Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2014) 23(3):451462

DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y

REGULAR ARTICLE

Does Reputation Matter? Case Study of Undergraduate Choice

at a Premier University
Susila Munisamy Noor Ismawati Mohd Jaafar
Shyamala Nagaraj

Published online: 12 September 2013

De La Salle University 2013

Abstract The changing facets of the Malaysian higher

education created market-based competition among higher
education institutions. With increasing competition in the
higher education environment, a clearer understanding of
why and how students choose universities is more important to help universities develop their marketing strategies.
This paper investigates the reasons for pursuing higher
education and the key factors influencing their decision to
study at university. This paper also considers the issue of
whether the lower fees and reputation of a premier university is adequate to attract the best students. The data
from a sample of 1st-year undergraduate students enrolled
in various courses at the University of Malaya were analysed using coherence analysis and logistic regression. The
study infers latent factors affecting university choice and
uses a model that allows the interaction of these multiple
factors. The findings suggest that career prospects and
reputation of the University and its programmes were the
most important factors in the students decision of a place
to further studies. Significant others in the life of the student as well as the students own desire for personal
development are strong influences that lead the student to
consider reputation of the University. While the reputation
of the University of Malaya is extremely important, the
lower fee structure plays an important role in university
choice. The university needs to be proactive in recruiting

S. Munisamy  N. I. Mohd Jaafar (&)

Department of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Economics and
Administration, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: nimj@um.edu.my
S. Nagaraj
Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA

students. The marketing of educational services is important, both to create a favourable image and as well to
successfully recruit the best students.
Keywords University choice  Higher education 
Student recruitment  Competition  University reputation

In the context of increasing competition for home-based

and overseas students, most universities recognize that they
need to market themselves to drive enrolment and build
image. With a tighter budget and increasing competition in
the higher education environment, the need to understand
the motivation of students to pursue higher education and
the key factors involved in their choice are more important.
A clearer understanding of why and how students choose
universities will help universities to develop successful and
sophisticated recruitment strategies.
However, understanding the process of student decision
making in the choice in higher education is not an easy
task. The decision-making process is complex and subject
to multiple influences that not only interact with each other
but also change over time. In fact, the university choice
decision-making process is a set of nested decisions where
the first decision is whether or not to pursue higher education. At this stage of information gathering, the advice of
counsellors, teachers, parents and friends have a great
influence. Once the decision to obtain higher education is
made, the next level of decision making is the type of
institution to attend with various choices that include
research-intensive, technology, metropolitan and regional
universities. This is followed by the choice of the institution and the programme to enrol in. This stage is influenced
by the characteristics of the institution such as reputation
and quality, cost, availability of field of study, proximity to

123

452

home, etc. as well as the individuals characteristics such as

socio-economic background and gender.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons for
students to pursue higher education and to identify the key
factors that influence the students decision about their
choice of institution. The paper also discusses whether the
lower fees structure of a public university combined with a
reputation of being a premier university is adequate to
attract the best students.
In the investigations of student choice in higher education, most studies were concerned about the influencing
factors affecting prospective students choice of which
university to attend. Although many studies have tried to
investigate the influence of institutional and student characteristics in the university choice process, few have tried
to infer latent factors affecting choice or to analyse the
influence of factors through a model that allows the interaction of multiple factors. This study summarizes information about latent factors affecting choice and goes on to
show how multiple factors interact to create a complex
university choice nexus. Hence, this study describes how
multiple characteristics of the institution and individual
jointly impact on the decision-making process.

Higher Education in Malaysia

Malaysia has seen an explosive growth in its tertiary education sector in the last 2 decades. This has been demonstrated by the rise in enrolments in public and private
universities, and the proliferation of more private universities and the establishment of foreign universities. In line
with its aim of making Malaysia an educational hub at least
for Asia if not the world, the Government has liberalised
the education sector in stages since the 1990s so that foreign universities can participate in the education sector in a
variety of ways, from offering degree programmes to
twinning programmes to the setting up of branch campuses.
To date, there are 20 public universities in different parts of
the country, 28 private universities, 6 Malaysian campuses
of foreign universities, 22 private university colleges, and
more than 400 colleges approved by the Malaysian government Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE 2011). The
percentage of students enrolled in the first degree programmes has increased by 77 % over the period
20002011 (Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
2011), indicating an enrolment increase of about 7 % per
annum. The mushrooming of higher education institutions
(HEIs) in Malaysia has increased the choice students have
in selecting a university to pursue their tertiary education.
The HEIs are operating in a different market than they did
2 decades ago, they are now operating in a climate of

123

S. Munisamy et al.

international competition for home-based and international

students created by liberalisation and globalization.
As the competition between public, private and foreign
universities to attract students becomes stiffer, the public
universities recognize the need to strategically position
themselves in the market through marketing activities to
recruit the best students. Although public universities in
Malaysia are deemed to have an upper hand in the share of
students due to student admission through the Admission
Board at the Ministry of Higher Education, being partly
government sponsored and having a distinctively lower fee
structure, unlike private universities, statistics reveal that
the percentage enrolled in Malaysian public educational
institutions of higher learning has decreased from 74 % in
2000 (Malaysia, Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006) to 62 % in
2011 (MOHE 2011). Coupled with strict budgetary constraints on tertiary education spending among public HEIs,
universities are forced to become more image savvy and
more proactive in their marketing endeavours to attract
highly desirable students. Paramewaran and Glowacka
(1995), in their study of university image, found that HEIs
need to maintain or develop a distinct image in order to
create a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive market.
Malaysian public universities have made very little
progress in implementing marketing strategies for a long
period of time. Marketing to prospective undergraduate
students in public universities is minimal especially when
contrasted with its private sector competitors who aggressively recruit students. This is because of two reasons. The
first is the mode of entry into public Universities. Students
admission to public university is through a central clearing
house at the Ministry of Higher Education, unlike private
universities. This Admission Board is responsible for the
allocation of public university places to students. The
Malaysian students apply to universities through this central office which assigns students to university, based on
their results. The universities themselves have no part in
the selection of students. The Malaysian applicant can
provide a choice of (public) universities and programmes,
but he or she will be assigned to one university and it may
even be for a university and/or programme that he or she
did not apply for. Thus, the state decides for the university
how many students to admit and whom to admit to which
programmes. Therefore, a continuous pool of student is
ensured. A second reason for lack of interest in attracting
the right number and the right mix of students is because
the public universities have been historically supported and
funded to some extend by the government which ensured a
constant stream of income to finance operations. Therefore,
they did not depend on tuition fees and need not attract
students to ensure that sufficient funds are available. In this

Does Reputation Matter

regard, the public universities have been sheltered from a

truly competitive market.
Against this scenario, the University of Malaya (UM) is
an interesting case. The University is a public university
established in 1949 in Singapore, with the merger of King
Edward VII College of Medicine (founded in 1905) and
Raffles Medical College and Raffles College (founded in
1928). The growth of the university was very rapid during
the first decade of its establishment and this resulted in the
setting up of two autonomous Divisions in 1959 which
later changed status into national universities in 1960. It is
the first university to produce graduates in Malaysia and
sees itself as the premier university in the country with a
strategic campus located within the heart of capital city of
the country, Kuala Lumpur. Today the university hosts
around 26,000 students of whom roughly 14,380 are
undergraduates. About 13 % of the Universitys students
are from overseas. There is about 2,440 academic staff with
24 faculties, academies, institutes and research centres that
cover the whole spectrum of learning from Arts, Sciences
and Humanities. Many universities take part in ranking and
rating exercises which are regarded as clear drivers of
universitys behaviour and the UM is no exception to this.
Nationally, UM is rated as 5 (out of six stars) in Rating
System for Malaysian Higher Education Institution (SETARA) since 2007 and is the only university rated with five
stars out of 20 other HEIs when it was initially introduced
in 2007 (Kaur and Chapman 2008; Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia 2010, 2012). In the international
arena, the UM is within the top 200 world universities in
the QS World University Ranking 2012 and remains the
top in Malaysia at No. 169 in the world and at No. 35 in
Asia. The ranking emphasizes UMs achievements in
research and the achievements of its alumni.

Literature Review
A systematic review of the literature on higher education
marketing is provided by Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006)
and later by Stachowski (2011). Marketing plays a significant
role in student recruitment (Taylor and Darling 1991; Canterbury 1999; Nichols et al. 1995; Coates 1998; Biggin 2000
and Foskett et al. 2003 as quoted by Briggs 2006; Judson et al.
2004). According to Ivy (2008), with the wide variety of
qualifications and degree offerings available and the increased
level of competition, the need for institutions to differentiate
themselves and stand out has become self-evident, resulting in
the increased importance of the role of marketing in student
recruitment. Kotler and Fox (1985) provided a definition of
education marketing as early as 1985, describing marketing in
the context of education as: the analysis, planning, implementation and control of carefully formulated programs

453

designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of values with a

target market to achieve organisational objectives. Later in
the 1990s, researchers defined higher education marketing
more narrowly as marketing communications (Gatfield et al.
1999; Hesketh and Knight 1999). Marketing communication
was based on the assumption that in order to market itself
successfully, any higher education institution needs to
examine the decision-making process and prospective students search for information.
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identify three uniquely
definable stages in students decision making in the
selection of an institution of higher education or subject of
study: (a) predisposition (when students decide if they wish
to continue on to tertiary education); (b) search (when
students begin to investigate potential providers); and
(c) choice decision (when students decide on attending a
particular institution as students tend to make multiple
applications). The third aspect, choice decision of university, is the focus of this paper.
A number of factors have been found to affect university
choice. Table 1 presents some of the studies that have
concentrated on the factors that influence students choices
of institution.
The factors that influence students choices of institution
may be grouped broadly into institutional characteristics and
students or individuals characteristics. Four factors related
to the institution, mentioned repeatedly in the literature, are
reputationincluding brand name, achievements and high
standard of education; financial issuesspecifically costs
and availability of aid; campus attributesincluding location, setting, campus atmosphere and facilities; and career
prospectsincluding graduates employment prospects,
expected income and employers views of graduates. James
et al. (1999) found that there is a relationship between types
of university and factors influencing the students decision.
They classified university as research-intensive, technology,
metropolitan or regional university.
The (academic) reputation of the institution is a factor
ranked high in the literature. The concept of organizational
reputation has been defined as (a) assessments that multiple
stakeholders make about the companys ability to fulfil its
expectations over time (Fombrun and Van Riel 2003), (b) a
collective system of subjective beliefs among members of a
social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000, 2002), (c) collective
beliefs that exist in the organizational field about a firms
identity and prominence (Rao 1994), (d) media visibility
and favorability gained by a firm (Deephouse 2000),
(e) outsiders perceptions about an organizations current
performance and future behaviours (Carmeli 2005), and
(f) collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time (Grunig and
Hung 2002; Yang and Grunig 2005; Yang 2007). Therefore, the similarity of those definitions is that the reputation

123

454

S. Munisamy et al.

Table 1 Summary of a sample of empirical research on student decision making

Reference

Country

Al Jamil et al. (2012)

Bangladesh

Factors influencing choice

Education quality

Student politics

Cost of the study

An (2009)

USA

Family background

Parental investments

Social background

Parental education

Fernandez (2010)

Malaysia

Strong business links

Availability of programmes

Good reputation

Courses that suit the students needs

Adequate facilities
James et al. (1999)

Joseph et al. (2012)

Australia

USA

Availability of field of study preferences

Career opportunities

Course and institutional

Approaches to teaching and learning

Reputation and quality

Graduate satisfaction

Reputation

Quality of teaching
Facilities

Selectivity

Cost

Personal interaction
Kusumawati et al. (2010)

Indonesia

Cost

Job prospect

Reputation

Influence of parents

Proximity to home
Yusof et al. (2008)

Malaysia

Availability of programmed interested in

Finance
Industry expectation
Location

Norbahiah Misran et al. (2012)

Malaysia

Paik and Shim (2012)

Korea

Poo et al. (2012)

Malaysia

Social economic status (parents education, occupation and income)

Gender

Subject matter preferences

Parental education

School size

Financial aid

University image

Safety of the campus

Accommodation

Academic reputation
Raposo and Alves (2007)
Sidin et al. (2003)

Portugal
Malaysia

Personal factors
Academic quality

Influence of others
Income

Facilities

Procedures and policies

Campus surroundings

Entry requirements

Personal characteristics
Soutar and Turner (2002)
Veloutsou et al. (2004)

Australia
England, Scotland
and Northern Ireland

Course suitability

Job prospects

Academic reputation

Teaching quality

Local infrastructure

Business contacts

Local social life

Universitys reputation

Career prospects

Course studied

Universitys infrastructure

Campus

Universitys social life

Wagner and Fard (2009)

Malaysia

Cost of education

Value of education

Degree (content and structure)

Institutional information

Physical aspect and facilities

Influences from family, friends, peers

of an organization refers to public perceptions of the

organization shared by its multiple constituents over time
(Sung and Yang 2008). The reputation or prestige of an
academic institution is indicated by various university
ranking systems, perception of society overall and positive
media coverage.

123

According to Gatfield et al. (1999), the prestige or reputation for quality of an institution is often more important
than its actual quality, because it represents the perceived
excellence of the institution which guides the decisions of
prospective students to enrol with the institution. Maringe
and Gibbs (2009) conceptualised reputation of an institution

Does Reputation Matter

from the perspective of the consumer (student) who has

many choices due to the variety of providers in the education
market. They identified four key perspectives of organizational reputation applicable to the higher learning environment which are public relations, marketing communication,
crisis/risk management and corporate branding perspective.
In the context of this paper, reputation is discussed from the
corporate branding perspective which is about positive
assumptions on the university and/or programme and the
perceived image. The present image of an institution comes
about from its past record. A strong favourable image is built
as a result of an institutions performance, academic ranking
and deriving real satisfaction from the institution and
informing the public about this. Building a respected identity
gives an institution a competitive advantage.
Research also evidenced the vital role reputation plays
for all types of HEIs i.e. public university (James et al.
1999; Joseph et al. 2012; Kusumawati et al. 2010; Veloutsou et al. 2004), private university (Al Jamil et al.
2012; Haji Hassan and Mohamad Sheriff 2006; Keling
et al. 2007; Baharun et al. 2011; Padlee et al. 2010) and
international branched campus (Wilkins and Huisman
2011; Wilkins et al. 2011). Reputation is also a critical
factor in choosing the right university in Malaysia (Ancheh
et al. 2007; Keling et al. 2007; Koe and Saring 2012; Lau
2009; Yusof et al., 2008; Norbahiah Misran et al. 2012;
Haji Hassan and Mohamad Sheriff 2006; Poo et al. 2012;
Samsinar et al. 2003; Wagner and Fard 2009).

Methodology
Sample and Instrument
This study was conducted in the UM and involved a survey
of 880 1st-year students comprising all 1st-year students
enrolled at the Faculty of Economics and Administration,
and their randomly selected 1st-year friends from other
faculties. In view of the effect of subject choice, it was
important to select students from across faculties on campus. The respondents were both from arts-based and science-based faculties and majored in the fields of
economics, business, education, linguistic, engineering,
medical, computer science, sciences, etc. The questionnaires were distributed by students of a project in the
course Statistic I over a 3-week period. Based on the literature, respondents were asked to rate the importance of a
list of nine reasons for furthering study at an institution of
higher learning (listed in Table 2) and 13 reasons for
choosing UM (listed in Table 3) using a five-point Likert
scale. Social demographic and economic background of
respondent and their parents were also included in the
questionnaire.

455

Statistical Analysis
The main statistical analyses deployed in this study are
coherence analysis and logistic regression. The coherence
analysis is conducted to study the patterns of relationship
among many factors in order to group and to infer latent
factors which are more generalized. In other words, it
summarizes information about latent factors affecting
choice. The coherence analysis is done for reasons for
furthering study and reasons for choosing UM. Past
studies have used factor analysis (Al Jamil et al. 2012;
Baharun et al. 2011; Samsinar et al. 2003; Veloutsou et al.
2004) and Structural Equation Modelling (Raposo and
Alves 2007) while some just use descriptive statistics
(Fernandez 2010; Norbahiah Misran et al. 2012), t test for
independent sample (Norbahiah Misran et al. 2012) and
analysis of variance (Baharun et al. 2011; Yusof et al.
2008). Unlike these studies, we use an index first proposed
to measure the inter-business relatedness (Teece et al.
1994)1 or better known as coherence analysis. Previously,
it has been used to measure the relatedness between firms
diversification strategy (Valcano and Vannoni 2003;
Karthik and Basant 2004) and the obstacles to innovation
faced by manufacturing firms (Lim and Nagaraj 2007). The
principle of the coherence analysis is to find the relationship between two categorical variables, by generating a
value, to show the relatedness of any two tested categorical
variables. In the analysis, it focuses on a reason being cited
as extremely important. By comparing the observed number with the number of links that would emerge from
random grouping, the coherence score between reason
i and j indicates the propensity for reason i and reason j to
be jointly cited as being extremely important. The average
coherence score for reason i reflects the average propensity
for this reason to be jointly cited as extremely important
with all other reasons. The score is considered to be high if
the absolute value exceeds 1.96.2
Next, a logistic regression is carried out to identify
factors affecting the perceived views on reputation, using
the latent factors discovered in the earlier analysis. The
logistic regression equation is given by
px
1  px
b 0 b 1 x 1 b 2 x 2 b 3 x 3 . . . bn x n

logitpx log

where p = probability of Y = 1, 0 B p B 1,

The term coherence has special meanings is business, economics

and physics. Here, we use it in the sense of a state of cohering, of
consistent relationship of parts.
2
The score is a standardized variable from the hypergeometric
distribution. We have assumed a = 0.05. For the calculation, see the
Appendix.

123

456

S. Munisamy et al.

Table 2 Reasons for furthering

study at an Institution of Higher
Learning

Source From the survey data

Reason

Cited not
important
at all (%)

Cited most
important (%)

Average coherence score for

reason to be jointly cited with
other reasons as most important
for furthering studies

To get a good job

0.3

59.6

6.97

Next step in career path

0.1

55.7

7.27

To gain more knowledge

Personal interest in a field of study

0.2
0.6

49.3
41.4

6.98
5.92

To broaden my experience

0.7

40.3

8.09

Parental expectations

5.0

22.0

7.24

Teachers expectations

8.4

12.8

7.46

Friends are going to university too

18.3

10.0

4.91

To have a good time

16.2

8.7

2.48

Table 3 Choosing the University of Malaya

Reason

Cited not
important
at all (%)

Cited most
important (%)

Average coherence score for

reason to be jointly cited with
other reasons as most important
for choosing UM

Average coherence score for

reason to be jointly cited with
reasons as most important for
furthering studies

Good job prospects

1.0

44.5

7.9

80.4

Good reputation of UM

1.0

39.3

8.6

74.5

Offers the programme I am interested in

1.1

37.5

7.8

72.2

Good reputation of programme

0.8

33.0

8.3

56.1

UM has good links with industry

2.0

29.4

8.3

52.5

Cheaper than private universities

12.4

27.7

4.6

27.5

Good university facilities

4.0

24.8

7.8

41.4

Better starting salary for UM graduates

4.7

21.4

7.3

33.9

Teachers recommendation

5.2

13.2

8.2

37.6

Close to home

39.5

12.9

2.7

9.0

Recommendation from UM graduates

Good social life in UM

12.7
8.2

10.0
10.0

7.6
7.3

27.7
24.7

Enjoy living in Klang Valley

28.1

7.0

4.0

8.6

Source From the survey data

expb0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 . . . bn xn
1  expb0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 . . . bn xn

with Y = dependent variable, b0 is the constant, xi is the

independent variable/predictor variable and bi is the coefficient of xi.
In this study Reputation is the dependent variable while
Relative Costs, Personal Development, Career Prospect
and Significant Others are treated as independent variables
(presented in Table 4).
Profile of Respondents
The sample of 880 students comprised mostly female students (71 %), not very different from that for the university
as a whole, reflecting the predominance of women to men

123

among university students. However, there were more

students from the arts-based faculties (78.1 %), much larger than that for the university as a whole (51.3 %), likely a
reflection of the sampling design which was based on
friends of students from the Faculty of Economics and
Administration. Most of the students are aged between 20
and 22, although the range was from 19 to 33. Most of the
students had taken the STPM (equivalent to A-levels),
came from partially or fully funded government schools,
and over a half were from urban areas. About 4.9 % of
fathers/guardians and about 6.1 % of mothers had no formal education. In contrast, about 11.5 % of fathers/
guardians and 6.9 % of mothers had at least an undergraduate degree. About 43.9 % of fathers/guardians and
53.5 % of working mothers were in professional, technical
or administrative jobs.

Does Reputation Matter

457

Results
Motivation to Pursue Higher Education and the Choice
of University of Malaya
The analyses of reasons for choosing to pursue higher
education and for choosing UM are based on the (i) percentage that cited the reason as not important at all, (ii)
percentage that cited the reason as extremely important,
and (iii) average coherence with other reasons to be cited as
most important. The first measure tells us how unimportant
a reason is and the second how important it is. The third
measure summarizes a latent construct of interrelated
groups of factors affecting choice.
Table 2 provides information related to the reasons for
furthering study at an institution of higher learning. Five
reasons stand out for being rated extremely important.
These are to get a good job (59.6 %), the next step in the
career path (55.7 %), to gain more knowledge (49.3 %),
personal interest in the field of study (41.4 %) and to
broaden experience (40.3 %). Very few students considered these reasons unimportant (less than 1 %). Other
reasons for furthering their studies were parental expectation (22 %), teachers expectation (12.8 %), influence of
friends who are going to university (10.0 %) and to have a
good time (8.7 %). These reasons also saw greater percentages of students citing them as unimportant, the lowest
being for parental expectation (5 %) and the highest being
for friends going to university (18.3 %). It is interesting to
note that unlike studies elsewhere (Baharun et al., 2011;
Samsinar et al. 2003) the role of parents is greater than that
of peers, which is consistent with Fernandez (2010). For all
the reasons, the average coherence for reasons to be jointly
cited as extremely important is more than what would be
predicted by random grouping. Based on these average
scores and the scores in Appendix Table 7, the following
interrelated groups of extremely important reasons for
furthering studies are broadly identified: (1) Career prospects: combines get a good job with next step in career

path and personal development attributes; (2) Personal

development: combines gain more knowledge, personal
interest in a field of study and to broaden experience and
(3) Influence of Significant others (family, teachers and
peers): combines parental expectations, teachers
expectations and friends going to university too, personal
development and career prospects. The result is consistent
with motivation factors for furthering study at Malaysian
public HEI by study conducted among similar focus group
(Fernandez 2010) and studies among high school leavers
and/or pre-university students (Norbahiah Misran et al.
2012; Wagner and Fard 2009).
We now turn to the choice of the UM. Table 3 portrays
that the majority of the students thought of UM as the first
choice or only choice (69.1 %). Having alumni parents had
no significant effect among these students (v2 = 0.17,
p = 0.30). Table 3 provides information related to the
reasons for choosing the UM. The top four reasons that
were found extremely important by the students were good
job prospects (44.5 %), the reputation of the university
(39.3 %), the programme offered (37.5 %) and the reputation of the programme (33.0 %). Very few students found
these unimportant (about 1 %). The UMs link with
industry (29.4 %), cost (27.7 %), university facilities
(24.8 %) and better staring salaries for UM graduates
(21.4 %) were the other major factors in the choice of
studying at UM. Compared to earlier set of reasons, more
students found these reasons unimportant; in particular,
12.4 % thought perceived cost was unimportant. This study
supports the finding of Fernandez (2010) who identified
facilities as one of the important reasons for university
choice, in contrast with Yusof et al. (2008).
A much smaller percentage of students found other
reasons like teachers recommendation, close to home,
recommendation from alumni, good social life and enjoy
living in the Klang Valley extremely important, but it is
also pertinent to note that very few found them unimportant. For all the reasons, the average coherence for reasons
to be jointly cited as extremely important is more than what

Table 4 Variables based on extremely important reasons entering the univariate regression analyses
Variable name

Indicators* = 1 if the following are jointly cited as being extremely important

Results of significance
tests with reputation

Reputation

Good reputation of University, offers programme I am interested

in and good reputation of programme

NA

Relative cost

Cheaper than private universities

v2 = 16.5, p = 0.00

Personal development

Gain more knowledge, personal interest in a field of study and

to broaden experience

v2 = 112.6, p = 0.00

Career Prospect

Get a good job with next step in career path

v2 = 34.6, p = 0.00

Significant others

Parental expectations, teachers expectations and friends going to university too

v2 = 36.1, p = 0.00

Source From the survey data

NA not applicable

123

458

would be predicted by random grouping. Based on these

average scores and the scores in Appendix Table 8, the
following interrelated groups of extremely important reasons for choosing UM are broadly identified: (1) Employability of graduates: combines good links with industry,
good job prospects and better starting salary and perceived reputation of quality of programme; (2) Reputation
of quality of programme: combines good reputation of
University, offers programme I am interested in and
good reputation of programme; (3) Influence of significant
others: combines recommendations from University
graduates, teachers recommendations and perceived
reputation of quality of programme; and (4) Costs: which
combines cheaper than private universities with living in
Klang Valley and close to home, and all other reasons.
These results appear consistent with the results of reasons
for furthering studies in terms of career prospects.
The last column of Table 3 also shows the average
coherence scores for each reason to be jointly cited as
extremely important with reasons for choosing to go to
university. The reasons related to job prospects, reputation
and offering the relevant programme score very high. This
suggests that students chose UM because this would
enhance their job prospects and ensure the marketability of
their qualification. This view is further supported by a
comparison of the highest academic level aspired to
between those who stated UM was the first or only choice
and the others, which was found to be significantly different (v2 = 21.1, p = 0.00). Although initially surprising,
this indicates that students selected UM as their first choice
because they wanted a reputable degree to enter the job
market.
Factors Affecting Perceived Reputation
Having established that reputation does matter, next, we
conduct a logistic regression analysis to investigate factors
affecting perceived views on reputation. The definitions of
the variables are based on the findings of the coherence
analyses. Reputation is the dependent variable while relative costs, personal development, career prospect and significant others are independent variables. Table 4 shows the
definition of the variables which is based on extremely
important reasons, while Table 5 presents students characteristic factors entering the regression analysis alongside as
independent variables, i.e. gender, education, fathers education, CGPA and age. Both tables also show the results of
the univariate analyses against the dependent variable,
Reputation. Relative Cost, Personal Development,
Career Prospect, Significant Others, Male and EducF are all
significantly different across the two values of Reputation.
The proportions of Reputation = 1 are all higher than that
for Reputation = 0 (not shown) for each of these variables.

123

S. Munisamy et al.
Table 5 Other student characteristic variables entering the univariate
regression analyses
Variable Name Description

Summary information

Male

=1 if gender is male

v2 = 6.4, p = 0.01

Rural

=1 if secondary school
was in a rural area

v2 = 0.1, p = 0.76

EducF

=1 if fathers highest
educational level
[ Form Five

v2 = 4.0, p = 0.05

CGPA

CGPA of previous semester F = 2.42, p = 0.12

Age

Age of respondent

F = 1.42, p = 0.23

Source From the survey data

However, Rural, CGPA and Age are not significantly different across the two values of Reputation. The proportion
of those who viewed Reputation as extremely important and
those who did not were significantly different among those
who stated that the Relative Cost, Personal Development,
Career Prospect or Significant Others is an extremely
important reason for furthering studies at a higher education
institution. The same was observed among males or those
that had a father who was educated.
On the other hand, the finding show no significant difference between the proportion of those who viewed reputation as extremely important and those who did not
among students based on the criteria of location of secondary school, academic performance or age.
The results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses are reported in Table 6. Personal Development, Significant Others and Male are all highly significant at the
5 % level, while Relative Costs, Career Prospect and
CGPA are significant at the 10 % level. EducF, Rural and
Age are no longer significant. Relative Cost and CGPA are
the only regressor variables that are correlated but the
exclusion of either do not lead to substantial changes in
their coefficients. The results show that the odds ratio that
reputation is 1 is 4.5 times greater when Personal Development is 1 than when Personal Development is 0. That is,
the student who is pursuing a higher level educational
programme because he or she believes personal development to be extremely important is 4.5 times more likely to
choose UM for its reputation than a student who does not
believe personal development to be extremely important. A
similar interpretation applies for the other significant
variables. Significant Others has as strong effect as Personal development. Relative cost, career prospect, being
male and CGPA have strong effects with the odds ratio
exceeding 1.5. That is, those who said the University was
cheaper than private universities, those who said career
prospects were extremely important for pursuing higher
education, those who were better students academically
and those who were males had a greater likelihood of

Does Reputation Matter

459

finding reputation to be extremely important. The result

from the multivariate logistic regression analysis reveals
that students who were motivated to study at a HEI due to
desire for personal development, significant others in the
life of the students, academic ability, being male and career
prospects will be more likely to choose UM because of its
reputation. Social economic status (EducF and rural), previous students academic performance (CGPA) and
demographic variable (age) did not play a significant role.
This is in contrast with Looker and Lowe (2001) who
found social economic status to be a significant factor in
university choice; but concedes with Norbahiah Misran
et al. (2012) who showed evidence of no significant difference in the selection criteria between lower social economic status and higher status students. While Paik and
Shim (2012) acknowledge the role of gender, the biases in
gender and socio-economic status are not found to be
significant by Samsinar et al. (2003).

Discussion
Having established that reputation does matter, the question arises whether the lower fees and reputation of a
premier university is adequate to attract the best students.
Does a premier university like UM, in a sector that has
rivals, need to market itself among school leavers or can it
bank on its lower public fee structure and long-established
reputation to do the needful? UM is the oldest University
and for a very long time was the only university in the
country. The expansion in the tertiary education sector has
been remarkable only from the late 1990s, and reputations
of younger universities will take time to be built. The
reputation of the University should be matched against the
cost of its undergraduate education. With the governments
education loan which covers fees and cost of living in a
public university but covers only partially the fees in a
Table 6 Estimates of log odds ratios for reputation deploying multivariate regression analyses
Variable name

Log odds ratio

Standard error

P value

Relative Cost

1.420

0.311

0.109

Personal Development

4.529

1.009

0.000

Career Prospect

1.521

0.337

0.059

Significant Others

4.107

1.725

0.001

Male

1.643

0.357

0.022

Rural

1.002

0.213

0.991

EducF

1.394

0.320

0.149

CGPA

1.504

0.339

0.070

Age

1.128

0.132

0.304

Source From the survey data

v2 = 105.78, Pseudo R2 = 0.14, p value = 0.00

private institution, education at UM is certainly value for

money. However, if its reputation declines or the cost of
education rises, then the University may look much less
attractive. Furthermore, the University will have to be
proactive in attracting the best students who will be considering alternative universities with good reputation and
better funding. If UM is to remain the University of First
Choice in a expanding competitive education sector, it
needs to maintain and enhance its prestige amongst the
stakeholders of the education process, which include prospective students, their parents, teachers, career advisors,
schools as well as employers. To this end, marketing of
educational services becomes an important aspect of educational management both to create a favourable image and
as well to successfully recruit high-quality students.
Further, the findings of this study reveal that reputation
is an important criterion for males in the choice of university. Reputation of the university would enhance career
prospects and starting salaries of young graduates. Hence
the findings would lend support to studies suggesting that
the men select reputable universities because of anticipated
labour market payoff. In contrast, the females in this study
did not find reputation as an important criterion. Hence, the
question arises as to whether the women choose universities based on the supportiveness of the university or are
they deflected from the careers goals as they get involved
in romance and/or plan to settled down to look after their
families. This is an important question for future research.

Conclusion and Implication

This study investigates the reasons for students to pursue
higher education and the key factors influencing the students decision to further their studies at UM. It also analysed the patterns of relationship among many factors to
summarize information about latent factors affecting university choice.
This study has shown that the most important reasons
for pursuing higher education are career prospects and
personal development, while the most important factors
influencing the choice of institution (i.e. UM) are
employability/career prospects and the reputation of the
university and its programmes. The influence of significant
others and lower fee structure were also found to be pertinent. The reputation of the UM, both as a provider of
content as well as a brand that obtains a premium in the
workplace for its graduates, plays an extremely important
role in the students choice of university. Significant others
in the life of the student, especially parents, as well as the
students own desire for personal development are strong
influences that lead the student to consider reputation of the
University. Career prospects, academic ability and gender

123

460

S. Munisamy et al.

separately and jointly impact on the university decisionmaking process by considering reputation. Specifically, this
study shows how educational background, socio-economic
class, secondary school attended, age, gender, desire for
personal development and significant family and friends
interact to create a complex university choice nexus. For
future research, other physiological factors such as culture,
social class and life aspirations could be included in the
analysis.

also play a role in directing the student to consider reputation. It is to be noted that these factors relate to the UM.
Therefore, not all of them will necessarily apply to other
universities in the country and there may be other relevant
factors not taken into account which affect the decisionmaking process of university students.
The findings of this study have important implications
for strategic marketing to stakeholders by HEIs. In a
market that has become competitive, HEIs must build a
successful image both among prospective students and
among employers to maintain an advantageous position in
the market. This is especially important because HEIs
provide a service that is intangible and a positive reputation
reduces the risk of stakeholders such as potential employers and prospective students in the choice of candidates and
a higher education institution, respectively. To this end, the
best reputation management practise has to be exercised.
Hence, the marketing of educational services becomes
vital. The marketing approach should orientate towards
customer needs to create a brand image that guarantees the
institutions sustainability in a market-orientated system.
Further, Kotler (2004) suggests that competition in the
future will have a strong network orientation. According to
him a marketing network consists of a company and its
supporting stakeholders (parties), with whom it has built
mutually profitable business relationships. Increasingly,
competition is not between companies, but marketing
networks. Applying this theory in the context of student
recruitment, institutions should build an extended marketing network to attain future success. To achieve this, HEIs
should build relationships with alumni, key feeder schools
and colleges, other institutions nearby that may provide
referrals and even employers in order to build brand image
and connect with the target market.
Another contribution of this paper is the focus on the
intersection of multiple factors in the university choice
process. The study describes how institutional characteristics and parts of complex human characteristics

Highlights and Contribution

There is no previous literature covering the university
selection process of Malaysian students, although there has
been some work done on marketing issues. This paper not
only fills a gap in the literature on the students choice of
university entry in Malaysia, but also considers a bigger
issue. Does a premier university like the University of
Malaya in a sector that has rivals such as the Malaysian
campuses of Monash University (Australia) and Nottingham (United Kingdom) have to market itself among
school-leavers or can it bank on its lower public fee
structure and long established reputation to do the needful?
In examining the university selection process of University
of Malaya students, this paper considers the issue of
whether the lower fees and reputation of a premier university is adequate to attract the best students. The findings
suggest that while the reputation of the University of
Malaya is extremely important, the lower fee structure
plays an important role. The university needs to be proactive in recruiting students.
Acknowledgments This research is funded by University of Malaya
under Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FS174/2008A).

Appendix
See Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7 Coherence scores for 36 pairs of reasons for furthering studies at an Institution of Higher Learning
Reason

17.39
9.86

9.55

To gain more knowledge

Personal interest in a field of study
To get a good job

9.51
8.32

7.14

13.59

10.20

8.34

To have a good time

0.74

2.92

0.94

4.88

Next step in career path

8.86

7.48

14.96

9.17

2.11

Parental expectations

5.58

3.75

6.54

6.75

2.19

5.89

Teachers expectations
Friends are going to university too

6.62
2.63

4.45
1.94

5.62
3.88

7.79
4.00

1.84
4.19

6.44
3.22

To broaden my experience

Source From the survey data

123

Does Reputation Matter

461

Table 8 Coherence scores for 91 pairs of reasons for choosing to study at the University of Malaya
Reason

10

11

12

Good reputation of UM
Good reputation of programme

13.59

Offers the programme I a m interested in

11.27

13.09

Recommendation from UM graduates

Teachers recommendation

7.45
7.62

7.41
8.54

6.02
7.29

3.41

Good social life in UM

6.49

6.29

6.96

1.64

Close to home

1.95

0.94

1.35

3.92

3.89

1.88

Good university facilities

9.15

8.19

6.31

6.30

7.90

7.64

5.58

Good job prospects

11.62

8.44

10.04

4.92

6.87

7.01

2.13

10.96

UM has good links with the industry

0.39

10.62

9.35

7.75

5.94

6.96

7.17

1.91

10.59

15.84

Better starting salary for UM graduates

8.76

7.34

4.99

6.36

5.40

6.87

2.94

8.46

10.94

14.55

Enjoy living in Klang Valley

3.13

3.76

2.10

2.55

3.05

4.28

8.26

3.55

1.95

3.97

5.06

Cheaper than private universities

4.85

3.38

3.70

3.50

3.83

3.72

3.32

7.14

4.33

4.88

6.48

6.38

Source From the survey data

References
Al Jamil, M. A., Sarker, M. M., & Abdullah, M. (2012). Students
choice criteria to select a private university for their higher
education in Bangladesh. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4(17), 177185.
An, B. P. (2009). The association between race and college
destinations. Social Science Research, 39, 310323.
Ancheh, K. S. B., Krishnan, A., & Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative
criteria for selection of private universities and colleges in Malaysia.
Journal of International Management Studies, 2(1), 111.
Baharun, R., Awang, Z., & Padlee, S. F. (2011). International students
choice criteria for selection of higher learning in Malaysian
private universities. African Journal of Business Management,
5(12), 47044714.
Biggin, A. (2000). Marketing education: The good, the bad and the
unthanked. Education Marketing, 20, 1315.
Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing
undergraduate student choice: The case of higher education in
Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 705722.
Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester: Wiley.
Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity,
image, and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3,
240252.
Bromley, D. B. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League
tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate
Reputation Review, 5, 3550.
Canterbury, R. (1999). Higher education marketing: A challenge.
Journal of College Admission, 165, 2230.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Organization Studies, 26,
443464.
Coates, D. (1998). Marketing of further and higher education: An
equal opportunities perspective. Journal of Higher Education,
22(2), 135142.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An
integration of mass communication and resource-based theories.
Journal of Management, 26, 10911112.
Fernandez, J. L. (2010). An exploratory study of factors influencing
the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Kajian Malaysia, 28(2), 107136.

Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003). Fame and fortune: How
successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Foskett, N., Dyke, M. & Maringe, F. (2003, 11th September). The
influence of the school on the decision to participate in learning
post-16. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British
Educational Research Association. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt
University.
Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication impact for university advertising materials. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), 7379.
Grunig, J.E., & Hung, C F. (2002). The effect of relationships on
reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the Public Relations Society of
America (PRSA) Educators Academy 5th Annual International,
Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami,
Florida.
Haji Hassan, F., & Mohamad Sheriff, N. (2006). Students need
recognition for higher education at private colleges in Malaysia:
An exploratory perspective. Sunway Academic Journal, 3,
6171.
Hemsley-Brown, J. V., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a
competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the
literature on higher education marketing. International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316338.
Hesketh, A. J., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Postgraduates choice of
programme: Helping universities to market and postgraduates to
choose. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 151163.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college
choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207221.
Ivy, J. (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for
MBA marketing. International Journal of Management Education, 22(4), 288299.
James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The
factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduates.
Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Joseph, M., Mullen, E. W., & Spake, D. (2012). University branding:
Understanding students choice of an educational institution.
Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 112.
Judson, K. M., James, J. D., & Aurand, T. W. (2004). Marketing the
university to student athletes: Understanding university selection

123

462
criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1),
2340.
Karthik, D. & Basant, R. (2004). Empirical Assessment of Coherence
in Information Technology firms. Retrieved from http://www.
druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/dw2005-1637.pdf.
Kaur, S., & Chapman, K. (2008). UM leads in rankings. The Star
Online. Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file
=/2008/5/17/nation/21283255&sec=nation.
Koe, W. L., & Saring, Siti Noraisah. (2012). Factors influencing the
foreign undergraduates intention to study at Graduate School of
a Public University. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 19, 5768.
Kotler, P. (2004). Marketing management (11th edn.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1985). Strategic marketing for
educational Institutions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V. K. & Perera, N. (2010).
Exploring student choice criteria for selecting an Indonesian
Public University: A preliminary finding. ANZMAC 2010
Doctoral Colloquium (pp. 127). Christchurch: ANZMAC.
Lau, S. H. (2009). Higher education marketing concern: Factors
influencing Malaysian students intention to study at higher
educational institutions. Unpublished masters thesis. Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Lim, E. S. & Nagaraj, S. (2007). Obstacles to innovation: Evidence
from Malaysian manufacturing firms. MPRA Paper No. 18077.
Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18077/.
Looker, D. & Lowe, G. S. (2001). Post secondary access and student
financial aid in Canada: Current knowledge and research gaps.
doi:www.millenumscholarship.ca/en/foundation/publications/
pareport/cprn-bkgnd.pdf.
Malaysia. (2006). The Ninth Malaysia Plan 20062010. Federal
Territory of Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2010). SETARA09.
Retrieved from http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/ratings_
setara09.cfm.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia. (2012). SETARA11.
Retrieved from http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/red/en/
ratings_setara11.cfm.
Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing higher education: Theory
and practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2011). Malaysian higher
education statistics 2011. Federal Territory of Putrajaya.
Misran, N., Sahuri, S. N. S., Arsad, N., Hussain, H., Zaki, W. M. D.
W., & Abd Aziz, N. (2012). The influence of socio-economic
status among matriculation students in selecting university and
undergraduate program. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 134140.
Nichols, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clark, K., & Sims, D. (1995).
Marketing in higher education: The MBA experience. International Journal of Management Education, 9(2), 3138.
Padlee, S. F., Kamaruddin, A. R., & Baharun, R. (2010). International
students choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian
private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies,
2, 202211.
Paik, S. & Shim, W. (2012).Tracking and college major choices in
academic high schools in South Korea. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher: doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0035-z.
Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An
information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 6(2), 4156.

123

S. Munisamy et al.
Poo, B. T., Ismail, R., Sulaiman, N., & Othman, N. (2012).
Globalization and the factors influencing households demand
for Higher Education in Malaysia. International Journal of
Education and Information Technologies, 3(6), 269278.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification
contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the
American automobile industry: 19851912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 2944.
Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: An
exploratory approach. Munich personal RePec archive.
Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/5523/1/MPRA_
paper_5523.pdf.
Samsinar Md. S., Siti Rahayu H., & Tan, H. S. (2003). An exploratory
study of factors influencing the college choice decision of
undergraduate students in Malaysia Asia Pacific. Management
Review, 8(3), 259280.
Soutar, G., & Turner, J. (2002). Students preferences for university:
A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 16(1), 4045.
Stachowski, C. A. (2011). Educational marketing: A review and
implications for supporting practice in tertiary education.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership,
39(2), 186204.
Sung, M., & Yang, S.-U. (2008). Toward the model of university
image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and
reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357376.
Taylor, R., & Darling, J. (1991). Perceptions towards marketing
higher education: Do academic disciplines make a difference? In
T. Hayes (Ed.), New strategies in higher education marketing.
New York: Haworth Press.
Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 23, 130.
Valcano, S., & Vannoni, D. (2003). Diversification strategies and
corporate coherence evidence from Italian leading firms. Review
of Industrial Organization, 23, 2541.
Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University
selection: Information requirements and importance. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(3), 160171.
Wagner, K. & Fard, P.Y. (2009). Factors influencing Malaysian
students Intention to study at a higher educational institution.
Kuala Lumpur: E-Leader.
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student
Choice in Higher Education: Motivations for choosing to study
at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 16(5), 413433.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 299316.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public
relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91121.
Yang, S., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organizational
reputation: The effects of organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication
Management, 9, 305326.
Yusof, M., Ahmad, S. N. B., Tajudin, M. M., & Ravindra, R. (2008).
A study of factors influencing the selection of a higher education
institution. UNITAR E-Journal, 4(2), 2740.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.