ArticlePDF Available

Does Reputation Matter? Case Study of Undergraduate Choice at a Premier University

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The changing facets of the Malaysian higher education created market-based competition among higher education institutions. With increasing competition in the higher education environment, a clearer understanding of why and how students choose universities is more impor- tant to help universities develop their marketing strategies. This paper investigates the reasons for pursuing higher education and the key factors influencing their decision to study at university. This paper also considers the issue of whether the lower fees and reputation of a premier uni- versity is adequate to attract the best students. The data from a sample of 1st-year undergraduate students enrolled in various courses at the University of Malaya were ana- lysed using coherence analysis and logistic regression. The study infers latent factors affecting university choice and uses a model that allows the interaction of these multiple factors. The findings suggest that career prospects and reputation of the University and its programmes were the most important factors in the students’ decision of a place to further studies. Significant others in the life of the stu- dent as well as the student’s own desire for personal development are strong influences that lead the student to consider reputation of the University. While the reputation of the University of Malaya is extremely important, the lower fee structure plays an important role in university choice. The university needs to be proactive in recruiting students. The marketing of educational services is impor- tant, both to create a favourable image and as well to successfully recruit the best students.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, (2014) 23(3): 451-462
published online 12 Sept 2013, DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y
Does Reputation Matter? Case Study of Undergraduate Choice at a
Premier University
aSusila Munisamy, aNoor Ismawati Mohd Jaafar*, & bShyamala Nagaraj.
aDepartment of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
bDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United State.
Correspondent author*: email: nimj@um.edu.my
Abstract
The changing facets of the Malaysian higher education created market based competition among higher
education institutions. With increasing competition in the higher education environment, a clearer
understanding of why and how students choose universities is more important than ever to help
universities develop its marketing strategies. This paper investigates the reasons for pursuing higher
education and the key factors influencing their decision to study at university. This paper also considers
the issue of whether the lower fees and reputation of a premier university is adequate to attract the best
students. The data from a sample of first year undergraduate students enrolled in various courses at the
University of Malaya was analysed using coherence analysis and logistic regression. The study infers
latent factors affecting university choice and uses a model that allows the interaction of these multiple
factors. The findings suggest that career prospects and reputation of the University and its programmes
were the most important factors in the studentsdecision of a place to further studies. Significant others in
the life of the student as well as the student’s own desire for personal development are strong influences
that lead the student to consider reputation of the University. While the reputation of the University of
Malaya is extremely important, the lower fee structure plays an important role in university choice. The
university needs to be pro-active in recruiting students. The marketing of educational services is
important, both to create a favourable image and as well to successfully recruit the best students.
Keywords: university choice, higher education, student recruitment, competition, university reputation
In the context of increasing competition for home-based and overseas students, most universities
recognize that they need to market themselves to drive enrolment and build image. With a tighter budget
and increasing competition in the higher education environment, the need to understand the motivation of
students to pursue higher education and the key factors involved in their choice are more important than
ever. A clearer understanding of why and how students choose universities will help universities to
develop successful and sophisticated recruitment strategies.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 2
2
However, understanding the process of student decision making in the choice in higher
education is not an easy task. The decision making process is complex and subject to multiple influences
that not only interact with each other but also change over time. In actual fact, the university choice
decision making process is a set of nested decisions where the first decision is whether or not to pursue
higher education. At this stage of information gathering, the advice of counselors, teachers, parents and
friends have a great influence. Once the decision to obtain higher education is made, the next level of
decision making is the type of institution to attend with various choices that include research-intensive,
technology, metropolitan, and regional universities. This is followed by the choice of the institution and
the programme to enroll in. This stage is influenced by the characteristics of the institution such as
reputation and quality, cost, availability of field of study, proximity to home and etc. as well as the
individual’s characteristics such as socio-economic background and gender.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons for students to pursue higher education
and to identify the key factors that influence the students decision about their choice of institution. The
paper also discusses whether the lower fees structure of a public university combined with a reputation of
being a premier university is adequate to attract the best students.
In the investigations of student choice in higher education, most studies were concerned about
the influencing factors affecting prospective students’ choice of which university to attend. Although
many studies have tried to investigate the influence of institutional and student characteristics in the
university choice process, few have tried to infer latent factors affecting choice or to analyse the influence
of factors through a model that allows the interaction of multiple factors. This study summarizes
information about latent factors affecting choice and goes on to show how multiple factors all interact to
create a complex university choice nexus. Hence, this study describes how multiple characteristics of the
institution and individual jointly impact on the decision making process.
Higher Education in Malaysia
Malaysia has seen an explosive growth in its tertiary education sector in the last two decades.
This has been demonstrated by the rise in enrolments in public and private universities, and the
proliferation of more private universities and the establishment of foreign universities. In line with its aim
of making Malaysia an educational hub at least for Asia if not the world, the Government has liberalized
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 3
3
the education sector in stages since the 1990s so that foreign universities can participate in the education
sector in a variety of ways, from offering degree programmes to twinning programmes to the setting up of
branch campuses. To date, there are 20 public universities in different parts of the country, 28 private
universities, 6 Malaysian campuses of foreign universities, 22 private university-colleges, and more than
400 colleges, approved by the Malaysian government (Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), 2011).
The percentage of students enrolled in first degree programmes has increased by 77 per cent over the
period 2000 to 2011 (MOHE, 2011), indicating an enrolment increase of about 7 per cent per annum. The
mushrooming of higher education institutions in Malaysia has increased the choice students have in
selecting a university to pursue their tertiary education. The higher education institutions are operating in
a different market then they did two decades ago, they are now operating in a climate of international
competition for home-based and international students created by liberalisation and globalization.
As the competition between public, private and foreign universities to attract students becomes
stiffer, the public universities recognize the need to strategically position themselves in the market
through marketing activities to recruit the best students. Although public universities in Malaysia are
deemed to have an upper hand in the share of students due to student admission through the Admission
Board at the Ministry of Higher Education, being partly government sponsored and having a distinctively
lower fee structure, unlike private universities, statistics reveal that the percentage enrolled in Malaysian
public educational institutions of higher learning has decreased from 74 per cent in 2000 (Malaysia, Ninth
Malaysian Plan, 2006) to 62 per cent in 2011 (MOHE, 2011). Coupled with strict budgetary constraints
on tertiary education spending among public higher education institutions (HEIs), universities are forced
to become more image-savvy and more proactive in their marketing endeavours to attract highly desirable
students. Paramewaran and Glowacka (1995), in their study of university image, found that HEIs need to
maintain or develop a distinct image in order to create a competitive advantage in an increasingly
competitive market.
Malaysian public universities have made very little progress in implementing marketing
strategies for a long period of time. Marketing to prospective undergraduate students in public
universities is minimal especially when contrasted with its private sector competitors who aggressively
recruit students. This is because of two reasons. First, is the mode of entry into public universities.
Students’ admission to public university is through a central clearing house at the Ministry of Higher
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 4
4
Education, unlike private universities. This Admission Board is responsible for the allocation of public
university places to students. The Malaysian students apply to universities through this central office
which assigns students to university, based on their results. The universities themselves have no part in
the selection of students. The Malaysian applicant can provide a choice of (public) universities and
programmes, but he or she will be assigned to one university and it may even be for a university and/ or
programme that he or she did not apply for. Thus, the state decides for the university how many students
to admit and whom to admit to which programmes. Therefore, a continuous pool of student is ensured. A
second reason for lack of interest in attracting the right number and the right mix of students is due to the
fact that the public universities have been historically supported and funded to some extend by the
government which ensured a constant stream of income to finance operations. Therefore, they did not
depend on tuition fees and need not attract students to ensure sufficient funds are available. In this regard,
the public universities have been sheltered from a truly competitive market.
Against this scenario, the University of Malaya (UM) is an interesting case. The University is a
public university established in 1949 in Singapore, with the merger of King Edward VII College of
Medicine (founded in 1905) and Raffles Medical College and Raffles College (founded in 1928). The
growth of the university was very rapid during the first decade of its establishment and this resulted in the
setting up of two autonomous Divisions in 1959 which later changed status into national universities in
1960. It is the first university to produce graduates in Malaysia and sees itself as the premier university in
the country with a strategic campus located within the heart of capital city of the country, Kuala Lumpur.
Today the university hosts around 26,000 students of whom roughly 14,380 are undergraduates. About
13% of the University’s students are from overseas. There is about 2440 academic staff with 24 faculties,
academies, institutes and research centers that cover the whole spectrum of learning from Arts, Sciences
and Humanities. Many universities take part in ranking and rating exercises which are regarded as clear
drivers of university’s behavior and the University of Malaya is no exception to this. Nationally, UM is
rated as 5 (out of 6 stars) in Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institution (SETARA) since
2007 and is the only university rated with 5 stars out of 20 other higher education institutions (HEI) when
it was initially introduced in 2007 (Kaur & Chapman, 2008; Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA),
2010; MQA 2012). In the international arena, the University of Malaya is within the top 200 world
universities in the QS World University Ranking 2012 and remains the top in Malaysia at No. 169 in the
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 5
5
world and at No. 35 in Asia. The ranking emphasizes UMs achievements in research and the
achievements of its alumni.
Literature Review
A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing is provided by Hemsley-
Brown and Oplatka (2006) and later by Stachowski (2011). Marketing plays a significant role in student
recruitment (Taylor and Darling, 1991; Canterbury, 1999; Nicholls et al., 1995; Coats, 1998; Biggin,
2000 and Foskett et al., 2003 as quoted by Briggs, 2006; Judson et al., 2004). According to Ivy (2008),
with the wide variety of qualifications and degree offerings available and the increased level of
competition, the need for institutions to differentiate themselves and stand out has become self-evident,
resulting in the increased importance of the role of marketing in student recruitment. Kotler & Fox (1985)
provided a definition of education marketing as early as 1985, describing marketing in the context of
education as: “the analysis, planning, implementation and control of carefully formulated programs
designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of values with a target market to achieve organisational
objectives”. Later in the in the 1990’s, researchers defined higher education marketing more narrowly as
marketing communications (Gatfield et al., 1999; Hesketh & Knight, 1999). Marketing communication
was based on the assumption that in order to market itself successfully, any higher education institution
needs to examine the decision making process and prospective students’ search for information.
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identify three uniquely definable stages in students’ decision
making in the selection of an institution of higher education or subject of study: (a) predisposition (when
students decide if they wish to continue on to tertiary education); (b) search (when students begin to
investigate potential providers); and (c) choice decision (when students decide on attending a particular
institution as students tend to make multiple applications). The third aspect, choice decision of university,
is the focus of this paper.
A number of factors have been found to affect university choice. Table 1 presents some of the
studies that have concentrated on the factors that influence student’s choices of institution.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 6
6
Table 1: Summary of a Sample of Empirical Research on Student Decision Making
Reference
Country
Factors influencing choice
Al Jamil et al.
( 2012)
Bangladesh
education quality
cost of the study
student politics
An (2009)
USA
family background
social background
parental investments
parental education
Fernandez
(2010)
Malaysia
strong business links
good reputation
adequate facilities
availability of programmes
courses that suit the students'
needs
James et al.
(1999)
Australia
availability of field of
study preferences
course and institutional
reputation and quality
career opportunities
approaches to teaching and
learning
graduate satisfaction
quality of teaching
Joseph et al.
(2012)
USA
reputation
selectivity
personal interaction
facilities
cost
Kusumawati et
al. (2010)
Indonesia
cost
reputation
proximity to home
job prospect
influence of parents
Mohar Yusof et
al. (2008)
Malaysia
availability of
programmed interested in
finance
industry expectation
location
Norbahiah
Misran et al.
(2012)
Malaysia
social economic status (parents’ education, occupation and
income)
Paik & Shim
(2012)
Korea
gender,
parental education
subject matter preferences
school size
Poo et al. (2012)
Malaysia
financial aid
safety of the campus
academic reputation
university image
accommodation
Raposo & Alves
(2007)
Portugal
personal factors
influence of others
Samsinar Md.
Sidin et al.
(2003)
Malaysia
academic quality
facilities
campus surroundings
personal characteristics
income
procedures and policies
entry requirements
Soutar &Turner
(2002)
Australia
course suitability
academic reputation
job prospects
teaching quality
Veloutsou et al.
(2004)
England,
Scotland &
Northern
Ireland
local infrastructure
local social life
career prospects
university’s infrastructure
university’s social life
business contacts
university’s reputation
course studied
campus
Wagner & Fard
(2009)
Malaysia
cost of education
degree (content and
structure)
physical aspect and
facilities
value of education
institutional information
influences from family’s,
friends’, peers’ influence
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 7
7
The factors that influence student’s choices of institution may be grouped broadly into
institutional characteristics and student or individual’s characteristics. Four factors related to the
institution, mentioned repeated in the literature, are reputation - including brand name, achievements and
high standard of education; financial issues specifically costs and availability of aid; campus attributes
including location, setting, campus atmosphere and facilities; and career prospects - including graduates’
employment prospects, expected income and employers’ views of graduates. James et al. (1999) found
that there is a relationship between types of university with factors influencing the students’ decision.
They classified university as research-intensive, technology, metropolitan or regional university.
The (academic) reputation of the institution is a factor ranked high in the literature. The concept
of organizational reputation has been defined as (a) assessments that multiple stakeholders make about
the company’s ability to fulfill its expectations over time (Fombrun and Van Riel, 2003), (b) a collective
system of subjective beliefs among members of a social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000, 2002), (c)
collective beliefs that exist in the organizational field about a firm’s identity and prominence (Rao, 1994),
(d) media visibility and favorability gained by a firm (Deephouse, 2000), (e) outsiders’ perceptions about
an organization’s current performance and future behaviors (Carmelli, 2005), and (f) collective
representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time (Grunig and
Hung, 2002; Yang and Grunig, 2005; Yang, 2007). Therefore, the similarity of those definitions is that
the reputation of an organization refers to public perceptions of the organization shared by its multiple
constituents over time (Sung and Yang, 2008). The reputation or prestige of an academic institution is
indicated by various university ranking systems, perception of society overall and positive media
coverage.
According to Gatfield, Barker and Graham (1999), the prestige, or reputation for quality of an
institution is often more important than its actual quality, because it represents the perceived excellence of
the institution which guides the decisions of prospective students to enrol with the institution. Maringe
and Gibbs (2009) conceptualised reputation of an institution from the perspective of the consumer
(student) who has many choices due to the variety of providers in the education market. They identified
four key perspectives of organizational reputation applicable to the higher learning environment which
are public relations, marketing communication, crisis/risk management and corporate branding
perspective. In the context of this paper, reputation is discussed from the corporate branding perspective
which is about positive assumptions on the university and/or programme and the perceived image. The
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 8
8
present image of an institution comes about from its past record. A strong favourable image is built as a
result of an institutions performance, academic ranking and deriving real satisfaction from the institution
and informing the public about this. Building a respected identity gives an institution a competitive
advantage.
Research also evidenced the vital role reputation plays for all types of higher education
institutions i.e. public university (James et al., 1999; Joseph et al., 2012; Kusumawati et al, 2010;
Veloutsou et al., 2004), private university (Al Jamil et al, 2012; Faridah Haji Hassan & Nooraini
Mohamad Sheriff, 2006; Keling et al., 2007; Rohaizat Baharun et al., 2011; Siti Falinda Padlee et al.,
2010) and international branched campus (Wilkins & Huisman, 2011, Wilkins et al, 2011). Reputation is
also a critical factor in choosing the right university in Malaysia (Ancheh et al., 2007; Keling et al., 2007;
Koe & Siti Noraisah Saring, 2012; Lau ,2009; Mohar Yusof et al., 2008; Norbahiah Misran et al., 2012;
Faridah Haji Hassan & Nooraini Mohamad Sheriff, 2006; Poo et al., 2012; Samsinar Md. Sidin et al.,
2010; Wagner & Fard, 2009).
Methodology
Sample and Instrument
This study was conducted in the University of Malaya and involved a survey of 880 first year
students who comprise all first-year students enrolled at the Faculty of Economics and Administration,
and their randomly selected first-year friends from other faculties. In view of the effect of subject choice,
it was important to select students from across faculties on campus. The respondents were both from arts-
based and science-based faculties and majored in the fields of economics, business, education, linguistic,
engineering, medical, computer science, sciences, etc. The questionnaires were distributed by students of
a project in the course Statistic I over a three week period. Based on the literature, respondents were
asked to rate the importance of a list of nine reasons for furthering study at an institution of higher
learning (listed in Table 2) and 13 reasons for choosing UM (listed in Table 3) using a 5 point Likert
scale. Social demographic and economic background of respondent and their parents were also included
in the questionnaire.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 9
9
Statistical Analysis
The main statistical analyses deployed in this study are coherence analysis and logistic
regression. The coherence analysis is conducted to study the patterns of relationship among many factors
in order to group and to infer latent factors which are more generalized. In other words, it summarizes
information about latent factors affecting choice. The coherence analysis is done for reasons for
furthering studyand reasons for choosing UM’. Past studies have used factor analysis (Al Jamil et al,
2012; Rohaizat Baharun et al., 2011; Samsinar Md. Sidin et al., 2010; Veloutsou et al., 2004), and
Structural Equation Modelling (Raposo & Alves, 2007) while some just use descriptive statistics
(Fernandez, 2010; Norbahiah Misran et al., 2012), t-test for independent sample (Norbahiah Misran et al.,
2012) and analysis of variance (Rohaizat Baharun et al., 2011; Mohar Yusof et al., 2008 ). Unlike these
studies, we use an index firstly proposed to measure the inter-business relatedness (Teece, Rumelt, Dosi,
& Winter, 1994)1 or better known as coherence analysis. Previously, it has been used to measure the
relatedness between firms’ diversification strategy (Valcano & Vannoni, 2003; Karthik & Basant, 2004)
and the obstacles to innovation faced by manufacturing firms (Lim & Nagaraj, 2007). The principle of the
coherence analysis is to find the relationship between two categorical variables, by generating a value, to
show the relatedness of any two tested categorical variables. In the analysis, it focuses on a reason being
cited as extremely important. By comparing the observed number with the number of links that would
emerge from random grouping, the coherence score between reason i and j indicates the propensity for
reason i and reason j to be jointly cited as being extremely important. The average coherence score for
reason i reflects the average propensity for this reason to be jointly cited as extremely important with all
other reasons. The score is considered to be high if the absolute value exceeds 1.962.
Next, a logistic regression is carried out to identify factors affecting the perceived views on
reputation, using the latent factors discovered in the earlier analysis. The logistic regression equation is
given by
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡 𝑝(𝑥)=𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑝(𝑥)
1𝑝(𝑥)=𝛽!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!++𝛽!𝑥!
Where 𝑝=!probability of Y=1, 0𝑝1,
𝑝=𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝛽!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!++𝛽!𝑥!
1𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝛽!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!+𝛽!𝑥!++𝛽!𝑥!
with 𝑌= Dependent variable
𝛽!=The constant
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 10
10
𝑥!= Independent variable/predictor variable
𝛽!= The coefficient of 𝑥!.
In this study Reputation, is the dependent variable while Relative Costs, Personal Development, Career,
and Significant Others are treated as independent variables (presented in Table 4).
Profile of Respondents
The sample of 880 students comprised mostly female students (71%), not very different from
that for the university as a whole, reflecting the predominance of women to men among university
students. However, there were more students from the arts-based faculties (78.1%), much larger than that
for the university as a whole (51.3%), likely a reflection of the sampling design which was based on
friends of students from the Faculty of Economics and Administration. Most of the students are aged
between 20 and 22, although the range was from 19 33. Most of the students had taken the STPM
(equivalent to A-levels), came from partially or fully funded government schools, and over a half were
from urban areas. About 4.9 per cent of fathers/ guardians and about 6.1 per cent of mothers had no
formal education. In contrast, about 11.5 per cent of fathers/ guardians and 6.9 per cent of mothers had at
least an undergraduate degree. About 43.9 per cent of fathers/ guardians and 53.5 per cent of working
mothers were in professional, technical or administrative jobs.
Results
Motivation to Pursue Higher Education and the Choice of University Of Malaya
The analyses of reasons for choosing to pursue higher education and for choosing UM are based
on the (i) percentage that cited the reason as not important at all (ii) percentage that cited the reason as
extremely important and (iii) average coherence with other reasons to be cited as most important. The
first measure tells us how unimportant a reason is and the second how really important it is. The third
measure summarizes a latent construct of inter-related groups of factors affecting choice.
Table 2 provides information related to the reasons for furthering study at an institution of higher
learning. Five reasons stand out for being rated extremely important. These are to get a good job (59.6%),
the next step in the career path (55.7%), to gain more knowledge (49.3%), personal interest in the field of
study (41.4%) and to broaden experience (40.3%). Very few students considered these reasons
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 11
11
unimportant (less than 1%). Other reasons for furthering their studies were parental expectation (22%),
teachers’ expectation (12.8%), influence of friends who are going to university (10.0%) and to have a
good time (8.7%). These reasons also saw greater percentages of students citing them as unimportant, the
lowest being for parental expectation (5%) and the highest being for friends going to university (18.3%).
It is interesting to note that unlike studies elsewhere (Rohaizat Baharun et al., 2011; Samsinar Md. Sidin
et al., 2010) the role of parents is greater than that of peers, which is consistent with Fernandez (2010).
For all the reasons, the average coherence for reasons to be jointly cited as extremely important is more
than what would be predicted by random grouping. Based on these average scores and the scores in
Appendix Table 7, the following inter-related groups of extremely important reasons for furthering
studies are broadly identified: (1) Career prospects: combines ‘get a good job’ with ‘next step in career
path’ and personal development attributes, (2) Personal development: combines ‘gain more knowledge’,
‘personal interest in a field of study’ and ‘to broaden experience’ and (3) Influence of Significant others
(family, teachers and peers): combines ‘parental expectations’, ‘teachers’ expectations and ‘friends going
to university too’, personal development and career prospects. The result is consistent with motivation
factors for furthering study at Malaysian public HEI by study conducted among similar focus group
(Fernandez, 2010) and studies among high school leavers and/or pre-university students (Norbahiah
Misran et al., 2012; Wagner & Fard; 2009).
Table 2: Reasons for Furthering Study at an Institution of Higher Learning
Reason
Cited Not
Important at
All (%)
Average coherence score for
reason to be jointly cited with
other reasons as most important
for furthering studies
To get a good job
0.3
6.97
Next step in career path
0.1
7.27
To gain more knowledge
0.2
6.98
Personal interest in a field of study
0.6
5.92
To broaden my experience
0.7
8.09
Parental expectations
5.0
7.24
Teachers' expectations
8.4
7.46
Friends are going to university too
18.3
4.91
To have a good time
16.2
2.48
Source: From the survey data
We now turn to the choice of the University of Malaya. Table 3 portrays that the majority of the
students thought of UM as first choice or only choice (69.1%). Having alumni parents had no significant
effect among these students (χ2=.17, p=0.30). Table 3 provides information related to the reasons for
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 12
12
choosing the University of Malaya. The top four reasons that were found extremely important by the
students were good job prospects (44.5%), the reputation of the university (39.3%), the programme
offered (37.5%) and the reputation of the programme (33.0%). Very few students found these
unimportant (about 1%). The University of Malaya’s link with industry (29.4%), cost (27.7%), university
facilities (24.8%) and better staring salaries for University of Malaya graduates (21.4%) were the other
major factors in the choice of studying at UM. Compared to earlier set of reasons, more students found
these reasons unimportant; in particular, 12.4 per cent thought perceived cost was unimportant. This study
supports the finding of Fernandez (2010) who identified facilities as one of the important reason for
university choice, in contrast with Mohar Yusof et al. (2008).
A much smaller percentage of students found other reasons like teacher’s recommendation, close
to home, recommendation from alumni, good social life and enjoy living in the Klang Valley extremely
important, but it is also pertinent to note that very few found them unimportant. For all the reasons, the
average coherence for reasons to be jointly cited as extremely important is more than what would be
predicted by random grouping. Based on these average scores and the scores in Appendix Table 8, the
following inter-related groups of extremely important reasons for choosing UM are broadly identified: (1)
Employability of graduates: combines ‘good links with industry’, ‘good job prospects’ and ‘better
starting salary’ and perceived reputation of quality of programme, (2) Reputation of quality of
programme: combines ‘good reputation of University’, ‘offers programme I am interested in‘ and good
reputation of programme’, (3) Influence of significant others: combines ‘recommendations from
University graduates’, ‘teacher’s recommendations’, and perceived reputation of quality of programme
and (4) Costs: which combines ‘cheaper than private universities’ with ‘living in Klang Valley’ and
‘close to home’, and all other reasons. These results appear consistent with the results of reasons for
furthering studies in terms of career prospects.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 13
13
Table 3: Choosing the University of Malaya
Reason
Cited Not
Important at
All (%)
Cited Most
Important
(%)
Average coherence
score for reason to
be jointly cited with
other reasons
as most important
for choosing UM
Average coherence score
for reason to be jointly
cited with reasons as
most important for
furthering studies
Good job prospects
1.0
44.5
7.9
80.4
Good reputation of UM
1.0
39.3
8.6
74.5
Offers the programme
I’m interested in
1.1
37.5
7.8
72.2
Good reputation of
programme
0.8
33.0
8.3
56.1
UM has good links with
industry
2.0
29.4
8.3
52.5
Cheaper than private
universities
12.4
27.7
4.6
27.5
Good university
facilities
4.0
24.8
7.8
41.4
Better starting salary for
UM graduates
4.7
21.4
7.3
33.9
Teacher’s
recommendation
5.2
13.2
8.2
37.6
Close to home
39.5
12.9
2.7
9.0
Recommendation from
UM graduates
12.7
10.0
7.6
27.7
Good social life in UM
8.2
10.0
7.3
24.7
Enjoy living in Klang
Valley
28.1
7.0
4.0
8.6
Source: From the survey data
The last column of Table 3 also shows in the average coherence scores for each reason to be
jointly cited as extremely important with reasons for choosing to go to university. The reasons related to
job prospects, reputation and offering the relevant programme, scores very high. This suggests that
students chose UM because this would enhance their job prospects and ensures the marketability of their
qualification. This view is further supported by a comparison of the highest academic level aspired to
between those who stated UM was the first or only choice with the others which was found to be
significantly different (χ2=21.1, p=0.00). Although initially surprising, this indicates that students selected
UM as their first choice because they wanted a reputable degree to enter the job market.
Factors Affecting Perceived Reputation
Having established that reputation does matter, next, we conduct a logistic regression analysis to
investigate factors affecting perceived views on reputation. The definitions of the variables are based on
the findings of the coherence analyses. Reputation is the dependent variable while Relative Costs,
Personal Development, Career, and Significant Others are independent variables. Table 4 shows the
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 14
14
definition of the variables which is based on extremely important reasons, while Table 5 presents students
characteristic factors entering the regression analysis alongside as independent variables, i.e. gender,
education, fathers education, CGPA and age. Both tables also show the results of the univariate analyses
against the dependent variable, Reputation. Relative Cost, Personal Development, Career, Significant
Others, Male and EducF are all significantly different across the two values of Reputation. The
proportions of Reputation = 1 are all higher than for Reputation=0 (not shown) for each of these
variables. However, Rural, CGPA and Age are not significantly different across the two values of
Reputation. The proportion of those who viewed reputation as extremely important and those who did not
were significantly different among those that stated that the Relative Cost, Personal Development, Career
Prospect, or Significant Others is an extremely important reason for furthering studies at an higher
education institution. The same was observed among males or those that had a father who was educated.
On the other hand, the finding show no significant difference between the proportion of those who
viewed reputation as extremely important and those who did not among students based on the criteria of
location of secondary school, academic performance nor age.
Table 4: Variables Based on Extremely Important Reasons Entering the Univariate Regression Analyses
Variable name
Indicators*
=1 if the following are jointly cited as being
extremely important
Results of Significance
Tests with Reputation
Reputation
‘good reputation of University’,
‘offers programme I am interested in‘ and
‘good reputation of programme’
NA
Relative Cost
‘cheaper than private universities’
χ2=16.5, p=0.00
Personal
Development
‘gain more knowledge’, ‘personal interest in a field of
study’ and ‘to broaden experience’
χ2=112.6, p=0.00
Career
‘get a good job’ with ‘next step in career path’
χ2=34.6, p=0.00
Significant Others
‘parental expectations’, ‘teachers’ expectations and
‘friends going to university too’
χ2=36.1, p=0.00
Note: NA= not applicable.
Source: From the survey data
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 15
15
Table 5: Other Student Characteristic Variables Entering the Univariate Regression Analyses
Variable Name
Description
Summary Information
Male
=1 if gender is male
χ2=6.4, p=0.01
Rural
=1 if secondary school was in a rural area
χ2=0.1, p=0.76
EducF
=1 if father’s highest educational level > Form
Five
χ2=4.0, p=0.05
CGPA
CGPA of previous semester
F=2.42, p=0.12
Age
Age of respondent
F=1.42, p=0.23
Source: From the survey data
The results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses are reported in Table 6. Personal
Development, Significant Others, and Male are all highly significant at the 5 per cent level, while
Relative Costs, Career and CGPA are significant at the 10 per cent level. EducF, Rural and Age are no
longer significant. Relative Cost and CGPA are the only regressor variables that are correlated but the
exclusion of either do not lead to substantial changes in their coefficients. The results show that the odds
ratio that reputation is 1 is 4.5 times greater when Personal Development is 1 than when Personal
Development is 0. That is, the student who is pursuing a higher level educational programme because he
or she believes personal development to be extremely important is 4.5 times more likely to choose UM
for its reputation than a student who does not believe personal development to be extremely important. A
similar interpretation applies for the other significant variables. Significant Others has as strong an effect
as Personal development. Relative Cost, Career, being male and CGPA have strong effects with the odds
ratio exceeding 1.5. That is, those who said the University was cheaper than private universities, those
who said career prospects were an extremely important for pursuing higher education, those who were
better students academically and those who were males had a greater likelihood of finding reputation to
be extremely important. The result from the multivariate logistic regression analysis reveals that students
who were motivated to study at a HEI due to desire for personal development, significant others in the
life of the students, academic ability, being male and career prospects will be more likely to choose UM
because of its reputation. Social economic status (EducF and Rural), previous student’s academic
performance (CGPA) and demographic variable (Age) did not play a significant role. This is in contrast
with Looker & Lowe (2001) who found social economic status to be a significant factor in University
choice; but concedes with Norbahiah Misran et al. (2012) who showed evidence of no significant
difference in the selection criteria between lower social economic status and higher status students. While
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 16
16
Paik & Shim (2012) acknowledge the role of gender, the biased in gender and socio-economic status are
found not to be significant by Samsinar Md. Sidin et al. (2010).
Table 6: Estimates of Log Odds ratios for Reputation Deploying Multivariate Regression Analyses
Variable name
Log Odds Ratio
Standard Error
P-Value
Relative Cost
1.420
0.311
0.109
Personal Development
4.529
1.009
0.000
Career
1.521
0.337
0.059
Significant Others
4.107
1.725
0.001
Male
1.643
0.357
0.022
Rural
1.002
0.213
0.991
EducF
1.394
0.320
0.149
CGPA
1.504
0.339
0.070
Age
1.128
0.132
0.304
Chi-squared=105.78, Pseudo R2=0.14, p-value=0.00
Source: From the survey data
Discussion
Having established that reputation does matter, the question arises whether the lower fees and
reputation of a premier university is adequate to attract the best students. Does a premier university like
UM, in a sector that has rivals, need to market itself among school-leavers or can it bank on its lower
public fee structure and long established reputation to do the needful? UM is the oldest University and
for a very long time was the only University in the country. The expansion in the tertiary education sector
has been remarkable only from the late 1990s, and reputations of younger universities will take time to be
built. The reputation of the University should be matched against the cost of its undergraduate education.
With the government’s education loan which covers fees and cost of living in a public university but
covers only partially the fees in a private institution, education at UM is certainly “value for money”.
However, if its reputation declines or the cost of education rises, then the University may look much less
attractive. Furthermore, the University will have to be pro-active in attracting the best students who will
be considering alternative universities with good reputation and better funding. If UM is to remain the
University of First Choice in a expanding competitive education sector, it needs to maintain and enhance
its prestige amongst the stakeholders of the education process, which include prospective students, their
parents, teachers, career advisors, schools as well as employers. To this end, marketing of educational
services becomes an important aspect of educational management both to create a favourable image and
as well to successfully recruit high quality students.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 17
17
Further, the findings of this study reveal that reputation is an important criterion for males in the
choice of university. Reputation of the university would enhance career prospects and starting salaries of
young graduates. Hence the findings would lend support to studies suggesting that the men select
reputable universities because of anticipated labor market payoff. In contrast, the females in this study did
not find reputation as an important criterion. Hence, the question arises as to whether the women choose
universities based on the supportiveness of the university or are they deflected from the careers goals as
they get involved in romance and/or plan to settled down to look after their families. This is an important
question for future research.
Conclusion and Implication
This study investigates the reasons for students to pursue higher education and the key factors
influencing the students’ decision to further their studies at UM. It also analyzed the patterns of
relationship among many factors to summarize information about latent factors affecting university
choice.
This study has shown that the most important reasons for pursuing higher education are career
prospects and personal development, while the most important factors influencing the choice of
institution (i.e. University of Malaya) are employability/career prospects and the reputation of the
university and its porgrammes. The influence of significant others and lower fee structure were also found
to be pertinent. The reputation of the University of Malaya, both as a provider of content as well as a
brand that obtains a premium in the workplace for its graduates, plays an extremely important role in the
student’s choice of university. Significant others in the life of the student, especially parents, as well as
the student’s own desire for personal development are strong influences that lead the student to consider
reputation of the University. Career prospects, academic ability and gender also play a role in directing
the student to consider reputation. It is to be noted that these factors relate to the University of Malaya.
Therefore, not all of them will necessarily apply to other universities in the country and there may be
other relevant factors not taken into account which affect the decision making process of university
students.
The findings of this study have important implications for strategic marketing to stakeholders by
higher education institutions. In a market that has become competitive, higher education institutions must
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 18
18
build a successful image both among prospective students and among employers to maintain an
advantageous position in the market. This is especially important because higher education institutions
provide a service that is intangible and a positive reputation reduces the risk of stakeholders such as
potential employers and prospective students in the choice of candidates and a higher education
institution, respectively. To this end, the best reputation management practise has to be exercised. Hence,
the marketing of educational services becomes vital. The marketing approach should orientate towards
customer needs to create a brand image that guarantees the institutions sustainability in a market
orientated system.
Further, Kotler (2004) suggests that competition in the future will have a strong network
orientation. According to him “a marketing network consists of a company and its supporting
stakeholders (parties), with whom it has built mutually profitable business relationships. Increasingly,
competition is not between companies, but marketing networks.” Applying this theory in the context of
student recruitment, institutions should build an extended marketing network to attain future success. To
achieve this, higher education institutions should build relationships with alumni, key feeder schools and
colleges, other institutions nearby that may provide referrals and even employers in order to build brand
image and connect with the target market.
Another contribution of this paper is the focus on the intersection of multiple factors in the
university choice process. The study describes how institutional characteristics and parts of complex
human characteristics separately and jointly impact on the university decision-making process by
considering reputation. Specifically, this study shows how educational background, socio-economic class,
secondary school attended, age, gender, desire for personal development and significant family and
friends all interact to create a complex university choice nexus. For future research, other physiological
factors such as culture, social class and life aspirations could be included in the analysis.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 19
19
References
Al Jamil, M.A., Sarker, M.M, & Abdullah, M. (2012). Students’ Choice Criteria to select a Private
University for their Higher Education in Bangladesh. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4(17):177-185
An, B.P. (2009).The association between race and college destinations. Social Science Research, 39:
310323
Ancheh, K. S. B., Krishnan, A. and Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative criteria for selection of private
universities and colleges in Malaysia. Journal of International Management Studies 2(1): 1-11.
Biggin,A. (2000). Marketing Education; the good, the bad and the unthanked. Education Marketing, 20:
13-15.
Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case
of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education 31(6): 705-722.
Bromley, D.B. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bromley, D.B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image, and reputation. Corporate
Reputation Review, 3, 240252.
Bromley, D.B. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case
studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 3550.
Canterbury, R. (1999). Higher education marketing: a challenge. Journal of College Admission, 165: 22-
30.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26, 443464.
Coates, D. (1998). Marketing of further and higher education: an equal opportunities
perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 22(2): 135-142.
Deephouse, D.L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication
and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 10911112.
Faridah Haji Hassan, & Nooraini Mohamad Sheriff. (2006). Students' need recognition for higher
education at private colleges in Malaysia: an exploratory perspective. Sunway Academic
Journal, 3: 61-71.
Fernandez, J.L. (2010). An exploratory study of factors influencing the decision of students to study at
Universiti Sains Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 28(2): 107-136
Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C.B.M. (2003). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning
reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Grunig, J.E., & Hung, C F. (2002). The effect
of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study.
Paper presented at the PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) Educator’s Academy 5th
Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida.
Foskett, N., Dyke, M. & Maringe, F. (2003). The influence of the school on the decision to participate in
learning post-16. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research
Association, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11th September 2003.
Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (1999): Measuring communication impact for university
advertising materials. Corporate Communications: An international Journal, 4(2): 73-79.
Hemsley-Brown J.V., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: a
systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 19(4): 316-338.
Hesketh, A. J. & Knight, P. T. (1999). Postgraduates' choice of programme: helping universities to
market and postgraduates to choose. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2): 151-163.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the
implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207-221.
Ivy J (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA marketing. International Journal
of Management Education, 22(4): 288-299.
James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which University? The factors influencing the choices of
prospective undergraduates. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.
Joseph,M., Mullen, E.W., & Spake, D.(2012). University Branding: Understanding Students’ Choice of
an Educational Institution. Journal of Brand Management, 20(1):1-12.
Judson, K. M., James, J. D., & Aurand, T. W. (2004). Marketing the university to student athletes:
Understanding university selection criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14(1):
23-40.
Kaur, S., & Chapman, K. (2008). UM leads in rankings. The Star Online. Retrieved from
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/17/nation/21283255&sec=nation
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 20
20
Karthik, D. & Basant, R. (2004), Empirical Assessment of Coherence in Information Technology firms
Retrieved from http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/dw2005-1637.pdf.
Keling, S. B. A., Krishnan, A., & Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative criteria for selection of private
universities and colleges in Malaysia. Journal of International Management Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
Koe, W.L., & Siti Noraisah Saring. (2012). Factors Influencing the Foreign Undergraduates’ Intention to
Study at Graduate School of a Public University. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 19: 57-68.
Kotler P (2004). Marketing management, eleventh edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Kotler, P. & Fox, K. F. A. (1985). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V. K. & Perera, N. (2010). Exploring Student Choice Criteria for
Selecting an Indonesian Public University: A Preliminary Finding. ANZMAC 2010 Doctoral
Colloquium (pp. 1-27). Christchurch, New Zealand: ANZMAC.
Lau, S.H. (2009). Higher Education Marketing Concern: Factors Influencing Malaysian Students’
Intention to Study at Higher Educational Institutions. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Lim, E. S. & Nagaraj,S. (2007). Obstacles to innovation: evidence from Malaysian manufacturing firms.
MPRA Paper No. 18077. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18077/
Looker, D. & Lowe, G. S. (2001). Post secondary access and student financial aid in Canada: Current
knowledge and research gaps.
doi://www.millenumscholarship.ca/en/foundation/publications/pareport/cprn-bkgnd.pdf.
Lopez Turley, R. (2006). When Parents Want Children to Stay Home for College. Research in Higher
Education. 47(7), 823-846.
Malaysia. (2006). The Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010. Federal Territory of Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2010). SETARA’09. Retrieved from
http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/ratings_setara09.cfm
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2012). SETARA’11. Retrieved from
http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/ratings_setara11.cfm
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2011). Malaysian higher education statistics 2011. Federal
Territory of Putrajaya.
Maringe, F. & Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing higher education : theory and practice. Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Mohar Yusof, Siti Nor Bayaah Ahmad, Misyer Mohamed Tajudin & R. Ravindra (2008). A study of
factors influencing the selection of a higher education institution. UNITAR E-Journal 4(2): 27
40.
Nichols, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clark, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing in higher education: the MBA
experience. International Journal of Management Education, 9(2): 31-38.
Norbahiah Misran, Sarifah Nurhanum Syed Sahuri, Norhana Arsad, Hafizah Hussain, Wan Mimi Diyana
Wan Zaki, & Norazreen Abd. Aziz. (2012). The Influence of Socio-economic Status among
Matriculation Students in Selecting University and Undergraduate Program. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 56: 134-140.
Paik, S. & Shim, W. (2012).Tracking and College Major Choices in Academic High Schools in South
Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Online First Articles: DOI : 10.1007/s40299-
012-0035-z.
Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A.E. (1995). University image: an information processing perspective.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2): 41-56.
Poo, B.T., Rahmah Ismail, Noorasiah Sulaiman & Norasmah Othman. (2012). Globalization and the
Factors Influencing Households’ Demand for Higher Education in Malaysia. International
Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 3(6): 269-278.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival
of organizations in the American automobile industry: 19851912. Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 2944.
Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: an exploratory approach. Munich
personal RePec archive. Retreived from
http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/5523/1/MPRA_paper_5523.pdf
Reay, D., David, M.E,. & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of Choice: Social Class, Race and Gender in Higher
Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
DOES REPUTATION MATTER? 21
21
Rohaizat Baharun, Zubaidah Awang, & Siti Falinda Padlee. (2011). International students choice criteria
for selection of higher learning in Malaysian private universities. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(12): 4704 -4714.
Samsinar Md. Sidin, Siti Rahayu Hussin, & Tan, H.S.(2003) An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing
the College Choice Decision of Undergraduate Students in Malaysia Asia Pacific Management
Review, 8(3): 259-280.
Santiago, D. (2007). Choosing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): A Closer Look at Latino Students’
College Choices. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.
Siti Falinda Padlee, Abdul Razak Kamaruddin, & Rohaizat Baharun. (2010). International students’
choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian private universities. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 2, 202-211.
Soutar, G., &Turner, J. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 16(1): 40-5.
Stachowski, CA. (2011). Educational Marketing: A Review and Implications for Supporting Practice
inTertiary Education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 39(2): 186204.
Sung, M and Yang S.-U (2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand
personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357
376.
Taylor, R., & Darling, J. (1991). Perceptions towards marketing higher education: do academic
disciplines make a difference? In: Hayes, T. (ed). New strategies in higher education marketing.
Haworth Press, New York.
Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence : Theory and
evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23, 1-30.
Valcano, S. & D. Vannoni (2003). Diversification Strategies and Corporate Coherence Evidence from
Italian Leading Firms. Review of Industrial Organization. 23: 25-41
Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University selection: Information requirements and
importance. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(3), 160-171.
Wagner, K. & Fard, P.Y. (2009). Factors Influencing Malaysian Students’ Intention to Study at a Higher
Educational Institution. E-Leader Kuala Lumpur.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they
compete in the global market? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 299-316.
Wilkins,S., Balakrishnan, M.S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student Choice in Higher Education: Motivations
for choosing to Study at an International Branch Campus. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 16(5): 413433.
Yang, S., & Grunig, J.E. (2005). Decomposing organizational reputation: The effects of organization-
public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and evaluations of
organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 305–326.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes, organizational
reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91121.
.
... Despite previous research, it is necessary to continue delving into how different factors influence university reputation, especially from the perspective of the student body [2], since the studies are still in exploratory stages and the models have been inconclusive due to data analysis, which has made use of first-generation statistics. There is a lack of comparative research that allows a better understanding of what happens in different contexts. ...
... The university reputation is an intangible key for the management of higher education services [1] with the capacity to influence the decisions of different interest groups. Reputation plays a crucial role in the selection stage of the applicant [2], in the experience with the educational process as well as in the job search after graduation [3]. A good reputation allows universities to attract research and teaching staff with high academic training and an outstanding career, improves financial performance, positioning, media coverage [1], investment attraction, as well as the advantage competitiveness and the success of the university [4]. ...
... Within the university context, reputation becomes the subjective reflection of the actions that an institution takes to create an external image [20]. Therefore, the interaction that different interest groups have with the university is essential to generate perceptions of value [21] and can serve as a significant indicator to evaluate the quality of the university [2]. In this sense, students are one of the most important interest groups in evaluating reputation as users of the service [6]. ...
Article
Full-text available
University reputation is a decisive factor in the management, positioning, sustainability, competitiveness, differentiation, and success of universities. However, the measurement of university performance is often communicated through international rankings, which are frequently criticized for not considering the student's perception, who is the primary user of the educational service. For this reason, the objective is to analyze how students' experiences and their perceived value of the educational process influence the final reputation of universities in two different contexts: Colombia and Spain. Additionally, the results of these relationships are contrasted with the cultural differences and educational systems of both countries. The methodology used is quantitative by means of the formulation and demonstration of a structural equation model, with 385 surveys collected from undergraduate students in Colombia and 333 from undergraduate students in Spain. The results confirmed that student experience influences both perceived value and reputation, and perceived value influences the reputation of the university, likewise, the student experience has an indirect effect on reputation through perceived value, with consistent findings in both countries.
... The management and assessment of reputation present challenges due to its subjective nature (Verčič et al., 2016), with perceptions shaped by stakeholders' expectations and the social interactions within the institution (Bromley, 2002;Rindova et al., 2005). Notably, reputation extends beyond the academic realm, encompassing media portrayals and public perception, which can significantly impact prospective students' decisions and attitudes toward universities more than the institutions' actual quality (Munisamy et al., 2014). This perceived excellence, thus, becomes a pivotal factor in student attraction and the evaluation of university quality (Davies, 2000;Gatfield, 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
University reputation is the result of the assessments that the stakeholders make of the university, especially the user of the education service, the student. The literature has shown an important impact of reputation on the student’s perception of the university, and it has been related to success, competitiveness, sustainability, stakeholder decision-making and the differential of the value offer. Therefore, its evaluation has been the subject of several studies that seek to measure and assess reputation in higher education to understand how to manage it. This article evaluates the psychometric properties of the reputation scale in students at private universities in Colombia. The methodology used included an adaptation of the scale to the Spanish language, content validity analysis, reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed the validity and reliability of the scale and, through the analyses carried out, provided evidence of the scale’s robustness.
... Universities must implement a competitive advantage plan to dominate the competition by developing a reputation (Ivy, 2008;Thomas, 2011). Rankings of universities, public opinion, positive media coverage, innovative output, social responsibility, service, institutional governance, environment and working conditions, leadership, research and development, student mentoring, university legacy and the quality of university services are all indicators of a university's reputation (Munisamy, Mohd Jaafar, & Nagaraj, 2014;Qazi, Qazi, Raza, & Yousufi, 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Article History Keywords Higher education Management Public relations Reputation Reputation factors University values. A university's reputation is an important factor in winning the competition and ensuring sustainability. The reputation built by a university must be about its vision and mission. Reputation needs to be managed professionally by an organization namely quality public relations as the spearhead in delivering and communicating information to all university stakeholders. This research aims to formulate how to manage the reputation of higher education by increasing the role of public relations. The research method used is a descriptive analysis method that combines surveys through questionnaires and in-depth interviews with stakeholders as the main informants. It can be concluded that public relations play an important role in managing higher education reputation based on the results of the research. The built reputation must be based on the values adopted because they become the guideline and direction of the college's development goals. A university's reputation is influenced by accreditation, quality of graduates, human resources, leadership, college rankings, facilities, curriculum, services, community service and innovation, publications and collaborations. Negative factors such as violence, bullying, plagiarism and diploma forgery have the potential to reduce reputation. In reputation management, public relation has a role as a liaison to stakeholders in conveying information about the reputation of higher education. Public relations must manage negative factors that can reduce reputation. The results of this study will be a reference for further research. Contribution/Originality: This study enhances the knowledge gap by developing a chart that places public relations as the spearhead and interface in the collection and dissemination of information to build the reputation of higher education institutions.
... MOOCs courses are offered by reputable universities. (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000;Kim et al., 2008;Munisamy et al., 2014) REP2 MOOC providers (such as Coursera, edX, etc.) are renowned universities. ...
... A pivotal construct for assessing HEI outcomes is reputation. Reputation serves as a signal of educational and scientific quality, influencing university evaluation and prospective student selection (Hemsley-Brown, 2012;Munisamy et al., 2014). From an institutional economics perspective, reputation's signaling quality arises because educational and scientific quality cannot be fully evaluated until experienced . ...
Article
Full-text available
Monitoring the reputation of Higher Education Institutions is a key challenge. Despite decades of research and theory in Higher Education marketing addressing this issue, a definitive method for capturing and monitoring reputation of such institutions has yet to emerge. This paper argues that research into a theoretically sound method for capturing and monitoring the reputation of Higher Education Institutions has stalled due to three significant obstacles: (a) the complexity of defining the construct of reputation itself, (b) ongoing disputes regarding the appropriate methods of measurement for the constructs of reputation, (c) insufficient tailoring of the construct of reputation to the distinctive nature of Higher Education Institutions.
Article
Full-text available
The study aims to explore the correlation between organizational integrity management and the academic reputation of universities in Saudi Arabia. It also examines the perspectives of university leaders and community members regarding the presence of organizational integrity management practices within Saudi universities, as well as indicators reflecting the academic reputation of these institutions. Two lists were utilized for this purpose: one detailing organizational integrity and the other outlining the academic reputation of Saudi universities. Key findings highlighted a perceived high level of organizational integrity management practices and indicators of academic reputation within Saudi universities, particularly in the context of Vision 2030. The study identified a negative correlation between individual or collective dimensions of organizational integrity and university reputation under Vision 2030, with these dimensions explaining a significant portion of the variance. Recommendations were provided to enhance organizational integrity, bolster academic reputation, and sustain progress in alignment with the findings. These recommendations include proposing strategic plans and actionable programs to fortify organizational integrity and academic prestige while fostering continued growth and development.
Chapter
Given that universities find themselves operating within volatile and dynamic environments, organisational communication becomes a priority in meeting stakeholder needs. The unstable status of the education sector has led higher education institutions in South Africa to reassess their position in society and remodel their communication strategies to attract, satisfy and retain students. The globalised world that we live in requires that individuals and organisations remain competitive and relevant. As such, universities are required to understand stakeholder needs, particularly students. Understanding student needs, developing effective communication strategies and maintaining institutional reputation are valuable to universities; however, research in this area remains underdeveloped. This chapter is based on research that examined organisational communication approaches influencing decision-making regarding students’ choice of university. A selected University of Technology in South Africa served as the case study and data was gathered through focus groups with students and interviews with employees. The qualitative methodological inquiry revealed that more rigorous media communication and face-to-face communication are needed. Participants suggested the establishment of adviser communities on social media to be responsive to students’ engagement patterns. This research offers insight into how universities can transform their communication processes to enhance student experience, strengthen their reputation and attract, satisfy and retain quality students.
Article
Full-text available
The social and political history of South Africa yielded massive transformation in the higher education landscape, including access to education and the merger of universities. Despite the many successes of transformation, it brought with it challenges such as increasing participation, student retention, throughput, and graduation rates; changes in government funding models; declining student subsidies and providing quality education with limited resources. The South African higher education sector is multi-faceted, and students have a wide range of higher education options. This study explored factors influencing decision-making of first-year students when selecting a university. Data was collected from first-year students and employees at a University of Technology. Through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, the researchers analysed the complex factors that guide students' decision-making when selecting a university. The findings revealed that factors significantly influencing decision-making on university selection are, the reputation and quality of university programmes offered, response time and support provided by staff; location; and infrastructure and facilities. This research is significant in that it will assist higher education institutions, particularly marketing and communications departments to be more responsive to students' needs by shifting toward active engagement in its marketing and recruitment approaches to attract, retain, and satisfy students.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to examine the determinants of preference for the faculty of sports sciences when individuals who have been educated or graduated for a while by enrolling in a formal education institution decide to receive university education for the second time. Within the scope of the research, phenomenology design was preferred from qualitative research approaches. While determining the sample group, the criterion sampling method, which is one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used. The research sample consisted of individuals who received their second university education at the Faculty of Sports Sciences (Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Marmara University, Sağlık Bilimleri University) within the state universities in the province of Istanbul. In the research, "personal information form" and "semi-structured interview form" developed by the researchers were used as data collection tools. Content analysis was preferred in order to analyze the data obtained in the research. As a result of the research, the participants were mostly not conscious when making their first choices and their families made a choice in this process; It was observed that they experienced separation as a result of believing that they made the wrong choice, not belonging and dissatisfaction. Personal reasons and career goals were determinant in the preferences of the participants for the faculty of sports sciences. They evaluated these choices as making a more voluntary choice and making the right decision. Özet Bu çalışmanın amacı; örgün bir yükseköğretim kurumunda bir süre eğitim görmüş veya eğitimini tamamlamış bireylerin ikinci kez üniversite eğitimi alma kararı verdiklerinde, neden spor bilimleri fakültesini tercih belirleyicilerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma kapsamında nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından olgubilim deseni tercih edilmiştir. Çalışma grubu belirlenirken amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden ölçüt örnekleme yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma çalışma grubunu ikinci üniversite eğitimini İstanbul ili içerisindeki devlet üniversiteleri bünyesinde Spor Bilimleri Fakültelerinde öğrenim görmekte olan 20 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen ‘’kişisel bilgi formu’’ ve ‘’yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu’’ kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen verilerin çözümlenebilmesi adına içerik analizi tercih edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda; katılımcıların ilk tercihlerini yaparken çoğunlukla bilinçli olmadıkları, bu süreçte aileleri tarafından tercih yapıldığı; süreç içerisinde yanlış bir tercih yaptıkları inancı, ait hissedememe ve memnuniyetsizlik sonucunda ayrılma yaşadıkları görülmüştür. Katılımcıların spor bilimleri fakültesi tercihlerinde kişisel sebepler ve kariyer hedefleri belirleyici olmuştur. Bu tercihlerini daha istemli bir tercihte bulundukları ve doğru bir karar verdikleri yönünde değerlendirmişlerdir.
Article
Full-text available
With the increasing demand of higher education in Bangladesh, first time the Private University Act (Bangladesh) was passed in 1992 to regulate the standard of higher education. The students, those who get admitted in the private universities consider few factors to select the institution. This paper evaluates some key factors in order to scrutinize the students' choice on the basis of some significant factors. By using Convenient Sampling Technique the data has been collected randomly from 100 students of 10 private universities. In this case various tests have been conducted such as Factor Analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis, and ANOVA. Study reveals that education quality of the university is the first important criteria to choose the private university and subsequently cost of the study factor and student politics factor are also important among them. This paper also shows the Socio-cultural background of the students studying at the Private Universities in Bangladesh.
Article
Full-text available
With the increasing demand of higher education in Bangladesh, first time the Private University Act (Bangladesh) was passed in 1992 to regulate the standard of higher education. The students, those who get admitted in the private universities consider few factors to select the institution. This paper evaluates some key factors in order to scrutinize the students’ choice on the basis of some significant factors. By using Convenient Sampling Technique the data has been collected randomly from 100 students of 10 private universities. In this case various tests have been conducted such as Factor Analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis, and ANOVA. Study reveals that education quality of the university is the first important criteria to choose the private university and subsequently cost of the study factor and student politics factor are also important among them. This paper also shows the Socio-cultural background of the students studying at the Private Universities in Bangladesh.
Article
Full-text available
In the era of globalization, competitive pressure has forced the higher education sector to look for more competitive marketing strategies. Therefore, it is essential that higher learning institutions understand the needs and expectations of parents because they are the decision influencers for their children education. The purpose of the research was to examine the expectations on higher education institutions among households, and to identify the important criteria’s influencing their preferences in selecting higher education institutions. It is based on personal interview with 4000 households from Peninsular Malaysia. The results shown that five factors have a strong influence on households’ decision making process, namely, financial aid, safety of the campus, academic reputation, university image and accommodation. Further, through principal component factor analysis, three dimensions were revealed in explaining the decision criteria’s of Malaysian households, i.e., (1) personal factors, (2) socialization and (3) campus, program and cost.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the nature of the marketing of higher education (HE) and universities in an international context. The objectives of the review were to: systematically collect, document, scrutinise and critically analyse the current research literature on supply‐side higher education marketing; establish the scope of higher education marketing; identify gaps in the research literature; and make recommendations for further research in this field. Design/methodology/approach – The approach for this study entailed extensive searches of relevant business management and education databases. The intention was to ensure that, as far as possible, all literature in the field was identified – while keeping the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to the research questions. Findings – The paper finds that potential benefits of applying marketing theories and concepts that have been effective in the business world are gradually being recognised by researchers in the field of HE marketing. However, the literature on HE marketing is incoherent, even inchoate, and lacks theoretical models that reflect upon the particular context of HE and the nature of their services. Research limitations/implications – The research field of HE marketing is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from a problem identification and strategic perspective. Originality/value – Despite the substantial literature on the marketisation of HE and consumer behaviour, scholarship to provide evidence of the marketing strategies that have been implemented by HE institutions on the supply‐side remains limited, and this is relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews the literature in the field, focusing on marketing strategies in the rapidly developing HE international market.
Article
The resource-based view proposes that reputation is a resource leading to competitive advantage. Past research tested this by using Fortune ratings to measure reputation, but these ratings are theoretically weak. This paper integrates mass communication theory into past research to develop a concept called media reputation, defined as the overall evaluation of a firm presented in the media. Theoretical and empirical analyses indicate that media reputation is a resource that increases the performance of commercial banks.