See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261728173

The Analysis of Factors Affecting Choice of College: A Case Study of University of

Nevada Las Vegas Hotel College Students

Article  in  Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education · May 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2012.10696659

CITATIONS READS

19 5,679

3 authors, including:

Hyun Kyung (Grace) Chatfield Sojung Lee

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Iowa State University
25 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   277 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Job satisfaction View project

Sustainable tourism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hyun Kyung (Grace) Chatfield on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nevada Las Vegas]
On: 28 October 2014, At: 13:44
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhat20

The Analysis of Factors Affecting Choice of College:

A Case Study of University of Nevada Las Vegas Hotel
College Students
a b b
Hyun Kyung Chatfield , So Jung Lee & Robert E. Chatfield
a
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration
b
University of Nevada , Las Vegas
Published online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Hyun Kyung Chatfield , So Jung Lee & Robert E. Chatfield (2012) The Analysis of Factors Affecting Choice
of College: A Case Study of University of Nevada Las Vegas Hotel College Students, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Education, 24:1, 26-33, DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2012.10696659

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2012.10696659

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Analysis of Factors Affecting Choice of College: A Case
Study of University of Nevada Las Vegas Hotel College Students
By Hyun Kyung Chatfield, Ph.D., So Jung Lee and Robert E. Chatfield, Ph.D.
Introduction
The college enrollment decision has become increasingly com-
plex during the last 30 years, as higher education has transformed in
many ways. American higher education has grown from a collection
of small, local markets to regional and national markets (Hoxby, 1997).
The higher education environment has become competitive and insti-
tutions increasingly have to compete for students in the recruitment
market (James, Baldwin & McInnis, 1999).
The tourism and hospitality industry has experienced dramatic
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014
growth both in size and complexity during the latter half of the twen-
tieth century (World Tourism Organization, n.d.). This growth in turn
fueled a tremendous increase in the number and types of tourism
and hospitality programs at two and four year colleges in the United
States (Goodman & Sprague, 1991; Jafari, 1997; Reigel & Dallas, 1999).
Institutions are now bringing students from all over the world. In 2007,
for example, about 2500 students were enrolled in the Harrah College
of Hotel Administration (Hotel College) at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas (UNLV), consisting of 34% in-state and 66% out-of state stu-
dents including international students (Theriault, 2007). International
students from 35 different countries account for 29% of the students.
The purpose of this study is to identify factors that influence
students’ choice and to understand the differences in college choice
among in-state students, out-of-state students, and international stu-
dents. For this purpose the current research employed a case study to
understand the choice of students who selected the Hotel College at
the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV).
Literature Review
College Choice
Many studies on college student decision-making use economic
and sociologic theoretical frameworks to examine factors of college
choice (Hearn, 1984; Jackson, 1978; Tierney, 1983; Somers, Haines,
& Keene, 2006). These frameworks have been used to develop three
theoretical, conceptual approaches to modeling college choice: (a)
economic models, (b) status-attainment models, and (c) combined
models.
First, the economic models focus on the econometric assump-
tions that prospective college students think rationally and make
careful cost-benefit analyses when choosing a college (Hossler, Schmit,
Hyun Kyung (Grace) Chatfield, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor in the
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration; So Jung Lee is a Ph.D.
candidate; and Robert E. Chatfield, Ph.D. is Professor in the Lee School of
Business, all at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
26
& Vesper, 1999). Second, the status-attainment models assume a utili-
tarian decision-making process that students go through in choosing
a college, specifying a variety of social and individual factors leading
to occupational and educational aspirations (Jackson, 1982). Third, the
combined models incorporate the rational assumptions in the eco-
nomic models and components of the status attainment models. Most
combined models divide the student decision-making process into
three phases: aspiration development and alternative evaluation; op-
tion consideration; and evaluation of the remaining options and final
decision (Jackson, 1982).
Another research approach to choice and decision-making in
higher education considers three different levels of students’ choice:
global, national, and curriculum level. First, the global level focuses on
why students choose to study abroad. Student migration and study
abroad has become a huge business matched by tremendous invest-
ment, especially among western countries. Zimmerman, Bauer, and
Loftstorm (2000) has identified “push and pull” factors which operate
along the students’ decision-making process in the global market. Dre-
her and Poutvaara (2005) have suggested that economic and cultural
forces play an important role in shaping the international students
migration markets. Second, the national level discusses the choice
of higher education institutions within countries. In Australia, for ex-
ample, James, Baldwin, and McInnis (1999) found that field of study
preferences, course and institutional reputations, course entry scores,
easy access to home and institutional characteristics significantly
influenced applicants’ choice of institution. In addition, the teaching
reputation of universities has been more important for college stu-
dents in England than their research profiles (Price, Matzdorf, & Agahi.,
2003). Foskett, Maringe, and Roberts (2006) found that students con-
sider more carefully economic factors in times of distress and financial
difficulty. These factors include job opportunities to supplement their
incomes, accommodation costs and family home proximity.
Third, curriculum decisions tend to be closely related to insti-
tutional choice decisions. James et al. (1999) has identified a range
of factors influencing course preference including: the reputation of
the course among employers; graduate satisfaction from the course;
graduate employment rates from the course; the quality of teaching in
the course; approaches to teaching, learning and assessment from the
course including opportunities for flexible study.
Two different perspectives to understanding the complex col-
lege selection decision have emerged. One approach focuses on how
aspiring students develop a college choice set, decide where to apply
considering admission criteria, and make their enrollment decisions
Volume 24, Number 1
 (Hearn, 1984). That is, this approach aims to understand the college
decision process from the students’ perspectives. On the other hand,
the second approach emphasizes institutional characteristics such as
cost, size, distance, the quality of programs, and availability of financial
aid. The factors most commonly associated with a comprehensive
college choice model include student background characteristics
(Jackson, 1982), aspirations (Chapman, 1984; Jackson, 1982), edu-
cational achievement (Hanson & Litten, 1982; Jackson, 1982), social
environment (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987), financial variables (St. John,
1990; 1991), net cost (St. John & Starkey, 1995), institutional climate
(Chapman, 1984), and institutional characteristics (Hanson & Litten,
1982; Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989).
The significant factors used to choose colleges among in-state,
out-of-state and international students might not be the same. Tu-
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014
cational aspirations, (4) influence of peers and family, (5) price and
location, and (6) institutional characteristics. Based on these themes,
they suggest a model of community college choice with 10 factors in
three fields: aspirations and encouragement, institutional character-
istics, and finances. The authors argue that two-year students have
different characteristics such as the sensitivity to price change and
consideration of quality services, compared with four-year college
students. Our study is based on this comprehensive college choice
model. Our objective is to understand which attributes are important
for four-year students to choose a college and identify if differences
exist among in-state, out-of-state, and international students in col-
lege choice factors.
Figure 1

ition and financial aid are different for each of these groups. In some College Choice
states there are more scholarships available for in-state applicants to
encourage attracting more high-achieving students. Job opportuni-
ties during and after graduation are not the same. Also, the reputation
or recognition of a college might be different internationally than
domestically. This could affect job opportunities for students in their
own countries. Therefore, it is assumed that the significance of the
various factors is not the same among these three groups of students.
Water, Abrahamson, and Lyons (2009) sampled both public and
private college students. The study investigated the importance of
total costs versus location, program reputation and overall reputation.
The study found economic downturns do affect some students’ chose
of institution. They found solid performer students are more likely
to enroll at a public institution in an economic downturn. The study Methodology
differentiated between “academic superstars” and “solid performers”
Instrument
based upon SAT scores.
This study used a constructed model of college choice that uses
Water et al. (2009) claimed parents are deeply involved and in-
factors to understand the college decision. This study utilized a web-
fluential to their “academic superstar” children’s college choices. The
based survey design, a self-administered questionnaire to examine
report also found open houses, dialogue with college friends, alumni,
motivating factors for students choosing the Hotel College at UNLV.
and admitted-student programs are extremely influential to students.
The list of sixty-four attributes was developed through an extensive
The report claimed these sources are not well known, but very power-
literature review, and pretest feedback from students and faculty in
ful to student’s decision making for their college. The study also found
the hotel college. The questionnaire of college choice included three
26% of sampled students paid a specialist or advisor during the col-
components: (1) importance of college choice (2) influential factors
lege decision process.
to choose a college, and (3) financial support. Sixty-four factor dimen-
Model of College Choice sions were utilized by measuring hotel college factors’ attributes on a
This study adopted a conceptual framework that was con- 5-point scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Also, influ-
structed by Somers, Haines, & Keene (2006) in order to understand ence factors were used to reflect influence factor scaling with 1= no
the importance of college choices. Somers et al., (2006) developed influence and 5= very strong influence. The last section contained de-
the framework of college choice for two-year colleges using eight fac- mographic questions regarding respondents’ gender, residency status,
tors as shown in Figure 1. This comprehensive college choice model country, age, major, and race.
included student background characteristics, aspirations, educational
Data Collection
achievement, social environment, financial variables, net cost, institu-
During the 2010 spring semester, 2,547 students enrolled in the
tional climate, and institutional characteristics. The authors discovered
Hotel College undergraduate program at UNLV. This study used the
six themes: (1) motivation to study, (2) education setbacks, (3) edu-

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 27

 Table 1
College Choice Factor Analysis - Pattern Matrix Obtained from PAF Solution

Factor Labels and Items Factor loading Eigen-value Variance explained Cronbach’s Alpha
(%)

F1: Career support 12.09 23.71 0.887

Marketability of Hospitality Management skills 0.746
Opportunity to work in the Hospitality Industry 0.727
Opportunity to have a well paying job 0.726
Diverse positions available in Hospitality 0.656
The academic reputation of the hotel college 0.556
Availability of working opportunity through UNLV 0.552
The quality of the faculty 0.522
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014

The number of alumni in the fields after graduating 0.488

Hospitality Management matches with philosophy 0.441
F2: Media 4.96 9.73 0.85
Advertising - drama/soap opera 0.837
Advertising - News about hotel school 0.746
Advertising - TV advertising 0.726
F3: Financial 3.18 6.23 0.852
The scholarships I received from outside sources -0.852
The scholarships I received from this institution -0.834
Availability of financial aid in the Hotel program -0.539
Availability of scholarships in the Hotel program -0.526
The opportunity for work at the institution -0.461
The money I saved on my own -0.454
F4: Inspiration 2.88 5.64 0.71
Reputation of UNLV Hotel program 0.681
Desire to work in the Hospitality Industry 0.590
Your desire to have a college degree 0.574
My feelings about this institution 0.439
F5: Environment 1.96 3.85 0.81
Transportation (commute to university) 0.797
Las Vegas weather 0.648
The proximity of this institution to my home 0.645
Safety in Las Vegas 0.622
Location of University in Las Vegas 0.524
F6: Family support 1.68 3.3 0.749
My parents’/guardians’ advice 0.731
My parents’/guardians’ income 0.640
Parent’s expectation to acquire a college degree 0.625
Availability of parents/guardians support 0.404
F7: Facilities 1.53 3 0.873
Recreational facilities & Wellness center 0.804
Student health center 0.709

28 Volume 24, Number 1

 Table 1—continued
College Choice Factor Analysis - Pattern Matrix Obtained from PAF Solution

Factor Labels and Items Continued Factor loading Eigen-value Variance explained Cronbach’s Alpha
(%)

Cafeteria/ dinning commons 0.647

Student Union 0.607
The quality of the library 0.443
F8: Institution character 1.35 2.66 0.848
The size of the classes that I would be taking 0.711
The total number of students 0.664
The student to faculty ratio 0.595
The ethnic composition of student population 0.535
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014

The availability of tutoring services 0.506

The availability of academic advising 0.402
F9: Extra activities 1.19 2.34 0.807
Student clubs and associations 0.725
The traditions and activities 0.579
Mentor program 0.545
F10: Net cost 1.15 2.25 0.672
The tuition cost of this institution 0.676
T he cost of living 0.656
F11: Influencers 1.05 2.06 0.799
Recommendation from experts -0.699
Current students -0.570
Hotel College Alumni -0.526
My friends’ advice -0.513
Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy = 0.902. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity = 10981.07 (1275 df. p < 0.0005). Extraction Method: Principle Axis
Factoring, Rotation Method: Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization, Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

entire hotel student population at UNLV to investigate college choice
attributes of the hotel college. An online survey tool, Qualtrics was
employed to collect data. A list of currently enrolled undergradu-
ate students in the Hotel College was obtained from a hotel college
administrator. The survey announcement with a survey link was dis-
tributed to students through email. Data was collected in two time
periods: April-30 and September 1-30, 2010.
Data Analysis
Data analyses involving several procedures were conducted us-
ing SPSS 19. Data was analyzed, using factor analysis, reliability, and
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). An exploratory factor
analysis was conducted to identify the number of dimensions on
importance, financial, and influence items with a loading cutoff value
of 0.40 for item inclusion. The reliabilities of the dimensions were as-
sessed by Cronbach’s Alpha. A preliminary extraction was conducted
using maximum likelihood (ML) and principal axis factoring (PAF). The
PAF estimates communalities in an attempt to eliminate error variance
from factors and maximize variance extracted by factors, whereas the
ML approach estimates factor loadings that are most likely to have
produced the observed correlation matrix. Two factoring procedures
were utilized to determine whether the solutions are stable across the
two procedures. Both orthogonal and oblique rotations were used to
determine if there were sizable correlations between extracted factors.
The extracted factors appeared to have negative correlations.
Therefore, a MANOVA was applied to compare those factors among
different groups as MANOVA works best with highly negatively
correlated dependent variables (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The
significance level was adjusted according to the number of variables
to reduce Type 1 error (rejecting null hypothesis when in fact it is true).
Therefore, the adjusted significance level is 0.0045 (0.05/11=0.0045)
because the 11 extracted factors were used as dependent variables.
Data was screened for outliers; none were found. Assumption of
normality was met, and was considered to be robust to violation, as
dictated by the central limit theorem that explains the prevalence of

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 29

 the normal probability distribution under a sufficiently large number
(N>200) of independent random variables (Artstein Ball, Barthe , &
Naor, 2004). Box’s M test for equality of covariance showed significant
differences in error variances (p<.0005). Therefore Pillai’s Trace test sta-
tistic value was used as Pillai’s criterion is considered more robust and
should be used if homogeneity of covariance is violated (Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006, p.414).
Results
There were 542 participants out of a possible 2,547 in the survey.
The response rate was 21.28%. Out of the 542 responses, 117 were not
used because respondents skipped questions related to factor and/
or MANOVA analysis. Therefore, 425 were used for the data analysis.
The respondents consisted of 122 in-state, 190 out-of-state, and 113
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014
international students. The majority of respondents were female (64%)
while 36% of the sample was male.
Factors of College Choice
The results of the exploratory factor analysis and reliabilities are
reported in Table 1.
Comparisons among the orthogonal and oblique solutions on
the scales of college choice indicated that 11 factors can be extracted,
with the size of all 11 coefficients approximating .35 (delta = 0). In ad-
dition, the oblique rotation yielded more interpretable factors than
the orthogonal rotation. Factor solutions from the ML and PAF proce-
dures were very similar. This study reports the 11-factor PAF solution
with oblique rotation because these eleven extracted factors corre-
spond more closely with the factor structure based on the framework
of college choice by Somers et al. (2006)
The PAF solution with oblique rotation of 64 attributes produced
11 factors based on eigen value criteria and the Scree plot. Out of 64
items, 13 were deleted because some attributes were cross-loaded less
than .40 and others did not include into any factor. The final results
of the common factor analysis of the remaining 51 items passed both
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.0005) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (0.902), indicating that using
factor analysis on 51 attributes was highly appropriate.
The 11 factors explained 64.76% of the variance. With a cut-off
loading value of 0.40 for item inclusion, all 51 items were retained in
the analysis and each item loaded on one factor only. The high load-
ings indicated a good correlation between the items and component
grouping to which they belonged. The components were averaged
for factor scores and labeled as “Career support”, “Media”, “Financial”,
“Inspiration”, “Environment”, “Family support”, “Facilities”, “Institutional
character”, “Extra activities”, “Net cost”, and “Influencers”. The reliabili-
ties were measured by Cronbach’s Alpha and ranged from 0.67 to 0.89,
which indicates acceptable internal consistency (Nunnally, 1994). The
reliability for net cost was relatively low (.67), because it has only two
items; however, it is considered acceptable (Hair et al, 2006).
30
Table 2 shows the summary of factors sorted by mean scores.
Overall, career support (M = 4.17) was the most important factor,
followed by net cost (M = 4.05), and inspiration (M = 4.00). Facilities,
Financial, Institutional character, Extra activities, Family support were
reported to be important, ranging from M = 3.25 to 3.62. However,
physical environment, influencers, and media were relatively less im-
portant factors (M <3).
Differences in Factors among Groups
Table 3 shows the results of the MANOVA analysis. Independent
variables included in-state students, out-of-state students, and inter-
national students. Dependent variables included the 11 college choice
factors. The results of the MANOVA showed there was a significant
difference between the three groups on the combined dependent
variables, F (22, 826) = 4,234, p < .0005. A follow-up univariate analysis
of variance indicated that there were statistically significant differenc-
es in Net cost, Facilities, Environment, and Media, F (2, 422) = 5.760, p =
.003, F (2, 422) = 7.427, p = .001, F (2, 422) = 6.569, p = .002, F (2, 422) =
8.044, p < .0005, respectively.
Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to measure
differences among the three groups on those factors. In regard to
“Net cost”, statistically significant differences were found between
international (4.21) and in-state students (3.75), p = .008 and between
out-of-state (4.15) and in-state students (3.75), p =.010. However there
was no significant difference between international (4.21) and out-
of-state students (4.15). This indicates that for both international and
out-of-state students, Net cost is a more important factor for college
choice, compared to in-state students. That is, nonresident students
considered net cost to be a significant factor when choosing UNLV.
On “Facilities”, there was a statistically significant difference
between international (3.91) and in-state students (3.33), p <.0005.
However, there was no significant difference between international
(3.91) and out-of-state (3.64) and between in-state (3.33) and out-
of-state students (3.64). This indicates that international students
consider a school’s Facilities to be a more important factor for college
choice compared to in-state students.
Regarding “Environment”, statistically significant differences were
found between in-state students (2.60) and international students
(2.05), p = .001 and between in-state (2.60) and out-of-state students
(2.26), p = .04. The Environment factor was a more important factor for
in-state students relative to nonresidents students.
In regard to “Media”, a statistically significant difference was found
only between international (1.88) and out-of-state students (1.31), p <
.0005. That is, international students appeared to be more influenced
by Media than out-of-state students. However, the factor analysis
showed this factor to have the least important score (M = 1.53).
In summary, Career support, Net cost, Inspiration were generally
found to be the most important factors with average ratings of 4.00 or
higher. Five other factors, Facilities, Financial, Institutional character,
Volume 24, Number 1
 Table 2 to 27 percent in the 100 colleges in the United States, according to a
College Choice Factors Sorted by Mean Scores recent survey conducted by the American Association of Community
Colleges (Streitfeld, 2009). During economic downturns, it is hard to
Mean SD get a job, so instead people invest this time going to school to help
Career support 4.17 0.88 qualify for a better job once the economy improves and jobs are easier
Net cost 4.05 1.33 to find. However, students become more sensitive to school cost when
Inspiration 4.00 0.95 the economy is down.

Facilities 3.62 1.17 The third most important factor was Inspiration. This includes the
reputation of UNLV’s Hotel program, desire to work in the hospitality
Financial 3.54 1.33
industry, desire to have a college degree and feelings about the insti-
Institutional character 3.45 1.06
tution. Thus a school’s program and reputation plays an important role
Extra activities 3.28 1.37
in attracting students. Most college choice studies have focused more
Family support 3.25 1.23
on external perspectives such as institution and facilities rather than
Environment 2.30 1.18 students’ internal perspectives. However, this study found students’
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014

Influencers 2.24 1.27 perspective to be significant as well as institutional factors. Further

Media 1.53 1.19 research should not ignore students’ perspectives but consider both
institutional and students’ perspectives to help us better understand
college choice.
Extra activities, and Family support, all received average ratings above
Furthermore, this research compared the differences between the
a middle rating of 3.00. Environment, Influencers, and Media were
factors among three different groups: in-state, out-of-state, and inter-
generally perceived as not being very important as they all received
national students. The results reveal differences in Net cost, Facilities,
average ratings below 2.50.
Environment, and Media, among the three different groups. Particu-
Significant differences were found between some student groups
larly, out-of-state and international students showed similar results on
on four factors; Net cost, Facilities, Environment, and Media. These
choosing UNLV by considering Net cost to be more important than
results are not very meaningful regarding Environment and Media fac-
in-state students as higher tuition and living expenses are required for
tors since these factors are not considered important by students with
non-resident students. However, there was no difference in the weight
average ratings below 2.50. But the significant differences between
placed upon Financial among the student groups. This indicates that
nonresident students and in-state students on the Net cost factor and
Net cost is more important than “Financial”. Financial includes dimen-
between international students and in-state students on the Facilities
sions such as financial aid and work study job availability. Additionally
factor identifies two important factors that are evaluated differently
international students valued Facilities more than in-state students. In
depending upon the type of student.
contrast, Environment conditions such as location of school, proximity,
Conclusion and transportation were more important factors for in-state students
than out-of-state and international students for choosing the hotel
This study was able to extract 11 significant factors of college
program at UNLV. The two results indicate that resident students have
choice. The results extend previous research to include more relevant
different criteria regarding the Net cost and Environment factors when
factors of college choice such as Media, Career support, Family sup-
choosing a college relative to non-resident students. But we should
port, and Inspiration. Overall, career support was the most important
not place too much emphasis on the Environment factor since it gener-
factor for students choosing the Hotel College at the University of
ally was not considered very important with an average rating of 2.30.
Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV). This is not surprising since UNLV is located
in the middle of Las Vegas which is considered a gaming, hospitality An interesting result revealed media such as TV programs, soap
and entertainment Mecca. This result supports the notion that it is opera, and news significantly influenced international students rela-
important for a university to offer various work and networking op- tive to other students. Over the past decade, UNLV’s Hotel College has
portunities through a schools connection to the industry, through become much more recognized in South Korean due to media impact
coursework and extra curricula activities. since Korean TV series such as “Hotelier” in 2001 and “All-in” in 2003
were set in Las Vegas. Forty-eight percent of international students at
The second most important factor for college choice was the Net
UNLV’s Hotel College are Korean students. Even though these shows
cost. In general, during economic downturns, college enrollment goes
no longer play in Korea, this media probably influenced former stu-
up because the opportunity cost is relatively low when the economy is
dents. These former students become alumni who in turn oftentimes
down. The current economic downturn and an increasing unemploy-
influence later students. Media as a factor may be an interesting topic
ment rate have led to college enrollment gains ranging from 2 percent

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 31

 Table 3
Results of MANOVA: In-state vs. Out-of-state vs. International Students

In-state Out-of-state International F-ratio Sig.

N=122 N=190 N=113 5.14 0.000 *
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Career support 4.05 (1.00) 4.22 (.85) 4.19 (.78) 1.366 .256
Net cost 3.75 (1.32)d 4.15 (1.15)c 4.21 (1.06)c 5.760 .003 *
Inspiration 3.88 (1.08) 4.12 (.85) 3.94 (.92) 2.837 .060
Facilities 3.33 (1.27)d 3.64 (1.18) 3.91 (.93)c 7.427 .001 *
Financial 3.50 (1.39) 3.39 (1.50) 3.58 (1.40) .441 .644
Institutional character 3.30 (1.17) 3.41 (1.09) 3.69 (.82) 4.123 .017
Extra activities 2.98 (1.41) 3.35 (1.40) 3.50 (1.23) 4.830 .008
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014

Family support 3.06 (1.28) 3.22 (1.30) 3.50 (.99) 3.812 .023
Environment 2.60 (1.16)d 2.26 (1.19)c 2.05 (1.13)c 6.569 .002 *
Influencers 2.23 (1.18) 2.11 (1.28) 2.47 (1.33) 2.778 .063
Media 1.55 (1.02) 1.31 (1.12)d 1.88 (1.40)c 8.044 .000 *
Overall MANOVA tests of Pillai’s (p < .0005, F (22, 826) = 4,234); Box’s M (219.719, p<.0005); Bonferroni correction was used. The p-values with “*” are signifi-
cant at the adjusted significance level of 0.0045 (0.05/11=0.0045). Means indicated by “c” are significantly different than means indicated by “d” at the 5%
significance level. All variables were measured on a 5 point scale.

for future research, but the importance score was fairly low for the me-
dia factor. In fact, the Media factor was rated last out of the 11 factors.
Media might have been much more highly rated by Korean students
and thus international students overall if a study was conducted right
after these media shows were released in 2001 and 2003.
The results can be useful for college administrators to consider
in the management of their resources in trying to recruit, satisfy
and meet the needs of current and future students. As the college
population becomes more diverse and the higher education system
continues to grow, the college choice process will become even
more complex, thus requiring closer attention to the specification of
plausible choice sets. The results can help college recruiters develop
appropriate promotions to differentiate their colleges in a meaning-
ful way to potential students worldwide. Especially in this time of
tight budgets, recruiting more students and recruiting out-of state
and international students can provide tremendous financial benefits
to colleges and universities. Out-of state students pay significantly
higher tuition than in-state students and international students typi-
cally pay significantly higher tuition than all other students at most
public universities. Therefore to the extent that more out-of state and
international students can be recruited, a university or college will be
more financially successful. Tuition revenue will be higher, yet the cost
of providing a college education does not vary significantly across in-
state, out-of state, and international students.
A good example of the incentive to recruit more out-of-state
and international students is the case of public universities in Nevada
currently. Currently UNLV does not receive the tuition funds col-
lected from students. These funds go to the state general fund and
the university is funded on a formula basis that does not consider the
numbers of in-state, out-of-state, or international students, but just
the total number of all students regardless of residence classification.
UNLV is facing a possible budget cut approaching $50 million for the
2011-2012 biennium. One of the suggested solutions to the budget
cut is to change the funding formula from the state to allow UNLV to
keep tuition revenues or at least any increases in tuition revenues. If
this should happen, UNLV will have a tremendous incentive to manage
its enrollment so as to increase the number of out-of-state and inter-
national students as this will increase funding for the university. If this
should come to pass, the results of this study would be of tremendous
value to UNLV in achieving this objective.
In conclusion, this study was designed to understand students’
college choices through a case study from the Hotel College at UNLV.
Because it is a case study, one should be careful in generalizing the
findings from this study to other universities. Future research replicat-
ing this case study would be useful in confirming the insights provided
here and help to contribute new ideas to the college recruiting pro-
cess in higher education.

32 Volume 24, Number 1

 References
Artstein,S., Ball, K., Barthe F., and Naor, A. (2004). Solution of Shannon’s Problem
on the Monotonicity of Entropy, Journal of the American Mathematical
Society, 17 (4), 975–982.
Chapman, R. (1984). Toward a theory of college choice: A model of college search
and choice behavior. Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta Press.
Dreher, A., & Poutvaara, P. (2005). Student flows and migration: an empirical
analysis, CESIFO Working Paper, No. 1490 Category 4 Labour markets.
Foskett, N., Maringe, F., & Roberts, D. (2006). Changing Fee Regimes and their
Impact on Student Attitudes to Higher Education, Higher Education Academy
UK (in press).
Goodman, R. J., & Sprague, L.G. (1991). The future of hospitality education:
Meeting the industry’s need. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 32(2), 66-70.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:44 28 October 2014
ed.), (pp. 9-36). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Somers, P., Haines, K., & Keene, B. (2006). Toward a theory of choice for com-
munity college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
30(1), 53-67.
St. John, E. P. (1990). Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the
high school and beyond senior cohort. Research in Higher Education, 3(2),
161–176.
St. John, E. P. (1991). The impact of student financial aid: A review of recent re-
search. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 21(1), 18–32.
St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the in-
fluence of prices and subsidies on within-year persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 66(2), 156–86.
Streitfeld, R. (2009). Unemployed workers heading back to school. BLUE BELL,
Pennsylvania (CNN). Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://www.cnn.com
/2009/LIVING/ 02/14/unemployment.education/index.html.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York:
Pearson.

Hanson, K., & Litten, L. (1982). Mapping the road to academia: A review of re-
search on women, men, and the college selection process. N P. Perun (Ed.), Theriault, S. (2007). College of hotel administration student population.
The undergraduate woman, Issues in education. Lexington, MA: Lexington. [Powerpoints Slies] College Advisory Board, November 7, 2007.
Hearn, J. (1984). The relative roles of academic ascribed and socioeconomic Tierney, M. L. (1983). Student college choice sets: Toward an empirical charac-
characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education, 57(1), 22–30. terization. Research in Higher Education, 18(3), 271–284.
Hoxby, C.M. (1997). How the Changing Market Structure of US Higher Education Water, D., Abrahamson, T. & Lyons, K., (2009). High-achieving seniors and the
Explains College Tuition. NBER Working Paper 6323, Cambridge, MA: National college decision, Lipman Hearne Key Insights. Retrieved September 12, 2010
Bureau of Economic Research. from http://www.lipmanhearne.com/home.aspx
Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student col- World Tourism Organization. (n.d.). Facts and figures: Information analysis and
lege choice. In: J.C. Smart, Editor, Higher education: Handbook of theory and know how. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.worldtourism.org/
research (IV) pp. 231–288. Agathon Press: New York. facts/ menu.html
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three- Zemsky, R., & Oedel, P. (1983). The structure of college choice. New York: College
phase model and the implication for policy makers. College and University, Entrance Examination Board, Ford Foundation.
62(3), 207–221.Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: Zimmerman, K., Bauer, T., & Loftstrom, M. (2000), Immigration policy: assimila-
How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students tion of immigrants, evidence from 12 OECD countries. Swedish Economic
make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Policy Review, 7(2), 11-53.
Jackson, G. (1978). Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher
Education, 49(6), 548–74.
Jackson, G. (1982). Public efficiency and private choice in higher education.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(2), 237–47.
Jafari, J. (1997). Tourismification of the profession: Chameleon job names across
the industry. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 175-181.
James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999), Which University? The Factors
Influencing Choices of Prospective Undergraduates, Evaluation and
Investigations Programme. Higher Education Division, Australia.
Keyt, J. C., Yavas, U., & Riecken, G. (1994). Importance - Performance Analysis.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 22(5), 35-40.
Kitcharoen, K.(2004). The importance-performance analysis of service quality
administrative departments of private universities in Thailand. ABAC Journal,
24(3). 20-46.
Martilla, J., & James, J. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of
Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
Niu, S.X., &Tienda, M. (2008). Choosing college: Identifying and modeling choice
sets. Social Science Research, 37(2), 416-433.
Price, I., Matzdorf, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student
choice of university. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(10),
212-222.
Nunnally, J.C (1994). Nunnally, Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Reigel, C. D., & Dallas, M. (1999). Hospitality and tourism: Careers in the world’s
largest industry. In Council on Hotel Restaurant & Institutional Education
(Ed.), A guide to College Programs in Culinary Arts, Hospitality and Tourism (6th

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 33

View publication stats