| 9. Influences according to the type of university chosen To examine further the patterns in applicant choice, we looked for variations in the influences on applicants according to the university category in which their first preference course/institution fell. As discussed in Chapter 3, we classified Australian universities into four categories: research intensive universities, metropolitan universities, universities of technology, and regional universities. For shorthand in this chapter, people applying to research intensive universities as their first preference are referred to as ‘research’ applicants, and so on. As might be expected with the differentiation of Australian universities, strong patterns emerge. In fact, the specific considerations that applicants find important (or less important) to them are reasonable indicators of the type of university they are likely to be seeking. ‘Research’ applicants are the most strongly influenced by institutional status, though this is also a relatively important consideration for ‘technology’ applicants. On the ‘institutional characteristics and reputation’ scale (Table 9.1), ‘research’ applicants are significantly higher than ‘technology’ applicants (significant at 0.01) , ‘metropolitan’ applicants (sig. at 0.001), and ‘regional’ applicants (sig. at 0.001). In addition, ‘technology’ applicants are significantly higher than both ‘metropolitan’ (sig. at 0.001) and ‘regional’ applicants (sig. at 0.01). On the ‘Personal "fit"’ scale there is less diversity in responses, though again ‘research’ applicants are the more strongly influenced by this consideration. They are significantly higher than both ‘technology’ applicants (sig. at 0.05) and ‘metropolitan’ applicants (sig. at 0.001). Table 9.1 Influences on applicants, factor scales by category of preferred university
* 5 point scale |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 show some of the specific differences
according to university type. Table 9.2 reports means in full, showing considerable
differences between the subgroup means for many items. Table 9.3 perhaps best illustrates
the striking extent of difference. It was compiled by identifying the applicant group or
groups that showed a marked tendency, relative to their counterparts, to be either
influenced or not influenced by specific factors. The intention of Table 9.3 therefore is
to show the comparative strength of influences rather than their absolute strength, this
having been discussed in previous chapters. Where items have been listed for subgroups in
Table 9.3, their means have shown statistically significant differences from the other
subgroup means on a pair-wise test. Table 9.2 Influences on applicants, by preferred university type
Note: * 5 point scale Table 9.3 Comparative choice priorities of applicants, by preferred university
SL=school-leaver applicants, MA=mature-age applicants
It is evident from Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 that applicants to research intensive universities report stronger influences from a wider range of considerations than other applicants. In comparison, applicants to ‘metropolitan’ universities appear less likely to report strongly influential factors, with the exception of ease of access from home. Among the four applicant groups, ‘metropolitan’ applicants show the least evidence of the influence of the many possibilities that were put to them. The considerations more likely to concern applicants to universities of technology and regional universities generally reflect what might be expected. In the case of technology universities, mature-age applicants in particular focus on employers’ views, classes outside work hours, and access from work. Applicants to regional universities are more likely to indicate the influence of campus accommodation, atmosphere, facilities and services, and the belief they would ‘fit in well’. It is interesting to note that applicants to research universities and technology universities, while being different on important dimensions, are very similar on two: the influence of employment rates and starting salaries. For both these items there is a marked difference in the extent of influence for ‘research’ and ‘technology’ applicants compared with those applying to either regional or metropolitan universities. Overall, these patterns of difference in applicant attitudes have important implications. On the one hand, their contrasting views may represent entrenched and perhaps inaccurate and unfair institutional stereotypes. On the other, some of the differences may be a sign of valuable institutional differentiation and community awareness and responsiveness to this. If the latter is the case, ‘metropolitan’ universities, as a group, may be the least well-defined institutions in the public mind. 9.1 Overall impressions of universities As noted earlier, applicants rely heavily on word-of-mouth for institutional and course reputation. They believe that ‘institution X has a good reputation in field Y’. The impression of the university, beyond the campus appearance, is tied up with status in particular fields. Participants in this study reported perceptions of universities such as, ‘good reputation for engineering’, ‘well-respected courses in commerce’, ‘I am impressed with the university’s reputation and the fact that it is difficult to get into’.When thinking about their preferred university, many applicants mention the intangible ‘feel’ of the campus: it is ‘modern’, or ‘clean’, or large/small, or ‘traditional’, or ‘green’. Also important are perceptions of whether or not the campus life is ‘friendly’, ‘personal’ and ‘relaxed’. Impressions of the quality of interpersonal relationships between students and between staff and students are prominent:
The experiences of campus open days do much to create or cement these impressions:
Since university websites are now being widely accessed by prospective students we anticipate that this ‘feel’ is increasingly being determined from the web ‘image’ of the university as well. While we do not wish to understate the importance of campus ‘feel’, especially if it represents an intuition of a vibrant learning community, these favorable reactions from fleeting experiences do not serve as adequate proxies for the quality and relevance of the academic experience that is ahead. But not all applicants are concerned with the on-campus lifestyle. A proportion of applicants are more instrumental and are willing to forego the affective qualities of campus facilities and atmosphere for specific academic and personal reasons:
Large and well-equipped but somewhat impersonal. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents Any comments or queries should be sent to: highered@detya.gov.au |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||