Employment Opportunity is the most influential factor affecting student' s choice of university.

1. MBA THESIS
A Study of Factors Influencing Student’s
Choice of FPT University
Student: Nguyen Thanh Duoc
Advisor: Nguyen Quynh Mai, Ph. D.
September 2013

2. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2 •Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3 •Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

3. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2 •Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3 •Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

4. THE GROWTH OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN VIETNAM
Year
2000 - 2001 2005 - 2006 2011 - 2012
Institutions 178 279 419
3-year colleges
104 154 215
Universities 74 125 204
Source: MOET (2012)
 Booming growth in number of higher education institutions
in recent years.

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
More opportunities for students to
pursue higher education
More challenges for higher education
institutions to attract and recruit new
students (Lam, 2012)

6. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Competitive
pressure
Recruiting
strategies –
high cost
Not as many
new students
as expected

7. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1
•To explore factors that are most influential to
students’ choice of university
2
• To compare and contrast the most influential factors
among students by characteristics
3
• To compare and contrast the most influential factors influencing
student’s choice of FPT University and other universities
4
• To provide suggestions to FPT University on
recruiting strategies

8. SCOPE
 Researched students: first-year students of
International University, Hoa Sen University and
FPT University HCMC

9. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2 •Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3 •Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

10. LITERATURE REVIEW
College choice theory
Economic
models
Sociological
models
Combined
models
 Economic models: reflecting the influence of cost on
students’ decision-making
 Sociological models: demonstrating the influence of
interrelated factors influencing college aspirations
 Combined models: a combination of Economic models and
Sociological models in later studies to reflect a more
comprehensive view of students’ college choice
Kinzie et al. (2004)

11. LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors influencing student’s choice of university
 Student characteristics
 Significant people
 University characteristics
 University communication efforts
Chapman (1981), Hossler and Gallapher (1987)

12. TWO COMMON WAYS TO STUDY COLLEGE CHOICE
1. Indirect:
- Research models and hypotheses are proposed and
tested
- Respondents are asked indirectly to study their intention of
choosing a university.
2. Direct:
- More applicable when researched students are current
college students.
- Respondents are asked directly about factors influencing
their choice.
- Descriptive analysis and mean comparison are applied to
find results.

13. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

14. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2 •Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3 •Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

15. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Research method:
Quantitative with self-administrated questionnaire
(5 – point scale: 1 – not influential; 5 strongly
influential)
 Data collection:
Population: freshmen students (IU, Hoa Sen, FPT)
Sample size: at least 198 subjects
Sampling method: Quota and Convenience
Questionnaire were delivered and collected at the
three universities campuses.

16. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Data Analysis:
Descriptive Statistics
One-sample T – Test
ANOVA

17. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2
•Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3
•Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

18. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE
International
University
Hoa Sen
University
FPT
University
Total
Number of
questionnaires 100 100 100 300
Number of
response 86 74 97 257
Response rate
86% 74% 97% 85.7%
Number of
valid response 73 60 87 220
Valid response
rate 84.8% 81% 89.7% 85.6%

19. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
 Respondents: 220
Male: 111
Female: 109
IU
Hoa Sen
FPT
45.2
36.7
64.454.8 63.3
35.6
Percentage of respondents by university
Male Female

20. PARENTS’ EDUCATION LEVEL
 Father’s education level is higher than mother’s
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Father Mother
Parents’ education level
Less than high school
High school
Diploma
Bachelor
Postgraduate

21. ACADEMIC ABILITY
IU students are better
than students of Hoa Sen and FPT.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
< 7.0 7.0 - 7.9 ≥ 8.0
Respondents by grade
12 GPA
IU Hoa Sen FPT
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
< 15 15 - < 20 20 - < 25 25 - 30
Respondents by University
Entrance Exam Score
IU Hoa Sen FPT

22. LIVING AREAS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Respondents by living areas
IU
Hoa Sen
FPT
More students
are from cities
than students
from other
areas.

23. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
 Household income of IU students is higher than Hoa
Sen and FPT students’
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
<10
10 - < 15
15 - < 20
20 - < 25
≥ 25
Respondents by household income (mil. Dong/
month
IU
Hoa Sen
FPT

24. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
 Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7
 Relatively high internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003)
Factors Number of
items
Cronbach’s
alpha
Significant people 7 0.78
University
characteristics
15 0.81
University
communication
6 0.86

25. MEANS OF ALL FACTORS
 Parents are the most influential of all significant
people
Rank Significant
People
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
1 Father 220 3.05 1.310 .088
2 Mother 220 3.00 1.340 .090
3 Friends 220 2.33 1.176 .079
4 Siblings 220 2.00 1.242 .084
5 Teachers 220 2.12 1.114 .075
6 Counselors 220 1.85 1.038 .070
7 Relatives 220 1.74 .957 .065

26. Rank University Characteristics
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
1 Employment opportunities 220 4.46 .807 .054
2 Educational facilities 220 4.01 .951 .064
3 English instruction language 220 4.00 1.051 .071
4 Lecturers’ qualification 220 3.99 .958 .065
5 University reputation 220 3.80 1.024 .069
6 Cost 220 3.75 1.204 .081
7 Admission opportunities 220 3.74 1.139 .077
8
Preparation for graduate study 220 3.59 1.259 .085
9 Student services 220 3.47 1.176 .079
10 Extra curriculum activities 220 2.99 1.307 .088
11 Location 220 2.81 1.270 .086
12 Course variety 220 2.84 1.260 .085
13 Public institution 220 2.82 1.427 .096
14 Scholarships 220 2.70 1.368 .092
15
Size of student population 220 2.62 1.178 .079

27. Formal university communication efforts seem not effective
to student’s choice of university.
Rank University
Communication Efforts
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
1 News / events about
university on media
220 2.89 1.151 .078
2 Information on university
website
220 2.87 1.111 .075
3 Campus visit 220 2.71 1.330 .090
4 Recruiting ads 219 2.67 1.131 .076
5 Recruiting materials 220 2.67 1.160 .078
6 Recommendation of
university reps.
220 2.55 1.123 .076

28. MOST INFLUENTIAL FACTORS
 7 most influential belongs to university characteristics.
4.46
4.01
4
3.99
3.8
3.75
3.74
1 2 3 4 5
Employment opportunity
Educational facility
English instruction language
Lecturers’ qualification
University reputation
Cost
Admission opportunity
Most influential factors,
test value = 3.5

29. Difference of influential factors among students by GPA
 More similarities than differences
Factors
Grade 12 GPA
< 7.0 7.0 – 7.9 ≥ 8.0
Employment
opportunity
No significant difference
Educational facility No significant difference
English instruction
language
No significant difference
Lecturers’ qualification No significant difference
University reputation Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Cost No significant difference
Admission opportunity No significant difference

30. Difference of influential factors among students by living area
 More similarities than differences
Factors
Living areas
Rural area Town Provincial
city
Central
city
Employment opportunity No significant difference
Educational facility No significant difference
English instruction
language
No significant difference
Lecturers’ qualification Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
University reputation Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Cost No significant difference
Admission opportunity No significant difference

31. Difference of influential factors among students by household income
 More similarities than differences
Factors
Household income (in Dong per month)
< 10 million 10 - < 15
million
15 - < 20
million
20 - < 25
million
≥ 25
million
Employment
opportunity
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Educational
facility
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
English
instruction
language
No significant difference
Lecturers’
qualification
No significant difference
University
reputation
No significant difference
Cost No significant difference
Admission
opportunity
No significant difference

32. Difference of influential factors among students by university
 More similarities than differences
Factors
University
IU Hoa Sen FPT
Employment opportunity No significant difference
Educational facility No significant difference
English instruction
language
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Lecturers’ qualification No significant difference
University reputation Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Significant
difference
Cost No significant difference
Admission opportunity No significant difference

33. CONTENT
1 •Background of Research
2
•Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
3
•Research Methodology
4
• Data analysis & Findings
5
• Conclusions & Implications

34. CONCLUSIONS
 Most influential factors:
1. Employment opportunity
2. Educational facility
3. English instruction language
4. Lecturers’ qualification
5. University reputation
6. Cost
7. Admission opportunity
 More similarities than differences of most influential
factors among students by grade 12 GPA, living area,
household income and by university.

35. IMPLICATIONS FOR FPT UNIVERSITY RECRUITING
STRATEGIES
Who to communicate
Prospective
students
Parents

36. What to
communicate
Employment
opportunities
continue to ensure
student’s employment
are secured
Facilities
more details/ images
such as virtual tour on
its website
English instruction
language
continue to highlight
the use of English in
training
Teaching staff
more information about
qualified lecturers
IMPLICATIONS FOR FPT UNIVERSITY RECRUITING
STRATEGIES

37. What to
communicate
University reputation
continue to stress on the awards and
recognition the university has achieved:
Excellence in IT training / Good Business
School / QS 3 stars
Cost
unchanged for four years
including all textbooks
laptop allowance
IMPLICATIONS FOR FPT UNIVERSITY RECRUITING
STRATEGIES

38. How to
communicate
News/ events
more publicity about
university on media
University website
more information about
career prospects and
facilities
Campus visit
More occasions for
potential students and
parents to visit the
campuses
Advertisements
on popular newspapers
or news sites for
students and parents.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FPT UNIVERSITY RECRUITING
STRATEGIES

39. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
 Limitations
 Respondent’s memory
 Valid for FPT University HCMC
 Recommendations for future research
 Further research in a larger scale with respondents of
three FPT University campuses
 Further research to re-test the influential factors with
respondents who are current high school students.

41. REFERENCE
 Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student University Choice. The Journal of
Higher Education, 52 (5): 490 -505.
 DeVellis R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications 2nd
edition. California, CA: Sage.
 Hossler, D. and Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A
three-phase model and the implications for policy makers. College and
University, 62(3): 207-221.
 Lam N. (2012). Ket thuc tuyen sinh ĐH-CĐ nam 2012 - Xem lai chi tieu,
nganh dao tao? (End of recruiting new students in 2012 –Re-consider quotas
and majors. Saigon Giai Phong Newspaper. Available at
http://www.sggp.org.vn/giaoduc/tuyensinhdhoccdang/2012/11/305512/
 Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S.A., and Cummings, H.
(2004). Fifty years of University Choice: Social, Political and Institutional
Influences on the Decision-making Process. Lumina Foundation for
Education. New Agenda Series, 5(3).
 MOET (2012). Educational statistics in 2012. Available at
http://www.moet.gov.vn/?page=11.10&view=4446