liberalizing the educational services industry by encouraging competition amongst operators in public as well as private sectors. The effect of this effort is not just the setting
up of more institutions of higher learning, it has also witnessed greater participation of Malaysians regardless of their ethnicity and gender, particularly
the younger generation, in tertiary education. In 1995, the percentage of 1924 year olds in tertiary education was only 3.5%. In 1999, it has risen to 12%.
By 2020, the Government hopes the percentage will increase to 40%, in line
with that of advanced countries.
The rapid expansion and mushrooming of educational institutions is not
without its problems. For one, many students and parents are complaining
about the poor quality of certain programs offered at a few private colleges.
Letters to the editors in our major dailies often highlight the plight of tertiary
students in being unfairly treated, or worse still misrepresented, by their
universities or colleges. The irresponsibility of the college operators drew
wrath and scorns form a cross-section of the Malaysian public. These college
operators should also be concerned with the fees charged as it was found that
family income does affect college choice between public and private institutions.
84.3% of the students gather college information on their own. A large
proportion also rely on friends and family members for information. As
newspapers are proven to be very influential source of information, college
operators should utilize this media to the fullest possible. Television and
radio are proven to be less influential in students' college choice decision. It
may well be as students usually pour through written material in getting information on higher education. Besides, education fairs and nationwide tours
by college representatives are also important sources of information for pot-

277

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

ential students. The frequency of such events that would provide the greatest
impact is hard to tell, but a conservatively suggestion of one nationwide tour
every year, and three education fairs would in our opinion be a good start.
This research has also indicated what students actually value in selecting a college to enroll in. In particular, the quality of teaching, institution's
image, and campus surroundings must all be considered by college operators
in attracting students. Preparing to give what students want is the first step in
applying marketing concepts to higher education.
5.3 Research limitations
The sample size of 210 is considered very small compared to an estimated 340,000 students currently enrolled in institutions of higher education.
Furthermore, samples were only drawn from university and college students
from the Klang Valley, which may not be representative of tertiary student
population in Malaysia as a whole. Data gathering used the convenience sampling method, whereby students were approached personally by the interviewers. This technique has been criticized by many researchers as not being
accurate and representative of the entire population. Although extreme care
has been taken not to cause business to the sampling process, a strong element of subjectivity is still present. The construct of influence on college
choice decision is one which is very difficult to define, much less to measure.
The way the questionnaire was worded may actually skew the answers of
the respondents. This study is mainly descriptive in nature, as intended. The
important aspects of college choice decision affecting post-purchase behaviour, academic achievements, and satisfaction levels were not examined.
5.4 Implications for Future research
This study has effected more questions than answers. It is an encouraging sign that more research into this area should be carried out in the near
future. In particular researchers can look into other aspects of the student
decision-making process, including personal factors, family background, academic achievements, and other considerations. The causal relationship between college choice and post-purchase behaviour, academic achievements,
and satisfaction levels, can also be examined. Similarly, more constructs can
be defined and measured in follow-up studies.
As this research is meant for exploratory purposes, we believe that a
wealth of other follow-up studies can and should be carried out. In particular,
more studies in this field need to be conducted before a clearer picture of the
education industry in Malaysia emerge.

278

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

5.5 Conclusion
As education strongly reflects and affects the soundness of the nation,
we should thus try to understand it better. The burgeoning industry that we
now witness today is the result of a greater awareness and need for higher
learning and achievement. That greater need and awareness is very much a
part of human striving to perfect oneself and to self-actualize.
As our nation progresses towards its coveted dream of developed statehood, education (and in particular tertiary education) plays a major role in
its actualization. Therefore, problems faced within the current system, such
as the questions of cost, quality, creativity, and morality, must be solved quickly yet effectively. Academicians and policy makers must be careful in their
planning and implementation of national education objectives so that we can
continue to produce generations after generations of useful, knowledgeable,
upright. and competent citizens.
On a smaller scale, universities and colleges, being the front-runners
and implementers of national educational objectives, must be made aware of
their significant roles and responsibilities in moulding the new generation of
professionals, leaders, planners, technocrats, operators, and more. Another
important task in assisting national development is to stem the outflow of
foreign exchange to support the thousands of Malaysian students abroad.
There is also strong possibility of attracting foreign students to our shores,
thus reversing the outflow of funds and reduce our service deficit. In doing
all these, university and college authorities must be aware of students' needs
and college selection criteria. Only then can their actual needs be catered for.
Through this study, students have shown that they are amiable to and satisfied with local tertiary education. Nevertheless, many of them expressed the
desire to see improvements in quality of teaching, social life, and facilities.
Besides, the ubiquitous factors of costs, duration of studies, and academic
quality are also important considerations for students and their families. Our
policy planners should take these omni-present factors into consideration in
providing a better deal for students in Malaysia. College and university authorities too should strive to ensure that students are given a holistic education and not just a paper qualification. Only then can we boast of a worldclass education system and achieve the spirit of Malaysia Boleh!"
In conclusion, this study is an early attempt to explore the wide fields of
Malaysian education scene, particularly from the viewpoint of immediate
customers, the students. It is hoped that follow-up studies would provide
more coverage relative to the findings of this research.

279

Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin and Tan Ho Soon

References
[1] Absher, K. G., G. Crawford, K. P. Gatlin. 1993. Identifying college selection factors among students of a regional university. Southwest Business Symposium Proceedings 419-430.
[2] Brown, J. D. 1991. Identifying benefit segments among college students.
The Journal of College Admission (Spring) 30-33.
[3] Hossler, D. R., K. S. Gallagher. 1987. Studying student college choice. A
three-phase model and the implications for policy-makers. College and
University 62 (3) 207-221.
[4] Jackson, T. J. 1985. Bolstering graduate school enrollments through
effective use of alumni. College and University 60 (3) 210-218.
[5] Joseph, M. B. , J. B. Ford. 1997. Importance-performance analysis as a
strategic tool for service marketers: The case of service quality perceptions of business students in New Zealand and the USA. The Journal of
Services Marketing 13 (2) 171-186
[6] Kotler, P. 1976. Applying marketing theory to college admissions. In
College Entrance Examination Board (ed.). A Role for Marketing in College Admission 54-72. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
[7] Pate, W. S., Jr. 1993. Consumer satisfaction, determinants, and post-purchase actions in higher education: A model to guide academic managers.
College and University 100-107.
[8] Paulsen, M. B. 1990. College choice: Understanding student enrollment
behavior (ASHEERIC higher education report No. 6). Washington,
DC: The George Washington University. School of Education and
Human Development.
[9] Plank, R. E., L. Chiagouris. 1998. Perceptions of quality of higher education: An exploratory study of high school guidance counselors. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 7 (1) 17-32.
[10]St., E. P. John. 1990a. Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the high school and beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher
Education 31(2) 161-176.
[11]Webb, M. S., R. L. Coccari, A. Lado, L. C. Allen, A. K. Reichert. 1998.
Selection criteria used by graduate students in considering doctoral business programs offered by private vs. public institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 8 (1) 69-90.

280