THE COLLEGE SELECTION BASED ON THE EDUCATION COST, UNIVERSITY IMAGE AND LECTURER QUALITY

LA SELECCIÓN DE LA UNIVERSIDAD BASADA EN EL COSTO DE LA EDUCACIÓN, LA IMAGEN DE LA UNIVERSIDAD Y LA CALIDAD DEL PROFESOR

The trend in the development of private universities in Indonesia is quite high, as seen by the increasing number of people who wish to pursue higher education, thus providing opportunities for private universities to continue to improve quality. Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) are mostly focused on income derived from tuition fees, of course different from Public Higher Education Institutions (PUHEs). Therefore, the community continuously compares the quality of education between the two sectors of higher education providers (Kee & Sia, 2013). Marketing in the higher education (HE) sector is not new. Research has shown that to maintain the sustainability of campus activities, HE must use a marketing framework and meet the needs of their customers by adding value to the university’s sustainable competitive advantage (Hoyt & Brown, 2003;Kotler & Fox, 1995).

Higher Education Management needs to market their institutions to build uniqueness, highlight strengths and provide strong reasons for prospective students to choose the institution. Therefore, many researchers have demonstrated that marketing plays an important role in student enrollment, and these researchers have tried to exemplify how students choose HE (Tapp, Hicks, & Stone, 2004;Cubillo, Sanchez, & Cervin, 2006). But this is not an easy matter for every university to develop higher education institutions in Indonesia, given the tighter competition with other universities (Harahap, Hurriyati, Gaffar, & Amanah, 2018). Studies that have been documented in some literature that focus on higher education (HE), there are many factors that influence students’ decisions to choose a particular college, namely the cost of education (Xiaoping, 2002), and perceptions about the quality of educational programs (Zain & Nik-Yacob, 1995).

Institutional characteristics include image, geographic location, academic programs and facilities, social life and social facilities, accommodation and dining facilities, safety, lighting and security, sports facilities (Absher & Crawford, 1996;Tackey & Aston, 1999), and the possibility for students to live close to home or family (Jackson, 1982). Ford et al., (1999), stated that students are attracted to institutional factors such as degree program flexibility, academic reputation and prestige that reflect national and international recognition, physical aspects of the campus such as the quality of infrastructure and services, and the time required for program completion. In addition to these characteristics, Maringe (2006), found that the availability of equipment, for example computers, the quality of library facilities, the quality of lecturers, research reputation, cleanliness, part-time work opportunities, employee attitudes, availability of telephones and quiet areas for learning and opportunities for graduates to get jobs influence the choice of college.

From the literature review on previous tertiary institutions, there are many factors and studies that examine students’ decision to continue their studies at university. However, there are still few studies investigating the effect of education costs, university image and lecturer quality on university selection. These factors are important to research because in Indonesia these three factors are very influential for society, students and parents in choosing certain universities as places to continue their studies. Circumstances or conditions that are not in accordance with what the community expects, will raise doubts which can result in the decision not to choose the university, in this case the decision not to continue the study in the desired place, so research is needed to see the effect on the choice of university. This research involves 3 (three) factors that influence the decision of students to choose a university to continue their studies, namely the cost of education, the image of the university and the quality of the lecturers.

The cost of education is often matched by spending on education. Education costs in this scope have a broad definition, namely all types of expenditures relating to the provision of education, both in the form of money and goods and labor, which are expressed in monetary units (Supriyadi, 2010). The concept of education costs can be distinguished by classifying the costs that occur, namely social and private costs, opportunity costs and money costs, and explicit and implicit costs (Latchanna & Hussein, 2007). According to Lupiyoadi & Hamdani (2006), higher education institutions use different tuition fee determinations for each student and program, including: 1). Based on the study program; example: economics, engineering, language, law, 2). Based on student level; example: undergraduate students are different from postgraduate, where the cost of postgraduate is more expensive, 3). Based on student credit load, 4). Based on the type of student program; example: programs with a degree (S1) or non-degree / graduate / diploma, and 5). Based on the time and place of lecture; example: evening classes are different in cost from regular classes during the day. According to Kotler & Armstrong (2016), there are four indicators that characterize prices, namely: price affordability, price compatibility with product quality, price competitiveness and price compatibility with benefits.

Several studies have been conducted regarding the effect of costs in making institutional choices (Domino, Libraire, Lutwiller, Superczynski, & Tian, 2006; Wagner & Fard, 2009; Webb, 1993). It was found that the costs associated with learning at an institution were the most important factor (Domino, Libraire, Lutwiller, Superczynski, & Tian, 2006; Wagner & Fard, 2009), while others found that costs were the fourth most influential factor in the choice of educational institutions.

In this study the authors perceive price as the cost of education as measured by using four measurement indicators as follows, namely: 1) Affordability of tuition fees, 2) Compatibility of tuition fees with study programs, 3) Competitive tuition fees, and 4) Suitability of tuition fees with benefits. The cost of education is an important reason for prospective students to make the decision to choose to continue their studies in higher education. Thus, the first hypothesis is established: Hypotheses # 1 (H1): cost of education will significantly influence a student’s decision to choose a college.

According to Kotler & Armstrong (2016), image is a set of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has about an object. So, people’s attitudes and actions towards certain objects are largely determined by the object’s image. This image is obtained by the college through a series of accumulated abilities and experiences so that the college has the best performance for stake holders. The university image can be defined as the sum of all beliefs that individuals have towards the university (Arpan, Raney, & Zivnuska, 2003;Helgesen & Erik Nesset (2007), show that student satisfaction has a positive impact on student perceptions of university image. From some of the theoretical explanations above, the writer can conclude that the definition of the image of a university is an assessment given by the community or prospective students to the university, or the perception of all activities carried out by the university.

According to Hoeffler & Keller (2003), indicators of image are: professional impression, modern impression, serving all segments and attention to consumers. The indicators used to measure the image of the university according to Helgesen & Erik Nesset (2007), are: recognition of campus qualifications, career and job potential, student perceptions of campus and perceptions of college service users on campus. In this study, the image of the university is measured using the following four measurement indicators, namely: 1) Good name, namely the impression the university has, 2) Career and job potential, 3) Serving all segments, the products produced by the university are able to reach various groups of people , and 4) Attention to consumers, universities are able to prove concern for their students. To investigate the image of the university towards student decisions, this study proposes a second hypothesis as follows: Hypotheses # 2 (H2): university image will significantly influence students’ decision to choose a college.

Lecturers are professional educators and scientists with the main task of transforming, developing and disseminating science, technology and art through education, research and community service (Indonesia, 2005). According to Narimawati (2005), the main key to improving the quality of higher education is that institutions or leaders must improve the quality of lecturers, which will result in increasing motivation and job satisfaction and further commitment to the organization or institution. Many institutions have or are developing competency requirements for lecturers. However, in most cases, this requirement is only for a group of lecturers and not the entire higher education industry (Hellison, 2003). According to Evertson, Hawley, & Zlotnik (1985), the existence of a system-wide consensus stating the minimum requirements and competence of lecturers makes it difficult to maintain and guarantee quality education. Lecturers who are well equipped with relevant knowledge in their field, this specialization determines the quality of teaching.

Teaching experience, on average, is positively related to student achievement throughout the lecturer’s career (Kini & Podolsky, 2016). Measuring the quality of teaching becomes very complex because it involves teaching preparation and self-confidence (Darling-hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005), experience and knowledge (Goe, 2007; Schmidt & Hunter, 1983), pedagogical skills, positive attitudes and classroom management skills so that they can be organized (Hamid, Hassan, & Ismail, 2012). Baird (1967), concluded that good teaching, high academic standards and special programs are what students are looking for.

Indicators of the quality of lecturers (Indonesia, 2005), are: 1) Lecturers have many qualifications of S2 / S3, 2) Lecturers have expertise in their respective fields, 3) Lecturers are broad-minded according to scientific disciplines, and 4) Lecturers have prepared learning materials with ripe. To investigate and see to what extent the influence of lecturer quality on student decisions, this study proposes the following hypothesis: Hypotheses # 3 (H3): lecturers quality will significantly influence students’ decisions to choose a college.

According to Kotler & Armstrong (2016), decision making is an individual activity that is directly involved in obtaining and using the goods offered, including the decision-making process in the preparation and determination of these activities (Swastha & Handoko, 2008). Consumer behavior will determine the decision-making process in purchasing and before deciding to purchase goods or services, consumers usually go through various stages Kotler & Armstrong (2016). The definition of a purchasing decision above is assumed to be a student’s decision to choose a university.

In their study of the decision of prospective students to choose a university, Agrey & Lampadan (2014), found factors that influence the decision-making process, namely: 1) a support system that includes physical (bookstores and counseling offices) and non-physical (scholarship availability, value transfer, etc.), 2) learning environment related to the existence of modern learning facilities, institutional reputation, libraries, laboratory computers, affordable tuition fees, etc., 3) prospects for graduates to be accepted into work after graduation, 4) strong student programs such as health care , housing, accommodation and extra-curricular activities, 5) a safe and friendly environment associated with a safe campus and supportive campus employees. The factors above are also highlighted in the research of (Çokgezen, 2014; Ciriaci & Muscio, 2011).

The indicators in this study were adapted from the research of (Harahap, Hurriyati, Gaffar, Wibowo, & Amanah, 2017b), namely the student’s decision to choose a university is measured using the following five measurement indicators, namely: 1) Introduction to universities, 2) Search for university information, 3) Evaluation the alternative to choosing a university, 4) the decision to choose a university, and 5) behavior after choosing a university. From several previous studies in Indonesia, research has never been conducted on the effect of education costs, university image and quality of lecturers simultaneously on student decisions to choose to study. The author seeks to explore the reciprocal effects of student decisions in choosing universities and proposes a third hypothesis: Hypotheses # 4 (H4): cost of education, university image and lecturers quality will significantly influence the student’s decision to choose a college.

• Methodology

  This study employed a quantitative approach to investigate the effect of cost, university image, and lecturer quality on students’ decision in attending a university. Data were collected from a private university in Bandung, West Java Province, Indonesia. The university is one of the biggest private universities in the province, with total of 13,750 graduate and postgraduate students. In addition, this research university holds an A accreditation from the national board of higher education in Indonesia, offers a wide-ranging study programs, and having research partnerships with many public and private parties and both national and international institutions.

• Sample definition

  This study was limited to one private university in West Java due to limited access to gather data from private universities in the province. The target population of the study was graduate students in the selected university. There were 12,474 graduate students attending study programs in ten faculties. Four hundred graduate students studying in different programs were randomly selected as the participants. They were given access to online survey and asked to complete it, and only 388 responses were finally collected.

• Data collection

  Data were collected using a questionnaire measuring students’ perceptions when selecting the university. The questionnaire had been refined in the pre-testing and pilot testing stage administered to first-to four-year students. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak limiting the access to face-to-face and paper-based survey administration, the final questionnaire was made in an online form using Google form. The link was sent to students’ email and the duration of survey completion was three months from April to June 2020.

  There were two parts of the questionnaire. The first part asked individual background, including gender, ethnicity, and faculty they attended to. There were six options of ethnicities: Sundanese, Bataknese, Javanese, Minangese, Betawi, and others; ten options of faculties: Syaria Da’wah, Tarbiya, Law, Psychology, Economics and Business, Communication, Technical Studies, Mathematics and Science, and Medical Studies. The second part of the questionnaire included items measuring education cost, university image, quality of lecturer, and students’ decision to study. The measure related to education cost were developed based on Kotler & Armstrong (2016), consisting of six items (i.e., ‘Education cost in this university is affordable’). Meanwhile, there were 12 items measuring the construct of university image and developed based on Helgesen & Erik Nesset (2007) (i.e., ‘This university has a good image on the community’). The quality of lecturer construct was measured by ten items developed from (Indonesia, 2005) (i.e., The lecturers in this university are knowledgeable and high quality’), and the decision of selecting the study program was developed from (Harahap et al., 2017b), consisting of ten items (i.e., ‘I study in this university because it offers a program that fulfils my needs.’). Those items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale where 5 ‘Strongly Agree’ and 1 ‘Strongly Disagree’.

  

• Data Analysis

  Data analysis consisted descriptive statistics to describe the data collected without making a generalization of the data. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the association and the effect of education cost, university image, and lecturer quality on student choice in studying at the university. A statistical software, IBM SPSS Statistics 26 software, was used to analyze the data.