6. The influences on mature-age applicants

In this chapter we examine the patterns of choice among mature-age applicants. For the sake of simplicity, we used a liberal interpretation of ‘mature-age’ to include all applicants who did not complete their secondary schooling in 1998. Applicants referred to as ‘mature-age’ therefore include those who may be only one year out of secondary schooling and applicants already enrolled in another university or TAFE course.

Using this definition, 253 applicants in the sample were defined as mature-age. Only nine per cent of this group were aged eighteen or younger, compared with 96 per cent of the school-leaver subgroup. The mean age of the mature-age group was 25 years, 62 per cent are female and 38 per cent are male.

One-third of the mature-age applicants had been focused on their preferred course for at least several years (compared with 40 per cent of school-leavers). Most of the group (66 per cent) made their decision on their preferred course and university within the year leading up to their application, with 17 per cent reporting that they made their decision only when they began seriously thinking about making a tertiary application.

The conclusions that can be drawn about the attitudes and motives of mature-age applicants are broadly similar to those for school-leavers. Field of study preference is once again the dominant influence on their thinking. The views of employers, colleagues and friends carry comparatively little weight. Like school-leavers, most mature-age respondents appear to view the course–institution of their choice as a single entity. Once again, the course offered by the university is the dominant factor in choice of institution for them, followed by ease of access from home, employment rates and the sense of personal ‘fit’. Campus facilities seem relatively unimportant.

While there are many similarities between the attitudes of school-leavers and mature-age applicants, the factor structures that emerge from factor analysis show some differences, particularly to do with the influences on university preference. Whereas the factor analysis for school-leavers identified two discrete factors ‘institutional characteristics and reputation’ and ‘academic programs and services’—suggesting that school-leaver applicants distinguish between their overall impressions of the ‘status’ universities and the qualities of the academic programs of these institutions—these distinctions appear less clear-cut for mature-age applicants. In addition, there is a predictably well-defined factor for mature-age applicants that we have labelled ‘flexibility’.

6.1 Influences on field of study preferences

Like school-leavers, the majority of mature-age applicants’ higher education decisions revolve around their field of study interests. The factor analysis performed on the items relating to mature-age applicants’ motives in pursuing a particular field of study indicate two strong and clearly identifiable dimensions in their thinking (Table 6.1):

  • ‘Interest in the field’; and
  • ‘Employment prospects’.

As the items in Table 6.1 show, their field of study preferences are based overwhelmingly on interest in the area, the prospect of interesting and rewarding careers, and their perceptions of their own talents and abilities. The comments of mature-age applicants, such as ‘I feel that a career in law would be mentally rewarding and sustaining’ echo those of school-leavers.

Table 6.1 Influences on field of study preference, mature-age applicants

 

Extent of influence

   
Potential influence

A strong or very strong influence (%)*

Little
or no influence (%)

Mean

Highest ranked items (%)**

‘Interest in the field’ (factor mean 4.4)
Interest in exploring the area of knowledge

92

1

4.6

73

Talents and abilities

88

0

4.4

62

Desire to seek a career change

52

34

3.3

 
‘Employment prospects’ (factor mean 3.0)
Opportunities for interesting and rewarding careers

90

3

4.5

74

Employment rates for graduates in the field

48

32

3.3

26

The prestige of the field

38

39

3.0

 
The ‘image’ of the field

31

44

2.8

 
Starting salaries for graduates

27

47

2.7

 
Other influences (individual items)
The styles and approaches to teaching in the field

38

35

3.0

 
The level of HECS fees

14

69

2.0

 

Note: * 5 point scale
5=very strong influence to 1=no influence at all.
‘A strong or very strong influence represents % of respondents at points 5 or 4 on the scale, ‘little or no influence’ is % of respondents at points 2 or 1.

** percentage of respondents ranking item as either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important influence on them. Only clearly predominant items are reported.

The employment rates for graduates in the particular field was a major influence for fewer mature-age applicants, but nevertheless was still a strong influence on about half the people surveyed. Considerably fewer mature-age applicants placed importance on the level of HECS in that discipline (14 per cent) and on starting salaries in the field of study (27 per cent). About half reported that salaries had little or no influence on them at all.

The responses of mature-age applicants to the question of how much knowledge they believe they have of the factors influencing their decision followed similar patterns to those of school-leavers. The exception is that more mature-age applicants than school-leavers claimed knowledge of employment rates, starting salaries and the levels of HECS fees applicable to the course.

Like school-leavers, a large proportion of mature-age applicants reported levels of knowledge about field of study characteristics that could be considered low.

Table 6.2 Perceived level of knowledge of various influences on field of study preference, mature-age applicants

 

Level of knowledge of this influence

 
Potential influence

Reasonable knowledge or a good deal of knowledge *

A little knowledge or very little at all

Mean

‘Employment prospects’      
Opportunities for interesting and rewarding careers

69

5

4.0

Employment rates for graduates in the field

58

19

3.5

The prestige of the field

47

21

3.4

The ‘image’ of the field

45

23

3.3

Starting salaries for graduates

43

31

3.1

Other influences      
The styles and approaches to teaching in the field

32

35

3.0

The level of HECS fees

56

24

3.5

Note: * 5 point scale
5=a good deal of knowledge to 1=very little knowledge at all.
‘Reasonable knowledge or a good deal of knowledge’ represents % of respondents at points 5 or 4 on the scale, ‘a little knowledge or very little at all’ is % of respondents at points 2 or 1.

6.2 Influences on course and university preferences

6.2.1 Course decisions

Most mature-age applicants reported that their confidence in their ability to meet the demands of a particular course was a strong or very strong influence in selecting the course. Another very important consideration was the wish to go to the university offering the course.

The factor analysis on the items in Table 6.3 revealed a single, prominent dimension to applicant thinking that we have described as ‘perceived course quality’. About half the respondents were influenced by course reputation, including the satisfaction of graduates from the course. Similarly, half the sample saw the approaches to teaching and the quality of teaching as important influences on them, although the opportunities for flexible study options figured prominently in the thinking of fewer respondents. Attitudes were polarised on this factor; flexible study possibilities were clearly an important factor for 30 per cent (19 per cent indicated that they were a ‘very strong influence’) of mature-age applicants, but were little or no influence for 56 per cent (39 per cent said they were no influence at all).

Table 6.3 Influences on choice of preferred course, mature-age applicants

 

Extent of influence

 
Potential influence

A strong or very strong influence (%)*

Little or no influence (%)

Mean

Highest ranked items (%)**

‘Perceived course quality’ (factor mean 3.2)
The reputation of the course among employers

56

27

3.4

40

The approaches to teaching and learning in the course

49

26

3.3

 
The quality of teaching in the course

49

25

3.3

36

The satisfaction of graduates from the course

46

28

3.2

33

What friends/colleagues say about the course

34

34

2.8

 
Other influences
Confidence in ability to meet the demands of the course

77

5

4.2

59

Wish to go to the university which offers the course

68

13

3.9

37

Employment rates for graduates from the course

44

34

3.1

35

The opportunities for flexible study options

30

56

2.5

 

Note: * 5 point scale
5=very strong influence to 1=no influence at all

** percentage of respondents ranking item as either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important influence on them. Only clearly predominant items are reported.

Roughly speaking, about one-third of mature-age applicants showed little if any confidence in their knowledge of course-specific characteristics (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Perceived level of knowledge of various influences on course preference, mature-age applicants

 

Level of knowledge of this influence

 


Potential influence

Reasonable knowledge or a good deal of knowledge (%)*

A little knowledge or very little at all
(%)


Mean

The reputation of the course among employers

38

33

3.0

The approaches to teaching and learning in the course

33

36

2.9

The quality of teaching in the course

35

33

2.9

The satisfaction of graduates from the course

33

38

2.9

Employment rates for graduates from the course

40

34

3.0

The opportunities for flexible study options

37

40

2.9

Note: * 5 point scale
5=a good deal of knowledge to 1=very little knowledge at all

6.2.2 University decisions

Turning to university-specific factors, it is apparent from the responses of mature-age applicants that these are considerably less influential than field of study or course-specific influences. The factor analysis performed on the items in Table 6.5 indicate three dimensions in their thinking:

  • ‘Institutional characteristics and reputation’;
  • ‘Flexibility’; and
  • ‘Personal ‘fit’’.

In the main, the comments of mature-age applicants about their chosen university and their reasons for selecting it are indistinguishable from those of school-leavers. Their references to institutional reputation and their reasons for choosing a particular course are similarly broad and at times vague:

It has a good reputation. After visiting the faculty I felt very positive about it. It’s also local.

Reputation as the best university for part-time studies and a practical approach to business studies.

Good reputation, excellent facilities, high standard academic staff.

Good reputation, convenient to get to from home.

Proximity to home to be honest.

Table 6.5 Influences on choice of university, mature-age applicants

 

Extent of influence

 
Potential influence

A strong or very strong influence (%)*

Little or no influence(%)

Mean

Highest ranked items**
(%)

Prominent individual items
Wish to do a particular course the university offers

85

6

4.4

59

How easy it is to get to the university from home

57

27

3.5

36

‘Institutional characteristics and reputation’ (factor mean 2.7)
The opportunities for higher degree study

43

32

3.1

 
The prestige of the university

41

35

3.0

 
The ‘image’ of the university

40

39

2.9

 
Employment rates for graduates from the university

38

34

3.0

21

The university’s research reputation

26

47

2.6

 
Starting salaries for graduates from the university

21

54

2.4

 
Employer’s views about the university they’d like you to attend

21

64

2.1

 
‘Flexibility’ (factor mean 2.4)        
How easy it is to get to this university from work

33

53

2.6

 
The opportunities for flexible study options

28

57

2.5

 
The availability of classes outside working hours

26

57

2.4

 
The child-care facilities at the university

5

90

1.4

 
‘Personal ‘fit’’ (factor mean 2.4)
A belief that ‘I would fit in well at this university’

53

26

3.4

 
The campus surroundings (the part of town/district)

43

40

3.0

 
The atmosphere of the campus

38

41

2.9

 
The international character of the university

27

52

2.5

 
The social and cultural life of the university

25

58

2.4

 
The kinds of students who go to the university

24

59

2.3

 
The size of the campus

22

59

2.3

 
The sporting and recreation facilities

19

66

2.1

 
The clubs and societies at the university

10

71

1.9

 
Other influences (individual items)
The information technology used in teaching

34

44

2.8

 
The university’s academic services for students, such as learning skills support

25

46

2.6

 
         

Note: *  5 point scale
5=very strong influence to 1=no influence at all

** percentage of respondents ranking item as either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important influence on them. Only clearly predominant items are reported.

Overwhelmingly, mature-age respondents indicated that their interest in a particular course offered by the university was the main influence on their decision (e.g. ‘Research University has a well-known Italian department, that’s why I’d like to do Arts there’.)

Ease of access from home was the next most important factor in their thinking. The practical issue of access also featured highly in the thinking of school-leavers, indicating that convenience of university locations and transport options were major contributors to applicants’ final choices.

Opportunities for higher degree study were taken into account by 43 per cent of applicants. The influence of opportunities for flexible study was somewhat stronger with mature-age applicants than school-leavers, but was still relatively low with only 28 per cent of applicants citing this as a strong or very strong influence.

Table 6.6 Perceived levels of knowledge of various influences on university preference, mature-age applicants

 

Level of knowledge of this influence

 
 

Potential influence

Reasonable knowledge
or a good deal of knowledge (%)*

A little knowledge or very little at all

(%)


Mean

‘Institutional characteristics and reputation’      
The opportunities for higher degree study

31

38

2.8

The prestige of the university

40

24

3.2

The ‘image’ of the university

46

27

3.3

Employment rates for graduates from the university

29

43

2.7

The university’s research reputation

19

56

2.4

Starting salaries for graduates from the university

17

57

2.3

‘Flexibility’
The opportunities for flexible study options

30

48

2.6

 
The campus surroundings (the part of town/district)

63

22

3.7

The atmosphere of the campus

37

38

2.9

The international character of the university

27

46

2.6

The social and cultural life of the university

28

47

2.6

The kinds of students who go to the university

31

41

2.7

The size of the campus

58

24

3.5

The sporting and recreation facilities

26

48

2.6

The clubs and societies at the university

19

61

2.2

Other influences
The information technology used in teaching

26

50

2.5

The university’s academic services for students,
such as learning skills support

22

51

2.5

* 5 point scale
5=a good deal of knowledge to 1=very little knowledge at all

Perhaps the most significant findings here are in the factors that were not considered to be important influences—and there are many of them, including the institution’s research reputation or international character and the on-campus social and cultural life‚ such as the facilities, amenities and clubs on campus. Over half, and sometimes well over half, of the applicants reported that these university characteristics were of little or no influence on them; 58 per cent of the group, for instance, reported that the social and cultural life on campus did not influence them, 37 per cent saying that it was of no influence at all.

Similarly, over one-third showed no interest at all in the international character of the institution and, though employment rates are an influence, 36 per cent reported that they were not influenced in any way by the starting salaries of graduates from the institution.

As is clear from Table 6.6, mature-age respondents reported little knowledge about many of the likely influences we proposed to them. For mature-age applicants, there are gaps (in both directions) between the extent of influence of various considerations and their actual knowledge of them. Again, we note that applicants may not have appropriate information on core matters and concerns.

6.3 Summary

The most influential considerations in mature-age applicants’ decision-making are listed in Table 6.7. This summary shows the central importance of field of study preferences. As for school-leavers, a very large majority of mature-age applicants are strongly motivated by an interest in studying a particular area of knowledge and later working in a related field. Other than ease of access from home, university-specific characteristics are of less influence than course or field characteristics.

Table 6.7 Summary of main influences and perceived knowledge of these influences, mature-age applicants

 

Main influences

% for whom strong or very strong influence

% believing they have reasonable or good knowledge of this influence

Field of study choice
Interest in exploring the area of knowledge

92

N/A

Opportunities for interesting and rewarding careers

90

69

Talents and abilities

88

N/A

Employment rates for graduates in the field

48

58

Course choice
Confidence in ability to meet the demands of
the course

77

N/A

Wish to go to the university which offers the course

68

N/A

The reputation of the course among employers

56

38

The quality of teaching in the course

49

35

The satisfaction of graduates from the course

46

33

Employment rates for graduates from the course

44

40

University choice
Wish to do a particular course the university offers

85

N/A

How easy it is to get to the university from home

57

N/A

Employment rates for graduates from the university

38

29

Applicants’ confidence in their personal abilities to meet the demands of courses is an important consideration when it comes to choosing a particular course within these fields of preference. The italicised items in the table also reveal the close association between course and institutional preference identified by the study.

On the whole, mature-age applicants appear better informed than school-leavers, but only marginally so. In a number of important areas, including the quality of teaching and graduate satisfaction, there are sizeable gaps between the extent of influence of particular considerations and the apparent confidence of applicants in their actual levels of knowledge of these.


Contents
Acknowledgments
Executive summary
1. Introduction
2. Understanding student decision-making
3. The method
4.  Applicants’ general intentions and sources of information
5.  The influences on school-leaver applicants
6.  The influences on mature-age applicants
7.  Subgroup differences: The effects of gender, socioeconomic status, and location
8.  Influences by field of study preference
9.  Influences according to the type of university chosen
10. Diversity and uncertainty: Applicant case studies
11. Decisions at the time of offer
12. The higher education choice process: A summary of findings and conclusions
Appendix 1 Definition of applicant subgroups
Appendix 2 Details of factor analyses
References


Return to Higher Ed Homepage


Any comments or queries should be sent to: highered@detya.gov.au
This page was last modified:17 January 2001
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia