Email Password Login Sign up

Enter your search here Search Patents/Apps Non-Patent Literature

SEARCH RESEARCH MPEP 2.0 TOOLS & RESOURCES ACCLAIM IP HELP

Distinguishing the factors influencing college students' choice of major.

1 National Louis University - Get More Information Earn Your Degree with Our Career-Focused Programs. Contact Us To Get Started! nl.edu

Learn About Stages and States of Consciousness, Mindfulness and

2 The Graduate Institute - Masters Degree in Northeast US Transformation learn.edu/transpersonal

3 Opera Voice Training Three week opera Summer program. Take your Opera training to the next level. Apply Now! valencia.berklee.edu

Article Type: Report

Subject: College students (Psychological aspects)

Choice (Psychology) (Evaluation)
Decision-making (Evaluation)

Authors: Beggs, Jeri Mullins

Bantham, John H.
Taylor, Steven

Pub Date: 06/01/2008

Publication: Nam e : College Student Journal Publisher : Project Innovation (Alabama) Audience : Academic Form at : Magazine/Journal Subject : Education
Copyright : COPYRIGHT 2008 Project Innovation (Alabama) ISSN: 0146-3934

Issue: Date : June, 2008 Source Volum e : 42 Source Issue : 2

Product: Product Code : E197500 Students, College

Geographic: Geographic Scope : United States Geographic Code : 1USA United States

A not-for-profit learning
The Graduate Institute community offering accredited
www.learn.edu Masters degrees

Accession Number: 179348418

Full Text: Choosing a college major represents a major life decision--a decision that research has shown to be the most frequently identified life regret
for Americans. The focus of this study is to identify the foundations of the psychological process by which undergraduate students select their
academic majors. A mean-send analysis was first employed to identify the factors that students consider integral to the process of selecting
a major. This qualitative study was followed by a large-sample survey of undergraduate students and used conjoint analysis to better
understand how "important" the identified factors are to students as part of this decision-making process. Finally, feedback from practitioners
was sought and used to create a list of recommendations for recruiting and advising today's college students.

INTRODUCTION

"There is, perhaps, no college decision that is more thought-provoking, gut wrenching and rest-of-your life oriented--or disoriented--than the
choice of a major." (St. John, 2000, p.22)

One might assume that choosing a college major represents a major life decision requiring extensive decision-making over a period of time,
especially considering the commitment of time and resources. However, undergraduate students commonly articulate knowing other
students who chose their academic major for less-than-rational reasons. In fact, some of these students even admit that this phenomenon
describes their own decision-making process. Therefore, it is not surprising that Roese and Summerville (2005) cite meta-analytical
evidence that the most frequently identified life regret for Americans involve their educational choices.

Anecdotal evidence leading to our undertaking this study seems to imply that some (perhaps many) undergraduate students employ
strategies of indecision as opposed to strategies of cognitive decision-making in that they "back into" a major rather than actively choose a
major, often by employing heuristics. For example, a student may choose a particular major because "I don't want to sit at a desk all day" or "I
don't like math."

The current study differs from previous treatments of this topic in that we attempt to gain a better understanding of the decision-making
process using a holistic approach including a qualitative and quantitative study. However, like other studies, this study is based upon the
premise that there is a benefit to making "good" major choices. We define a "good" major choice as the major best capable of helping the
student to achieve their educational and post-education goals. Consequently, we would expect, for example, that the match between the
students' abilities and interests and the abilities required by the major would be important attributes of perceived "good" majors by
undergraduate students.

The focus of this study is to identify the foundations of the psychological process by which undergraduate students select their academic
majors. In the research that follows, we first employ means-end analysis to identify the factors or elements that students consider integral to
the process of selecting a major through qualitative in-depth interviews. Second, we conduct a large-sample survey of undergraduate
students in order to better understand how "important" the identified factors are to students as part of this decision-making process. Finally,
we sought feedback from practitioners in advising and recruiting in terms of how these findings fit with current methods of recruiting and
advising college students. The results of that feedback were used to create a list of recommendations for recruiting students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of the general social science literature suggests two primary research emphases in the area of major choice. First, and most directly
related to the current research, is a general body of knowledge identifying specific factors that influence the choice of major selection
(DeMarie and Aloise-Young, 2003; Francisco, Noland, and Kelly, 2003; Pappu, 2004; LaBarbera and Simonoff, 1999; Kimweli and Richards,
1999). Second, there is a subset of the general research that focuses on the relationship between specific individual demographics (e.g. race
and gender and year in school) and major choice (Malgwi, Howe and Burnaby, 2005; DelVecchio and Honeycutt, 2002; Lackland and DeLisi,
2001; Galotti, 1999). While interesting, this second, more narrowly focused area of inquiry, is outside the scope of the current research. A long
list of factors have been shown to influence students' major choice, but the factors themselves and the name used for each factor have varied
from study to study. Our review of the literature suggests four categories: Sources of Information and Influence, Job Characteristics, Fit and
Interest in Subject, and Characteristics of the Major/Degree.

The first category, Sources of Information and Influence, includes individuals who provide information and influence, and also events and print
media that provide information. Several studies have concluded that parental influence has a strong effect on major choice (Chung, Loeb, and
Gonzo, 1996; Keillor, Bush, and Bush, 1995; Newell, Titus, and West, 1996). However, Adams, Pryor and Adams (1994) reported that only 4%
of the respondents indicated parental pressure and 10% indicated the major being similar to their parent's occupation as strong influences
on their decision. Interestingly, business majors appear more affected by their parents' occupation and socioeconomic status than
nonbusiness majors (Leppel, Williams, and Waldauer, 2001). Adams et al. also reported that 9% of respondents indicated the
recommendations of friends and relatives and 6% indicated that the recommendations of counselors influenced them strongly when
choosing a major. As a comparison, the highest rated determinant, genuine interest in the subject, received a resounding 59% of
respondents indicating it strongly influenced their choice of major.

In terms of information sources other than individuals, West, Newell and Titus (2001) found that students reported university catalogs and
department brochures as being more influential than career planning services and "career day" programs. Marketing students rated popular
media more influential than any other source except fellow students. This study did not address specifically information available on the
internet.

The second category, Job Characteristics, includes the various ways that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards of a job have been measured such
as financial aspects of the job, autonomy, occupational prestige, and quality of life issues. The financial aspects of a job can be considered
as starting salary, high earnings potential, benefits, opportunities for advancement, etc. Although the importance of the financial aspects of a
job is well-known (Adams et al., 1994; Cebula and Lopes, 1982), other job characteristics such as quality of life issues and the type of work
are also important. Collins and Giordani (2004) reported that 68.4% of the respondents chose their major because they liked the kind of work
it would enable them to do as compared to 7% who picked their major for its earning potential.

The third category, Fit and Interest in Subject, includes factors such as aptitude for the subject, genuine interest in the field, match between
personality and subject, etc. Adams et al. (1994) found genuine interest in the field was the determinant that received the highest number of
respondents (59%) indicating that they were strongly influenced by it.

The fourth category, Characteristics of Major/Degree, includes factors such as faculty reputation, exposure to an introductory course in a
major, ease of earning a degree, course variety, and ability to maintain high-grade point average. In Adams et al. (1994), few of the
respondents indicated that they were strongly influenced by these factors. Only 7% of the respondents reported that faculty reputation
influenced them strongly. For both the ability to maintain a high grade-point average and the ease of earning a degree, only 4% indicated
these determinants had a strong influence on them when they chose a major. In contrast, course variety in a major (Stafford, 1994; Pappu,
2004) and an introductory course have been identified as reasons that students choose a particular major (Mauldin, Crain, and Mounce,
2000; Keillor et al., 1995). These studies imply that the timing of an introductory course can influence the choice of major. Finally, other
variables identified in the literature include class size, accessible faculty, wide variety of class sections, faculty mentor system, faculty who are
active in on-campus recruiting, and faculty with access to practitioners (Keillor et al., 1995).

In summary, the preceding literature review identifies factors we might expect to find influencing the current generation's psychological
process of major selection. The next section reports a means-end based qualitative study that verifies the body of knowledge specific to the
population of students studied, and thereby helps lay the foundation for a better understanding of the important factors in academic major
choice.

STUDY 1: THE MEANS-END QUALITATIVE STUDY

Study 1 involves a qualitative inquiry into the factors that students generally consider important in the major selection process. Rather than
simply assume the impact of the previously identified factors from the literature, a qualitative research method was employed that enabled the
researchers to hear in the students' own words what they deem important in selecting a major. This approach helped the researchers get
beyond current popular conceptions and provided a fresh look at the questions under investigation.

A Means-End approach was used in conducting this qualitative inquiry. Olson and Reynolds (2001, p. 3) state that "the 'means-end approach'
is an umbrella term that refers to a set of methods for interviewing consumers about reasons for their decision choice and interpreting
consumers' responses in terms of the linkages between outcomes." The preferred method of identifying means-end chains is the laddering
interview. This semi-structured technique is useful in this study in determining key choice criteria that students use in making major selection
choices and why those criteria are important. For this study, three business faculty members conducted personal interviews with 30+
students self-selected from a freshman general education course and upper division business majors from two marketing courses.
Interviews typically lasted 30 minutes and were audio taped. The data gathered from the interviews and the interviewers' notes were coded by
the researchers. Instances of disagreement between the researchers relative to the data coding were resolved through subsequent review
and discussion.

Results

The preceding literature review identified four general categories of expected influences. Although our analysis of interview data revealed
factors similar to the four general categories, we have organized the data into six factors that more accurately represented the students'
responses. We briefly describe the six factors as well as students' quotes meant to serve as expository exemplars.

Information Search

The preceding literature review identifies that students have traditionally relied on personal sources of information in making such decisions.
As expected based upon the literature review, some participants in the current inquiry did mention that they were influenced by the direct or
indirect recommendations of people they knew. Advice from family members and high school teachers appeared to be the predominant
sources of information.

"I got a feel for this major from my sister, who is six years older and working in advertising."

"Several of my high school teachers went to school here and loved it."

However, given the vast amount of information that is available to students today, it was somewhat counter intuitive to the researchers that
very few participants mentioned having performed any type of information search in the process of choosing their major. Only one participant
talked about using career planning tools:

"What I had first done, was to take a lot of web assessment tests at my community college, to see some of the things that matched up with
me. I had an interest in marketing, but I was not sure that was the route I wanted to go."

Match with Interests

Also consistent with the previously identified category of Fit and Interest in Subject, many of the study's participants emphasized the
importance of how well the major, and by extension the likely job prospects that will follow upon graduation, match with their personal
interests and/or strengths. This category appears to focus primarily on efficacy. Expository exemplars include:

"Being able to build upon what I have interests in and building upon my strengths was important to me."

"This major seemed like the best match for me. It fit my personality."

"I waited until I was 26 to go back to college, so I was able to use my past job experiences in seeing what interested me."

Job Characteristics

Again consistent with the previously identified category of Job Characteristics, many of the study's participants emphasized the characteristics
of the job as an important consideration in selecting academic majors. Examples of these job characteristics were perceived availability of
jobs, flexibility in jobs and career paths, and job security over the course of a career. This category appears to focus primarily on the
functional/utilitarian outcomes associated with the selected major and subsequent career path. Expository exemplars include:

"In choosing a major, I considered how marketable the degree would be, and what city or area I wanted to be in. I wanted a degree that I could
go most anywhere and find a job."

"This major opens up a lot more avenues for a future career."

"I was looking for a major that I could use in the real world. This major provides me with lots of opportunities and lots of variety."

Financial Considerations

Although financial considerations are typically viewed as a specific job characteristic, this factor was mentioned so frequently by the
participants that the researchers felt that it was important at this point in the study to maintain this job characteristic as a separate factor. This
separation will be especially important in Study 2, which uses conjoint analysis. If financial considerations were included in the factor Job
Characteristics, the other elements of that factor (flexibility, job security, etc.) might be subordinated to financial considerations. Again, this
category appears to focus primarily on the functional/utilitarian outcomes associated with the selected major and subsequent career path.
Expository exemplars include:

"Ultimately what drives me is that I am doing something that I enjoy and achieve financial security."

"Job satisfaction would be important, but so would the money that the job provides."

Psycho/Social Benefits

Interestingly, we identified a category in our qualitative inquiry not previously emphasized in the extant literature. Specifically, the qualitative
results suggest that some participants were influenced by the importance of future psychological benefits resulting from their major selection
and the job that the major eventually leads to. Some participants also mentioned the perceived social benefit of selecting a major that is
supported by their social network (e.g. family, friends, or relatives). This category appears to focus primarily on positive emotions derived from
the support of others and studying in an interesting area and subsequent career path.

"Working in teams is important to me. I like to associate with other people. Being able to build off each others strengths seems to be more
fulfilling when you have people to share the rewards with."

"I'm very much a social person. I get my energy from having interaction with other people. I like to be able to work in groups or teams."

"Part of it was that my husband was really pushing for me to get a business degree."

Major Attributes

Finally, we expected to see significant references to characteristics of the major/degree based on the literature review. However, we were
surprised by how little emphasis students appear to place on the specific attributes associated with specific majors (e.g., faculty, reputation,
etc.). The qualitative results suggest that relatively few students place significant emphasis on the attributes associated directly with a major
when making their decision of a major. There were, however, a few students that talked about how the reputation of the program, strength of
the faculty, course availability, and course variety influenced them in making their choice of major.

"This program has an excellent reputation."

"The faculty in this program is outstanding."

"I like the variety of courses that are offered in this major."

As evidenced by these exemplars, the few students that did mention attributes did so in a rather generic fashion. Somewhat surprising,
based upon the literature, was the lack of comments relative to the ease of getting a particular degree or the ability to maintain a higher GPA
in one major compared to another. One explanation is that students may be seeing the degree itself as little more than a "means-to-an-end,"
rendering such attributes moot in the minds of students. An alternative explanation might involve the participant (student)--interviewer (faculty)
personal interview dynamic creating a social desirability bias.

Summary of Study 1 Results

The results of Study l's qualitative analysis were fascinating in both what was found, and what was not found. We found evidence supporting
previous assertions that Fit & Interest in the Subject, and Job Characteristics are still important considerations for major choice. Clearly,
students continue to consider functional/utilitarian issues as particularly important to this decision-making process. In addition, personal
sources of information appear to still hold considerable sway in such decisions. However, we were surprised with how few students
mentioned performing comprehensive information searches in support of such a decision by using the Internet, job shadowing, using career
service tools, etc. Based on these results, it is not clear how, or to what degree, students make informed decisions on selecting their major.
Equally disconcerting was the lack of emphasis on attributes of the majors themselves in such decisions (i.e., Characteristics of the
Major/Degree).

A new finding is the indicated rise of Psycho/Social Benefits in the valuation processes supporting academic major decisions. This finding
suggests that affective considerations may be becoming more important in this process of decision making. Clearly there is a great deal
more to learn about the psychological underpinnings of the academic major decision-making process.

Intrigued and encouraged by these exploratory results, a subsequent large scale quantitative study was conducted to gain further insight into
the importance of these factors in the process students follow in selecting a college major.

STUDY 2: QUANTITATIVE STUDY

This section represents the quantitative methods used in ascertaining the relative importance of the factors identified above in terms of their
contributions to the selection of a college major. In other words, we move from interviews capturing open-ended responses to statistical
analyses based on students filling out online surveys.

The current study uses two methods to capture "importance" data. The first is an explicit form of importance weights, involving two self-report
mechanisms wherein students will assign weights to the previously identified factors to differentiate their importance to the choice of a major.
The second method is conjoint analysis, which can be considered an implicit form of importance weights (i.e., derived statistically instead of
stated directly or explicitly).

The first explicit method involves asking people to rate the importance of the factor (e.g., on a scale poled from "Very Unimportant" to "Very
Important"). This method is widely used in marketing research, but can lead to problems associated with positivity bias. Positivity bias means
respondents essentially using only the top portions of scales, like only the numbers 5-7 on a seven-point scale. This often leads to the
erroneous conclusion that everything is important. The second explicit method is called the Direct Response (hereafter referred to as the DR
method) and involves asking respondents to determine a value for importance on a relative scale of 1-100. A higher score would mean that a
factor is more important.

The sampling frame consisted of students from a large public university in the Midwest who had declared a major. This study is part of a
larger project so the total population of 14,451 students with a declared major was divided into 3 equal groups. A total of 4,817 students, from
across all disciplines, were invited to participate in this study. Students were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete an online survey with
the opportunity to register for a chance to win a Best Buy gift card.

Results

Of the 4, 817 invited to participate in the survey, 25 were eliminated due to un-activated accounts or "bad" e-mail addresses. Of the 4,792
remaining, 852 completed the survey for a response rate of 17.8%. Although the minimum sample size for traditional conjoint analysis is one,
a larger sample size will help control for measurement error. In this study, the 852 completed surveys are sufficient to ensure appropriate
interpretation of our results.

Consistent with the demographics associated with the population of interest, there were more females than males and more non-transfer
than transfer students in the sample. In addition, as expected, there were more juniors and seniors in the sample than lower classes since
juniors and seniors are more likely to have declared a major. We are confident that our sample does generally reflect the undergraduate
population of interest for this study.

We first report the direct measures for the factors. As you can see from Table 1, the factor Match with Interests had the highest mean for the
direct ratings (1-100) and for the scaled ratings (1-9). Similarly, Information Search had the lowest ratings using both methods.

Second, the importance scores were derived using the conjoint module of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). These
importance scores are computed by taking the utility range for a particular factor and dividing it by the sum of all the utility ranges (SPSS 1997)
and are reported in Table 2. In addition, the Pearson's R and Kendall's tau statistics are reported as indicators of fit between the model and
the obtained data and are very high for this analysis (.996 and .929), as they should be for valid analyses.

Our analysis revealed the following order of importance for all students: 1. Match with Interests, 2. Course/Major Attributes, 3. Job
Characteristics, 4. Financial Considerations, 5. Psycho/Social Benefits, and 6. Information Search. The most important reason, Match with
Interests, and the least important reason, Information Search, are the same for the direct measures and for conjoint analysis. The table also
shows importance ratings by class rank.

DISCUSSION

Students rated the factor Match with Interests as their first choice for conjoint and both direct ratings. Although we are pleased to learn that
students are choosing their major based upon a match with their interests and abilities, this factor implies that students had knowledge of
the interests or abilities required for the major and subsequent job. In fact, the three highest ranked factors for all three measures, Match with
Interests, Job Characteristics, and Major Attributes, all imply that the student has a knowledge base. Where did this knowledge come from
considering the factor Information Search was ranked very low? For conjoint analysis and both direct ratings, Information Search was ranked
the lowest factor by students. If they are not influenced by information they received through information search, where are they getting the
information? One possibility would be friends and family, but the factor Psycho/Social Benefits included the support of friends and family, and
this factor was also ranked low based upon all three measures. Although Study l indicated that Psycho/Social Benefits were important to the
decision-making process, Study 2 revealed that Psycho/Social Benefits were not as important as four of the other factors. This demonstrates
the benefits of combining qualitative and quantitative research. Based upon the qualitative study, we might have concluded that Psycho/social
Benefits were important to students. Based upon the conjoint analysis, where students were forced to choose between factors, Psycho/Social
Benefits were not rated as important.

Another interesting finding was that contrary to the broadly accepted notion that students change their majors frequently, 65% of students
surveyed reported that they had never changed their major. One possibility is that it is not possible for students to easily change majors due
to enrollment issues or that switching costs are too high. At the institution where the data was collected, many majors have enrollment caps
that make it difficult for students to change majors. Also, tuition rates are guaranteed for four years, but if a change of major requires
additional semesters of coursework, the tuition rate would raise significantly. Regardless of the reason for not changing majors, this makes
the choice of major even more important, and the consequences of not choosing a "good" major even more dire, because students may get
locked in to a major that does not fit their strengths and abilities. Is this a problem with the method for delivering the information, the quality
and quantity of the information itself, or the development level of the student?

Finally, contrary to previous research, students rated the factor Financial Success low in regards to choosing a major. For conjoint analysis,
Financial Success was ranked fourth and for the direct ratings it was ranked fifth. However, when class rank is considered, seniors rank
financial success as the third most important factor while the other classes rank financial success as number five. Perhaps financial
success is more salient to seniors because very soon they will be making a transition to a professional work environment. Also, males rated
financial success more important than females. This may be due to a societal issue in which males are more likely to view themselves as
the primary breadwinners for their families.

Based upon the results of this study, we wanted to know if these findings were consistent with university techniques for recruiting and
advising students. We sought the expertise of four practitioners who were generous enough to give us their feedback including the Director of
Admissions, an Assistant to a Dean responsible for recruiting, the Director of University College which houses advising, and the Associate
Director for Student Counseling Services. In the course of our discussions, the practitioners repeatedly mentioned that these students were a
part of Generation Y; therefore we did some research on Generation Y. We have synthesized the practitioners' feedback and the research on
Generation Y into a list of recommendations for recruiting and advising.

1. Consider delaying the decision. The authors and several of the practitioners were concerned that we are asking students to make
decisions about their majors when they are not developmentally ready. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that at many institutions it is
not easy to change majors later. In fact, students are being encouraged to make decisions even earlier, not later. In response, some
teenagers are hiring professional career coaches to help them choose college majors and subsequent careers (Carpenter, 2006). Given the
importance of choosing a major and the difficulty in changing majors, we propose that universities consider making programmatic changes
such that the choice of major could be delayed.

2. Evaluate what we communicate to students. In our attempts to "sell" students on a particular major, are the universities as a whole and
individual departments in particular, being accurate about major requirements and realistic career opportunities? We should communicate
clearly what courses are required, what strengths and abilities a successful major should possess, and what types of jobs are realistic with
this major.

3. Evaluate how we communicate with students. For the next seven to fifteen years, prospective college students will be part of a generational
cohort termed Generation Y (1977-1994). Generation Y is known for its' technological savvy to the point that the Net Generation is another
name for this group (Tapscott, 1998). This group is the first to grow up immersed in an Internet-driven environment surrounded by modern
media choices ranging from cellular phones to TiVo. Although the internet is vitally important as an information source to this group, if the
website is not easy to navigate or the information is provided in long text, students are not likely to use it. Universities need to take this into
account when designing and delivering information.

4. Communicate with parents. Although some practitioners may by cautious about encouraging involvement from already overly-involved
parents, there is no doubt that parents are influential in student decision-making. Today's parents, often called "helicopter parents" for their
tendency to hover over their children, are involved in every facet of their child's college life from choosing a university to helping students
choose individual courses. Universities should consider taking advantage of parental involvement by educating parents about helping their
children to choose a "good" major for the child, not for the parent. Just as in recommendation #3 we suggested that Generation Y has specific
communication preferences and needs, parents will have specific communication needs that will require information to be packaged
differently for them.

5. Consider the uniqueness of your institution. It will be important for every institution to consider its own unique qualities including the pool
from which its' student body is recruited. Factors such as socioeconomic background, number of first generation college students, and
geographic focus of recruiting will have an impact on how career related information should be packaged and delivered.

CONCLUSION

These findings led us to question how we educate students about major and job characteristics. If students are basing their major choice on
their perceived major and job characteristics and their perceptions are not accurate, the benefits of a good major choice will not accrue to any
of the stakeholders. The availability of information has exploded along with internet capabilities and the assumption that the information is
available if students want it. However, the questions remain as to whether (1) young people are even interested in the information, (2) are they
able to assimilate and synthesize the information, and (3) are they developmentally able to use the information to make decisions about their
future?

One possible explanation for the contradiction between the factors that were rated as important (Match with Interests, Job Characteristics, and
Major Attributes) and the factors that received low importance ratings (Information Search and Psycho/Social Benefits) is that they are not
mutually exclusive. A student could receive information about the major attributes from a web search. Should the student rate the information
search more important or the major attributes as more important? This may be an indication that students consider the information (e.g. job
characteristics) more important than the method in which they received it (e.g. parents, website, etc.). However, this limitation in the
quantitative study does not explain why students did not mention information search techniques more frequently in the qualitative study.
Regardless, future research should separate the source of the information (website, brochures, family, etc.) from the information itself (major
attributes, job characteristics, etc.) In the same vein, the current study did not evaluate whether the students' perceived strengths and abilities
required by a major match the actual strengths and abilities required. Neither did it address how these perceptions were developed. One
viable avenue for future research would be to assess how students developed their self-assessment and perceptions of major/job
requirements. Future research could also evaluate the degree of match between students' perceived and actual major/job requirements.

References

Adams, S. H., Pryor, L. J., & Adams, S. L. (1994). Attraction and retention of high-aptitude students in accounting: An exploratory longitudinal
study. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1), 45-58.

Carpenter, D. (2006). More teenagers turning to professional career coaches. Associated Press in The Pantagraph, Bloomington, IL (May 1,
2006).

Cebula, R.J., & Lopes, J. (1982). Determinants of student choice of undergraduate major field. American Educational Research Journal, 19,
303-12.

Chung, Y.B., Loeb, J.W. & Gonzo, S.T. (1996). Factors predicting the educational and career aspirations of Black college freshmen. Journal of
Career Development, 23(2), 127-135.

Collins, M. & Giordani, P. (2004). The class of 2003: Opinions and expectations results of the 2003 graduating student and alumni survey,
NACEWeb, http://naceweb.org.

DeMarie, D., & Aloise-Young, P.A. (2003). College students' interest in their major. College Student Journal, 37(3), 462-469.

DelVecchio, S. & Honeycutt, Jr., E. D. (2002). Explaining the appeal of sales careers: A Comparison of black and white college students.
Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 56-63.

Francisco, W.H., Noland, T. G. & Kelly, A. J. (2003). Why don't students major in accounting? Southern Business Review, 29(1), 37-40.

Galotti, K. (1999). Making a "major" real-life decision: College students choosing an academic major. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91
(2), 379-387.

Keillor, B.D., Bush, R.P, & Bush, A.J. (1995). Marketing-based strategies for recruiting business students in the next century. Marketing
Education Review, 5(3), 69-79.

Kimweli, D.M.S., & Richards, A.G. (1999). Choice of a major and students' appreciation of their major. College Student Journal, 33(1), 16-26.

LaBarbera, P.A., & Simonoff, J.S. (1999). Toward enhancing the quality and quantity of marketing majors. Journal of Marketing Education,
21(1), 4-13.

Lackland, A.,& DeLisi, R. (2001). Students' choices of college majors that are gender traditional and nontraditional. Journal of College Student
Development, 42(1), 39-48.

Leppel, K., Williams, M., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation and socioeconomic status on choice of college major.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(4), 373-394.

Malgwi, C.A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P.A. (2005). Influences on students' choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business, 80(5),
275-282.

Mauldin, S., Crain, J. & Mounce, P. (2000). The accounting principles instructor's influence on students' decision to major in accounting.
Journal of Education for Business, 75,142-148.

Newell, S.J., Titus, P.A., & West, J.S. (1996). Investigating the undergraduate student decision-making process of selecting a business
specialization: A comparison of marketing and non-marketing business students. Journal of Business Education, 18(Fall), 57-67.

Olson, J.C., & Reynolds, T. J. (2001). The means-end approach to understanding consumer decision making. In T. J. Reynolds & J. C. Olson
(Eds.), Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy (pp.3-24). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Pappu, R. (2004). Why do undergraduate marketing majors select marketing as a business major? Evidence from Australasia. Journal of
Marketing Education, 26(1), 31-41.

Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most ... and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (9, September), 1273-
85.

St. John, E. (2000). Majors. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17 (4, April 13, 2000), 21-27.

Stafford, T. F. (1994). Consumption values and the choice of marketing electives: Treating students like customers. Journal of Marketing
Education, 16 (Summer), 26-33.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (1997). SPSS conjoint 8.0. Chicago:SPSS, Inc.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

West, J., Newell, S., & Titus, P. (2001). Comparing marketing and non-business students' choice of academic field of study. Marketing
Education Review, 11(2), 75-82.

JERI MULLINS Braes, PH.D

Assistant Professor of Marketing

JOHN H. BANTHAM, PH.D.

Associate Professor of Management

STEVEN TAYLOR, PH.D.

Professor of Marketing

Illinois State University

[c] 2006 by Jeri Mullins Beggs, John Bantham & Steven Taylor. Please do not cite without written permission of either of the authors. This
project was supported by grants from Illinois State University's Katie Insurance School and the College of Business.

Table 1--Importance Ratings

Factor Direct Rating (out of 100)

Mean S.D. Std. Error

Match w/ Interests 86.99 16.15 .58

Job Characteristics 77.35 20.08 .69
Major Attributes 74.97 33.21 1.15
Psycho/Social Ben. 73.45 21.25 .73
Financial Success 67.61 25.01 .86
Information Search 59.26 26.3 .91

Scaled Rating (9-point scale)

Mean S.D. Std. Error

Match w/ Interests 7.99 1.18 .04

Job Characteristics 7.32 1.52 .05
Major Attributes 6.95 1.78 .06
Psycho/Social Ben. 6.83 1.70 .06
Financial Success 6.41 2.16 .07
Information Search 5.52 2.08 .07

Table 2 Conjoint Results

Factors All Students Freshmen (rank) Seniors (rank)

Match w/ Interests or 28.05 32.11 (1) 28.35 (1)

Strengths
Course/Major 21.65 22.32 (2) 22.19 (2)
Job Characteristics 17.80 20.74 (3) 16.04 (4)
Attributes
Financial Success 16.60 7.44 (5) 17.68 (3)
Psycho/Social 14.68 15.97 (4) 15.57 (5)
Benefits
Information Search 1.20 1.42 (6) .16 (6)

N = 747 Pearson's R = .996 Kendall's tau = .929 (a)

(a.) Statistically significant at p<.001 or less

Gale Copyright: Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Previous Article: Economic heritage: Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx.

Next Article: An examination of the relationship between optimism and worldview among university students.

Home Search Services Communities Help Contact us Advertise on this Site

© 2004-2018 FreePatentsOnline.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use. A SumoBrain Solutions Company