University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

College choice of natural science students: the factors and sources that influence enrollment decisions

(USC Thesis Other)

College choice of natural science students: the factors and sources that influence enrollment decisions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

COLLEGE CHOICE OF NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS:
THE FACTORS AND SOURCES THAT INFLUENCE ENROLLMENT DECISIONS
THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

by

Samuel Kim

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Samuel Kim
ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .........................................................................................7
Limitations ...............................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ..............................................................................7
Chapter 2 – Literature Review .............................................................................................9
Enrollment Management ........................................................................................10
College Choice .......................................................................................................12
Predisposition ................................................................................ 13
Search ............................................................................................ 15
Choice ........................................................................................... 16
Student Characteristics...........................................................................................19
Socio-economic Status .................................................................. 19
Ability ........................................................................................... 20
Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 21
Gender ........................................................................................... 23
Sources of Information and Influence....................................................................23
Student's Network ......................................................................... 24
Institutional Influence ................................................................... 26
Reputation ..................................................................................... 27
Institutional Attributes ...........................................................................................30
Financial Attributes ....................................................................... 30
Academic Opportunities ............................................................... 32
Extra-curricular Activities ............................................................ 34
Physical Characteristics ................................................................ 34
Chapter 3 – Methodology ..................................................................................................36
Sample and Population ..........................................................................................39
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................40
Data Collection ......................................................................................................43
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................44
iii

Chapter 4 - Results .............................................................................................................47
Description of Sample............................................................................................47
Importance of University Factors ..........................................................................50
Enrollment Decision ..................................................................... 54
Demographic Characteristics ........................................................ 56
Satisfaction with Factors at CU .............................................................................61
Enrollment Decision ..................................................................... 63
Demographic Characteristics ........................................................ 66
Campus Visit ................................................................................. 71
Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction ..........................................................73
Cost-related Factors ...................................................................... 73
Campus-related Factors ................................................................ 74
Academic Opportunities ............................................................... 76
Extra-curricular Opportunities ...................................................... 77
Importance of Sources of Influence/Information ...................................................78
Enrollment Decision ..................................................................... 80
Demographic Characteristics ........................................................ 83
Summary ................................................................................................................86
Chapter 5 - Discussion .......................................................................................................88
Discussion ..............................................................................................................89
Natural Science Sample ................................................................ 89
Enrollment Decision ..................................................................... 91
Demographic Groups .................................................................... 94
Policy Implications ..............................................................................................100
Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................103
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................107
References ........................................................................................................................109
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................112
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................121
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................126
Appendix D ......................................................................................................................131
Appendix E ......................................................................................................................137
iv

List of Tables
Table 1: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance for natural
science students ..................................................................................................................52
Table 2: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
enrollment decision ............................................................................................................55
Table 3: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
gender ...............................................................................................................................120
Table 4: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
ethnicity............................................................................................................................121
Table 5: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
SES ...................................................................................................................................122
Table 6: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
mother’s education ...........................................................................................................123
Table 7: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on
father’s education .............................................................................................................124
Table 8: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction for natural
science students ..................................................................................................................62
Table 9: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on enrollment decision .......................................................................................................64
Table 10: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on enrollment decision .....................................................................................................125
Table 11: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on ethnicity.......................................................................................................................126
Table 12: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on SES ..............................................................................................................................127
Table 13: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on mother’s education ......................................................................................................128
Table 14: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on father’s education ........................................................................................................129
v

Table 15: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based
on importance of campus visit ...........................................................................................71
Table 16: Amount of financial aid: importance versus satisfaction ................................130
Table 17: Type of financial aid: importance versus satisfaction .....................................130
Table 18: Total cost: importance versus satisfaction .......................................................130
Table 19: Student athletic/recreation facility: importance versus satisfaction ................131
Table 20: Campus: importance versus satisfaction ..........................................................131
Table 21: Distance from home: importance versus satisfaction ......................................132
Table 22: Housing: importance versus satisfaction .........................................................132
Table 23: Surrounding community: importance versus satisfaction................................132
Table 24: Faculty contact: importance versus satisfaction ..............................................133
Table 25: Honors programs: importance versus satisfaction ...........................................133
Table 26: Major availability: importance versus satisfaction ..........................................133
Table 27: Research opportunities: importance versus satisfaction ..................................134
Table 28: Intramural athletic program: importance versus satisfaction ...........................134
Table 29: NCAA: importance versus satisfaction ...........................................................134
Table 30: Student activities: importance versus satisfaction ...........................................135
Table 31: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance for natural
science students ..................................................................................................................79
Table 32: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
enrollment decision ............................................................................................................81
Table 33: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
gender ..............................................................................................................................136
Table 34: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
ethnicity............................................................................................................................137
vi

Table 35: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
SES ...................................................................................................................................138
Table 36: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
mother’s education ...........................................................................................................139
Table 37: Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on
father’s education .............................................................................................................140
vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Admission funnel ...............................................................................................10
Figure 2: Comparison of most important factors for natural science students ..................53
Figure 3: Frequency of factors that were most satisfying at another institution
compared to CU .................................................................................................................66
viii

Abstract
This dissertation studied how institutional factors and sources of influence
affected the enrollment decisions of natural science students admitted to a selective,
private research institution. In terms of institutional factors, participants were asked to
rate both the importance of factors and how satisfied they were with these factors at the
survey institution. Institutional factors were divided into four sub-categories: cost-related
factors, campus-related factors, academic opportunities and extra-curricular
opportunities. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of sources of
information/influence on their final enrollment decision; these sources were divided into
three categories: student’s network, institutional sources and reputation. Results were also
disaggregated by enrollment decision and demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, SES,
mother’s educational level and father’s educational level) to determine if differences
existed between groups. An online survey was used to collect data and these results were
based on quantitative analysis using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Factors that
were considered important to natural science students in their college choice were
campus, major availability, research opportunities, faculty contact, student activities and
total cost. The factors that students were satisfied with at the survey institution were
major availability and campus. The sources that were most important to students in
making their college choice were the university’s reputation and major reputation.
Significant differences were found between groups based on demographic and enrollment
ix

variables in their ratings of factor importance, factor satisfaction and importance of
sources of information/influence.
1

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Enrollment management plays a critical role in shaping the student body of an
institution (Hossler, 1984). Based on who they admit admissions offices shape the
character of a class and are crucial to an institution’s revenue stream. Barr (2002) noted
that tuition dollars are the primary source of revenue for private institutions, with some
colleges completely dependent on tuition. Because the work of an admissions office
creates the revenue stream for an institution, the role they assume within the institution
therefore extends beyond that of recruiting and admitting students.
As a result of the connection between revenue and enrollment, the pressure placed
on admissions offices to enroll students is high. How effective admissions officers are at
recruiting and enrolling students is tied to the institution’s financial viability. Because
most private colleges – and recently public institutions as well – are tuition driven, the
college admissions landscape has taken on an exceedingly competitive nature (Barr,
2002). Exacerbating this competition is the rising cost of higher education. In 2007, U.S.
News & World Report (USNWR) reported that college costs rose six percent for private
institutions (Clark, 2007), an increase that outpaced financial aid, inflation and wages. As
tuition rates rise and outpace increases in financial aid, students are now approaching the
admission process with a student-as-consumer mindset (Woodward, 2001).
In this competitive landscape, colleges are not only competing for student
enrollment, which translates to tuition dollars, but competing for high achieving students.
High achieving students are those who have high grade point averages (GPA) and
2

standardized test scores, enrolling high achieving students aid colleges and universities in
maximizing their prestige (James, 1990). By recruiting the top students, colleges increase
their rankings in publications like those produced by USNWR. An institution’s ranking is
affected by the average GPA and standardized test score of their incoming class (Astin,
1985). Because a school’s ranking is determined, in part, by their incoming class’ average
GPA and test scores, colleges and universities compete with each other for the top
students. In addition to colleges relying on rankings in publications like USNWR to
increase their prestige, students also use these publications to determine which schools
they should apply to and attend. Although Astin (1996) found that rankings, such as
USNWR, are poor indicators of quality and student learning, the fact remains that
students still rely upon these rankings in making their enrollment decisions.
In light of the competitive landscape of college admissions, it is critical for higher
education institutions to understand the variables that influence college choice among
students. By understanding these variables admissions administrators are able to assess
the strength of their enrollment management process in order to matriculate an incoming
class that is large enough to generate the necessary tuition revenue. This is especially
important for private institutions that are, in many cases, tuition dependent.
Background
Although recruiting a strong class is essential for private institutions, that
recruitment process can be very costly. In 2006, the National Association for College
Admission Counseling (NACAC) published a report on the state of college admissions.
3

This report, based on the responses of more than 1,800 higher education institutions,
found that the cost of recruiting and enrolling students was increasing such that the
average cost to enroll a student at a private institution was $2,167 per student (Hawkins
& Clinedinst, 2006).
Additional findings by Hawkins and Clinedinst (2006) show that how selective a
school is and how high their enrollment yields are affect recruiting costs. In terms of
selectivity, where institutions with low admittance rates (based on students admitted
versus total applicant pool) spend the highest amount per student. Enrollment yield (the
percentage of admitted students who enroll versus those admitted) also affects the cost
per student; if an institution yields 46% to 60% of their admit class, the cost per student is
$1,258; less successful institutions that yield 30% to 45% of their admitted students, will
spend $2,102 per student.
For highly-selective private institutions, enrollment costs are especially steep as
the landscape in which they are recruiting has become more competitive over the last
decade. Two related factors, number of high school graduates and higher application per
student ratios, have contributed to this increased competition. First, Hawkins and
Clinedinst (2006) found that the number of high school graduates continues to rise; in
2005, the number increased to over three million. Of these three million high school
graduates, more than sixty percent applied to a post-secondary institution. Hawkins and
Clinedinst reported that seventy-three percent of the colleges in their study reported an
increase in applications. This rise in number of applications has been consistent since
4

1999. The increase in applications can be partially attributed to the rise in high school
graduates.
Another factor that has contributed to the increase in applications is the higher
application per student ratio; students are now applying to a greater number of colleges
then they had previously (Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006). For admissions offices, increases
in applications allow for a more selective admission process, but this increase in
applications creates a problem when it comes to yield. Because students are applying to
more institutions, the likelihood that students are being admitted to a greater number of
schools increases. For the schools that do admit them, they are now competing against a
greater number of schools which ultimately decreases the odds that a student will attend
their institution resulting in a low yield. Low yield rates will ultimately affect a
university’s revenue stream.
Low enrollment yields can be seen at one large, private, highly selective, research
university. For the purposes of this study, the institution will be referred to as California
University (CU). The issue of low enrollment yields does not apply to the entire
university but is a critical issue for one of the largest academic areas at CU, the natural
sciences. The natural sciences include majors such as biological sciences, chemistry and
physics.
Statement of the Problem
At institutions that are tuition driven, it is essential to understand what factors and
variables affect a student’s college choice. Although research exists about the factors that
5

affect college choice, the problem is that little research is available about factors that
affect populations based on field of interests, specifically the sciences. In order for a
college to increase its yield of science students, understanding the college choice process
for these students is necessary. By understanding the factors that affect college choice,
institutions are able to see where are areas of weakness that can be changed or addressed
in order to increase enrollment yield. This increase in yield will result in a larger revenue
stream for the institution, in this case, CU.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to provide greater understanding of the variables
that affect the college choice of science students. Specifically, this study examined
student perceptions of variables that influenced their college choice as well sources of
influence/information. Using students who expressed initial interest in the sciences on
their admission application at a large private research university, this study surveyed the
factors and the sources of influence that were most important to them in their college
choice. This study also compared the perceptions of students who selected CU with those
of students who chose to attend elsewhere. By understanding the factors that students
consider, institutions can make changes in order to yield higher rates of science students.
This study also explored the differences between groups based on demographic
characteristics such as gender and race.
6

The questions that this study answers are as follows:
1. What factors were important to science students in making their
enrollment choice?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled
vs. not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
2. What factors were natural science students most satisfied with at CU?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled
vs. not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
3. Which information sources were most important to natural science
students when making their college choice?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled
vs. not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
This study answers these questions by surveying natural science students who
have been admitted to the institution. The sample for this study will be natural science
students who were admitted to the survey institution. The subjects will be asked to
7

complete a survey regarding institutional factors and sources of influence. Students who
both accepted or declined an offer of admission will be included in this study.
Significance of the Study
The study will be significant to admission administrators as they will have a
greater understanding of the factors that natural science students consider in choosing to
attend an institution. In doing so, admissions administrators will have a better sense of a
population that has not yielded well at the institution and tailor conversion programs to
ensure that these aspects are addressed during programs designed to encourage interest
and ultimately yield enrollment.
Limitations
Because this study will focus on institutional attributes and influence sources in
relation to a final enrollment decision, it will not answer the broader question about how
natural science students navigate the entire college admission process. Because the
institution is highly selective, those admitted will be students who tend to have higher
GPA’s and test scores (SAT or ACT); as a result the findings will not be generalizable to
all students who are selecting a college.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is composed of five chapters. The second chapter reviews the
college choice literature. Chapter three outlines the design of this quantitative study.
Chapter four will present results for each of the three research questions, including two
sub-questions. A comparison of factor importance and satisfaction will also be presented.
8

Chapter five will discuss the findings of this study. The findings will be presented for the
natural science sample as a whole. The findings will connect data regarding factor
importance and satisfaction as well as the sources of influence to provide a
comprehensive picture of the college choice process for the sample. Following the
findings of the entire sample, findings based on enrollment decision and demographic
groups will also be presented.
9

Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Tuition is the primary revenue source for private institutions (Barr, 2002); as
such, the role of enrollment management is critical to the college’s financial health. Yet
the factors that prompt student enrollment at particular colleges is an area of research that
still remains under-explored. The choices students make about admissions directly affect
an institutions revenue stream, however, without a fundamental understanding of what
leads students to make enrollment choices, admissions officers continue to use strategies
that may not yield enrollment from particular populations. This is so for California
University (CU), where the yield of natural science students has been especially low. The
focus of this study is the choice phase of the college enrollment process. This study
attempts to understand the college choice process for students who were admitted to a
highly selective private institution, specifically how factor importance, factor satisfaction
and sources of influence affected their college choice.
In order to understand the factors and sources that influence the college choice
process, this chapter will begin with a description of the college enrollment process from
an enrollment manager’s perspective. Next, a developmental model of the college
enrollment process will be provided. After these descriptions, a review of the literature
regarding the final stage of the college choice process will be presented. First, college
choice literature that examines how variables like gender and race will be presented. This
will be followed by an examination of literature that pertains to sources of influence and
10

their role in the process. Finally, research regarding institutional factors and their impact
on the college choice process will be reviewed.
Enrollment Management
Although this study seeks to understand the college choice process of students,
the timeline in which the student makes this decision is dependent upon a timeline
determined by enrollment managers. As such, it is important to have background
knowledge and understanding of the enrollment management cycle. This cycle, or the
admissions cycle, can be illustrated using a funnel (see Figure 1). This admission funnel
has four stages: inquiry, application, admittance and enrollment. Like a funnel, the top
comprises the largest group of students and the bottom should be the smallest group
(Lapovsky, 1999).
The first stage, “inquiry” consists of students who have demonstrated an interest
in the institution or made an inquiry (Lapovsky, 1999). At this stage, an admissions
officer’s goal is to have a large inquiry pool. If an institution is successful, a large inquiry
pool will translate into a large application pool.
11

Figure 1: Admission Funnel

The percentage of inquirers who eventually apply to the institution is the
“conversion rate” (Lapovsky, 1999). Successful institutions will have high conversion
rates. Just as having a large inquiry pool is desirable for a college, so is having a large
applicant pool. Having a large applicant pool translates into an institution’s ability to be
more selective when making admissions decisions. From their application pool, colleges
make admission decisions and create their admitted pool. Selective higher education
institutions strive to have low acceptance rates. Institutions with low acceptance rates are
perceived to be much more exclusive because of how high the standards are for
admission; this perception of exclusivity adds to the prestige of an institution. The
acceptance rate is the percentage of applicants who were offered acceptance into an
institution versus the applicant pool (Lapovsky, 1999).
Stage 1: Inquiry
Stage 2: Application
Stage 3: Admission
Stage 4: Enrollment
12

After an institution determines its admitted pool, the next step is to have these
students enroll. The percentage of students who enroll from the admitted pool is the
“yield” (Lapovsky, 1999). Although it is desirable for institutions to have high enrollment
yields, institutions strive for enrollment yields that meet predetermined enrollment
targets. If an institution enrolls too few students, they will not have the necessary revenue
for the institution to operate. If an institution enrolls too many students, they may not
have the resources like classroom space or residence hall rooms to meet students’ needs
(Barr, 2002).
The competitive landscape of college admissions has impacted the final stage,
yield, significantly. As stated previously, institutions are receiving higher numbers of
applications because more students applying to college and these students are applying to
a larger number of schools. Larger application pools allow for selective institutions to
have higher standards for admissions and lower acceptance rates. The benefit is that these
schools have a pool of very high achieving students. The downside is that these high
achieving students were also admitted to a number of selective schools. The result is that
institutions, like CU, are now trying to enroll students who are selecting one school to
attend from a larger number of choices.
College Choice
The admissions funnel illustrates the admission process from an enrollment
manager’s standpoint. The college choice stages are a developmental process that
13

students experience that hopefully ends in enrollment at an institution of higher
education.
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) conducted a meta-analysis of all research pertaining
to the college choice process. Based on their research, they defined a three-phase
developmental process that students experience that includes the following:
predisposition, search and choice. During the first phase, predisposition, students
determine whether or not they will attend college. During the search phase, students
formulate which colleges they are most interested in based on institutional factors like
location. The final stage of choice includes the process of deciding which institution they
will enroll.
In 1989, Hossler, Braxton and Coopersmith did a similar study regarding college
choice incorporating Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) earlier work and expanding it to
include sub-stages within the larger three phases. Although the final stage of choice is
most relevant to the study at hand, a brief overview of all three stages will be provided
for background.
Predisposition
Hossler et al. (1989) found that the predisposition or aspiration stage incorporated
the two sub-stages of aspiration and decision to apply. Aspiration refers to the student’s
desire to attend college. The “decision to apply” sub-stage specifically deals with the
process where the student moves from wanting to go to college, to actually deciding to
apply to college.
14

Factors positively associated with a predisposition to attending college are: family
socioeconomic status (SES), academic ability, parental level of education, parental
encouragement, peer encouragement, encouragement from high school counselors and
teachers, student’s educational aspirations and high school quality.
Hossler et al. (1989) found that most studies about SES and students’
predispositions to attend college demonstrated a positive relationship; however, the
nature of the relationship was not clear. While the authors concur that the relationship
between the two variables are positive, they suggest that this relationship is indirect. They
further determined that SES has a direct relationship to academic success, aspiration and
expectation. In turn, these three variables were directly related to predisposition to
attending college.
As stated previously, Hossler et al. (1989) found that academic success was
positively related to predisposition towards college. In most of the studies about
academic success, GPA and standardized test scores were used to define success.
Students with higher GPA’s and standardized test scores were more likely to apply to
college.
Although Hossler et al. (1989) found that academic achievement and SES had
strong relationships to college predisposition, they found that the parental educational
levels had a stronger relationship to predisposition. In addition, the authors found
differences between the effects of parental education levels. They found that the
educational level of a father was more influential on predisposition but a mother’s
15

educational level had a stronger relationship to attendance, which is a later stage of the
college choice process.
In addition to parental educational level, parental encouragement was also found
to have a positive but less significant relationship to college disposition (Hossler et al.,
1989). Although parental encouragement alone was not as strong a predictor of
disposition, encouragement coupled with parental educational level had the strongest
predictive abilities in relation to college disposition.
Demographic factors like race and gender had some association with college
aspirations (Hossler et al., 1989). In terms of race, Hossler et al. found that ethnic
minorities were less likely to aspire to college. However, recent studies have found that
among minorities, the participation rates have sharply increased. Likewise for women,
recent studies have shown their participation rates have raised dramatically so much so
their rates of enrollment outpace those of men.
Search
The second stage, search, encompasses the search, application and admission
process (Hossler et al., 1989). “Search” is defined as the process of finding or selecting
schools to which one might apply. “Application” refers to the process of actually
applying to institutions for admission. “Admission” is a passive process where students
wait to be offered admission to an institution.
Little research was available regarding the search stage (Hossler et al., 1989).
They did highlight the timeline for this stage as well as the importance of information
16

sources during this time. In addition, they noted that during the search phase, students
began to determine institutional factors that were most important to them in a college.
Students will begin to make judgments about which institutions are right for them based
on factors such as geography, cost and programs of interest (Hossler et al.).
Choice
The final stage of the college choice process, choice, includes the substages of
choice and enrollment (Hossler et al., 1989). “Choice” involves students selecting an
institution from all of the institutions to which they were offered admission. “Enrollment”
refers to the actual matriculation of a student at their institution of choice. Because the
purpose of this study is to understand students at the choice stage, a brief description of
the factors found by Hossler et al. will be provided. A more extensive description of these
factors including recent studies about their impact on college choice will be provided in
the following sections.
When Hossler et al. (1989) examined the factors that impact the final stage,
choice, they found that the variables that affect this stage were similar to those they found
to influence the first stage, predisposition. To reiterate, those variables include: socio-
economic status, ability, ethnicity, parental levels of education, family residence, parental
encouragement, peer encouragement and high school quality. In addition, institutional
factors such as academic programs, costs, financial aid availability, academic reputation,
location, size and social atmosphere all affected a student’s decision.
17

In terms of SES, Hossler et al. (1989) found that students’ SES was related to the
cost and quality of institutions they ultimately choose. For high SES students, quality was
more important, cost was not as significant a factor and they were more likely to attend
colleges out of state. In comparison, low SES students were less likely to attend high-
status colleges. Both low and high SES groups were likely to attend private institutions.
Middle income SES students were less likely to attend private institutions or high-status
institutions.
Parental encouragement and level of education were also found to have a positive
effect upon a student’s college choice. Hossler et al. (1989) found that the various studies
found a positive relationship between parental levels of education and students choosing
to attend a private institution. The studies are less conclusive about parental
encouragement but demonstrate an indirect relationship between encouragement and
aspiration; high aspirations were found to be associated with choosing a highly selective
institution.
When examining high ability students, Hossler et al. (1989) looked at the
relationship between GPA and college choice. As expected, they found that most studies
determined that a positive relationship existed between high ability students and selective
institutions; meaning students with high GPA’s are more likely to attend selective
institutions.
In addition to the environmental factors of SES, ability, parental levels of
education and encouragement, institutional attributes also had varying effects upon
18

college choice. Institutional attributes such as academic programs, costs, financial aid
availability, academic reputation, location, size and social atmosphere will be discussed
in greater detail in conjunction with the review of other literature regarding college
choice.
In another study about the choice stage, Cook and Zallocco (1983) examined the
predictive abilities of students’ attitudes about certain variables on enrollment. They
collected data from students who attended five public universities in Ohio: University of
Akron, Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Miami of Ohio and Ohio
University. The data were collected during the first weeks of class with a final usable
sample included 241 responses; incomplete responses were excluded from the sample.
Students were asked to rate two things in the study (Cook & Zallocco, 1983).
First, they were asked to rate how important a certain characteristic was to them,
including: academic reputation, specialized programs, size, closeness to home, cost of
attendance, university culture, faculty contact, social life, facilities, admission standards,
financial aid, family influence, high school counselor opinion, athletic program,
intramural athletics, attrition rate, recruiting efforts and influence of friends. They were
then asked to rate how well the institution they attended did in each of these particular
areas, the results of which created an attitude score.
What Cook and Zallocco (1983) found was that when both importance and belief
were taken into account, the model predicted enrollment behavior 81% of the time. They
also looked at how predictive belief alone was. When they just looked at the belief score,
19

the model predicted enrollment only 67% of the time. This study reveals the critical need
to understand both a student’s perception about certain characteristics and how important
that characteristic is to them.
Student Characteristics
Hossler et al. (1989) found that a variety of factors affected the final stage of the
college choice process, choice. Based on more recent literature about these variables,
college choice factors can be divided into three areas: student characteristics, sources of
information/influence and institutional attributes. In terms of student characteristics, the
college choice literature highlights that the following impact the final college choice:
socio-economic status, ability, ethnicity, parental levels of education, family residence
and high school quality. For the purposes of this literature review, these factors are
grouped together because although they are critical components of the college choice
process, by the time students are selecting which college to attend, many of these factors
have already been long determined.
Socio-economic Status
Hossler et al. (1989) noted in their review that SES was found to be important.
Recent research supports their finding as it has been found by the National Center for
Education Statistics (1998) and Seneca and Taussig (1987) that SES does factor into the
college choice of students. Seneca and Taussig used a family’s income to determine SES.
Families were divided into three categories: low (less than $50,000), middle ($50,000 -
$80,000) and high (more than $80,000). NCES also used income categories to show
20

disaggregated data; their three income groupings were less than $30,000, between
$30,000 and $69,999 and $70,000 or more.
Seneca and Taussig (1987) examined the effects of tuition and enrollment at a
state institution. Their sample included 2,964 freshmen who were admitted to Rutgers in
1985, both those who enrolled (53%) and did not enroll (47%). Seneca and Taussig found
that the enrollment decisions of students from families in the middle-income bracket were
more likely to attend an institution based on a favorable financial aid package. These
students were also more likely to attend Rutgers if the tuition of the other school they
were considering was more expensive. For families in the low income category, the
probability they would attend Rutgers doubled compared to families in the higher income
category based on tuition costs.
NCES also disaggregated their results according to SES and found some patterns
not discussed in Seneca and Taussing (1987) study. They found that all income groups
were most concerned about reputation. Families in the low and middle income category
were least concerned about influence from family and peers. High income families were
least concerned about price.
Ability
NCES (1998) also disaggregated students by ability and found a relationship
between ability and college choice. NCES defined ability by using SAT and ACT scores
as measures. Students with SAT scores above 1200 or ACT scores above 25 were in the
highest ability bracket. The middle bracket included students with SAT scores between
21

900 and 1199 or ACT scores between 19 and 24. Students with SAT scores under 900 or
ACT scores below 19 were in the lowest tier of NCES’ study. Results for students with
missing SAT or ACT scores were also disaggregated. Griffith and Rask (2007) used only
SAT scores to determine ability. They based their ability brackets on SAT quartiles
where students who were considered high achieving were in the 75
th
percentile; the SAT
score at the 75
th
percentile was 1420 out of 1600.
NCES (1998) found that across the board for all standardized achievement test
levels reputation was the most important reason cited for students selecting a college. The
only other notable finding was that among the eight groups, location was the second most
important reason for choosing an institution; price was the second most important reason
for students in the high ACT group. Similarly, Griffith and Rask (2007) found that high
ability students were also influenced by reputation, specifically USNWR rankings, in
their college choice; additional details about Griffith and Rask’s study will be discussed
later.
Ethnicity
Kim (2004) sought to understand the effects of financial aid on enrollment
decisions and the differences between ethnic groups. Using data from the Freshman
Survey of 1994, which offers a national sample of all students who entered a
postsecondary institution in 1994, the data were disaggregated according to four ethnic
categories: African American, Asian, Latino and White. The sample was limited to
students who attended a four-year institution, yielding a total sample size of 5,136. Kim
22

found that each ethnic group responded in different ways to the types of financial aid
package they received. The most dramatic differences were found among Asians.
Specific results and differences among ethnic groups will be forthcoming.
Unlike Kim (2004) who found differences among ethnic groups when it came to
the effects of financial aid, NCES (1998) found similarities across five ethnic categories:
White (non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and
American Indian/Alaskan Native. For all ethnic groups, reputation was the most
important reason to attend an institution. Three of the four ethnic groups cited location as
the second most popular reason. Hispanics were the only exception, indicating price as
the second most important reason. Influence was the least important reason for three of
the four ethnic groups except for White students who found price to be the least
important reason.
In a qualitative study conducted by Perez and McDonough (2008) they indicated
that for Latina and Latino students the sources of influence that were most important to
them in selecting which colleges to apply and attend were siblings, relatives or
acquaintances. The researchers interviewed 106 Latino/a students in the greater Los
Angeles area using chain migration theory within social capital as a framework. The data
was triangulated by using focus groups, surveys and observational data. What Perez and
McDonough found was that Latino/a students relied upon a network of sources that were
currently enrolled at a post-secondary education or had graduated. The students focused
on those in their network who graduated or were currently enrolled because they could
23

provide first-hand information versus sources, like their parents, who may not have
attended college in the United States.
Similar to its lack of impact on SES, the study conducted by NCES did not
demonstrate differences based on ethnicity. However, Kim (2004) found some evidence
of the impact of ethnicity on college choice. Therefore this study will examine the
differences that ethnicity plays in college choice.
Gender
Hossler et al. (1989) indicated that gender had some relationship during the early
stages of the college choice process; they did not find many connections between gender
and the choice phase of the process. Mansfield and Warwick (2005) found that there were
significant differences between men and women in the factors that were important to
them in the college choice process. They surveyed 192 high school seniors and their
parents to determine which factors were important to them. Significant differences were
found between men and women in the importance they placed on financial aid, finances
overall, security, overall physical characteristics, academics and atmosphere. Women
rated all of these factors as more important than men.
Sources of Information and Influence
In addition to student characteristics, the college choice literature highlights the
degree to which sources of influence or information impact college choice. Research
conducted by Frisbee and Belcher (1999) distinguishes the difference between those who
act as sources of influence and the university characteristics that students assess to
24

determine how well the university fits with their needs. These sources assist the college
applicant in their information gathering and selection process.
What these studies (Cook & Zallocoo, 1983; Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Hossler et
al., 1989; NCES, 1998; Sandford, Frisbee & Belcher, 2006) indicate is that sources of
influence or information are important to the college choice process. These sources can
be divided into three categories: student’s network, institution and reputation.
Student's Network
Among the network of relationships students rely on, the research highlights that
family (Cook & Zallocoo, 1983; Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Hossler et al., 1989; NCES,
1998; Perez & McDonough, 2008; Sandford et al., 2006), friends (Cook & Zallocoo;
Frisbee & Belcher; Hossler et al; NCES; Perez & McDonough; Sandford et al.), alumni
(Frisbee & Belcher; Perez & McDonough; Sandford et al.), teachers (Frisbee & Belcher;
Sandford et al.) and counselors (Cook & Zallocoo; Frisbee & Belcher; Sandford et al.) act
as sources of influence of information.
Frisbee and Belcher (1999) studied the enrollment patterns of students based on
their sources of influence and identified seventeen factors that influenced enrollment
decisions. The initial sample for the study included 607 students from eight universities
with automotive engineering programs. Their survey asked respondents to rate sources of
influence on a five-point Likert scale (1=not important, 2=slightly important,
3=important, 4=quite important, 5=very important). Data from 383 survey respondents
highlights the distinction between characteristics about an institution (e.g. honors
25

programs, financial aid package) that students consider in making their final decision and
sources that influence that final decision (e.g. parents, teachers). However, these two
categories are not mutually exclusive as some characteristics serve both purposes (e.g.
reputation of major or university).
Frisbee and Belcher (1999) determined what sources of influence to use in their
study based on college choice literature. The sources they found that were specific to
high schools students were: friends, university catalog, high school counselor/teacher,
parents, university alumni, program reputation, recruitment materials, college recruiters,
coach, university admission office, campus visit and university reputation.
Sandford et al. (2006) designed a study to determine the importance of sources of
both information and influence. A discussion about the study design and results will be
detailed later. But the results regarding a student’s network found that friends were the
fourth most important source of information among the nineteen items students were
asked to select from. When it came to a final college choice, Sandford et al found that
parents were quite influential, ranking third among twenty items.
In the NCES (1998) study, influence-related reasons received the lowest number
of responses (20%). Friends/spouse attending, parents attended, parents wanted students
to attend, teacher/counselor recommendation and “other” influence-related reasons were
the categories in this group. The category labeled “other” received the most responses in
this category. What is surprising about this study was the low number of responses in the
26

influence category, which is suggested to be a result of students already considering
influence more heavily in the earlier stages of the college choice process.
The literature does suggest a link between a student’s network and college choice
generally. What is not known is the specific impact a student’s network on the
subpopulation of natural science students. Because this specific population could be
affected differently by their network, all of the sources studied by Frisbee and Belcher
(1999), NCES (1998) and Sandford et al. (2006) will be used in the study.
Institutional Influence
In addition to people that are a part of the student’s network, the university itself
serves as an information source. University responsiveness (Trusheim, Crouse &
Middaugh, 1990), catalog (Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Sandford et al., 2006), campus visit
(Frisbee & Belcher; Sandford et al.), recruitment materials (Frisbee & Belcher; Sandford
et al.), admission office (Frisbee & Belcher; Sandford et al.) and website (Sandford et al.)
were all sources of information studied for their impact on college choice.
Frisbee and Belcher (1999) and Sandford et al. (2006) both found that
institutional programs like general campus visits and specific facility tours were
influential in the college choice process. Students ranked facility tours as third most
important in gaining information about the institution (Sandford et al.). Both studies also
found campus visits to be important in influencing a final decision.
Trusheim et al. (1990) examined the relationship between student attitudes and
enrollment behavior; the details of this study will be discussed further in a following
27

section. In regards to institutional influence, Trusheim et al. found that a student’s
attitude about the responsiveness of a university’s admission office was significant in
predicting enrollment behavior.
Although the literature only demonstrates the importance of campus visits, facility
tours and university responsiveness as significant in the college choice process, all of the
variables used in the cited studies will be used. Because the study at hand is examining
natural science students, the effect of the institution may be more significant, therefore,
an expanded list of variables will be used.
Reputation
Although Astin (1996) found that reputation is not an accurate measure of
learning, research into college choice has shown that students heavily consider reputation
at this stage of the process. Students consider the general reputation of the university
(Cook & Zallocco, 1983; Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Griffith & Rask, 2006; NCES, 1998;
Sandford et al., 2006), reputation related to specific programs/major (Frisbee & Belcher;
Sandford et al.), job-placement prospects (NCES), faculty (NCES) and facilities (NCES).
All of these reputation related reasons factored into a student’s college choice decision.
In a study designed to understand what influenced students’ enrollment decisions
in an automotive engineering program, Sandford et al. (2006) surveyed 450 students at
Pittsburg State University. The students were asked to identify sources that contributed to
their knowledge of the program and what sources most influenced their decision to enroll.
28

The students were first asked to rate the impact of certain information sources on
their knowledge of the program (Sandford et al., 2006), including the following 19 items:
reputation of program, reputation of university, tour of facilities, friends, campus visit,
parent(s)/relatives, high school teacher, university alumni, program alumni, university
catalog, marketing materials, high school counselor, program webpage, admissions
recruiters, admission office, students in the program, program faculty, athletic
advisor/coach and articulation agreement. Students rated these 19 items on their impact
on a 1-4 scale (1=not at all, 2=very little, 3=somewhat, 4=to a great extent). The sources
with the highest mean scores related to reputation were reputation of program (3.15) and
university reputation (2.77) (Sandford et al.).
Next, students were asked to rate how influential sources were in making their
final decision (Sandford et al., 2006). They rated 20 items on a 1-4 scale similar to the
first question. The 20 items were: program reputation, program faculty, university
reputation, parent(s)/relatives, campus visit, friends, university community, high school
teacher, program alumni, university alumni, catalog, marketing materials, high school
counselor, program webpage, university recruiter, admission office, students in the
program, university faculty, articulation agreement and athletic coach/advisor. Once
again, program reputation and university reputation were considered to be important
(Sandford et al.).
Like Sandford et al. (2006), NCES (1998) found that reputation was important in
the college choice process. They conducted a study on college choice among students
29

who enrolled at a postsecondary institution for the first time in 1995. The data comes
from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, which is a representative sample of
all postsecondary students. In the study, students were asked in telephone interviews to
identify reasons they selected their college or university. These responses were then
coded into 20 predetermined categories and clustered into four groups: influence,
location, price and reputation.
Reputation was the most cited reason for choosing a specific college in NCES’
(1998) study as 63% cited a reputation-related reason, including those students who
attended a private, four-year institution. Reputation related reasons included: school
having a good reputation, job placement, facilities, faculty reputation and “other”
reputation-related reason.
Results from Frisbee and Belcher’s (1999) study echo both NCES (1998) and
Sandford et al. (2006). The authors found that the two most important sources of
influence for students in making their enrollment choice were the reputations of an
academic program and the university.
Griffith and Rask (2006) examined the matriculation decisions of high achieving
students. They specifically looked at the influence of one source, USNWR, on this
population. Data came from the Colgate Admitted Student Questionnaire which was
administered to students admitted between 1995-2004; approximately 1,200 students,
mostly those who eventually attended Colgate, made up the final sample. Analysis of the
data show that 80% of the respondents’ first-choice schools were in the top 25 of
30

USNWR rankings and a little more than 50% of all students eventually attended the
school with the highest ranking that year. In terms of influence, Griffith and Rask found
that USNWR annual college rankings highly impacted students’ final choices in
institutions.
Despite Astin’s (1996) findings, these studies do indicate the importance of
reputation in the college choice process. This study will examine various reputation
related variables for their importance to students during the college choice process.
Institutional Attributes
The final group of factors that influence the college choice process are
institutional attributes. Hossler et al. (1989) determined that institutional factors affected
the final choice of college to varying degrees. They divided these characteristics into two
categories: financial and non-financial. Based on college choice literature, the non-
financial characteristics can be divided into several subcategories: academic attributes,
extra-curricular activities and physical characteristics.
Financial Attributes
The college choice research indicates that financial factors are a consideration in
selecting a college. Financial factors, like tuition, are important to students when
choosing where to enroll (Cook & Zallocco, 1983; Hossler et al., 1989; NCES, 1998;
Seneca & Taussig, 1987; Trusheim et al., 1990). In addition, students consider the
amount and type of financial aid they received (Cook & Zallocco; Hossler et al.; Kim,
2004; NCES).
31

As stated previously, Senecca and Taussig (1987) found that financial
considerations were important to students during the college choice process. For middle
and low income families, lower tuition costs increased the probability a family would
attend Rutgers versus institutions with higher tuition rates. The probability doubled when
comparing low income families to high income families. In addition, for middle income
families, Senecca and Taussig found that their enrollment decisions were more affected
by the amount of financial aid they received than their low and high income counterparts.
Middle income families were more likely to select Rutgers versus another institution, if
Rutgers awarded them the largest financial aid package.
Similarly, Kim (2004) studied the effects of cost on enrollment decision. Data
from the Freshman Survey of 1994, which is a national sample of all students who
entered a postsecondary institution in 1994, was used with the sample limited to students
who attended a four-year institution (5,136 students). Kim examined the effects of race
on a student’s likelihood of attending their first-choice institution. For Caucasians,
students receiving grant-only packages were four percent more likely to attend than their
counterparts who received no aid. Grant and loan packages increased their likelihood of
attending to five percent. The differences were more significant for Asian Americans
where a grant only package increased their likelihood by 32% and the addition of loans
increased their likelihood to 38%. Kim suggested that these differences reflected the high
priority Asian Americans placed on attending their first-choice institution.
32

Weiler (1996) examined factors that influenced high-ability student’s
matriculation choices. The study used the College Board’s Admitted Student
Questionnaire Plus from fall 1993. The sample was comprised of 987 high ability
students at a highly selective private research institution. Weiler defined high ability
students as those who were in the top half of the admitted class at this institution; the top
half was based on the admissions office’s academic rating scale. Weiler found that for
high ability students, financial aid was a consideration in selecting between comparable
institutions.
These studies indicate the importance of cost and financial aid on an enrollment
decision. Although one study examined a private, selective institution and another
examined high ability students, what still needs to be known is how cost and financial aid
affects students in the natural sciences considering a highly selective private institution.
Academic Opportunities
In addition to financial aspects, institutional attributes pertaining to the academic
experience were determined to impact college choice. The educational attributes that
have been studied by college choice researchers are: specific academic programs/majors
(Cook & Zallocco, 1983; Hossler et al., 1989; Trusheim et al., 1990; Weiler, 1996),
honors program (Trusheim et al.) and faculty (Trusheim et al.; Weiler, 1996).
The focus of Trusheim et al.’s (1990) study was the role of attitude and its impact
on enrollment decisions of students at the University of Delaware. The sample included
1,286 students who were admitted in 1987 and 1988. In this study, both, student attitudes
33

about the University of Delaware and competitor institutions were calculated. The
attitudes of the students in this study were calculated by having participants rate a
university’s attributes and their importance. Subjects were asked to rate 18 university
attributes on a scale of 1 to 4 (1=very poor, 2=poor, 3=good, 4=very good). The 18
attributes were: quality of academics, honors programs, personal attention, general
reputation, quality of faculty, total cost, social activities, financial aid package, closeness
to home, size of enrollment, quality of major, diversity, housing, athletic program,
athletic facilities, teaching reputation, treatment of prospective students and promptness
of request for information. Students were then asked to indicate how important this
attribute was on a 1 to 3 scale (1=not important, 2=somewhat important, 3=very
important) (Trusheim et al.).
Trusheim et al. (1990) found that attitude was significantly linked to enrollment.
They found that significant differences existed, in terms of attitude, between students
who enrolled and those who chose to attend another institution. They found that nine
variables to be significant in predicting enrollment; three of those variables – quality of
academics, quality of major and quality of faculty – were related to academic
opportunities.
Weiler’s (1996) findings about high ability students concur with the results of
Trusheim et al. (1990). Weiler found that non-monetary characteristics such as academic
programs and faculty focus on undergraduate education were significant determinants in
a student’s institutional choice.
34

Trusheim et al.’s (1990) and Weiler’s (1990) studies highlight the importance of
academic opportunities in the college choice process. But these studies do not speak to
the impact these factors have on students who have applied to a private institution in the
natural sciences. This study will look at these factors and how they influence students in
the natural sciences at a private institution.
Extra-curricular Activities
College choice researchers have also examined other variables outside of those
related to instructional opportunities. Variables such as social atmosphere (Cook &
Zallocco, 1983; Hossler et al., 1989; Trusheim et al., 1990), housing opportunities
(Trusheim et al.) and athletics (Cook & Zallocco; Trusheim et al.) have all been
examined. Under the category of athletics various specific sub categories emerged, like
athletic facilities, intramural athletics and NCAA participation. Trusheim et al. found that
among extracurricular variables, athletic facilities, intercollegiate athletic program and
social activities were significant in predicting enrollment.
Physical Characteristics
Finally, physical characteristics were a university attribute that was a factor for
students. Physical characteristics that students considered were surrounding community
(Hossler et al., 1989), being close to home (Cook & Zallocco, 1983; Long, 2004; NCES,
1998) and the campus (NCES).
Location (58%) was the second most cited reason (NCES, 1998). When
specifically looking at students who attended private, four-year institutions, being close
35

to home was most important to this group. The other reasons pertaining to location were:
possibility of living at home, liking the campus, being close to work and other location-
related reason. Trusheim et al. (1990) found that location was the most statistically
significant predictor of selecting a college. Specifically, the students in their sample cited
being close to home as the reason to attend an institution (Trusheim et al.).
36

Chapter 3 – Methodology
The purpose of this study was to understand what factors most influenced a
student’s decision to attend or not attend the survey institution. Based on current
literature about college choice student characteristics, institutional attributes and
influence/information sources all affect this decision. This study hoped to inform
admission administrators about the variables that were most important to students and
affected their decision to attend particular institutions.
California University (CU) is a selective, private institution. The admission cycle
consists of recruitment and conversion phases and two entities within the institution are
involved in these admission processes: the university’s central admissions office and
decentralized admissions offices from specific academic units. Academic units represent
the separate schools that comprise the university. At CU, there are twelve undergraduate
academic units. Eleven of the academic units are referred to as professional schools. The
final and largest academic unit is the liberal arts college. Because of its size, the liberal
arts unit is divided into four sub-units: natural science, social science, humanities and
undecided. The liberal arts college has one admission office for all four areas. This study
will focus on the liberal arts college and therefore only the liberal arts college will be
named when referencing the role of the academic units in the admission process.
Recruitment events are generally held during the fall term and end in January.
Recruitment events include on-campus programs, off-campus receptions and student
interviews. The goal of recruitment events is to encourage students to apply to CU. The
37

university’s central admissions office is primarily accountable for recruitment activities
with strong involvement from the liberal arts college.
The conversion process begins after the central admissions office has made
admission decisions. Conversion events are similar to recruitment events except the
audience is limited to students who have been admitted. The liberal arts college is
primarily accountable for the success of conversion events.
CU’s enrollment yield is 35%. Because its enrollment yield is within the thirty to
forty-five percent range, its cost per enrolled student is in the most expensive bracket
(Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006). The university is ultimately concerned about the
effectiveness of its recruitment strategies because of the cost-benefits associated with
improving enrollment yield. When looking at cost effectiveness, the university needs to
improve its yield so that it is enrolling more than forty-five percent of its admitted class
(Hawkins and Clinedinst).
Of the twelve academic units at CU, nine have enrollment yields higher than
forty-five percent. The liberal arts college, the largest academic area at CU, has the
lowest yield of all the academic units. The overall yield for the liberal arts is twenty-eight
percent. The natural science area, which represents the largest group of students in this
area, has the lowest yield of the four subunits at twenty-two percent.
Although literature exists regarding attitudes and college enrollment, the literature
does not address the attitudes of students who are interested in natural science. As such,
the following questions were examined:
38

1. What factors were important to science students in making their enrollment
choice?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled vs.
not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
2. What factors were natural science students most satisfied with at CU?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled vs.
not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
3. Which information sources were most important to natural science students
when making their college choice?
a. How do student perceptions vary by enrollment decision (enrolled vs.
not enrolled)?
b. How do student perceptions vary by demographic characteristics
(gender, ethnicity)?
To answer these questions, a quantitative research design was utilized to gather
data. The goal of quantitative research is to test a hypothesis or question; the answer to
these questions come in the form of explaining the relationship between particular
variables (Creswell, 2003). For the purposes of this study, descriptive and inferential
39

statistics were used to answer questions focused on institutional attributes and influence
sources and their relationship to college enrollment. Because it is difficult to understand
how attitudes and college enrollment affect every natural science student, we will use
inferential statistics on a sample of the larger natural science population (Howell, 2004).
From this sample, this study will be able to answer questions regarding this relationship.
To gather this data, an online survey was used. Kaye and Johnson (1999) noted
that the use of online surveys may become the primary tool used because of the
convenience and cost-effective nature of this tool. Additional details about the use of
online surveys and its challenges will be further discussed in the “Data Collection”
section.
Sample and Population
The population surveyed for this study met the following five criteria:
1. Students were admitted to CU for the fall 2008 term.
2. Students were admitted to majors considered natural sciences by the
institution and included majors such as biology, chemistry or neuroscience, to
name a few.
3. Students in the sample will be first-time freshmen even though the institution
admits both first-time freshmen and transfer students.
4. Students who are 18 years old by the first day of the study will be included.
5. The study will focus on domestic students only.
40

Based on these criteria, 1,051 students were invited to participate in this study. A
total of 219 students who met the above criteria responded. Incomplete responses were
excluded from the study; 199 completed surveys were used for this study.
Instrumentation
In terms of survey creation, Pequegnat et al. (2006) studied what factors
researchers should be taken into consideration when conducting online surveys. They
found that the background and look of the survey contribute to participant attrition. The
use of bright colors, especially for young people, and a status bar can increase survey
completion. Pequegnat et al. found that no definitive answer was available about survey
length; they found that some longer surveys, both in time spent and number of questions,
had higher response rates than shorter surveys. But they also cautioned that a shorter
survey was better. They also found that testing the clarity of the survey and its questions
on a similar population was beneficial; therefore, the survey to be used for this study was
beta tested on college-aged natural science students.
The online survey used was based on several surveys. First, the survey (Appendix
A) asked students to rate institutional attributes, both how they felt the survey institution
did in this area and how important these attributes were to them. Next, students were
asked to rate the importance of sources of information or influence. Finally, students
were asked to self-report their enrollment decisions, family SES, parental level of
education, race and gender.
41

The survey incorporates the best practices found to be effective in research
regarding online surveys. The survey was twelve pages long. The first two pages
included an information sheet that informed the students of their rights as research
participants.
The following two pages asked students to rate university factors. Students were
given a list of factors that were divided into four categories: cost (cost, financial aid, type
of aid), educational experiences (specific academic programs/majors, honors program,
faculty), extra-curricular activities (student activities, intramural athletics, NCAA
participation) and location (surrounding community, being close to home, campus,
housing opportunities, athletic facilities). In these two pages, students were asked to rate
how important these factors were to them. These questions were based on Trusheim et
al.’s (1990) model, where subjects were asked to rate two things about institutional
factors; the first being how important a given factor was in selecting a college. The
ratings scale was a modified version of Noel-Levitz (2007) Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI). The subjects rated the importance of the attribute on a 1-5 scale
(1=Unimportant, 2=Somewhat Unimportant, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat Important,
5=Important).
The next two pages asked students about how satisfied they were with the fifteen
factors, previously surveyed about, at CU. This was also based on Trusheim et al. (1990).
A Likert scale (1=Dissatisfied, 2=Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat
Satisfied, 5= Satisfied) was used to measure satisfaction.
42

Students were also asked to rate the importance of sources of information or
influence on their college choice process on page seven. The sources were divided into
three subgroups: student’s network, college/university resources and reputation. In order
to measure sources of influence upon a student’s attitude about college, a model
developed by Sandford et al. (2006) was used. A modified version Sandford et al’s Likert
scale was used. The subjects rated how important the information source was on their
final college choice (1=Uninfluential, 2=Somewhat Uninfluential, 3=Neutral,
4=Somewhat Influential, 5= Influential).
The next two pages asked students demographic information. The students were
asked to self-report their gender, ethnicity, family SES and parental level of education,
both mother and father.
Page ten asked the students about their final enrollment decision. First, what was
the most important factor in determining their final choice. Students selected from among
the fifteen factors they were asked to rate previously. They were also allowed to fill in an
answer not included in the list. They were also asked whether they enrolled at the survey
institution or not. For students who attended CU, this was the last question they were
asked on the survey.
For students who chose to enroll at another institution, they were asked two
additional questions. First, they were asked where they chose to enroll. They were also
asked to indicate which attributes were better at the institution they chose compared to
CU.
43

One limitation of this survey was that the question of whether or not students
visited campus was not asked in the survey. Because factors such as surrounding
community and the campus were being assessed by students in terms of satisfaction,
whether or not an applicant had visited the campus is essential to assessing their true
satisfaction with this factor versus just what they have heard about these factors.
Data Collection
All students who met the predetermined criteria were emailed by the admissions
office to ask them to participate in the survey and a link was provided. The admissions
office consented to the use of this data. The survey’s opening page included an
information sheet. The subjects were informed of the voluntary nature of the survey and
their participation implied their consent to participate. The survey was available for four
weeks.
The participants were emailed invitations to participate in the study on September
3, 2008 by the admission office. By this date all participants had decided which
institution they would attend. The survey was available to participants for four weeks
after the initial invitation to participate was sent. Sheehan (2001) found that in terms of
response rate for online surveys, available data is mixed regarding its effectiveness; some
have found online surveys to be more effective than paper, while others have found it less
effective. Sheehan did note that the use of follow-up reminders had positive effects.
Therefore, follow-up emails were sent two weeks, one week and one day before the data
collection period ended.
44

Data Analysis
After the four-week data collection period ended, 219 students responded.
Incomplete surveys were filtered out and resulted in a sample of 199. Descriptive
statistics were calculated to understand the makeup of the sample by enrollment decision,
gender, ethnicity, SES, mother’s highest level of education and father’s highest level of
education. A chi-square test was also used to determine if there were significant
differences in enrollment decisions within groups based on gender, ethnicity, SES,
mother’s education and father’s education.
For students who did not enroll, they were asked to report which institution they
attended instead of CU. These institutions were categorized by control source (public or
private) and Carnegie’s basic classifications. Carnegie’s basic classification indicate the
types of degrees that institutions award (baccalaureate, master’s or doctorate) and for
doctorate granting institutions, the level of research (very high research activity or high
research activity) is also designated. The number of survey respondents in each of these
categories was counted. Next, the institution’s USNWR ranking for 2008 were assessed.
A mean and mode score for the ranks of these institutions were calculated. Additionally,
a cut score, using CU’s ranking, was used to determine the number of students who
attended schools ranked higher and lower than CU.
To answer research question one – which factors were most important to natural
science students – descriptive statistics were used. Mean scores for each factor were
calculated. Next, these importance scores were ranked from highest to lowest to
45

determine which factors were most important overall; in addition, the most important
factor for each sub-category was also determined. Finally, a determination of whether a
factor was important or not important was made based on the mean score. A factor was
considered important if its mean score was equal to or greater than 4.0; a factor was
considered not important if its mean score was equal to or less than 2.0. The same process
was used to answer question two, about factor satisfaction, and question three, about the
importance of sources of influence.
In terms of factor importance, one additional statistic was calculated. Survey
participants were asked to indicate which factor was most important to them in the
college choice process. These responses were tallied to determine which factors were
most important to respondents.
To analyze the data in terms of the impact the campus visit had on satisfaction
levels, a proxy was used because a direct question about the campus visit was not asked,
as discussed earlier. The results of the importance of the campus visit as a source of
importance will be used as the proxy; students will be divided into two independent
groups based on the importance they attributed to the campus visit. Students who rated
the campus visit 4 or higher, in terms of importance, will be in one group, considered to
be students who visited campus; students who rated the campus 3 or lower will represent
the group that most likely did not visit campus. Based on these two groups, a t-score will
be calculated for their satisfaction levels to determine if differences exist between the two
groups in their satisfaction with the factors.
46

To understand the differences between groups based on enrollment decision (sub-
questions A), the first step was to calculate factor mean scores and determine ranking and
importance, for both those who enrolled and did not enroll, using the same method that
was outlined for question one. Next, a t-score was calculated to determine if significant
differences in factor importance existed between groups.
Students who did not enroll were also asked to indicate all the factors that they
were more satisfied with at the schools they enrolled in compared to CU. These results
were counted to determine which factors were stronger at other institutions.
This study also aimed to understand if there were differences between groups
based on demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, etc.). Once again, mean scores, ranks
and importance levels were assessed. Differences between males and females were
determined by calculating a t-score. To determine significant variability between groups
based on ethnicity, SES, mother’s education and father’s education, a one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was used. A post-hoc analysis, using a Tukey procedure, was used
to determine if differences existed between specific groups.
47

Chapter 4 - Results
The results of the study will be presented in this chapter. This study sought to
understand three areas of the college choice process of natural science students. The first
goal was to understand what factors were important to this population. Based on survey
results, the factors that were important to natural science students were: campus, major
availability, research opportunities, faculty contact, student activities and total cost. Next,
the study aimed to understand how satisfied natural science students were with these
factors at the survey institution; at CU, students were only satisfied with major
availability and the campus. In addition, a comparison of the factors that were important
to natural science students and satisfaction levels will be presented. Finally, this study set
out to understand what sources of information/influence were most important to natural
science students. Based on survey results, the university and major reputation were the
most influential sources.
For each of the above questions, the study also examined differences based on
enrollment decision, gender, ethnicity, SES, mother’s educational level and father’s
educational level. The results of the survey will be presented by research question.
Findings were based on both descriptive and inferential statistics. SPSS v16.0 was used
to analyze the results of this survey.
Description of Sample
The survey was completed by 219 respondents, about 21% of the admitted
population that were natural science students. Data from incomplete surveys were
48

omitted for the purposes of this results section. After removing incomplete responses, 199
observations remained and used for this study.
The first sub-question of this survey sought to understand if differences existed
between natural science students based on whether they enrolled at CU or not. As such,
respondents were asked to self-report their enrollment decision in survey item 18. They
were asked if they enrolled or did not enroll at CU. Of those who completed the survey,
36% (N = 71) enrolled versus 64% (N = 128) who did not enroll.
Of those who did not enroll, 45% (N = 58) attended a public institution, 54% (N =
69) attended a private institution. One of the respondents attended a higher education
institution outside of the US and will not be discussed further in this description section.
Using the Carnegie classifications, most of the students attended a research university
with very high research activity (RU/VH) (86%, N = 110); of those who did not attend a
RU/VH institution, the balance enrolled at doctoral research institutions (4%, N = 5),
bachelors institutions (3%, N = 4), large masters institutions (2%, N = 3), research
university with high research activity (2%, N = 3) and small masters institutions (2%, N =
2).
Based on 2008 USNWR rankings, additional descriptive statistics were calculated
about the institutions that the students attended. The mean ranking of the schools the
students selected was 30; the mode was 25. CU’s ranking in this survey was 27; 64% (N
= 82) attended schools with a higher ranking, 27% (N = 35) attended schools ranked
lower than CU and 8% (N = 10) attended schools that were not ranked by USNWR.
49

In addition to enrollment choice, this study also examined differences based on
demographic characteristics like gender, ethnicity and SES. Survey item 12 asked
responders to select their gender; they selected either male or female. Males represented
36% (N = 71) of the population; 64% (N = 128) were female. A Chi-square statistic was
calculated for gender between those who enrolled and did not enroll. No significant
gender differences were found between the groups based on enrollment decision.
Students indicated the race/ethnicity they identified with in survey item 13. They
were asked to identify with one ethnicity from a list that included: African American (N =
9, 4.5%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (API) (N = 85, 42.7%), Caucasian (N = 80,
40.2%), Latino/a (N = 16, 8%), Native American (N = 0, 0%) and bi/multi-racial (N = 9,
4.5%). Because no one indicated that they were Native American, this ethnic group will
not be addressed in the results. No significant differences existed based on ethnicity
between those who enrolled and did not based on a Chi-square statistic.
Students were asked to identify the one SES group that best described their family
in survey item 14. SES groups were based on income ranges; students were asked to
select from the following ranges: under $30,000 (SES-1), $31,000-$50,000 (SES-2),
$51,000-$80,000 (SES-3), above $80,000 (SES-4) and unknown (SES-U). The largest
group was SES-4 (N = 123, 61%); followed by SES-3 (N = 28. 14%), SES-U (N = 18,
9%), SES-1 (N = 16, 8%) and SES-2 (N = 14, 7%). Because the income range of students
in SES-U is unknown, this group will not be discussed further because they could be a
part of any of the income groups and it is difficult to determine the impact that their
50

family’s financial situation affected their college choice. A Chi-square statistic was also
calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in enrollment decisions based
on SES; no significant differences were found.
The effect of both a mother’s and father’s educational level on college choice
were the final demographic variables examined in this study. Students were asked to
select the highest educational level achieved by their mother (survey item 15) and father
(survey item 16). Educational levels were categorized as: less than high school (Mother-
1, Father-1), high school diploma (Mother-2, Father-2), some college (Mother-3, Father-
3), four-year college degree (Mother-4, Father-4), graduate degree (Mother-4, Father-4)
or unknown (Mother-U, Father-U). The frequency and percentage of mother’s
educational level from the smallest to largest were: Mother-1 (N = 10, 5%), Mother-2 (N
= 14, 7%), Mother-3 (N = 37, 19%), Mother-4 (N = 73, 37%), Mother-5 (N = 64, 32%)
and Mother-U (N = 1, 1%). For fathers, the frequency and percentages were: Father-1 (N
= 10, 5%), Father-2 (N = 12, 6%), Father-3 (N = 12, 6%), Father-4 (N = 48, 24%), Father-
5 (N = 114, 57%) and Father-U (N = 3, 2%). Similar to SES-U, data from Mother-U and
Father-U will not be discussed in this section because of the difficulty in analyzing these
results. No significant differences were found in terms of enrollment decisions based on
mother’s education or father’s education using a Chi-square statistic.
Importance of University Factors
The purpose of the first research question was to understand what factors were
important to natural science students in their college choice process. The results for this
51

research question will be presented here. First, the results for the entire natural science
sample will be presented. Natural science students rated campus, major availability,
research opportunities, faculty contact, student activities and total cost as important
factors. A trend emerged in the results where the six factors that were important to the
entire sample were also found to be important to groups based on enrollment decision and
demographic variable; because of this trend, the following discussion will often refer to
these six factors as important factors. Next, the importance of factors based on enrollment
decisions and the differences between these groups will be discussed. Differences were
found between those who enrolled and did not enroll in the importance they placed on
major availability, total cost and housing opportunities. Finally, factor importance and
differences between groups based on demographic variables will be highlighted.
Survey items 1, 2, 3 and 4 were designed to answer this first research question.
Students were asked to rate the importance of fifteen factors related to college choice on
a scale of one to five. Survey item 1 assessed cost-related attributes (amount of financial
aid, type of financial aid and total cost). Survey item 2 focused on campus-related
attributes (housing opportunities, student athletic/recreation facility, distance from home,
campus and surrounding community). The importance of academic opportunities (major
availability, honors programs, research opportunities and faculty contact) were assessed
in survey item 3. Students were asked to rate extra-curricular opportunities (student
activities, NCAA program and intramural athletic program) in survey item 4.
52

Mean scores were computed for each of the factors based on survey responses.
Table 1 shows the rank and mean score given to each of the fifteen factors. For the
purposes of this study, factors with mean scores equal to or greater than 4.0 are
considered important. Natural science students rated six factors as important. The six
factors, in order of highest mean score, were campus, major availability, research
opportunities, faculty contact, student organizations and total cost. The four sub-
categories of factors (cost-related, campus-related, academic opportunity and extra-
curricular opportunity) had at least one item rated as important.
53

Table 1
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance for natural science
students
Factor Rank Mean Standard deviation
Campus 1
st
4.55 0.78
Major availability 2
nd
4.52 0.89
Research opportunities 3
rd
4.35 0.95
Faculty contact 4
th
4.17 1.07
Student activities (clubs/organizations) 5
th
4.13 0.92
Total cost 6
th
4.12 1.39
Amount of financial aid 7
th
3.97 1.56
Surrounding community 8
th
3.89 0.96
Housing opportunities 9
th
3.82 1.08
Type of financial aid 10
th
3.75 1.59
Honors programs 10
th
3.75 1.29
Student athletic/recreation center 12
th
3.29 1.14
Distance from home 13
th
3.20 1.45
Intramural athletic program 14
th
2.99 1.37
Intercollegiate athletic program 15
th
2.73 1.50

Survey item 17 asked natural science students to select one factor that was the
most important to them. Students were also given the option to select a factor that was
not on the list. The top five responses were amount of financial aid (42), other (35), major
availability (30), total cost (29) and campus (21), see Figure 2 for all responses.
54

Figure 2: Comparison of most important factors for natural science students

Enrollment Decision
In addition to understanding what factors were important to natural science
students, this study also sought to understand the differences between those who chose to
enroll and those who did not. Based on t-tests comparing independent samples,
significant differences emerged between the two populations in relation to the importance
of surrounding community and honors programs. The populations also differed in the
number of factors they believed were important.
55

The data provides evidence that differences did exist between the samples in the
importance they placed on two of the factors, surrounding community and honors
programs. Means for all the factors were computed, listed in Table 2, and independent-
samples t-scores were calculated. Significant differences were found in the importance of
surrounding community [t(116.3) = 4.741, p = .001] and honors programs [t(121.4) =
2.098, p = .038] in the college choice process. For both factors, students who did not
enroll ranked the importance of each factor higher than those who did enroll.
When examining the difference in the number of factors that the samples believed
were important in the college choice process, a greater variation between the groups was
found. Table 2 shows the rank order of the importance placed on each of the fifteen
factors, in addition to mean scores, for both samples. For those who chose to enroll, only
three items had mean scores above 4.0: campus, major availability and student activities.
Students who did not enroll also rated those same three factors above 4.0; in addition,
they also rated total cost, surrounding community, research opportunities and faculty
contact, for a total of seven factors at the 4.0 level. Those who did not enroll considered
seven factors, more than double the number of those who did enroll, important in their
college choice process.
56

Table 2
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on enrollment
decision
Enroll Did not enroll
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
Campus 1
st
M = 4.56, SD = .874 2
nd
M = 4.54, SD = .731
Major availability 2
nd
M = 4.46, SD = 1.106 1
st
M = 4.55, SD = .741
Research opp. 3
rd
M = 4.23, SD = 1.031 3
rd
M = 4.42, SD = .893
Student activities 4
th
M = 4.08, SD = 1.025 6
th
M = 4.15, SD = .852
Faculty contact 5
th
M = 3.97, SD = 1.320 4
th
M = 4.28, SD = .896
Total cost 6
th
M = 3.94, SD = 1.463 5
th
M = 4.21, SD = 1.350
Amount of fin. aid 7
th
M = 3.83, SD = 1.673 10
th
M = 3.83, SD = 1.673
Type of fin. aid 8
th
M = 3.70, SD = 1.598 11
th
M = 3.78, SD = 1.592
Housing opp. 9
th
M = 3.69, SD = 1.090 8
th
M = 3.90, SD = 1.071
Surrounding comm.** 10
th
M = 3.45, SD = 1.053 7
th
M = 4.13, SD = .807
Honors programs* 11
th
M = 3.48, SD = 1.443 8
th
M = 3.90, SD = 1.169
Athletic/rec. facility 12
th
M = 3.37, SD = 1.210 12
th
M = 3.25, SD = 1.101
Distance from home 13
th
M = 3.30, SD = 1.497 13
th
M = 3.15, SD =1.420
Int. ath. program 14
th
M = 3.10, SD = 1.343 14
th
M = 2.94, SD = 1.385
NCAA program 15
th
M = 2.79, SD = 1.558 15
th
M = 2.70, SD = 1.466
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
For each of the four subsets of factors both groups also ranked the same factor as
the most important. For cost-related factors, total cost was the most important. The
57

campus itself was the most important among the campus related factors. Major
availability and student activities were the most important factors among academic
opportunities and extra-curricular opportunities, respectively.
Demographic Characteristics
The second sub-question sought to understand differences in the importance
placed on university factors that existed between groups based on a variety of
demographic factors like gender, ethnicity, SES, mother’s education and father’s
education. Results will be presented by demographic variables. Results were based on
both descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical differences were found for gender by
comparing means using an independent samples t-test. For ethnicity, SES, mother’s
education and father’s education a one-way analysis of variance was used in order to
determine if these various factors affected satisfaction levels. Rank order and satisfaction
levels were also determined based on mean scores for each of the groups for all fifteen
factors.
Overall, the six factors that were important to the entire sample (campus, major
availability, research opportunities, faculty contact, student activities and total cost) were
also important to the different groups based on demographic variables (refer to Appendix
B, Tables 3-7, for rank and mean scores of each factor by demographic variables). The
campus and major availability were important factors to all demographic groups.
Research opportunities were important to all groups except Mother-2, Father-2 and
Father-3. Faculty contact was important to all groups except African Americans,
58

Latino/as, SES-1, Mother-2, Father-2 and Father-3. Student activities were not rated
important by Latino/as, bi/multi-racial, SES-1, Mother-1, Mother-2 and Father-2. The
only groups who did not rate total cost as important were males, African Americans,
Caucasians, SES-4, Mother-5 and Father-5. In addition to the minor variances in
importance among groups, some statistically significant differences existed between
groups in their ratings of the factors. In addition, if a demographic group reiterated the
importance of a factor considered important by the entire group, those results will not be
discussed; factors that were not considered important by the entire sample will be
discussed.
Gender.
Between male and female natural science students, differences emerged between
the populations in the importance they placed on total cost [t(120.1) = -2.555, p = .012],
housing opportunities [t(197) = -2.145, p = .033] and major availability [t(102.0) = -2.36,
p = .020]. For all three factors, women rated each of these factors as more important than
men (see Appendix B, Table 3 for ranks, means and standard deviations). In addition to
the six factors considered important by the entire sample, women also rated amount of
financial aid as an important factor (M = 4.04, SD = 1.50).
Ethnicity.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated a significant difference between
groups in the importance of amount of financial aid [F(4, 194) = 6.30, p = .001], type of
financial aid [F(4,194) = 4.63, p = .001] and total cost [F(4, 194) = 4.71, p = .001]. For
59

all three cost-related factors, Caucasian students rated these factors as less important than
their API and Latino/a counterparts (see Appendix B, Table 4 for ranks, means and
standard deviations). Significant differences between groups were also found in the
importance of student athletic/recreation center, F(4, 194) = 2.95, p = .022. The
difference in importance of the athletic center was significant between African American
students and both Caucasian and API students, where African American students rated
this factor as more important.
In addition to the six factors, rated important by the entire sample, five other
factors were rated as important by at least one ethnic group. The athletic/recreation center
(M = 4.44, SD = .73) and NCAA program (M = 4.00, SD = 1.12) were important to
African Americans. Both African American (M = 4.11, SD = 1.36) and API (M = 4.00,
SD = .98) students rated housing opportunities as important. Amount of financial aid was
important to API (M = 4.42, SD = 1.12) and Latino/a (M = 4.75, SD = 1.00) students. API
(M = 4.09, SD = 1.38) and Latino/a (M = 4.69, SD = .87) also rated type of financial aid
as an important factor.
SES.
An ANOVA indicated that significant differences existed between SES groups in
the importance of the amount of financial aid, F(4, 194) = 5.52, p = .001 and type of
financial aid, F(4, 194) = 4.60, p = .001. The amount of financial aid was less important
for students in SES-4 ($80,000 and above) compared to the other three groups (see
60

Appendix B, Table 5 for all ranks, means and standard deviations). Type of financial was
more important to SES-2 ($31,000-$50,000) versus SES-4.
For SES-1 (M = 4.88, SD = .34), SES-2 (M = 4.86, SD = .54) and SES-3 (M =
4.61, SD = 92), amount of financial aid was an important factors. Type of financial aid
was also important to SES -1 (M = 4.38, SD = 1.09), SES-2 (M = 4.86, SD = .54) and
SES-3 (M = 4.29, SD = 1.18). SES-3 also rated housing opportunities (M = 4.00, SD =
1.19), surrounding community (M = 4.04, SD = 1.04) and honors programs (M = 4.18, SD
= .91) as important factors.
Mother’s education.
Similar to the differences found in groups based on SES, groups based on
mother’s education were also significantly different in the importance they placed on the
importance of the amount of financial aid and total cost; in addition, there were also
significant differences between groups with respect to the importance of faculty contact
(see Appendix B, Table 6 for all ranks, means and standard deviations). An ANOVA
indicated significant differences between groups in the importance of amount of financial
aid [F(5, 193) = 3.54, p = .004], total cost [F(5, 193) = 4.26, p = .001] and faculty contact
[F(5, 193) = 4.01, p = .002].
In addition to the six factors that were important to the entire sample, other factors
were rated important by different groups based on mother’s education. For Mother-1,
amount of financial aid (M = 4.80, SD = .42), type of financial aid (M = 4.20, SD = 1.23),
surrounding community (M = 4.10, SD = .88), housing opportunities (M = 4.00, SD =
61

1.16) and distance from home (M = 4.00, SD = .94) were important. Amount of financial
aid (M = 4.21, SD = 1.42), type of financial aid (M = 4.07, SD = 1.33) and housing
opportunities (M = 4.00, SD = 1.36) were important to Mother-2. Mother-3 also rated
amount of financial aid (M =4.59, SD = .14), type of financial aid (M = 4.14, SD = .22)
and housing opportunities (M = 4.03, SD = .15) important. Mother-4 considered
surrounding community an important factor (M = 4.04, SD = .77).
Father’s education.
Statistically significant differences existed between groups based on father’s
educational level (see Appendix B, Table 7 for all ranks, means and standard deviations).
An ANOVA indicated that significant differences existed between groups in the
importance of the amount of financial aid [F(5, 193) = 2.46, p = .035] and research
opportunities [F(5, 193) = 4.83, p = .001].
Outside of the six factors that were important to the entire sample, four other
factors were found to be important to at least one group based on father’s education. The
amount of financial aid was important to Father-1, 2 and 3. For Father-1, 2 and 4, type of
financial aid was an important factor. Surrounding community was important to father-1
and 4. Finally, housing opportunities was important to Father-2.
Satisfaction with Factors at CU
The purpose of the first question was to understand what factors were important
to natural science students; the second question serves as a follow-up by seeking to
understand how satisfied the students were with these factors at CU. Natural science
62

students were satisfied with only two factors at CU: major availability and the campus.
Major availability and campus also emerged as factors with the highest levels of
satisfaction among groups based on enrollment decision and demographic variables. For
the purpose of this following section, these two factors (campus and major availability)
will be grouped and highlighted as the factors that were satisfying to the entire sample.
Following the results for the entire sample, the discussion will then focus on the
differences in satisfaction between those who enrolled and did not enroll. Significant
differences were found between these two groups in their satisfaction of twelve of the
fifteen factors. Finally, the satisfaction of students based on demographic variables will
be discussed. This section will also include the differences between groups in their
satisfaction with the factors surveyed.
Survey items 5, 6, 7 and 8 were designed to understand student satisfaction at CU
with the same fifteen factors that were assessed for importance prior. Students were asked
to rate their satisfaction on a 1-5 Likert scale. The results of this survey are listed in Table
8. For the purposes of this analysis, if a factor’s mean satisfaction score was greater or
equal to 4.0, students are satisfied with this factor at CU. If their mean satisfaction score
was below 2.0, students are dissatisfied with this factor. As stated previously, they were
most satisfied with major availability and the campus itself.
63

Table 8
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction for natural science
students
Factor Rank Mean Standard deviation
Major availability 1
st
4.27 1.23
Campus 2
nd
4.17 1.33
Student activities (clubs/organizations) 3
rd
3.94 1.44
Research opportunities 3
rd
3.94 1.40
Housing opportunities 5
th
3.85 1.44
Student athletic/recreation center 6
th
3.82 1.57
Distance from home 7
th
3.74 1.50
Intercollegiate athletic program 8
th
3.55 1.80
Faculty contact 9
th
3.41 1.64
Intramural athletic program 10
th
3.30 1.83
Honors programs 11
th
3.24 1.79
Type of financial aid 12
th
2.68 1.75
Amount of financial aid 13
th
2.66 1.78
Total cost 14
th
2.55 1.40
Surrounding community 15
th
2.54 1.29

Enrollment Decision
For this sub-question, natural science students were split into two independent
samples, those who enrolled at CU and those who did not enroll, to determine if there
were differences in satisfaction with respect to the fifteen factors. The factors were
64

ranked based on mean scores of satisfaction for each category. The two samples differed
in their ranking of factors. T-tests were also used to determine if there were statistical
differences between those who enrolled and did not. The t-tests indicated that significant
differences existed in the satisfaction levels of the two groups for twelve of the fifteen
factors. Table 9 provides the satisfaction rankings and mean scores for each group.
For those who enrolled, the factor that they were most satisfied with was the
campus. Students who enrolled were also satisfied with housing opportunities,
athletic/recreation center, distance from home, major availability, research opportunities,
faculty contact and student activities. None of the cost-related factors had mean scores
above 4.0. Students who did not enroll were satisfied only with major availability.
As to be expected, significant differences were found in satisfaction levels in
many of the factors. Twelve of the factors rendered significantly different levels of
satisfaction. Only three – research opportunities, NCAA program and intramural athletic
program – had insignificant differences in mean scores.
In regards to cost-related factors, students who enrolled had higher levels of
satisfaction than those who did not enroll. The differences in satisfaction between groups
were significant for amount of financial aid [t(123.5) = -2.805, p = .006], type of
financial aid [t(127.9) = -2.282, p = .024] and total cost [t(197) = -4.067, p = .001].
65

Table 9
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on
enrollment decision
Enroll Do not enroll
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
Campus** 1
st
M = 4.75, SD = .77 2
nd
M = 3.85, SD = 1.46
Major availability** 2
nd
M = 4.59, SD = .89 1
st
M = 4.09, SD = 1.35
Housing opp.** 3
rd
M = 4.45, SD = .98 7
th
M = 3.52, SD = 1.54
Student activities** 4
th
M = 4.39, SD = 1.13 4
th
M = 3.69, SD = 1.53
Distance from home** 5
th
M = 4.34, SD = 1.13 9
th
M = 3.41, SD = 1.58
Athletic/rec. facility** 6
th
M = 4.30, SD = 1.18 5
th
M = 3.55, SD = 1.69
Research opp. 7
th
M = 4.13, SD = 1.28 3
rd
M = 3.84, SD = 1.46
Faculty contact** 8
th
M = 4.10, SD = 1.12 11
th
M = 3.03, SD = 1.76
NCAA program 9
th
M = 3.55, SD = 1.96 5
th
M = 3.55, SD = 1.71
Intramural ath. program 10
th
M = 3.46, SD = 1.87 10
th
M = 3.20, SD = 1.80
Amount of fin. aid** 11
th
M = 3.15, SD = 1.95 13
th
M = 2.39, SD = 1.62
Type of fin. aid* 12
th
M = 3.07, SD = 1.89 12
th
M = 2.46, SD = 1.64
Total cost** 12
th
M = 3.07, SD = 1.41 15
th
M = 2.26, SD = 1.32
Honors programs* 14
th
M = 2.85, SD = 2.02 8
th
M = 3.45, SD = 1.62
Surrounding comm.* 15
th
M = 2.83, SD = 1.16 14
th
M = 2.38, SD = 1.33
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
The same pattern emerged with respect to campus-related factors, where those
who enrolled had higher levels of satisfaction than those who did not. The differences
66

were significant for all five factors: housing opportunities [t(193.2) = -5.213, p = 001],
student athletic recreation center [t(187.1) = -3.623, p = 001], distance from home
[t(184.2) = , p = .001], campus [t(196.6) = -5.651, p = .001] and surrounding community
[t(197) = -2.383, p = .018].
Honors programs were ranked with greater satisfaction from those who did not
enroll, and the difference between groups was significant, [t(120.2) = 2.180, p = .031].
Students who enrolled were significantly more satisfied than those who did not with
regard to major availability [t(191.1) = -3.182, p = .002] and faculty contact [t(193.1) = -
5.208, p = .001].
The two samples differed significantly in their satisfaction levels about student
activities at CU [t(181.7) = -3.715, p = .001]. Those who did not enroll were less satisfied
among the two groups.
For students who did not enroll, they were also asked to indicate which factors
were better at the institution they eventually attended (see Figure 3). Over half, indicated
that surrounding community (N = 77) and total cost (N = 76) were factors in which they
were less satisfied with CU. The other factors that CU paled in comparison to other
institutions were the campus (N = 62), research opportunities (N = 61) and amount of
financial aid (N = 54).
67

Figure 3: Frequency of factors that were more satisfying at another institution compared
to CU.
77
76
62 61
54
49
45
43 42
41
39
33
22
13 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Surrounding Community
Total Cost
Campus
Research Opportunity
Amount of FA
Major Availability
Student Activities
Housing Opportunity
Distance from Hom
Faculty Contact
Type of FA
Honors Programs
Recreation/Athletic Center
Intramural Program
NCAA Program
Factors

Demographic Characteristics
This sub-question aimed to understand the differences in satisfaction levels of
natural science students based on demographic characteristics like gender, ethnicity, SES,
mother’s education and father’s education. Statistical differences were determined for
gender by comparing means using an independent samples t-test. For ethnicity, SES,
mother’s education and father’s education a one-way analysis of variance was used in
order to determine if these variables affected satisfaction levels. Rank order and
satisfaction levels were also determined based on mean scores for each of the groups for
all fifteen factors (see Appendix C, Tables 10-14 for ranks, means and standard
deviations).
68

Compared to the entire natural science sample, some variation existed in terms of
satisfaction with factors at CU. Many of the groups, based on demographic variables,
were satisfied with major availability and campus like the entire sample was. Some
groups, like Latino/as, SES-1, SES-2 and Father-2, were not satisfied with the campus.
Other groups, including African Americans, Latino/as and SES-2, were not satisfied with
major availability unlike the overall sample.
Gender.
No statistically significant differences were found between males and females for
any of the factors. In terms of satisfaction, in addition to major availability and campus,
which both men and women were satisfied with; women were also satisfied with student
activities and research opportunities at CU (see Appendix C, Table 10 for ranks, means
and standard deviations).
Ethnicity.
Statistical differences existed between ethnic groups in their satisfaction with the
NCAA program, F(4, 194) = 4.82, p = .001 and intramural athletic program, F(4, 194) =
3.88, p = .005 based on an ANOVA. For both factors, API students had lower satisfaction
levels than Caucasian students.
In addition to the two factors that the overall sample was satisfied with, some
ethnic groups were also satisfied with other factors at CU (see Appendix C, Table 11 for
ranks, means and standard deviations). For African American students they were also
satisfied with the NCAA program, student activities and athletic/recreation facility.
69

Caucasian students were satisfied with student activities. Bi/multi-racial students were
satisfied with NCAA program, student activities, athletic/recreation facility, housing
opportunities, research opportunities and faculty contact. Latino/as were not satisfied
with any of the factors at CU.
SES.
Variations between groups according to SES were found when examining
satisfaction levels and rankings; outside of the two factors that the sample was satisfied
with, other factors were also rated as satisfied by additional groups based on SES (see
Appendix C, Table 12 for ranks, means and standard deviations). SES-1 was satisfied
with type of financial aid, amount of financial aid and research opportunities. Research
opportunities, distance from home and student activities were factors that SES-3 was
satisfied with at CU. SES-4 was satisfied with research opportunities at CU.
An ANOVA also indicated significant differences between SES groups. Statistical
differences were found based on a one-way ANOVA. Satisfaction mean scores were
significantly different for amount of financial aid, F(4, 194) = 6.30, p = .001 and type of
financial aid, F(4, 194) = 5.72, p = .001. For amount of financial aid, SES-4 students
were less satisfied than SES-1 or SES-3 students. With respect to type of financial aid,
students in SES-1 were more satisfied than students is SES-4.
Mother’s education.
Few variations were found between groups based on mother’s educational level
(see Appendix C, Table 13 for ranks, means and standard deviations). No significant
70

differences were found between groups for any of the factors. The variations that did
exist were based on mean satisfaction scores. Mother-1 was satisfied with
athletic/recreation facility, distance from home and housing opportunities, in addition to
being satisfied with major availability and campus which is reflective of the whole
sample. Research opportunities were a factor that Mother-3 was satisfied with at CU.
Mother-5 was also satisfied with athletic/recreation facility, distance from home, housing
opportunities, student activities and research opportunities.
Father’s education.
Some differences existed between groups based on father’s education in terms of
satisfaction rankings and mean scores (see Appendix C, Table 14 for ranks, means and
standard deviations). One significant difference existed between groups based on a one-
way ANOVA. In terms of housing opportunities there was a difference in satisfaction
levels between groups. This difference was significant, F(5, 193) = 2.85, p = .017, with
Father-2 less satisfied than Father-4.
Outside of the two factors, major availability and campus, that the entire sample
was satisfied with, other factors were rated as being satisfactory to specific groups based
on father’s education. For Father-1 they were satisfied with the distance from home and
Father-5 was satisfied with student activities at CU. Father-3 was satisfied with distance
from home, athletic/recreation facility, housing opportunities, faculty contact, student
activities and NCAA program. Housing opportunities, research opportunities and student
activities were areas of satisfaction for father-4.
71

Campus Visit
As previously discussed, a limitation of the survey was that students were not
asked if they visited campus. This is important, in terms of satisfaction, because if an
admitted student did not visit campus, it becomes difficult to know if their satisfaction is
based on their own personal impressions or a result of what is said by others about the
school. This is especially true of factors such as housing opportunities, athletic/recreation
center, campus and surrounding communities which are physical aspects that are best
assessed in person. Because of this limitation, a proxy was used to determine if
differences existed between the groups in their satisfaction levels based on the
importance of the campus visit.
Based on an independent samples t-test, significant differences existed between
groups based on the campus visit proxy. Of the fifteen factors, the groups differed in the
satisfaction levels of twelve of the factors (see Table 15). Significant differences were
found between groups in their satisfaction with all of the academic opportunity factors:
major availability [t(79.7) = 3.016, p = .003], honors programs [t(197) = 2.502, p = .013],
research opportunities [t(88.0) = 3.854, p = .001] and faculty contact [t(91.7) = 4.901, p =
.001]. The two groups also differed in their satisfaction of all extra-curricular
72

Table 15
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on
importance of campus visit
Campus Visit – Important Campus Visit – Not Important
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
Campus** 1
st
M = 4.55, SD = .84 2
nd
M = 3.38, SD = 1.76
Major availability** 2
nd
M = 4.48, SD = .87 1
st
M = 3.81, SD = 1.67
Student activities** 3
rd
M = 4.30, SD = 1.05 5
th
M = 3.17, SD = 1.80
Research opp.** 4
th
M = 4.24, SD = 1.10 3
rd
M = 3.33, SD = 1.73
Athletic/rec. facility** 5
th
M = 4.21, SD = 1.19 9
th
M = 3.00, SD = 1.93
Housing opp.** 6
th
M = 4.13, SD = 1.19 4
th
M = 3.28, SD = 1.73
Distance from home** 7
th
M = 4.03, SD = 1.27 6
th
M = 3.13, SD = 1.76
Faculty contact** 8
th
M = 3.83, SD = 1.31 11
th
M = 2.53, SD = 1.92
NCAA program** 9
th
M = 3.79, SD = 1.70 7
th
M = 3.05, SD = 1.91
Intramural ath. pro.** 10
th
M = 3.62, SD = 1.68 7
th
M = 3.05, SD = 1.91
Honors programs* 11
th
M = 3.45, SD = 1.74 10
th
M = 2.78, SD = 1.81
Amount of fin. aid 12
th
M = 2.82, SD = 1.83 14
th
M = 2.33, SD = 1.62
Type of fin. aid 12
th
M = 2.82, SD = 1.78 13
th
M = 2.38, SD = 1.66
Total cost** 14
th
M = 2.73, SD = 1.43 15
th
M = 2.16, SD = 1.26
Surrounding comm. 15
th
M = 2.61, SD = 1.17 12
th
M = 2.39, SD = 1.51
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
opportunities: student activities [t(84.0) = 4.656, p = .001], NCAA [t(197) = 2.776, p =
.006] and intramural program [t(109.2) = 3.587, p = .001]. Total cost [t(138.9) = 2.883, p
73

= .005] was the only cost-related factor where significant differences existed between
groups. Finally, using the campus visit proxy significant differences existed between
students in their satisfaction levels of housing opportunities [t(92.2) = 3.496, p = .001],
athletic/recreation center [t(86.3) = 4.615, p = .001], distance from home [t(95.2) = 3.684,
p = .001] and campus [t(77.1) = 5.065, p = .001]. For all of these factors, where
significant differences existed between groups, students who rated the campus visit
highly had higher satisfaction levels than students who had low ratings for the campus
visit.
Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction
In addition to just understanding which factors were important and which factors
students were satisfied with, it is also necessary to understand how satisfied students were
with the factors that were important to them. The results for these comparisons will be
presented for the entire sample, by enrollment decision and demographic groups. The
discussion will be organized by the four factor subcategories—cost-related, campus-
related, academic opportunities and extra-curricular—initially designated by this study.
Tables that indicate each enrollment and demographic groups’ assessment of the
importance and their satisfaction with each factor at CU are in Appendix D, Tables 16-
30.
Cost-related Factors
For the entire sample, total cost was an important factor and a factor that students
were not satisfied with; this perception about total cost was also true for those who did
74

not enroll. Both amount and type of financial aid were not considered important or
satisfactory to the entire sample or those who enrolled and did not enroll.
Looking at amount of financial aid, both importance and satisfaction at CU (see
Appendix D, Table 16), for the demographic groups, eight of the groups rated amount of
financial aid as not important and not satisfied. SES-1 was the only group to rate financial
aid as important and satisfied with the amount of financial aid they received. The balance
of the groups believed that amount of financial aid was important and were not satisfied.
Of the groups based on demographic variables, ten rated type of financial aid as
not important to the college process and were not satisfied with the aid they received (see
Appendix D, Table 17). SES-1 was satisfied with the type of aid they received and
believed that this factor was important. The remaining groups believed that the type of
financial aid was important and were not satisfied.
No groups were satisfied with the total cost of CU (see Appendix D, Table 18).
Total cost was important for fourteen of the demographic groups. Seven of the
demographic groups were not satisfied with the total cost of CU, but did not believe this
factor was important to the college choice process.
Campus-related Factors
For the entire natural science sample, the only factor that was important among
those related to the campus was the campus itself; the entire group was also satisfied
CU’s campus. Importance and satisfaction with CU’s campus was also true for the
students who enrolled. Students who did not enroll also agreed that the campus was
75

important, as was the surrounding community; unlike those enrolled, those who did not
enroll were not satisfied with the campus or the surrounding community.
The student athletic/recreation center was not considered important to sixteen of
the demographic groups; they were also not satisfied with the facility (see Appendix D,
Table 19). Four other groups likewise felt the athletic facility was not important, but were
satisfied with it. African American students, alone, perceived the athletic facility as
important and were satisfied with the facility.
The campus was a factor sixteen of the demographic groups felt was important
and they were also satisfied with (see Appendix D, Table 20). Four other groups agreed
that the campus was important, but were not satisfied with CU’s campus. SES-3 was
satisfied with CU’s campus although it was not important to them in their college choice
process.
The distance from home was not an important factor to any of the groups (see
Appendix D, Table 21). Sixteen of the demographic groups were not satisfied with the
distance. Four of the groups were satisfied with the distance even though it was not
important to them.
CU’s housing opportunities was a factor that eleven of the demographic groups
were not satisfied with, but did not perceive as important to the college choice process
(see Appendix D, Table 22). Four of the groups agreed that the factor was not important,
but they were satisfied with the housing opportunities. One group, Mother-1, perceived
76

housing as important and was satisfied with this factor. Five groups believed housing was
important but they were not satisfied.
The surrounding community was not considered satisfactory to any of the groups
(see Appendix D, Table 23). However, fifteen of the groups did not believe that the
surrounding community was important. The remaining six groups did believe that the
surrounding community was an important factor in their college choice process.
Academic Opportunities
The entire sample and those who did not enroll rated faculty contact, major
availability and research opportunities as important factors to consider in the college
choice process; they were satisfied with major availability and not satisfied with faculty
contact or research opportunities. Natural science students who did enroll rated major
availability and research opportunities as important and they were satisfied with both
factors at CU.
Fourteen of the demographic groups considered faculty contact important like the
entire sample, but was a factor that they were not satisfied at CU (see Appendix D, Table
24). Father-3 had the exact opposite perception about faculty contact; they were satisfied
with faculty contact but did not think it was important to their college choice process.
Bi/multi-racial students thought that faculty contact was important and they were
satisfied with it at CU.
Overall, none of the groups were satisfied with honors programs at CU (see
Appendix D, Table 25). However, all of the demographic groups except SES-3 did not
77

believe that honors programs were important to the college choice process. SES-3
thought that honors programs were important and they were not satisfied with this factor
at CU.
Major availability was considered important to all demographic groups (see
Appendix D, Table 26). With the exception of three demographic groups, all other
groups, were satisfied with major availability at CU. The remaining three groups (African
Americans, Latino/as and SES-2), were not satisfied with major availability.
Eight of the demographic groups rated research opportunities as important, and
they were not satisfied with them at CU (see Appendix D, Table 27). Ten of the
demographic groups agreed that research opportunities were important but they were
satisfied with them at CU. Mother-2, Father-2 and Father-3 did not believe research
opportunities were important to the college choice process and they were not satisfied
with them at CU.
Extra-curricular Opportunities
Student activities was the only extra-curricular opportunity that was important to
natural science students. For those who did not enroll, student activities was an important
factor but they were not satisfied with them at CU. Those who did enroll also believed
that student activities were the only important factor to consider in the college choice
process among extra-curricular opportunities, but they were satisfied with this factor at
CU.
78

Intramural athletic programs were not considered important by any of the
demographic groups (see Appendix D, Table 28). In addition, none of the groups were
satisfied with the intramural athletic program at CU.
The NCAA program was not considered important by 18 demographic groups and
they were also not satisfied with the NCAA program at CU (see Appendix D, Table 29).
African American students believed that the NCAA program was important to the college
choice process and they were satisfied with this factor. Bi/multi-racial students and those
in Father-3 agreed that they were satisfied with CU’s NCAA program, but they did not
believe that it was an important factor.
Student activities were considered important to eight demographic groups; they
were also not satisfied with them at CU (see Appendix D, Table 30). Seven demographic
groups thought that student activities were important and were satisfied with them at CU.
Five demographic groups did not believe student activities were important, nor were they
satisfied with them at CU. Bi/multi-racial students were satisfied with student activities at
CU but did not believe student activities were important.
Importance of Sources of Influence/Information
The purpose of this study was to understand two areas, what factors influenced
students’ college choice and what sources of influence/information were important to
natural science students. In this next section, results regarding the importance of sources
of influence/information will be presented. Two sources were found to be important to
the entire natural science population: university reputation and major reputation. This
79

study also sought to understand if differences existed between those who enrolled and did
not enroll, in terms of the sources they perceived to be important or influential; the two
groups differed in the importance they placed on six of the sources. Finally, differences
between groups based on demographic variables and the importance they place on
sources of influence will also be discussed.
Survey items 9, 10 and 11 were designed for students to rate the importance of
various sources of influence/information. The sources were divided into three categories:
student’s network, university and reputation. Student’s network sources included friends,
alumni, high school teachers, counselors, parents/relatives and USNWR. Catalog, campus
visit, mailings, website and admission officer were all included as university sources of
influence/information. Reputation of the university, major, faculty and job placement
were also sources that the students were asked to rate in terms of importance.
The results will be based on descriptive and inferential statistics. Mean scores
were calculated for each information/influence source and the sources were ranked for
each question. Descriptive statistics—mean score and rank—were used to answer the
primary question of which source was the most important (see Table 31). A t-test was
used to determine if any statistically significant differences existed between those who
enrolled and did not for the first sub-question. For the second sub-question, a t-test was
used to determine statistical differences between men and women; a one-way ANOVA
was used to determine if statistical differences existed between groups based on ethnicity,
SES, mother’s education and father’s education.
80

Table 31
Rank order, mean and satisfaction of source importance for natural science students
Factor Rank Mean Standard deviation
University reputation 1
st
4.37 .87
Major reputation 2
nd
4.07 1.25
Parents/relatives 3
rd
3.82 1.30
Job placement reputation 4
th
3.70 1.50
Mailing 5
th
3.68 1.14
Website 6
th
3.65 1.20
Friends 7
th
3.57 1.34
Faculty reputation 7
th
3.57 1.47
Campus visit 9
th
3.54 1.92
USNWR 10
th
3.42 1.40
Catalog 11
th
3.24 1.50
Admission representative 12
th
2.99 1.66
Alumni 13
th
2.83 1.72
Counselor 14
th
2.76 1.58
High school teacher 15
th
2.75 1.47

Based on mean importance scores of the sources of influence/information, the
most important source was the university reputation. The only other source that was
considered important to natural science students was the major reputation.
None of the sources within the student’s network were considered important; the
source with the highest mean score was parent(s)/relative(s). Similarly, not one of the
81

university sources had a mean score above 4.0. Mailings were considered the most
important among the university sources.
Enrollment Decision
For this sub-question, the purpose was to understand if differences existed
between those who enrolled and those who did not at CU. Differences were assessed by
using importance mean scores and ranking of sources (Table 32) as well as t-tests. Some
variations were found when looking at ranks and mean scores. In addition, significant
differences were found between the independent samples for six sources of influence.
Although there were differences, some similarities did exist as well. Both groups
ranked the university’s reputation as the most important source of influence. In addition
to the university reputation, students who enrolled also rated major reputation, campus
visit and job placement reputation as important sources of information. Students who did
not enroll only ranked the university’s reputation as important.
Both samples indicated that a parent or relative was the most important source of
influence during the college choice process. Among university sources, those enrolled
rated the campus visit highest; those who did not enroll rated the university mailings the
highest.
82

Table 32
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on enrollment
decision
Enroll Did not enroll
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
University reputation 1
st
M = 4.46, SD = 1.00 1
st
M = 4.32, SD = .79
Major reputation* 2
nd
M = 4.32, SD = 1.09 2
nd
M = 3.93, SD = 1.31
Campus visit** 3
rd
M = 4.08, SD = 1.46 10
th
M = 3.24, SD = 2.07
Job placement reputation* 4
th
M = 4.04, SD = 1.33 7
th
M = 3.52, SD = 1.56
Faculty reputation* 5
th
M = 3.89, SD = 1.14 9
th
M = 3.39, SD = 1.59
Parents/relatives 6
th
M = 3.77, SD = 1.41 3
rd
M = 3.84, SD = 1.24
Mailing 7
th
M = 3.63, SD = 1.28 4
th
M = 3.70, SD = 1.05
Website 8
th
M = 3.62, SD = 1.13 5
th
M = 3.67, SD = 1.24
Friends 9
th
M = 3.48, SD = 1.40 6
th
M = 3.62, SD = 1.30
Catalog 10
th
M = 3.34, SD = 1.44 11
th
M = 3.19, SD = 1.53
Admission representative* 10
th
M = 3.34, SD = 1.52 12
th
M = 2.80, SD = 1.70
USNWR 12
th
M = 3.31, SD = 1.50 8
th
M = 3.48, SD = 1.35
Alumni* 13
th
M = 3.20, SD = 1.60 15
th
M = 2.63, SD = 1.75
Counselor 14
th
M = 2.87, SD = 1.55 13
th
M = 2.70, SD = 1.59
High school teacher 14
th
M = 2.87, SD = 1.48 14
th
M = 2.68, SD = 1.47
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
Significant differences were found between the two groups in the importance they
placed on alumni [t(156.0) = ,-2.303 p = .023], campus visit [t(185.8) = -3.339, p = .001],
83

admission office representative [t(197) = -2.228, p = .027], major reputation [t(197) = -
2.152, p = .033], faculty reputation [t(184.4) = -2.542, p = .012] and job placement
reputation [t(197) = -2.401, p = .017]. For all these sources, those who enrolled had
higher mean importance scores than those who did not enroll.
The campus visit was the source of influence had the greatest significant
difference between those who enrolled and did not. Both groups were in agreement that
the most important source was the university reputation and that parent(s)/relative(s)
were the most important source among their network.
Demographic Characteristics
This second sub-question sought to understand differences in the importance
placed on sources of information and influence that existed between groups based on a
variety of demographic factors like gender, ethnicity, SES, mother’s education and
father’s education. Both descriptive and inferential statistics will be presented in the
following sections. Rank, mean scores and standard deviations are presented in Appendix
E, Tables 33-37.
Gender.
Between the two independent samples few differences were found based on
comparing rank and mean scores for source importance (see Appendix E, Table 33 for
ranks, means and standard deviations). Based on the t-test, no significant differences
were found between groups.

84

Ethnicity.
For groups based on ethnicity, some differences were found when comparing
mean scores and rank (see Appendix E, Table 34 for ranks, means and standard
deviations). An ANOVA was used to determine if significant differences existed between
groups. Significant differences existed between the groups for five of the sources of
influence. The sources that differed between groups of natural science students were:
alumni [F(4, 194) = 2.909, p = .023], campus visit [F(4, 194) = 2.428, p = .049],
university reputation [F(4, 194) = 3.726, p = .006], major reputation [F(4, 194) = 3.556, p
= .008] and job placement reputation F(4, 194) = 3.494, p = .009]. Bi/multi-racial
students rated alumni as significantly more important than African American, Caucasian
and Latino/a students. Latino/a students placed significantly less importance upon the
university, major and job placement reputation than did Caucasian and Bi/multi-racial
students; they also placed less importance on major reputation than did API students.
For African American students, in addition to university and major reputation,
they also rated job placement reputation, mailing and website as important sources of
influence. Latino/as did not rate any sources as important. Bi/multi-racial students
perceived job placement reputation, campus visit, parent(s)/relative(s), faculty reputation
and alumni as important source during the college choice process.
SES.
A one-way ANOVA also indicated that significant differences existed between
groups based on SES. Significant differences were found between groups based on
85

ANOVA results. The sources that rendered significant differences were: friends [F(4,
194) = 2.927, p = .022], campus visit [F(4, 194) = 2.620, p = .036], university reputation
[F(4, 194) = 2.976, p = .020] and major reputation [F(4, 194) = 2.583, p = .039]. The
differences between these groups were most significant for all these sources between
SES-2 and SES-4 with SES-4 rating all of these sources higher than SES-2.
Based on comparison of mean scores and ranks of importance of sources, some
variations emerged between groups based on SES (see Appendix E, Table 35 for ranks,
means and standard deviations). In addition to university and major reputation, which
were considered important by the sample as a whole, SES-1 perceived job placement
reputation as important and SES-3 perceived the website as important. SES-2 did not
perceive any of the sources as important to the college choice process.
Mother’s education.
There seemed to be general agreement between groups in terms of the factors that
were considered most important based on mother’s education (see Appendix E, Table 36
for ranks, means and standard deviations). In addition to university and major reputation
which were important sources to the whole group, some of the individual groups also
rated other sources as important. Mother-1 considered job placement and friends as
important sources. Mailings were considered important to mother-3. There were no
significant differences between groups based on a one-way ANOVA.
86

Father’s education.
No significant differences were found between groups based on father’s education
using an ANOVA to compare independent groups. Mean scores and ranks seem to
indicate that more similarities than differences emerged between groups based on father’s
educational level (see Appendix E, Table 37 for ranks, means and standard deviations).
Outside of university and major reputation, Father-3 rated job placement reputation as an
important source. Father-2 did not rate any sources as important; they also rate counselors
and alumni as unimportant to the college choice process.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to understand three areas of the college choice
process. First, understand the importance of a variety of university factors to natural
science students. Next, for CU specifically, to understand how satisfied these students
were with these factors. Finally, to understand the sources of influence/information that
were most important this population. Two additional layers for this study were to
determine if differences existed between groups based both enrollment decisions and
demographic factors. Based on the results of this study, both differences and similarities
were found between natural science students based on enrollment decision, gender,
ethnicity and SES.
In terms of factor importance, the most important factor was the availability of
major. Differences existed between groups based on enrollment for two of the factors.
87

Significant differences were also found between groups based on all of the demographic
characteristics for at least one of the factors.
Similar to factor importance, the factor that students were most satisfied with at
CU was major availability. As to be expected, differences between students who attended
and did not attend existed for twelve of the fifteen factors. Differences did exist between
groups based on ethnicity, SES and father’s education. They did not exist for groups
based on gender or mother’s education.
The most important source of influence/information for students was the
university’s reputation. Differences existed between groups based on enrollment choice.
Differences also existed between groups based on SES and ethnicity; they did not exist
between groups based on gender, mother’s education and father’s education.
88

Chapter 5 - Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand what factors and sources influenced
the college choice process of natural science students who applied to CU, a private,
selective, research institution located in California. All of the 199 students surveyed were
interested in majoring in the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics). In
addition, this study sought to determine if there were differences between natural science
students who chose to enroll and those did not enroll. Finally, this study also examined
the differences between students’ perceptions based on gender, ethnicity, SES, mother’s
education and father’s education.
The results of this study can be useful for admissions administrators in their
understanding of natural science students. The results can be used in three ways. First, by
understanding what factors are important to natural science students, messaging can be
changed to highlight areas that are most important to this group. Next, this study also
surveyed how satisfied students were with these factors at the institution. Understanding
satisfaction levels can also affect messaging. Finally, knowing who holds the most
influence to prospective students can affect how admissions administrators focus on these
different groups.
Up until this point, the presentation of results about factor satisfaction and
importance has been separated from the presentation of results about the sources of
influence. For the discussion of results and implications, these three sets of data will be
discussed together. To add further depth to these results they will be discussed in three
89

contexts. First, the results will be discussed for the entire natural science sample. Next,
the results will be examined with a comparison of those who enrolled and did not enroll
at CU. Finally, the results will be examined for any demographic considerations that
admission administrators should be aware of when trying to reach certain groups based
on gender, ethnicity, SES or parental educational levels. Following the discussion
implications and recommendations for future research will also be provided.
Discussion
The discussion will be presented first for the entire natural science sample.
Following the discussion regarding the entire sample, the differences between those who
enrolled and did not enroll will be presented. Finally, discussion based on demographic
variables will be presented. Implications will be presented along with the discussion of
results.
Natural Science Sample
There were six areas that natural science students considered important factors to
the college choice process; four of them: total cost, campus, faculty contact, major
availability, research opportunities and student activities were areas that they perceived as
not satisfactory at CU. Natural science students were satisfied only with the campus and
major availability.
The results from this survey are consistent with what is found in college choice
literature about the importance of total cost (Cook & Zallocco, 1983; Hossler et al., 1989;
NCES, 1998; Senecca & Taussig, 1987; Trusheim et al., 1990), faculty contact (Trusheim
90

et al.; Weiler, 1996) and student activities (Cook & Zallocco, Hossler et al., Trusheim et
al.). The research does not address the importance of research opportunities and may be
an area to be researched in a future study.
For CU admissions administrators, the perception that three of the factors (faculty
contact, research opportunities and student activities) are not satisfying to students may
be related to messaging. At CU, these factors are areas that could be considered strengths.
In terms of faculty contact, CU is committed to all undergraduate courses being taught
faculty members versus teaching assistants or graduate assistants; in addition, the average
class size is 26. CU, and particularly the liberal arts college, has emphasized research as a
necessary component of a student’s undergraduate experience. To that end, they have
committed a $250,000, annually, to fund undergraduate research endeavors. They have
also created undergraduate research teams to partner teams of undergraduates to work
with faculty member on new research endeavors. Finally, with respect to student
activities, the university has over 600 active student organizations.
With all of the resources that the university has committed to these three areas it
is troubling that natural science students do not consider these areas of strength. Two
possible reasons are that students are not aware of what the institution is doing in these
two areas or that students are aware, but the university is in fact not doing well in creating
these opportunities. If the problem is that students are not aware of what the university is
doing, this is something that admissions administrators can alleviate by improving their
marketing efforts. The natural science sample reported that university and major
91

reputation were important sources of influence, with university reputation ranked as the
most important source. The importance of the university’s reputation is consistent with
literature in this area (Cook & Zallocco, 1982; Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Griffith & Rask,
2006; NCES, 1998; Stanford et al., 2006).
Parent(s)/relative(s) and mailings were the most important sources in their
respective categories, however, they were not considered important. Given the relative
importance of mailings and parent(s)/relative(s) the university would benefit from
improving its marketing of research opportunities, faculty contact and student activities in
its publications and mailings to students and families. What these results tell us is that
although parent(s)/relative(s) are the most important within a student’s network, but
overall not that important. This mixed message is also reflective of research regarding
parental influence in college choice where some have found that parents are important
(Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Sandford et al., 2006) and others have found that they are not
as influential.
Enrollment Decision
As to be expected, there were significant differences between those who enrolled
and did not enroll at CU especially in relation to satisfaction levels. Both groups agreed
that the campus, major availability, research opportunities and student activities were
important factors. Those who did not enroll considered a greater number of factors as
important to the college choice process, seven; they also considered surrounding
community, total cost and faculty contact as important factors. Among the seven factors
92

that were important to those who did not enroll, they were satisfied only with major
reputation.
College choice literature has determined that location, specifically being close to
home, was an important factor students considered when making enrollment decisions
(NCES, 1998; Trusheim et al., 1990) but surrounding community or the campus itself
were not found to be important factors. Because of CU’s urban location, it may be a
factor to be examined in future studies.
One area that stands out was honors programs. Although neither group considered
them particularly important, those who did not enroll perceived them as significantly
more important and they were significantly more satisfied with honors programs at CU
compared to those who enrolled. This was the only factor for which those who did not
enroll had a higher satisfaction score than those who did enroll. One possible reason may
be related to the university’s eight year medical school program, which guarantees
medical school admission to incoming first-year students. It is one of the three honors
programs that the university sponsors. The acceptance rate of students into this program
is very low, usually between 3% and 5% of students who apply or admitted into the
program; the conversion rate for this program is very high, upwards of 90% of all
students admitted to this program will attend CU. The literature does indicate that natural
science students, specifically those interested in biology, comprise a majority of medical
school applicants. This may be a factor that is important to students; therefore, CU should
assess the connection between post-baccalaureate plans, specifically medical school, and
93

college choice among natural science students. Outside of the medical school program,
are students satisfied with the other pre-medical opportunities for students at CU?
The two samples also differed in the importance they placed on sources of
influence. Those who did not enroll considered university reputation as the most
important source, unlike those who did enroll at CU; both groups also rated
parent(s)/relative(s) highest in their sub-category although they did not rate parents as an
important source. Those who enrolled considered the campus visit, major reputation and
job placement reputation as important. Those who did not enroll considered mailings the
most important university source.
Based on which sources of influence were important to both groups a couple of
themes emerged. First, both groups seem to be concerned with prestige, which is
consistent with the literature (Astin, 1996); but they are focused on prestige in different
ways. Those who did enroll seem to place greater importance on their future job
placement or career prospects. Those who did not enroll seem to believe that the
university’s overall reputation is the most important. The importance of university
reputation is also consistent with the data that show that a solid majority of those who did
not enroll attended institutions with a higher USNWR ranking than CU’s.
Another variable that seems to be important was the campus visit. Those who did
enroll indicated that the campus visit was an important source of information. The
importance of a campus visit is noted in the literature (Frisbee & Belcher, 1999; Sandford
et al., 2006). Although a direct correlation can not be made, it is possible that students
94

who visit campus are more likely to enroll. It might be possible that students who visit
campus are more satisfied with the factors that are important to them because they are
able to see the campus and ask questions about what is important to them.
Those who did not enroll did not perceive that the campus visit was important.
Was this because they did not attend one; or they attended one and were not satisfied? If
it was the former, their dissatisfaction with the campus and the surrounding community
may be related to these students not visiting campus, versus the campus not being
satisfying. Those who did not enroll may be more reliant upon the university’s reputation
and only understand these factors based on what is generally known about the
university’s urban location.
Demographic Groups
To understand the results in the context of the differences between groups, the
following discussion will be grouped by demographic variables. The importance and
satisfaction of factors will be presented in tandem with sources of influence in order to
present the differences in how various groups approach the college choice process.
Gender.
Between men and women some significant differences existed in the importance
they placed on total cost, housing opportunities and major availability with women rating
these factors higher than men. No significant differences existed between the groups in
their satisfaction levels with university factors and the importance they placed on sources
of influence.
95

Although there were no statistical differences between the groups, women rated
two factors—amount of financial aid and total cost—as important factors versus men
who did not. This difference in the level of importance is consistent with findings made
by Mansfield and Warwick (2005) where women were more concerned with finances
than men. Both men and women perceived student activities and research as important,
but only women were satisfied with these factors at CU. Finally, men and women rated
different university sources, mailings and website respectively, highest; although neither
rated the source as important.
The difference between the satisfaction levels of men and women with respect to
research opportunities and student activities is an area that should be examined by
admissions administrators. One possible reason might be related to the university sources
of influence, since there is general agreement with respect to the other sources. Men rated
the website higher, whereas the women rated the mailing higher. It may be that the
literature being mailed to applicants is more comprehensive regarding these factors
compared to the information available on the university’s website. It may be that the
information is not on the website or difficult to find. If either is the case, the university
may want to do an analysis of the site to ensure that the information is available in a way
that is easy to access for applicants considering enrolling at CU.
Ethnicity.
The discussion of results and implications will be presented by ethnic group.
What the results indicate, which will be presented here, is that each ethnic group differs
96

in ways that the admission administrators may want to take into account when creating
enrollment strategies. It seems that the current strategies are more reflective of the needs
of Caucasians and bi/multi-racial students.
African Americans were the only group to indicate that the NCAA program and
athletic center were important factors. They were also the only group to not rate
parent(s)/relative(s) as the highest student network source; they rated friends highest.
What admissions administrators can take away from these results is that African
American students may have the least traditional network for information gathering
regarding the college choice process. They ranked university reputation as the most
important, like other groups, but outside of reputation, their secondary source of
information is their peer social network. The university may benefit from understanding
how to access this network for this ethnic group.
API students, of all the ethnic groups, rated the most factors, ten, as important to
their college choice process; they were only satisfied with two: campus and major
availability. This may indicate that this ethnic group differs from the others in that they
have lengthier lists of factors that need to be satisfied in making their final college choice.
Caucasians and African American students were the only groups to not believe
that any of the cost-related factors were important to the college choice process.
Caucasian students and bi/multi-racial students were the only to rate the campus visit as
the highest university source as opposed to the university’s mailings which were
considered the most important source for the other ethnic groups. Caucasian students
97

were satisfied with four of the five factors they perceived as important. The university
may not need to adjust any of its efforts in regard to Caucasian students because they
seem to be quite satisfied with CU.
As mentioned previously, Latino/a students were the only ethnic group to not be
satisfied with any of the university characteristics or not perceive any of the sources of
influence as important. Latino/a students were the only ethnic group to not rate university
reputation as the most important source; they rate parent(s)/relative(s) highest among all
the sources of influence, but even parents were not considered important. This is
consistent with Perez and McDonough’s (2008) findings that Latino/a students relied
upon those in their network that had first-hand college experience like siblings, cousins
and acquaintances. This study did not ask respondents specifically about the importance
of siblings which may be a beneficial addition for future studies.
Bi/multi-racial students, based on the importance and satisfaction scores seem to
be fairly satisfied with CU. They were satisfied with four of the five factors they
perceived as important to the college choice process. Total cost was the lone factor that
they were not satisfied with at CU. As an ethnic group, they rated seven sources of
influence as important, the most of any ethnic group. This may attribute to their overall
satisfaction because they seem to be receiving information from a variety of sources and
are able to receive the information they need to make their college choice.

98

SES.
There were statistical differences between students in different SES groups with
respect to the importance and satisfaction with factors. Differences also emerged in their
ratings of factors at CU and the importance they placed on sources of influence.
SES-1 (under $30,000) as a group seemed fairly satisfied with CU. They indicated
that six factors were important to them and were satisfied with four of the factors: amount
of financial aid, type of financial aid, major availability and research opportunities. They
were not satisfied with total cost, which was true of the sample. As a tuition-driven
private institution, there may not be much that CU can do to lower the cost. SES-1 was
significantly more satisfied than SES-4 in their satisfaction with both amount and type of
financial aid. This is consistent with financial aid policies that award more aid both
overall total and gift aid, specifically, to the neediest families. SES-4 is likely to be
dissatisfied with this factor because they are likely ineligible for need-based gift aid.
Their dissatisfaction is merited because the purpose of this question was to assess their
satisfaction levels regardless of their eligibility.
There was a pattern of significant differences between SES-2 and SES-4,
especially in the context of sources of influence. The data indicates that for four of the
sources (friends, campus visit, university reputation and major reputation) SES-4 rated
them significantly more important than SES-2. SES-2, like Latino/a students did not rate
any of the sources as influential and they rated both mailings as website the highest
unlike the other groups that rated university reputation highest. SES-2 was not satisfied
99

with any of the eight university factors that were important to them as opposed to SES-4
that was satisfied with a majority of the factors that were important to them.
What these results seem to indicate is that the university’s enrollment measures
seem to meet the needs of families with the least (SES-1) and most (SES-4) financial
resources. It seems that the enrollment practices and policies do not favor families in the
middle, particularly SES-2, based on these results. The dissatisfaction seems to be across
the board, but particularly in reference to cost-related factors. This may be indicative of a
larger national issue related to the definition of who qualifies for need-based aid. CU
seems to be doing well with the neediest families but not with those just above that
group. With institutions like Harvard, Stanford and Amherst, to name a few, changing
their aid policies to meet the needs of middle class families, CU may continue to find that
students in the middle-income categories are dissatisfied with they type and amount of
aid they are receiving. Outside of the effects income on cost-related factors, the literature
does not address how SES may affect the importance of university factors or sources of
influence.
Mother’s education.
There were significant differences between groups, based on mother’s education,
in the importance they placed on the amount of financial aid, total cost and faculty
contact. Mother-5 seemed most satisfied with CU overall, they were satisfied with four of
the five factors they considered important. The only factor they were not satisfied with at
CU was faculty contact.
100

There were no statistically significant differences between groups and the
importance they placed on sources of influence. Although the differences were not
statistically significant, their rankings of certain factors may indicate a trend in terms of
which sources are important. For Mother-1, they were the only group to indicate that job
placement reputation and friends were an important source of influence. This is similar to
SES-1 being the only SES group to rate job placement reputation as important. For
students from families with fewer resources, both monetary and cultural capital, the
primary purpose of college may be future job placement. Job placement may be an area
that should be addressed in the university’s messaging about CU and how CU assists
students with their post-graduate plans. This may also be considered a factor that students
assess and not just a source of influence.
Father’s education.
Many of the results between groups based on father’s education and mother’s
education are somewhat similar. Just for emphasis it is important to note that Father-5 did
not consider any of the cost-related factors as important, this was also true for Mother-5
and SES-4.
Policy Implications
Based on the results of this study, some implications for policy arose. The policy
implications are focused in two areas: campus visit and marketing efforts. These policy
implications are primarily directed at enrollment managers at CU in order to increase
yield of natural science students. Some of these implications also address the need to
101

change enrollment management practices in order to attract and yield students from
underrepresented populations; enrollment managers of institutions like CU are also
addressed in these implications as well.
Because the survey did not ask students to indicate if they visited campus or not, a
definitive correlation cannot be made about the effectiveness of campus visits based on
these results but there seems to be a connection between the campus visit and higher
levels of satisfaction. If this hypothesis is true, enrollment managers can revisit certain
aspects of their admission practices. First, if students who visit campus are more satisfied
with campus factors that are important to them it can be inferred that these students are
more likely to attend. If this is the case, admission administrators may want to reassess
what factors are used to admit students. Although it is not feasible for institutions to only
admit students who have visited campus, the use of campus visits may be used as a
marker to select students whose admissions decisions are more ambiguous. Generally,
students who have high GPA’s and standardized test scores are admitted without
reservations by admissions offices, this practice should not be changed. Outside of this
group of high achieving students, there are students who have GPA’s and test scores that
are strong, but not as high as the previous group. For this second group, enrollment
managers may want to take the campus visit into account if the goal is to increase yield.
To illustrate this suggested practice, we will compare two students: Will and Bill. Will
and Bill have similar profiles (GPA, test scores and resume) but Will visited campus and
Bill did not. Based on this study’s results, Will is probably more satisfied with the factors
102

that are important to him in a school; Bill on the other hand, has not visited campus and
therefore may be reliant upon the impressions of others because he has not seen the
campus for himself. If CU is only going to admit one of these students, because one of
the goals is to increase yield, Will is more likely to enroll because he has visited the
campus and is more likely satisfied with the factors that are important to him. For CU
admissions administrators, this is one way in which the campus visit could be used to
increase yield.
Another implication about the campus visit is that if a student is not from
California, where CU is located, a campus visit is only a possibility if the student has the
financial means to visit campus. This being the case, students from lower SES groups are
less likely to be aware of the opportunities that are available at CU. If a higher education
institution believes that part of its responsibility is to provide opportunities for
underserved communities, than part of that responsibility should include increasing
awareness about opportunities to these communities. CU should adopt policies that
increase awareness that occur earlier in the college choice process, like the search and
application stages. These programs to increase awareness should focus on students from
outside of California who may not be familiar with CU and do not have the resources to
visit on their own. This should also be done by schools that are similar to CU within and
outside of California.
The second implication is especially relevant for students who did not visit the
campus. The results indicated that students who did not value the campus also had
103

significantly lower levels of factor satisfaction. It can be assumed that the campus visit
highlights the factors that students consider important and their satisfaction increases as a
result. For students who do not visit, they do not have first hand opportunities to address
the factors that are important. In order to address the CU’s disadvantage with students
who do not visit the campus, CU should improve its marketing efforts of factors that are
considered important to natural science students. This is especially true with respect to
faculty contact, research opportunities and student activities. These three factors are areas
that CU believes are strengths. For many of the groups that were not satisfied with these
factors, both mailings and website were important sources of information, depending on
the audience. CU may want to modify both mailings and website in order to address
students concerns about the qualities of these factors at CU. For mailings, CU may want
to target the natural science students with mailings that specifically address research
opportunities and faculty contact. CU may also want to assess their website to ensure that
research opportunities, faculty contact and student activities are located in areas of the
site that are accessible to prospective students.
Recommendations for Future Research
If this study were to be conducted again it would be important to add a few other
variables to gain a deeper understanding of the college choice process and the factors and
sources of information that are important to students. As already discussed in previous
sections, the campus visit should be a question that is asked in the survey. In addition to
the campus visit, the following are variables that should be addressed in the survey if this
104

study were to be redone: pre-medical aspiration, geography and legacy status. By asking
about these factors, the results of satisfaction would have a greater depth in terms of
understanding the environmental factors that might contribute to satisfaction levels.
Another question to be added in future studies is a student’s post-graduate plans at
the time of admission, specifically if the student aspires to attend medical school.
Considering the higher satisfaction levels of honors programs among student who did not
enroll coupled with the importance of job placement reputation it could be inferred that
many students in the natural science population are interested in medical school. Students
who are considering medical school could be divided into independent groups so that the
study can assess if there is a difference between the groups in terms of factor importance
and satisfaction. It may be that what is considered satisfying or important may be linked
to the student’s perceptions that these factors may strengthen their chances of attending
medical school in the future.
It may have also been helpful to see how legacy status affected a student’s
perceptions about CU. If a student’s parents or siblings attend CU and had a favorable
experience, this may color the student’s perceptions in a positive direction. This may also
have future implications for admission administrators in admission decisions. This may
also have implications for the marketing efforts that are spent on this population. If
students’ whose family have attended CU are more likely to attend CU, than maybe an
institution may want to use their resources on populations that are not as likely to attend
105

versus a population that is more likely to attend because their impressions of the school
are already positive.
The institution may also wish to begin to benchmark its current programs with
institutions that are rated higher because they seem to be losing a significant majority of
their admitted students to higher ranked institutions. It may help to understand do
students attend other institutions because they are ranked higher or are these institutions
stronger, especially in the areas of faculty contact and research opportunities.
An additional step that could also be taken to enrich this study is to survey which
factors are important to students. Figure 1, shows the results of what factor was the most
important to students in the college choice process; the factor that received the second
largest amount of votes from the entire sample was “Other”. What this indicates is that
the survey may not have assessed a number of factors that were important to students in
the process. Future studies may want to begin with a survey to understand what factors
students are now considering in their college choice decisions; this study relied on factors
that were previously researched in other studies.
In addition to items that could be added to improve this study, a number of other
studies could also be done to enrich the understanding of the college choice process. Both
qualitative and quantitative studies could be conducted to increase what is known about
this process.
One of the factors, major availability, was considered the most satisfying among
all factors assessed; a follow-up study regarding the high satisfaction of major availability
106

should be conducted in order to understand this finding further. Are students rating major
availability is satisfying because their specific major of choice is available? Or are they
satisfied with major availability because CU offers so many majors that if they decided to
change their major it would be available at CU? A follow-up study about major
availability could add depth to what is understood about this factor and its impact on
college enrollment decisions.
In terms of qualitative studies, it may be beneficial to follow a cohort of students
through the last phase of the college choice process until the end of the first semester to
gain deeper insights into what they saw, what motivated them, what they liked, what they
did not like and what they would have done differently. This could be done for both
students who chose to enroll at CU and did not enroll. It would be critical to hear their
stories. It would be especially helpful to understand how they are feeling and what they
are thinking at critical stages like when they are admitted to CU, when they are admitted
to other institutions, when they make their final choice and how they feel during their
first term. The stories they tell at these different stages can add a depth of understanding
to what factors are important to them at that time and what sources have the most weight
with them.
In order to understand how specific groups, based on demographic variables,
experience this process it might also be important to conduct a qualitative study with
groups of students who are parts of these groups. It may be especially helpful if these
students come from traditionally underrepresented groups based on race or SES.
107

In terms of quantitative studies, it might be helpful to redo this study with the
suggested additional questions with a variety of populations. First, it may be useful to
redo this study only with students who have visited campus to see if any patterns or
statistically significant factors emerge as to why students chose not to come to CU after
being on the campus. Did it have to do with the factors or is there something that the
study did not address.
It may also be useful to see if natural science students are different from students
who are interested in the social sciences. The purpose of redoing this study with a broader
population would be to see if these two groups are significantly different.
Conclusion
What these results indicate is that factor and satisfaction are critical to college
choice for natural science students who were admitted to CU. Satisfaction levels were
significantly higher for students who chose to enroll. When examining the differences
between groups based on demographic variables it became apparent that the groups were
focusing on different factors and relying on different sources for information regarding
the college choice process. Among ethnic groups, the data revealed that Latino/a students
were the group that CU seemed the most out of touch with, in terms of their recruiting
and marketing strategies. Income groups in the middle also seemed to be the least
satisfied and most disenfranchised by the university’s efforts. The areas of the university
that were the most satisfying for natural science students were the campus itself and
major availability. Cost-related factors were important but least satisfying for students;
108

students’ impressions of the surrounding community were also not favorable, but not a
factor that was important to students.

109

References
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of
Priorities and Practices in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited. Journal of College Student, 40(5),
587-597.
Barr, M. J. (2002). Academic administrator's guide to budgets and financial
management. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Clark, K. (2007, November 5). A costly cap and gown. U.S. News & World Report, 143,
68-72.
Cook, R. W., & Zallocco, R. L. (1983). Predicting university preference and attendance:
applied marketing in higher education administration. Research in Higher
Education, 19(2), 197-211.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Frisbee, R. L., & Belcher, G. (1999). What influences students to attend four-year
automotive programs. Journal of Industrial Technology, 15(3), 1-4.
Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of US News and World Report collegiate
rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995-2004.
Economics of Education Review, 26, 244-255.
Hawkins, D. A., & Clinedinst, M. (2006). State of college admission 2006. Alexanadria,
VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling.
Hossler, D. (1984). Enrollment management: An integrated approach. New York, NY:
College Board Publications.
Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college
choice. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 5, 231-288.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase
model and the implications for policy-makers. College and University, 2(3), 207-
221.
Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
110

James, E. (1990). Decision processes and priorities in higher education. In S. Hoenack &
E. Collins (Eds.), The economics of American universities: management,
operations, and Fiscal Environment (pp. 77-106). New York: SUNY Press.
Kaye, B. A., & Johnson, T. J. (1999). Research methodology: Taming the cyber frontier.
Social Science Computer Review, 17, 323-337.
Kim, D. (2004). The effect of financial aid on students' college choice: Differences by
racial groups. Review of Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.
Lapovsky, L. (1999). What you need to know about enrollment management. New
Directions for Higher Education, 107, 5-15.
Long, B. T. (2004). How have college decisions changed over time? An application of
the conditional logistic choice model. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 271-296.
Mansfield, P. M., & Warwick, J. (2005). Gender differences in students' and parents'
evaluative criteria when selecting a college. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 15(2), 47-80.
National Center For Education Statistics (1998). Choosing a Postsecondary Institution
(NCES 98-080). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Noel-Levitz. (2007). Student Satisfaction Inventory. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://survey.noellevitz.com/index.cfm?sAction=survey
Pequegnat, W., Roser, B. S., Bowen, A. M., Bull, S. S., Diclemente, R. J., Bockting, W.
O., et al. (2006). Conducting internet-based HIV/STD prevention survey research:
Considerations in design and evaluation. AIDS and Behavior, 11(4), 505-521.
Perez, P. A., & McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college
choice. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3), 249-265.
Sandford, B. A., Frisbee, R. L., & Belcher, G. G. (2006). Assessment of initial awareness
knowledge and sources of influence leading to enrollment decisions for students
entering four-year automotive programs. Journal of Industrial Technology, 22(4),
2-8.
Seneca, J. J., & Taussig, M. K. (1987). The effects of tuition and financial aid on the
enrollment decision at a state university. Research in Higher Education, 26(4),
337-362.
Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 6(2), 1-14.
111

Trusheim, D., Crouse, J., & Middaugh, M. (1990). College applicants' attitudes and
enrollment decisions. Research in Higher Education, 31(3), 295-305.
Weiler, W. C. (1996). Factors influencing the matriculation choices of high ability
students. Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 23-36.
Woodward, D. B. (2001). Finance and budgeting. In R.B. Winston Jr., D.G. Creamer &
T.K. Miller (Eds.), The Professional Student Affairs Administrator (pp. 245-267).
New York: Brunner-Routledge.
112

Appendix A
Survey: College Choice for Natural Science Students
College/University Attributes
In this section, you will be asked to rate attributes about colleges/universities. You will be
rating these attributes based on how important they were to you when making your final
decision about where you were going to enroll as a Freshman during the fall 2008 term.
1. How important were these cost-related attributes to you when choosing which
college/university to attend?
• Amount of financial aid (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
• Total Cost (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat Important,
Important or NA)
• Type of Financial Aid Awarded (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
2. How important were these physical attributes to you when choosing which
college/university to attend?
• Campus (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat Important,
Important or NA)
• Distance from Home (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat
Important, Important or NA)
113

• Housing Opportunities (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
• Student Athletic/Recreation Facility (Unimportant, Somewhat Important,
Neutral, Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
• Surrounding Community (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
3. How important were these educational opportunities/aspects to you when
choosing which college/university to attend?
• Faculty Contact (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat
Important, Important or NA)
• Honors Programs (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat
Important, Important or NA)
• Major Availability (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat
Important, Important or NA)
• Research Opportunities (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
4. How important were these extra-curricular attributes to you when choosing which
college/university to attend?
• Intercollegiate Athletic (NCAA) Program (Unimportant, Somewhat
Important, Neutral, Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
114

• Intramural Athletic Program (Unimportant, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
• Student Activities (Clubs/Organizations) (Unimportant, Somewhat Important,
Neutral, Somewhat Important, Important or NA)
115

Rating CU
Whether or not you attended CU, please rate how satisfied you were with these attributes
at CU?
5. At CU, how satisfied were you with these cost-related attributes?
• Amount of Financial Aid Package (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied,
Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A)
• Total Cost (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied,
Satisfied or N/A)
• Type of Financial Aid Awarded (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral,
Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A)
6. At CU, how satisfied were you with these physical attributes?
• Campus (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied,
Satisfied or N/A
• Distance from Home (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat
Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Housing Opportunities (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral,
Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Student Athletic/Recreation Facility (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied,
Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Surrounding Community (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral,
Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
116

7. At CU, how satisfied were you with these educational opportunities/aspects?
• Faculty Contact (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat
Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Honors Programs (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat
Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Major Availability (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat
Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Research Opportunities (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral,
Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
8. At CU, how satisfied were you with these extra-curricular attributes?
• Intercollegiate Athletic (NCAA) Program (Dissatisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Intramural Athletic Program (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Neutral,
Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
• Student Activities (Clubs/Organizations) (Dissatisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied,
Neutral, Somewhat Satisfied, Satisfied or N/A
Sources of Influence
The following is a list of information sources about colleges/universities. Please rate how
influential these sources were in the formation of you attitudes about CU.
9. To what extent, did the following people/groups influence your attitude(s) or
knowledge about CU?
117

• Alumni (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Counselor (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Friends (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
• High School Teacher (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Parent(s)/Relatives (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• US News & World Report Rankings (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential,
Neutral, Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
10. To what extent, did the following information sources influence your attitude(s)
or knowledge about CU?
• Admission Office Representative (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential,
Neutral, Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Campus Visit (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Catalog (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
118

• University Mailings (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• University Website (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
11. To what extent, did the reputation of the following aspects, influence your
attitude(s) or knowledge about CU?
• Faculty (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral, Somewhat
Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Job Placement Opportunity (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• Major/Academic Program (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
• University (General) (Uninfluential, Somewhat Uninfluential, Neutral,
Somewhat Influential, Influential or N/A)
Demographic Information
12. Please select the gender you indentify with (Male or Female)
13. Please select the race/ethnicity that best describes you (African American, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Caucasian, Latino/a, Native American, Bi-
Racial/Multi-Racial)
119

Family/Parent Information
14. Please select the income range that best describes your family (Under $30,000,
$31,000 - $50,000, $51,000 - $80,000, Above $80,000 or Unknown)
15. Please indicate your mother’s level of education (Less Than High School, High
School Diploma/Equivalent, Some College, 4-Year College Degree,
Graduate/Professional Degree or Unknown)
16. Please indicate your father’s level of education (Less Than High School, High
School Diploma/Equivalent, Some College, 4-Year College Degree,
Graduate/Professional Degree or Unknown)
Enrollment Decision
17. Which attribute was the most important to you when selecting a college? (Amount
of Financial Aid Package, Campus, Distance from Home, Faculty Contact,
Honors Programs, Housing Opportunities, Intercollegiate Athletic (NCAA)
Program, Intramural Athletic Program, Major Availability, Research
Opportunities, Student Activities (Clubs/Organizations), Student
Athletic/Recreations Center, Surrounding Community, Total Cost, Type of
Financial Aid or Other-please specify)
18. Did you enroll at CU? (Yes or No)
Institutional Comparisons
19. Which college/university will you be attending during the Fall 2008 term?
120

20. Which attributes were better at the institution you select than CU? (Select all that
apply: Amount of Financial Aid Package, Campus, Distance from Home, Faculty
Contact, Honors Programs, Housing Opportunities, Intercollegiate Athletic
(NCAA) Program, Intramural Athletic Program, Major Availability, Research
Opportunities, Student Activities (Clubs/Organizations), Student
Athletic/Recreations Center, Surrounding Community, Total Cost or Type of
Financial Aid)
121

Appendix B
Table 3
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on gender
Male Female
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
Campus 1
st
M = 4.58, SD = .71 2
nd
M = 4.53, SD = .82
Research opportunities 2
nd
M = 4.31, SD = .99 3
rd
M = 4.38, SD = .92
Major availability* 3
rd
M = 4.30, SD = 1.11 1
st
M = 4.64, SD = .71
Student activities 4
th
M = 4.06, SD = .91 6
th
M = 4.16, SD = .92
Faculty contact 5
th
M = 4.03, SD = 1.17 5
th
M = 4.25, SD = 1.01
Surrounding community 6
th
M = 3.89, SD = 1.01 9
th
M = 3.89, SD = .93
Amount of financial aid 7
th
M = 3.86, SD = 1.66 7
th
M = 4.04, SD = 1.50
Total cost* 8
th
M = 3.76, SD = 1.56 4
th
M = 4.31, SD = 1.25
Honors programs 9
th
M = 3.69, SD = 1.35 11
th
M = 3.78, SD = 1.26
Housing opportunities* 10
th
M = 3.61, SD = 1.14 8
th
M = 3.95, SD = 1.03
Type of financial aid 11
th
M = 3.54, SD = 1.64 10
th
M = 3.88, SD = 1.56
Athletic/recreation facility 12
th
M = 3.37, SD = 1.15 12
th
M = 3.25, SD = 1.14
Intramural athletic program 13
th
M = 3.14, SD = 1.33 14
th
M = 2.91, SD = 1.39
Distance from home 14
th
M = 3.11, SD = 1.44 12
th
M = 3.25, SD = 1.45
NCAA program 15
th
M = 2.90, SD = 1.42 15
th
M = 2.63, SD = 1.54
* Significant at the .05 level

122
Table 4
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on ethnicity

African American Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Latino/a Bi/Multi-Racial
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Major availability 1
st
4.56 .73 1
st
4.62 .76 2
nd
4.46 .97 4
th
4.31 1.20 3
rd
4.33 .87
Campus 1
st
4.56 .53 2
nd
4.52 .68 1
st
4.59 .95 4
th
4.31 .60 1
st
4.89 .33
Athletic/recreation facility* 3
rd
4.44 .73 12
th
3.35 1.09 12
th
3.13 1.21 12
th
3.19 1.05 14
th
3.22 .97
Student activities 4
th
4.11 .78 7
th
4.20 .72 4
th
4.16 .97 8
th
3.75 1.07 8
th
3.78 1.64
Housing opportunities 4
th
4.11 1.36 10
th
4.00 .98 7
th
3.73 1.02 12
th
3.19 .36 6
th
3.89 1.27
Research opportunities 6
th
4.00 1.41 3
rd
4.46 .84 3
rd
4.28 1.04 6
th
4.25 .86 2
nd
4.56 .53
NCAA program 6
th
4.00 1.12 15
th
2.48 1.37 15
th
2.85 1.59 15
th
2.75 1.39 15
th
2.67 1.80
Total cost** 10
th
3.78 1.92 4
th
4.44 1.07 8
th
3.66 1.63 1
st
4.81 .54 4
th
4.22 1.09
Faculty contact 10
th
3.78 1.56 6
th
4.28 1.07 5
th
4.14 1.02 7
th
3.94 1.29 4
th
4.22 67
Surrounding community 10
th
3.78 .67 9
th
4.04 .85 6
th
3.83 1.00 9
th
3.50 1.37 6
th
3.89 .78
Honors programs 10
th
3.78 1.30 11
th
3.99 1.12 9
th
3.60 1.42 10
th
3.44 1.41 11
th
3.33 1.12
Amount of financial aid** 8
th
3.89 1.97 5
th
4.42 1.12 10
th
3.39 1.77 2
nd
4.75 1.00 9
th
3.67 1.87
Intramural athletic program 8
th
3.89 .78 14
th
2.76 1.35 13
th
3.10 1.47 14
th
3.00 1.03 11
th
3.33 1.23
Type of financial aid** 14
th
3.44 1.94 8
th
4.09 1.38 11
th
3.29 1.70 3
rd
4.69 .87 11
th
3.33 1.87
Distance from home 15
th
3.33 1.58 12
th
3.35 1.47 14
th
2.94 1.46 11
th
3.38 1.20 9
th
3.67 1.23
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level

123
Table 5
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on SES
SES-1 SES-2 SES-3 SES-4 SES-U
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Amount of financial aid** 1
st
4.88 .34 1
st
4.86 .54 3
rd
4.61 .92 10
th
3.67 1.71 9
th
3.61 1.65
Major availability 2
nd
4.56 .81 4
th
4.64 .63 2
nd
4.64 .87 2
nd
4.49 .94 4
th
4.28 .78
Campus 3
rd
4.50 .82 5
th
4.50 .52 5
th
4.43 .69 1
st
4.57 .86 1
st
4.67 .49
Type of financial aid** 4
th
4.38 1.09 1
st
4.86 .54 6
th
4.29 1.18 11
th
3.50 1.70 13
th
3.28 1.67
Total cost 5
th
4.13 1.41 3
rd
4.71 .61 1
st
4.68 .82 6
th
3.94 1.53 8
th
3.94 1.31
Research opportunities 6
th
4.00 1.03 6
th
4.43 .65 4
th
4.50 .75 3
rd
4.36 1.02 9
th
3.61 .84
Housing opportunities 7
th
3.94 1.06 10
th
3.79 .89 11
th
4.00 1.19 8
th
3.74 1.12 7
th
4.06 .80
Student activities 8
th
3.81 .66 8
th
4.00 .88 9
th
4.07 .98 5
th
4.20 .96 6
th
4.11 .68
Surrounding community 9
th
3.69 1.4 9
th
3.93 .62 10
th
4.04 1.04 7
th
3.82 .97 4
th
4.28 .75
Honors programs 10
th
3.50 1.16 10
th
3.79 1.37 8
th
4.18 .91 9
th
3.70 1.33 2
nd
4.39 1.50
Faculty contact 11
th
3.44 1.75 7
th
4.21 .70 6
th
4.29 .94 4
th
4.23 1.05 3
rd
4.33 .73
Athletic/recreation facility 12
th
3.31 1.08 13
th
2.79 .80 13
th
3.29 1.33 12
th
3.32 1.18 11
th
3.50 .79
Distance from home 13
th
3.00 1.46 12
th
3.43 1.16 12
th
3.50 1.32 13
th
3.18 1.53 14
th
2.89 1.53
Intramural athletic program 14
th
2.94 1.57 14
th
2.64 1.15 15
th
2.75 1.11 14
th
3.03 1.45 12
th
3.44 1.04
NCAA program 15
th
2.06 1.34 15
th
2.14 1.17 14
th
2.93 .1.39 15
th
2.85 .1.57 15
th
2.61 1.38
** Significant at the .01 level

124
Table 6
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on mother’s education
Mother-1 Mother-2 Mother-3 Mother-4 Mother-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Campus 1
st
4.80 .42 2
nd
4.36 .50 4
th
4.49 .93 2
nd
4.58 .62 1
st
4.55 .94
Amount of financial aid** 1
st
4.80 .42 3
rd
4.21 1.42 3
rd
4.59 .14 8
th
3.95 1.52 10
th
3.45 1.87
Major availability 3
rd
4.70 .95 4
th
4.14 1.41 1
st
4.62 .59 1
st
4.60 .66 2
nd
4.41 1.08
Total cost** 4
th
4.30 1.06 1
st
4.50 1.16 1
st
4.62 .13 5
th
4.15 1.26 7
th
3.73 1.70
Faculty contact** 4
th
4.30 1.06 9
th
3.79 1.12 8
th
4.08 1.09 4
th
4.32 .80 4
th
4.19 1.21
Type of financial aid 6
th
4.20 1.23 5
th
4.07 1.33 7
th
4.14 .22 11
th
3.74 1.46 11
th
3.39 1.91
Research opportunities 7
th
4.10 1.60 7
th
3.93 1.14 5
th
4.24 .86 3
rd
4.52 .65 3
rd
4.36 1.09
Surrounding community 7
th
4.10 .88 10
th
3.64 1.22 10
th
3.86 1.00 7
th
4.04 .77 6
th
3.77 1.07
Housing opportunities 9
th
4.00 1.16 6
th
4.00 1.36 9
th
4.03 .15 10
th
3.79 .96 9
th
3.67 1.24
Distance from home 9
th
4.00 .94 11
th
3.57 1.51 13
th
3.19 1.39 13
th
3.15 1.51 13
th
3.09 1.43
Student activities 11
th
3.90 .74 8
th
3.86 1.03 6
th
4.16 .83 5
th
4.15 1.00 5
th
4.17 .88
Honors programs 12
th
3.70 1.16 11
th
3.57 1.34 11
th
3.70 1.29 9
th
3.86 1.16 8
th
3.69 1.46
Athletic/recreation facility 13
th
3.10 .74 14
th
2.86 1.17 12
th
3.51 .18 12
th
3.51 1.13 12
th
3.16 1.22
Intramural athletic program 14
th
2.40 1.65 15
th
2.43 .94 14
th
3.16 1.21 14
th
3.14 1.38 14
th
2.92 1.44
NCAA program 15
th
2.20 1.40 13
th
2.93 1.21 15
th
2.62 1.32 15
th
2.86 1.55 15
th
2.70 1.61
** Significant at the .01 level

125
Table 7
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor importance based on father’s education
Father-1 Father-2 Father-3 Father-4 Father-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Amount of financial aid* 1
st
4.90 .32 2
nd
4.50 1.17 2
nd
4.42 1.00 5
th
4.17 1.40 10
th
3.68 1.72
Major availability 1
st
4.90 .32 3
rd
4.33 1.37 4
th
4.25 1.14 1
st
4.69 .62 2
nd
4.47 .90
Campus 3
rd
4.60 .52 3
rd
4.33 .65 1
st
4.58 .52 2
nd
4.67 .63 1
st
4.50 .90
Research opportunities** 3
rd
4.60 .70 11
th
3.33 1.72 7
th
3.83 .94 3
rd
4.60 .54 3
rd
4.38 .93
Faculty contact 5
th
4.50 .71 9
th
3.42 1.62 6
th
3.92 .67 4
th
4.25 1.23 4
th
4.23 .96
Type of financial aid 6
th
4.40 1.27 3
rd
4.33 .99 8
th
3.75 1.55 7
th
4.13 1.33 11
th
3.46 1.73
Surrounding community 7
th
4.30 .68 11
th
3.33 1.23 10
th
3.42 1.08 9
th
4.04 .87 7
th
3.89 .94
Total cost 8
th
4.20 1.03 1
st
4.92 .29 4
th
4.25 .87 7
th
4.13 1.42 6
th
3.98 1.51
Student activities 9
th
4.10 .74 7
th
3.67 1.07 3
rd
4.33 .65 5
th
4.17 .83 5
th
4.16 .97
Honors programs 10
th
3.90 1.10 8
th
3.50 1.31 14
th
3.08 1.56 11
th
3.79 1.30 8
th
3.83 1.26
Housing opportunities 11
th
3.80 1.14 3
rd
4.33 1.44 12
th
3.17 .58 10
th
3.90 .93 9
th
3.81 1.12
Distance from home 12
th
3.50 1.18 9
th
3.42 1.38 15
th
2.92 .90 15
th
3.04 1.60 12
th
3.23 1.47
Athletic/recreation facility 13
th
2.90 .74 13
th
3.00 1.35 10
th
3.42 .67 12
th
3.56 1.09 13
th
3.22 1.19
Intramural athletic program 13
th
2.90 1.37 15
th
2.33 1.30 9
th
3.50 1.09 13
th
3.19 1.42 14
th
2.95 1.37
NCAA program 15
th
2.40 1.17 14
th
2.58 1.44 12
th
3.17 1.27 14
th
3.17 1.51 15
th
2.58 1.52
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
126

Appendix C
Table 10
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on
enrollment decision
Male Female
Factor Rank Mean, SD Rank Mean, SD
Major availability 1
st
M = 4.18, SD = 1.28 1
st
M = 4.31, SD = 1.20
Campus 2
nd
M = 4.14, SD = 1.35 2
nd
M = 4.19, SD = 1.33
Student activities 3
rd
M = 3.80, SD = 1.59 4
th
M = 4.02, SD = 1.35
NCAA program 3
rd
M = 3.80, SD = 1.68 9
th
M = 3.41, SD = 1.86
Research opportunities 5
th
M = 3.77, SD = 1.39 3
rd
M = 4.04, SD = 1.40
Athletic/recreation facility 5
th
M = 3.77, SD = 1.59 6
th
M = 3.84, SD = 1.56
Housing opportunities 7
th
M = 3.63, SD = 1.56 5
th
M = 3.97, SD = 1.36
Distance from home 8
th
M = 3.58, SD = 1.71 7
th
M = 3.83, SD = 1.37
Honors programs 9
th
M = 3.41, SD = 1.57 11
th
M = 3.14, SD = 1.90
Intramural athletic program 10
th
M = 3.39, SD = 1.81 10
th
M = 3.24, SD = 1.84
Faculty contact 11
th
M = 3.23, SD = 1.61 8
th
M = 3.52, SD = 1.66
Type of financial aid 12
th
M = 2.66, SD = 1.77 12
th
M = 2.69, SD = 1.75
Amount of financial aid 13
th
M = 2.65, SD = 1.77 13
th
M = 2.67, SD = 1.79
Total cost 14
th
M = 2.58, SD = 1.33 15
th
M = 2.53, SD = 1.45
Surrounding community 15
th
M = 2.51, SD = 1.42 14
th
M = 2.56, SD = 1.21

127
Table 11
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on ethnicity
African American Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Latino/a Bi/Multi-Racial
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
NCAA program** 1
st
4.67 .71 10
th
3.08 1.98 5
th
3.96 1.55 9
th
2.88 1.93 3
rd
4.44 .73
Student activities 2
nd
4.44 .53 6
th
3.76 1.49 3
rd
4.15 1.30 7
th
3.25 2.08 3
rd
4.44 .53
Athletic/recreation facility 3
rd
4.22 1.64 6
th
3.76 1.58 6
th
3.86 1.54 6
th
3.31 1.85 3
rd
4.44 .88
Campus 4
th
4.00 1.58 2
nd
4.06 1.43 1
st
4.35 1.14 3
rd
3.56 1.67 1
st
4.89 .33
Intramural athletic program** 5
th
3.89 1.62 13
th
2.82 1.94 8
th
3.81 1.62 11
th
2.75 1.81 10
th
3.56 1.59
Major availability 6
th
3.56 1.81 1
st
4.38 1.08 2
nd
4.29 1.23 1
st
3.94 1.65 6
th
4.33 .71
Housing opportunities 6
th
3.56 1.81 3
rd
3.87 1.41 6
th
3.86 1.40 4
th
3.44 1.83 2
nd
4.56 .53
Distance from home 6
th
3.56 1.67 5
th
3.84 1.41 9
th
3.70 1.58 4
th
3.44 1.46 9
th
3.89 1.76
Honors programs 6
th
3.56 1.59 8
th
3.39 1.73 11
th
3.23 1.85 13
th
2.69 1.74 14
th
2.56 2.07
Research opportunities 6
th
3.56 1.51 3
rd
3.87 1.39 4
th
4.10 1.43 2
nd
3.63 1.54 7
th
4.22 .67
Surrounding community 11
th
3.00 1.50 15
th
2.51 1.22 12
th
2.60 1.34 15
th
2.19 1.47 14
th
2.56 .88
Faculty contact 12
th
2.89 2.03 9
th
3.34 1.69 10
th
3.59 1.55 10
th
2.81 1.83 8
th
4.11 .78
Type of financial aid 13
th
2.22 1.72 12
th
2.93 1.65 13
th
2.44 1.86 11
th
2.75 1.69 11
th
2.78 1.86
Total cost 13
th
2.22 1.20 14
th
2.75 1.44 14
th
2.39 1.32 14
th
2.31 1.54 11
th
2.78 1.72
Amount of financial aid 15
th
2.00 1.58 11
th
2.96 1.68 15
th
2.33 1.81 8
th
3.06 1.81 11
th
2.78 2.17
** Significant at the .01 level

128
Table 12
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on SES
SES-1 SES-2 SES-3 SES-4 SES-U
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Major availability 1
st
4.63 .62 1
st
3.57 1.74 1
st
4.32 .82 2
nd
4.31 1.22 1
st
4.11 1.61
Type of financial aid** 2
nd
4.31 .87 10
th
2.79 1.67 13
th
3.21 1.48 14
th
2.39 1.72 13
th
2.28 1.93
Amount of financial aid** 3
rd
4.19 1.05 10
th
2.79 2.01 9
th
3.46 1.48 15
th
2.32 1.72 12
th
2.33 1.94
Research opportunities 4
th
4.00 1.00 1
st
3.57 1.60 5
th
4.04 1.35 3
rd
4.07 1.33 8
th
3.17 1.86
Campus 5
th
3.81 1.64 1
st
3.57 1.70 3
rd
4.18 1.42 1
st
4.32 1.21 2
nd
3.94 1.31
Distance from home 5
th
3.81 1.47 8
th
3.14 1.75 2
nd
4.21 1.00 7
th
3.70 1.57 6
th
3.67 1.41
Student activities 7
th
3.75 1.61 1
st
3.57 1.65 4
th
4.07 1.12 6
th
3.98 1.49 2
nd
3.94 1.31
Housing opportunities 7
th
3.75 1.81 7
th
3.21 1.53 6
th
3.89 1.50 4
th
3.99 1.37 7
th
3.39 1.29
Honors programs 9
th
3.50 1.63 12
th
2.71 2.05 11
th
3.43 1.64 11
th
3.31 1.77 11
th
2.61 2.03
Total cost 10
th
3.31 1.49 15
th
2.43 1.83 15
th
2.89 1.29 13
th
2.43 1.35 14
th
2.22 1.31
Faculty contact 11
th
3.25 2.05 5
th
3.29 1.98 9
th
3.46 1.50 9
th
3.47 1.59 8
th
3.17 1.69
Athletic/recreation facility 12
th
3.19 2.01 5
th
3.29 1.59 8
th
3.64 1.68 4
th
3.99 1.50 4
th
3.89 1.28
NCAA program 13
th
2.69 2.02 13
th
2.57 1.87 7
th
3.75 1.60 7
th
3.70 1.81 5
th
3.78 1.48
Intramural athletic program 13
th
2.69 2.02 13
th
2.57 1.83 12
th
3.36 1.68 9
th
3.47 1.83 10
th
3.11 1.78
Surrounding community 15
th
2.38 1.15 9
th
2.86 1.51 14
th
2.96 1.26 12
th
2.51 1.27 15
th
2.00 1.24
** Significant at the .01 level

129
Table 13
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on mother’s education
Mother-1 Mother-2 Mother-3 Mother-4 Mother-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Major availability 1
st
4.70 .48 1
st
4.43 1.34 1
st
4.27 .96 1
st
4.19 1.41 3
rd
4.23 1.21
Athletic/recreation facility 2
nd
4.20 .92 9
th
3.21 1.93 7
th
3.49 1.69 5
th
3.78 1.58 4
th
4.11 1.44
Campus 3
rd
4.10 1.29 2
nd
4.14 1.35 3
rd
4.11 1.31 2
nd
4.04 1.50 1
st
4.36 1.16
Distance from home 3
rd
4.10 1.10 6
th
3.43 1.74 5
th
3.76 1.38 7
th
3.49 1.65 7
th
4.00 1.37
Housing opportunities 5
th
4.00 1.33 5
th
3.50 1.95 6
th
3.73 1.45 6
th
3.75 1.43 6
th
4.08 1.35
Faculty contact 6
th
3.80 1.55 3
rd
3.64 1.39 13
th
2.89 1.97 8
th
3.36 1.62 10
th
3.64 1.50
Type of financial aid 7
th
3.50 1.65 12
th
2.71 1.54 11
th
3.05 1.75 13
th
2.64 1.75 15
th
2.33 1.76
Student activities 8
th
3.40 1.96 4
th
3.57 1.70 4
th
3.78 1.38 3
rd
3.84 1.58 2
nd
4.30 1.08
Research opportunities 8
th
3.40 1.51 6
th
3.43 1.95 2
nd
4.24 .80 4
th
3.82 1.52 5
th
4.09 1.34
Honors programs 8
th
3.40 1.51 11
th
2.93 1.77 9
th
3.38 1.74 11
th
2.85 1.93 11
th
3.61 1.65
Amount of financial aid 8
th
3.40 1.58 13
th
2.64 1.69 12
th
2.97 1.68 12
th
2.66 1.86 14
th
2.34 1.77
Total cost 12
th
3.10 1.52 14
th
2.29 1.33 14
th
2.73 1.35 14
th
2.55 1.47 13
th
2.45 1.33
NCAA program 13
th
2.50 1.90 8
th
3.29 1.98 8
th
3.46 1.74 9
th
3.42 1.94 8
th
3.95 1.56
Intramural athletic program 13
th
2.50 1.90 10
th
3.00 1.84 10
th
3.27 1.69 10
th
3.11 1.96 9
th
3.69 1.70
Surrounding community 15
th
2.40 .97 15
th
2.00 1.18 15
th
2.68 1.31 15
th
2.38 1.27 12
th
2.78 1.34

130
Table 14
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of factor satisfaction at CU based on father’s education
Father-1 Father-2 Father-3 Father-4 Father-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
Major availability 1
st
4.70 .48 1
st
4.25 1.42 2
nd
4.50 .67 1
st
4.48 1.13 2
nd
4.12 1.33
Campus 2
nd
4.00 1.25 3
rd
3.58 1.78 1
st
4.67 .49 2
nd
4.25 1.36 1
st
4.17 1.32
Distance from home 2
nd
4.00 1.05 5
th
2.92 1.56 5
th
4.17 .94 8
th
3.69 1.61 7
th
3.75 1.53
Athletic/recreation facility 4
th
3.90 .88 11
th
2.58 2.07 3
rd
4.33 .65 6
th
3.92 1.57 5
th
3.82 1.59
Housing opportunities* 4
th
3.90 1.29 11
th
2.58 2.19 7
th
4.00 .85 3
rd
4.21 1.09 6
th
3.79 1.48
Amount of financial aid 6
th
3.60 1.51 8
th
2.83 1.34 12
th
3.08 1.83 13
th
2.92 1.87 15
th
2.41 1.76
Type of financial aid 7
th
3.50 1.65 5
th
2.92 1.38 13th 2.67 1.50 12
th
3.04 1.77 14
th
2.42 1.77
Honors programs 7
th
3.50 1.51 8
th
2.83 1.85 11
th
3.25 1.77 10
th
3.25 1.93 11
th
3.26 1.76
Research opportunities 10
th
3.30 1.42 2
nd
3.83 1.47 9
th
3.92 1.44 4
th
4.06 1.44 4
th
3.96 1.39
Faculty contact 11
th
3.10 1.91 5
th
2.92 1.93 6
th
4.08 .67 9
th
3.38 1.76 9
th
3.45 1.59
Total cost 12
th
2.90 1.60 11
th
2.58 1.31 13
th
2.67 1.50 15
th
2.54 1.49 13
th
2.49 1.36
Student activities 9
th
3.40 1.90 4
th
3.33 1.72 4
th
4.25 .97 4
th
4.06 1.47 3
rd
4.00 1.35
NCAA program 13
th
2.80 1.69 10
th
2.67 2.10 7
th
4.00 .95 7
th
3.73 1.85 8
th
3.61 1.79
Intramural athletic program 13
th
2.80 1.69 14
th
2.25 1.77 9
th
3.92 1.08 11
th
3.21 2.03 10
th
3.44 1.78
Surrounding community 15
th
2.50 1.18 15
th
1.83 1.40 15
th
2.42 1.17 14
th
2.58 1.30 12
th
2.62 1.30
* Significant at the .05 level
131

Appendix D
Table 16
Amount of financial aid: importance versus satisfaction
Amount of financial aid Important Not Important
Satisfied SES-1
Not Satisfied Female, API, Latino/a,
SES-2, 3, Mother-1, 2, 3,
Father-1, 2, 3, 4
Male, African American,
Caucasian, bi/multi-racial,
SES-4, Mother-4, 5,
Father-5

Table 17
Type of financial aid: importance versus satisfaction
Type of financial aid Important Not Important
Satisfied SES-1
Not Satisfied API, Latino/a, SES-2, 3,
Mother-1, 2, 3, Father-1, 2,
4
Male, Female, African
American, Caucasian,
bi/multi-racial, SES-4,
Mother-4, 5, Father-3, 5

Table 18
Total cost: importance versus satisfaction
Total cost Important Not Important
Satisfied
Not Satisfied Female, API, Latino/a,
bi/multi-racial, SES-1, 2, 3,
Mother-1, 2, 3, 4, Father-1,
2, 3
Male, African American,
Caucasian, SES-4, Mother-
5, Father-4, 5

132

Table 19
Student athletic/recreation facility: importance versus satisfaction
Athletic/recreation facility Important Not Important
Satisfied African American bi/multi-racial, Mother-1,
5, Father-3
Not Satisfied Male, Female, API,
Caucasian, Latino/a, SES-
1, 2, 3, 4, Mother-2, 3, 4,
Father-1, 2, 4, 5

Table 20
Campus: importance versus satisfaction
Campus Important Not Important
Satisfied Male, Female, African
American, API, Caucasian,
bi/multi-racial, SES-4,
Mother-1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Father-1, 3, 4, 5
SES-3
Not Satisfied Latino/a, SES-1, 2, Father-
2

133

Table 21
Distance from home: importance versus satisfaction
Distance from home Important Not Important
Satisfied SES-3, Mother-5, Father-1,
3
Not Satisfied Male, Female, African
American, API, Caucasian,
Latino/a, bi/multi-racial,
SES-1, 2, 4, Mother-2, 3, 4,
Father-2, 4, 5

Table 22
Housing: importance versus satisfaction
Housing Important Not Important
Satisfied Mother-1 bi/multi-racial, Mother-5,
Father-3, 4
Not Satisfied African American, API,
Mother-2, 3, Father-3
Male, Female, Caucasian,
Latino/a, SES-1, 2, 3, 4,
Mother-4, Father-1, 5

Table 23
Surrounding community: importance versus satisfaction
Surrounding community Important Not Important
Satisfied
Not Satisfied API, SES-3, Mother-1, 4,
Father-1, 4
Male, Female, African
American, Caucasian,
Latino/a, bi/multi-racial,
SES-1, 2, 4, Mother-2, 3, 5,
Father-2, 3, 5
134

Table 24
Faculty contact: importance versus satisfaction
Faculty contact Important Not Important
Satisfied bi/multi-racial Father-3
Not Satisfied Male, Female, API,
Caucasian, SES-2, 3, 4,
Mother-1, 3, 4, 5, Father-1,
4, 5

Table 25
Honors programs: importance versus satisfaction
Honors programs Important Not Important
Satisfied
Not Satisfied SES-3 all, enrolled, not enrolled,
Male, Female, African
American, API, Caucasian,
Latino/a, bi/multi-racial,
SES-1, 2, 4, Mother-1, 2, 3,
4, 5, Father-1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Table 26
Major availability: importance versus satisfaction
Major availability Important Not Important
Satisfied Male, Female, API,
Caucasian, bi/multi-racial,
SES-1, 3, 4, Mother-1, 2, 3,
4, 5, Father-1, -2, 3, 4, 5

Not Satisfied African American,
Latino/a, SES-2

135

Table 27
Research opportunities: importance versus satisfaction
Research opportunities Important Not Important
Satisfied Female, Caucasian,
bi/multi-racial, SES-1, 3, 4,
Mother-3, 5, Father-4, 5

Not Satisfied Male, African American,
API, Latino/a, SES-2,
Mother-1, 4, Father-1
Mother-2, Father-2, 3

Table 28
Intramural Athletic Program: importance versus satisfaction
Intramural athletic program Important Not Important
Satisfied
Not Satisfied Male, Female, African
American, API, Caucasian,
Latino/a, bi/multi-racial,
SES-1, 2, 3, 4, Mother-1, 2,
3, 4, 5, Father-1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Table 29
NCAA: importance versus satisfaction
NCAA program Important Not Important
Satisfied African American bi/multi-racial, Father-3
Not Satisfied Male, Female, API,
Caucasian, Latino/a, SES-
1, 2, 3, 4, Mother-1, 2, 3,
4,5, Father-1, 2, 4, 5

136

Table 30
Student activities: importance versus satisfaction
Student activities Important Not Important
Satisfied Female, African American,
Caucasian, SES-3, Mother-
5, Father-3, 4
bi/multi-racial
Not Satisfied Male, API, SES-2, 4,
Mother-3, 4, Father-1, 5
Latino/a, SES-1, Mother-
1, 2, Father-2

137

Appendix E
Table 33
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on gender
Male Female
Factor Rank Mean. SD Rank Mean, SD
University reputation 1
st
M = 4.31, SD = .82 1
st
M = 4.41, SD = .90
Major reputation 2
nd
M = 3.94, SD = 1.13 2
nd
M = 4.14, SD = 1.31
Parents/relatives 3
rd
M = 3.72, SD = 1.35 3
rd
M = 3.88, SD = 1.27
Job placement reputation 4
th
M = 3.61, SD = 1.52 5
th
M = 3.76, SD = 1.49
USNWR 4
th
M = 3.61, SD = 1.09 11
th
M = 3.31, SD = 1.54
Website 6
th
M = 3.56, SD = 1.09 6
th
M = 3.70, SD = 1.25
Friends 7
th
M = 3.55, SD = 1.34 8
th
M = 3.58, SD = 1.34
Faculty reputation 7
th
M = 3.55, SD = 1.41 8
th
M = 3.58, SD = 1.50
Mailing 9
th
M = 3.48, SD = 1.22 4
th
M = 3.79, SD = 1.08
Campus visit 10
th
M = 3.45, SD = 1.98 7
th
M = 3.59, SD = 1.89
Catalog 11
th
M = 3.07, SD = 1.52 10
th
M = 3.34, SD = 1.48
Admission representative 12
th
M = 2.92, SD = 1.69 12
th
M = 3.03, SD = 1.65
High school teacher 13
th
M = 2.79, SD = 1.56 15
th
M = 2.73, SD = 1.43
Alumni 14
th
M = 2.70, SD = 1.71 13
th
M = 2.91, SD = 1.72
Counselor 15
th
M = 2.68, SD = 1.60 14
th
M = 2.81, SD = 1.57

138
Table 34
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on ethnicity
African American Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Latino/a Bi/Multi-Racial
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
University reputation** 1
st
4.44 .73 1
st
4.29 .83 1
st
4.51 .76 3
rd
3.75 1.44 1
st
4.89 .33
Job placement reputation** 1
st
4.44 .73 4
th
3.68 1.38 5
th
3.74 1.57 13
th
2.69 1.89 2
nd
4.67 .71
Major reputation** 3
rd
4.33 .87 2
nd
4.16 1.17 2
nd
4.11 1.17 8
th
3.00 1.93 4
th
4.44 .53
Mailing 4
th
4.11 .60 5
th
3.61 1.17 8
th
3.70 1.12 2
nd
3.81 1.05 10
th
3.44 1.59
Website 5
th
4.00 .71 7
th
3.56 1.18 5
th
3.74 1.28 4
th
3.44 1.15 8
th
3.78 1.09
USNWR 6
th
3.67 2.12 9
th
3.51 1.23 10
th
3.28 1.41 5
th
3.38 1.82 9
th
3.67 1.32
Campus visit* 6
th
3.67 1.87 11
th
3.22 1.97 3
rd
3.89 1.84 9
th
2.88 2.09 3
rd
4.56 .88
Friends 8
th
3.56 1.59 8
th
3.53 1.40 7
th
3.73 1.21 7
th
3.06 1.39 10
th
3.44 1.42
Parents/relatives 9
th
3.44 2.01 3
rd
3.73 1.34 4
th
3.88 1.21 1
st
3.94 1.34 6
th
4.33 .71
Faculty reputation 9
th
3.44 1.42 5
th
3.61 1.43 9
th
3.61 1.41 12
th
2.75 1.92 6
th
4.33 1.00
Catalog 9
th
3.44 1.59 10
th
3.32 1.49 11
th
3.18 1.49 6
th
3.31 1.49 14
th
2.78 1.72
Admission representative 12
th
3.33 1.94 13
th
2.94 1.67 12
th
3.09 1.63 14
th
2.31 1.85 10
th
3.44 .88
High school teacher 13
th
2.89 1.62 12
th
3.02 1.40 15
th
2.43 1.51 11
th
2.81 1.60 14
th
2.78 1.20
Counselor 14
th
2.44 1.67 15
th
2.89 1.59 14
th
2.63 1.59 9
th
2.88 1.54 13
th
2.89 1.54
Alumni* 15
th
2.22 1.86 14
th
2.91 1.75 13
th
2.76 1.64 15
th
2.25 1.81 4
th
4.44 .73
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level

139
Table 35
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on SES
SES-1 SES-2 SES-3 SES-4 SES-U
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
University reputation* 1
st
4.50 1.70 3
rd
3.64 1.69 1
st
4.32 .72 1
st
4.42 .79 1
st
4.56 .62
Major reputation* 2
nd
4.19 1.33 5
th
3.14 1.83 2
nd
4.21 1.32 2
nd
4.17 1.12 4
th
3.78 1.17
Job placement reputation 3
rd
4.06 1.29 6
th
2.86 1.83 6
th
3.68 1.63 4
th
3.82 1.44 9
th
3.28 1.41
Mailing 4
th
3.94 1.12 1
st
3.71 1.20 5
th
3.89 .92 9
th
3.57 1.23 3
rd
3.83 .62
Parents/relatives 5
th
3.88 1.67 6
th
2.86 1.99 4
th
3.96 1.07 3
rd
3.86 1.22 2
nd
4.00 .84
USNWR 6
th
3.75 1.18 8
th
2.64 2.13 10
th
3.36 1.31 10
th
3.49 1.34 8
th
3.33 1.37
Friends* 7
th
3.69 1.40 10
th
2.57 1.91 11
th
3.29 1.54 6
th
3.74 1.19 5
th
3.50 1.04
Website 8
th
3.63 1.09 1
st
3.71 1.44 3
rd
4.04 .96 7
th
3.62 1.20 9
th
3.28 1.36
Faculty reputation 9
th
3.44 1.50 4
th
3.36 1.91 7
th
3.57 1.55 7
th
3.62 1.41 5
th
3.50 1.47
Catalog 10
th
3.31 1.40 8
th
2.64 1.74 8
th
3.54 1.45 11
th
3.33 1.44 15
th
2.56 1.69
High school teacher 11
th
3.19 1.72 13
th
2.07 1.77 15
th
2.79 1.37 15
th
2.76 1.45 13
th
2.78 1.26
Campus visit* 12
th
3.00 2.13 12
th
2.21 2.12 8
th
3.54 1.86 5
th
3.79 1.82 7
th
3.39 1.98
Counselor 13
th
2.56 1.67 11
th
2.29 2.05 14
th
2.86 1.41 14
th
2.83 1.57 14
th
2.72 1.49
Admission representative 14
th
2.44 1.97 13
th
2.07 1.94 12
th
3.21 1.60 12
th
3.13 1.58 12
th
2.89 1.57
Alumni 15
th
2.38 1.78 15
th
1.93 2.09 12
th
3.21 1.73 13
th
2.87 1.68 11
th
3.11 1.41
* Significant at the .05 level

140
Table 36
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on mother’s education
Mother-1 Mother-2 Mother-3 Mother-4 Mother-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
University reputation 1
st
4.60 .70 1
st
4.21 1.37 1
st
4.32 .67 1
st
4.33 .88 1
st
4.44 .87
Major reputation 2
nd
4.10 1.60 2
nd
3.79 1.58 3
rd
3.84 1.34 2
nd
4.10 1.26 2
nd
4.22 1.05
Job placement reputation 2
nd
4.10 1.60 7
th
3.36 1.65 6
th
3.51 1.48 4
th
3.79 1.48 7
th
3.72 1.52
Friends 2
nd
4.10 .57 10
th
3.07 1.73 10
th
3.19 1.53 8
th
3.53 1.33 4
th
3.83 1.14
Parents/relatives 5
th
3.90 1.52 3
rd
3.64 1.50 5
th
3.70 1.18 3
rd
3.90 1.17 4
th
3.83 1.45
USNWR 6
th
3.80 1.23 9
th
3.29 1.86 7
th
3.38 1.28 11
th
3.25 1.55 8
th
3.61 1.20
Campus visit 7
th
3.70 1.64 5
th
3.50 1.87 11
th
3.05 2.12 7
th
3.55 1.92 3
rd
3.86 1.79
Faculty reputation 7
th
3.70 1.57 7
th
3.36 1.50 7
th
3.38 1.61 9
th
3.48 1.47 6
th
3.81 1.37
Mailing 9
th
3.50 1.43 5
th
3.50 1.23 2
nd
4.03 .73 6
th
3.62 1.23 9
th
3.59 1.14
High school teacher 10
th
3.40 1.51 12
th
2.71 1.68 12
th
2.81 1.47 15
th
2.82 1.46 15
th
2.52 1.45
Website 11
th
3.10 1.79 3
rd
3.64 1.01 3
rd
3.84 .87 5
th
3.75 1.20 10
th
3.52 1.29
Admission representative 11
th
3.10 1.91 13
th
2.64 2.02 14
th
2.41 1.91 12
th
3.19 1.52 11
th
3.14 1.50
Catalog 13
th
2.90 1.60 10
th
3.07 1.86 9
th
3.32 1.38 10
th
3.34 1.53 11
th
3.14 1.45
Alumni 14
th
2.80 1.75 14
th
2.21 1.72 14
th
2.41 1.76 13
th
3.03 1.72 13
th
2.98 1.68
Counselor 15
th
2.60 2.01 15
th
2.14 1.61 13
th
2.73 1.58 14
th
2.96 1.59 14
th
2.72 1.51

141
Table 37
Rank order, mean and standard deviation of source importance based on father’s education
Father-1 Father-2 Father-3 Father-4 Father-5
Factor Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD
University reputation 1
st
4.30 .82 1
st
3.92 1.44 1
st
4.25 .62 1
st
4.56 .85 1
st
4.34 .83
Major reputation 2
nd
3.90 1.52 2
nd
3.75 1.71 2
nd
4.17 .84 2
nd
4.08 1.38 2
nd
4.12 1.11
Parents/relatives 3
rd
3.80 1.48 6
th
3.08 1.78 6
th
3.67 .89 6
th
3.81 1.36 3
rd
3.89 1.23
Faculty reputation 3
rd
3.80 1.55 7
th
3.00 1.76 6
th
3.67 .49 7
th
3.58 1.50 8
th
3.62 1.47
Friends 5
th
3.70 1.34 12
th
2.50 1.62 9
th
3.42 1.17 10
th
3.46 1.49 4
th
3.71 1.22
Job placement reputation 6
th
3.60 1.78 3
rd
3.50 1.78 3
rd
4.00 .85 5
th
3.83 1.46 5
th
3.66 1.50
USNWR 6
th
3.60 1.51 8
th
2.92 1.83 9
th
3.42 1.08 8
th
3.50 1.35 10
th
3.40 1.41
Mailing 8
th
3.50 1.35 5
th
3.33 .99 4
th
3.83 .94 3
rd
3.92 1.07 9
th
3.59 1.17
Campus visit 9
th
3.30 1.77 8
th
2.92 2.11 4
th
3.83 1.70 10
th
3.46 1.95 6
th
3.65 1.92
High school teacher 10
th
3.20 1.69 13
th
2.42 1.56 15
th
2.75 .97 15
th
2.73 1.59 15
th
2.71 1.44
Website 11
th
2.80 1.81 4
th
3.42 .90 8
th
3.58 1.00 4
th
3.90 1.15 7
th
3.64 1.18
Catalog 12
th
2.60 1.58 10
th
2.75 1.82 9
th
3.42 1.31 8
th
3.50 1.52 11
th
3.19 1.46
Counselor 13
th
2.50 1.90 14
th
1.83 1.34 14
th
2.92 1.51 14
th
2.77 1.60 14
th
2.83 1.56
Admission representative 14
th
2.30 2.00 11
th
2.58 1.88 12
th
3.17 1.47 12
th
3.10 1.79 12
th
3.03 1.55
Alumni 14
th
2.30 1.77 14
th
1.83 1.53 13
th
3.08 1.62 12
th
3.10 1.68 13
th
2.87 1.72

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation studied how institutional factors and sources of influence affected the enrollment decisions of natural science students admitted to a selective, private research institution. In terms of institutional factors, participants were asked to rate both the importance of factors and how satisfied they were with these factors at the survey institution. Institutional factors were divided into four sub-categories: cost-related factors, campus-related factors, academic opportunities and extra-curricular opportunities. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of sources of information/influence on their final enrollment decision

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Factors influencing admissions counselors’ ability to increase the number of African American males in a private college: a gap analysis

PDF

An awareness of local identity: influence of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific (HAP) issues course at Kapi‘olani Community College

PDF

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

PDF

What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help through math tutoring?

PDF

Chinese students’ college choice: targeting the U.S as the top study destination

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Enrollment and financial aid decisions of first-year students at a private institution

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

Fulfillment of a regional college promise: lessons from the first year, first cohort

PDF

Dual-enrollment program implementation to address the problem of college affordability as a barrier to student access and a contributing factor toward student debt

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Traditional media, social media or word-of-mouth? Examining the information sources that influence Chinese students' decision-making processes when applying to U.S. graduate schools

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

Decisions under influence: college presidents' athletics-related decision-making behavior at NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision institutions

PDF

Experiences of Latina student-mothers in community college: a study based in community cultural wealth

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Samuel (author)

Core Title College choice of natural science students: the factors and sources that influence enrollment decisions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/06/2009

Defense Date 02/18/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag admission,Attitude,college choice,OAI-PMH Harvest,Satisfaction

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Jun, Alexander (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email samuelk@usc.edu,skim1216@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2466

Unique identifier UC1481335

Identifier etd-Kim-3088 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-174262 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2466 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kim-3088.pdf

Dmrecord 174262

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kim, Samuel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu