PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KIProj/Achres/CIRC/Dateoue.indd

 

- _.‘-._-‘_._LL‘ . _..._ -—A _ ‘_-AM_—._._ _ _.___

 

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES: THE
ROLE OF PERSONAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
IN THE COLLEGE CHOICE PROCESS

By

Jean F. Morciglio

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education

2010

ABSTRACT
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES: THE
ROLE OF PERSONAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
IN THE COLLEGE CHOICE PROCESS
By
Jean F. Morciglio

This study sought_to explain how high school seniors across the United States
think about community colleges in the context of the college choice process. The
study described what attributes are associated with the community college experience
and what inﬂuences those attributes. Since a weak college choice process can
contribute to later performance problems, a better understanding of the community
college within the choice process should mean less talent lost, fewer college drOpouts,
and a more efﬁcient use of resources by both individuals and institutions.

This study focused_on perceptions about community colleges and the
environmental, personal, and institutional factors that inﬂuence such perceptions. The
study involved an analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a survey of over
36,000 college-bound high school students, and addressed the question: “What
attributes, values, and inﬂuences can help explain perceptions about expected
experiences at community colleges within the context of the college choice process?”

The study results indicated that geographic region, income, race, and academic
preparation all had an impact on serious consideration of a community college as an
option during the college choice process. In addition, different racial and income

groups perceived community college attributes differently. For example,

lower-middle income students had an unusual aversion to the community college,
while higher income students indicated a high overall favorability of community
colleges. A large number of respondents did not see the community college as a
transition away from their home and high school, and for many this perception was
tied to academic reputation. Emotional attachment, developmental growth, and social
network appeared more important than affordability to respondents considering a
community college. Environmental and personal factors played signiﬁcant roles in

inﬂuencing perceptions held about community colleges.

Copyright by
Jean F. Morciglio
2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Doctoral committee-

My doctoral committee members at Michigan State University were incredibly
knowledgeable and deserve special gratitude and recognition. My chair was Dr.
MaryLee Davis. Committee members are Dr. Marilyn Amey and Dr. John Dirkx, all
from Higher Adult, and Lifelong Education, and Dr. Hairong Li, from the Department
Advertising, Public Relations and Retailing. I feel fortunate to have worked with each

of them.

F amily—

My family is large, and I pray they did not suffer from my missing weekends and
mixed priorities during this dissertation. They inspired me to work hard and tackle
new challenges, as they do in their daily lives. Ken, Doug, Mike, Jordan, Keni,
Andrea, and all connected to them, are appreciated for their patience and steadfast
support. A special acknowledgement goes to my mother, who passed during the ﬁnal
stage of this dissertation, and whose support and enthusiasm pushed me to begin this

venture in the ﬁrst place.

Mentors and friends -

Many friends and mentors helped move me along this journey, some as study-buddies,
and others with kind words of support, phone calls, and even rides. I thank them all for

the gentle push and pull.

Inspiration-

As a teen one of my favorite science ﬁction trilogies was Foundation by Isaac
Asimov, about a mutant who controlled groups of people with his mind. I was
fascinated by the idea that group behavior could be looked at separately from
individual behavior and resolved to understand the difference. I had already drafted
this acknowledgement when I found Six Degrees: the Science of a Connected Age by
Duncan Watts. Watts mentions that as a teenager he read Foundation and was inspired
to study how groups behave. I can’t help but wonder if Asimov intended to push so
many of us in this direction with his ideas, in the same way his mutant pushed with his

mind. A special thanks then, to Asimov, for an entire generation of inspiration.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ...................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ............................................................ 2
Signiﬁcance of the Study ....................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework ......................................................... 6
Research Questions .............................................................. 7
Deﬁnition of Terms ............................................................. 8

Role of the Researcher .......................................................... 8
Summary .......................................................................... 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................... 11
Introduction ....................................................................... 1 1
Literature Review ............................................................... 11

Social Network Framework .................................................... 15

Social Capital Framework ............................................. 18

The Student Development and Transition Framework ............ 19

College Choice in a Consumer Choice Framework ................ 22

Inﬂuence during College Choice ..................................... 26

Branding in Higher Education ........................................ 34

The Choice to Attend a Community College ....................... 39

The College Choice Filters ............................................ 43

Gaps in Literature ............................................................... 44
Summary .......................................................................... 45
Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................... 46
Research and Design ............................................................ 46
Survey Design ........................................................... 47

Population and Background Information for the Study .................... 50
Respondent Population ................................................ 50

Survey Design ........................................................... 51

Rationale form Mixed Framework for the Study ........................... 51
Quantitative Procedures ......................................................... 52

Phase I .................................................................... 52

Statistical tool: Correlation ........................................... 53

Quantitative Procedures ......................................................... 56

Phase II: Segmentation ................................................ 56

Phase III: Qualitative Analysis ....................................... 56

vii

Steps in Qualitative Analysis ..........................................
Data Collection ..................................................................
Survey Instrument ......................................................
Instrumentation .........................................................
Survey Administration ................................................
Data Analyses ...................................................................
Summary ........................................................................

Chapter 4 Research Findings .........................................................
Introduction .......................................................................
Organization of Data Analysis .................................................

Background ..............................................................
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents .................................
Geography of Respondents ............................................
Gender ....................................................................
Income ...................................................................
Race/Ethnicity ...........................................................
Academic Preparation ..................................................
Summary of Respondent Characteristics .....................................
Analysis of Data by Factors and Research Questions ......................
Environmental and Demographic Factors ....................................
Quantitative Analysis ............................................................
Gender ...................................................................
Income ...................................................................
Income and overall favorability ......................................
Race .......................................................................
Academic Preparation ..................................................
Summary of Demographic Factors ...................................
Qualitative Analysis ....................................................
Diversity .................................................................
Tuition and Cost ........................................................
Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice ..........................................
Quantitative Analysis of Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice..
College Objectives ...................................................
Values ....................................................................
Quantitative Analysis of Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice..
Values ....................................................................
Academic Reputation ................................................
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................
Familiarity ......................................................
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................
Institutional Factors .............................................................
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................
Facility ..........................................................
Faculty ..........................................................

viii

58
62
62
62
63
64
65

66
66
66
67
68
68
73
73
74
75
77
78
78
78
84
85
87
88
90
94
95
95
96
97
98
98
99
103
104
104
107
107
109
110
111
112
112
113

Offerings ....................................................... 1 13

Total of favorability and serious consideration rankings. . . . . . 119
Summary of Analysis of Questions .................................. 122

Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, Limitations, Implications and
Recommendations ....................................................................... 127
Introduction ...................................................................... 127
Summary of the Study .......................................................... 129
Summary of the Findings ....................................................... 130
Environmental Factors ................................................. 130
Personal Factors ......................................................... 1 32
Institutional Factors .................................................... 134
Attributes ................................................................ 134
Barriers .................................................................. 135
Heuristics or mental shortcuts ....................................... 136
Summary ......................................................................... 136
Conclusions and Discussion ................................................... 138
Limitations ........................................................................ 142
Recommendations for Practice ................................................ 143
Recommendations Based on Enviromnental Factors .............. 143
Personal Factors ........................................................ 144
Institutional Factors .................................................... 145
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................... 148
Final Thoughts, Reﬂections .................................................... 149
Appendices ............................................................................... 1 52
Appendix A Survey Instrument Questions Used ........................... 153
Appendix B Permission to use survey results ................................ 157
Appendix C Table 22 Survey respondents by State ........................ 158
Appendix D Lexical Searches ................................................ 159
References .............................................................................. 160

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Comparison of Frameworks .........................................

Table 2 Higher Education Marketing Efforts and Related to Choice
Frameworks .....................................................................

Table 3 Groupings and Themes Explored in Relation to Research Sub-
Questions ........................................................................

Table 4 Gender ..................................................................
Table 5 Family Income .........................................................
Table 6 Race/Ethnicity of Respondents ......................................
Table 7 SAT Scores ............................................................
Table 8 Reported Grade Point Average of Respondents ...................
Table 9 Correlation between Serious Consideration and Income ........

Table 10 Overall F avorability by Race ......................................
Table 11 Serious Consideration and GPA ..................................
Table 12 Already Selected a College .........................................
Table 13 College Objective ...................................................
Table 14 Mean of scores for values for all respondents ...................
Table 15 Serious Consideration and Expected Tuition Expense .........
Table 16 Serious Consideration and Expected Distance ...................

Table 17 Serious Consideration and Small Class Size .....................

Table 18 How Familiar are You with the Local Community College?...

Table 19 Familiarity and Serious Consideration ...........................

25

38

58

73

73

75

76

76

85

90

92

94

99

100

101

102

103

108

109

Table 20 Characteristics Valued During College Choice- How
important is the following when choosing a college? ...................... 112

Table 21 Overall Favorability Ratings ....................................... 121

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Some images in this dissertation are presented in color

Figure 1 Inﬂuences on Community College Choice ...............................
Figure 2 Research Plan ................................................................

Figure 3. Terms Used by Population Group “No Consideration at All”, Listed
Alphabetically with Frequency of Response ...............................

Figure 4 Lexical Terms Used to Code Academic Reputation .....................

Figure 5. Matrix Showing Lexical Coding of all Respondents who Seriously
Considered a Community College ...................................................

Figure 6 Sample Responses from Respondents Who Were Very Familiar with
but Chose not to Attend Community College, Code: academic

reputation ................................................................................
Figure 7 Map Showing all Survey Responses by Zip Code ......................
Figure 8 Map Showing Survey Responses by NCES Region of Country ......
Figure 9 Respondent G.P.A.s .........................................................

Figure 10 Map Showing Regions with High Favorability of Community
Colleges ..................................................................................

Figure 11 Map Showing Regions with Highest Serious Consideration .........
Figure 12 Map Showing No Consideration at All .................................
Figure 13 Percentage of Overall F avorability by Gender .........................

Figure 14 Income Levels and Serious Consideration of the Community College
Option .......................................................................................

Figure 15 Family Income and Overall Favorability ...............................
Figure 16 Serious Consideration by Racial/Ethnic Groups .......................
Figure 17 Respondent G.P.A.s .......................................................
Figure 18 Overall Favorability and SAT Scores ....................................

Figure 19 Means of Scores of Values Most Relevant to Community Colleges ..

xii

44

49

59

60

61

61

7O

72

77

80

81

83

84

86

88

89

91

93

101

Figure 20 Relationships Between Serious Consideration and Familiarity ....... 108

Figure 21 Comments of Respondents Who Were Not at All Familiar with

Community Colleges, All Codes ....................................................... 109
Figure 22 Comments of Respondents Who Are Very Familiar with Community
Colleges, All Codes ........................................................................ 110
Figure 23 Mean of Scores of Common Attributes Associated with Community
Colleges .................................................................................... 111
Figure 24 Barrier Analysis ............................................................ 116

Figure 25 Differences between Academic Strength and Academic
Reputation ................................................................................... 1 17

Figure 26 Percentage of Respondents Considering the Community College

Option .................................................................................... 120
Figure 27 Overall F avorability ........................................................ 122
Figure 28 No Consideration at All .................................................... 159
Figure 29 Serious Consideration ................................................... 159

xiii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The rising costs of a college education represent a challenge for policy makers

striving for a highly educated, globally competitive workforce (Mehlman, 2006).
Community colleges, at typically half the cost of four year institutions (Provasnik &
Planty, 2008), enrolling forty percent of minority students and forty seven percent of
all ﬁrst-time freshmen (McPhee, 2006; Provasnik & Planty, 2008), might seem a good
solution to keep costs contained. However, the largest segment of the ﬁrst-time
college-bound students in the United States, high school seniors, do not consider the
community college as a serious college option (Green, Dugoni, & Ingels, 1995;
Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Community colleges have very low appeal during the
search process (Green et al., 1995) yet almost half of ﬁrst time freshmen begin their
college experience there. If a community college is not a ﬁrst choice, but a student end
up attending one, there could be implications for his or her future success. A poor
college choice that results in a mismatch between a student and a college can be a
waste of resources from both the student’s perspective and from an institutional

perspective (Kirp, 2003).

Statement of the Problem
This suggests a contradiction about community colleges: low appeal during the
college search process followed by higher enrollments. Studies have shown that either

low conﬁdence in an institution (Brafman & Brafman, 2008) or a weak search process

(MacAllum, Glover, Queen, & Riggs, 2007) can lead to poor performance at an
educational institution. In the end, a contradiction between a student’s ﬁrst preference
and later actual enrollment could impact his or her eventual success and add to the
expense of a college education.

Furthermore, while economically needy students may eventually choose
community colleges (Grubb, Badway, & Bell, 2003), other data indicates that high
school students, including the economically needy, are rarely considering costs when
choosing a college (Green et al., 1995; Hauser & Anderson, 1991; Provasnik & Planty,
2008)

While many students choose community colleges as their ﬁrst choice (Gould,
2004) and view the community college option with high regard, this study looked at
the students who did not consider the community college option seriously. By
examining the perceptions of those who did not intend to enroll in a community
college the study helped to explain why community colleges faired poorly during the
search process of the traditional student. This study brings together research about
college choice, expected experience in college, higher education marketing and
branding, and community college attributes to further explain what might be

inﬂuencing the consideration to attend or not attend a community college.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the perceptions held
about community colleges during the college choice process by those traditional aged

students who were not seriously considering the community college option. At the

same time, it contributed to understanding the college choice process in general. A
three—phase, mixed methods approach was used. By isolating comments about the
attributes of community colleges, correlating them to social and demographic factors,
grouping shared ideas, and then providing examples of key attitudes, this study
provided some insight into the perception held about community.

The reason for looking at the behavior of students on a national level was to
consider whether there was a tendency for groups of students to share beliefs and, if
so, what beliefs were associated with what groups. It is hoped that this will make

clearer the mental models used in the college choice process.

Significance of the Study

The study of perceptual constructs held by the college-bound high school
student toward community colleges is signiﬁcant for several reasons. First, college
choice affects both human lives and institutional resources. In today’s environment,
neither can afford waste. Understanding the antecedents to successful college choice is
an issue of national educational policy because a good choice process contributes to
student success (Zahs, Pedlow, Morrissey, Marnell, & Nichols, 2005). This choice
process is complicated and signiﬁcant because the decision could have an effect on
students’ “future career, their future social connections, where they live, and how they
see themselves” (Ola & Ilkka, 2007). Second, prospective students need to understand
how their background might limit their perception of college choices. If they do not,
they may not see opportunities available. Third, higher education institutions spend a
large amount of money attempting to understand and inﬂuence how college choice is
made Their goal is not only to recruit new students, but also to match the incoming
freshman class with institutional mission and values (Kirp, 2003). Creating an
institutional mission and student body match is important to all higher education
institutions. It is hoped that this research can provide practitioners with useful
information about communicating effectively and appropriately with prospective
students. Because a weak college search process may contribute to a student’s
eventual poor performance, understanding the search process may help address
success rates at community colleges.

Finally, the social role that community colleges play is complicated and

paradoxical. On one hand, community colleges may be seen as last chance, last choice

colleges that have a “cooling out” role, a place where the hopes and expectations of
lower socioeconomic groups are purposefully managed out of existence (Clark, 1960;
Brint & Karabel, 1989). Media portrayals of community colleges, community college
students, and community college faculty are often negative (LaPaglia, 1993). On the
other hand, according to past United States Secretary of Education, Margaret Spelling,
community colleges “are essential to making that dream of economic well-being come
true for millions of Americans every year. It’s one of the best investments we can
make in America’s future” (Spelling, 2008). Community colleges are recognized for
creating one of the few avenues for upward mobility in the United States for lower
socioeconomic and minority groups. Bill Cosby (2007) stated at an American
Association of Community Colleges (AACC) conference, “Without community
colleges, there would be no democracy.”

Since both policy makers and the public hold these conﬂicting views of
community colleges, it should be no surprise that would-be students are confused
about the beneﬁts of a community college education. Complexity is increased when
choosers, consumers, and stakeholders are as varied as the general population because
of the community colleges’ mixed mission. It is hoped that this research will help
policy makers understand how community colleges are perceived, and how those
perceptions contribute to the choice process which may in turn impact student success.
In the long run, it is hoped community college leaders can consider the way they

represent themselves in order to help reduce some of the confusion about their assets.

Conceptual Framework

This research examines several conceptual frameworks related to college
choice since there are several ways of looking at the antecedents that inﬂuence the
decision to attend college (Kinzie et al., 2004). Social capital and expected rewards of
an education, consumer decision-making behavior, social context, and transition into
adult social roles are among the conceptual frameworks used to discuss college choice.
Furthermore, the inﬂuence of educational institutions on decision-making through
marketing and branding efforts is all a part of the college choice process.

The social network framework is used in examining the socio-demographics of
college-bound high school students in order to understand how those factors relate to
perceptions of community colleges. The consumer framework is used for an
examination of attitudes about community college attributes. Finally, marketing-based
brand and consumer segmentation frameworks are used to explain various perceptions
and attributes. While these frameworks are different, they all contribute to the
understanding of the choice process and lead to several questions about what is

important in the during college choice.

Research Questions

This research asked the question: What attributes, values, and inﬂuences can
help explain perceptions about expected experiences at community colleges within the
context of the college choice process? It should also shed light on the larger questions
of how background inﬂuences choice.

In order to address the research question, several sub-questions need to be
considered, including questions about what potential students are looking for, what
they know about institutions, who helps them make decisions, how the decision
process works, how a student’s background inﬂuences choice, how an institution
inﬂuences choice, and what mental constructs inﬂuence choice. Sub-questions will
help address the major research question while providing a framework for analysis of
the results. The sub-questions are:

Research Question 1. Are there any signiﬁcant socio-economic or

demographic factors that help explain how community colleges are

perceived during the choice process?

Research Question 2. What do prospective students hold of value when

choosing a higher education institution? Is it the same for a community

college?

Research Question 3. How important is familiarity in the community
college choice process?

Research Question 4. What attributes are associated with the
community college?

Research Question 5. What constitutes a barrier to the selection of a
community college?

Research Question 6. Is there any evidence that heuristics or mental
shortcuts take place when prospective students consider community
colleges?

Deﬁnition of Terms
The following operational terms are used throughout this research:

Salience refers to the idea that the chooser must be aware of a choice and have it easily
accessible in his or her mind (Walker, 2008).

Relevance refers to the idea that the chooser must feel that the choice is of value in
some way (Cialdini, 2001; Walker, 2008).

Social context includes demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics
of a population (Lopez, Santos, & Ceja, 2007).

Brand perception refers to the expected experiences at an institution (Clifton &
Simmons, 2004).

Attributes refer to the set of qualities, characteristics, and traits ascribed to an
institution (Astin, 1965).

Macrosystem “refers to consistencies... at the level of the subculture or culture as a
whole, along with any belief systems or ideology underlying such consistencies”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.6).

Inﬂuencers refer to forces that change the way people think when making decisions
(Cialdini, 2001).

Heuristics, sometimes called mental shortcuts, are cognitive rules that help people

make quick decisions and sometimes lead to cognitive biases (Brafman & Brafman,
2008)

Role of the Researcher
As a community college administrator I consider myself an advocate for
community colleges and therefore am not unbiased. When I read a 2006 SEM-Works
study showing only eight percent of graduating high school students in Michigan
(Becker, 2007) indicated a preference for attending a community college my curiosity
was aroused. The study reported that some minority groups had an even lower

preference for the community college option.

8

During my own educational journey, I attended a community college as an
undergraduate aﬁer attending a very rigorous Catholic high school. I transferred to a
university but my favorite classes were at the community college; they were small,
well structured, and taught by people who cared about my success. I had no reason to
question the academic strength of community colleges. As one of LaPaglia’s journal
writers put it, “it seemed like up to me” (LaPaglia, 1995, p.35).

When I later became an administrator at a community college I noticed that
some students, particularly those from afﬂuent school systems, seemed dismissive and
negative about their community college experience. On the other hand, those who
came as a ﬁrst choice because of an academic program’s reputation had very different
attitudes and commitment about their college work. I began to wonder about the
“cultural code” of community colleges (Rapaille, 2006) and how the concept of a
community college was understood so differently by different groups. My concern
about how community college students could succeed if they believed they were

attending a second choice institution brought this study into existence.

Summary
While community colleges serve large minority populations and about half of
signiﬁcant of ﬁrst time freshman students, only a small percentage of graduating high
school students consider the community college option seriously during the college
choice process. Some high school students hold negative views of community colleges.
This research asked whether any social, market, demographic, or decision-making

forces inﬂuence those views. This is important because a poor college choice could

lead to poor academic performance. A mixed methods study using a survey with both
closed and open-ended questions addressed these issues. The results of the study
provided insight into how to best communicate the role and attributes of community
colleges and will contribute to the larger understanding of the college choice process.
While there has been a great deal written about students choosing universities in the
search process, there has been much less research about students choosing community

colleges.

10

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The review of relevant literature includes several areas: the nature of choice
and the college choice process; the role of the individual within the choice process; the
role of institutions in mediating the choice process; internal inﬂuencers on choice and
decision-making; and the perception of community colleges within the context of the

choice process.

Literature Review

College Choice Overview

Every year, graduating high school students struggle with the decision about
whether to attend college, and if so, what college to attend. Simultaneously, colleges
and universities attempt to recruit students they believe will be a good match for their
institution (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006; Kirp, 2003). Would-be college students
have mixed beliefs about college access. Some believe that they are not meant for
college even though they show academic talent in secondary school (Hansen, 1994).
Many do not consider all of the options open to them (Jeffries, 1987). Others are not
familiar with the complicated process of applying for college. Some choose a college
that is not a good match for them and drop out during the ﬁrst years there. The result
may be lost talent and wasted resources (Kinzie et al., 2004).

Even more importantly, the choice process seems to have an impact on

students’ later performance. Bean and Bradley (1986) reported that students’

11

satisfaction with their institutional choice had a signiﬁcant impact on academic
performance. Some college choice research (Hossler 1984; Villella & Hu 1990) has
shown that “a weak, inaccurate search increases the risk of choosing the wrong
institution to attend, becoming dissatisﬁed with the institution, and withdrawing
before graduation” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p.1). These ﬁndings suggest that “some of
the seeds of college retention are sown prior to enrollment, during the search and
decision making phase” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p.1).

In order for a choice to be made, a type of mental and internal activity occurs.
Two factors are typically present for an option to be selected. The chooser must both
know about an option and then feel that the option is valuable. These two factors—
“salience” and “relevance (Walker, 2008)--are considered precursors to a ﬁnal
decision. Once salience and relevance are in place, an “internal dialogue” or a mental
consideration of the choices occurs (Walker, 2008). At some point during the internal
discussion, a ﬁnal determination is made.

This ﬁnal determination in the college choice process is typically
deconstructed to include not only awareness and value, but also readiness. Three
stages of this process, as ﬁrst suggested by Hossler (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987),
include predisposition, search, and choice (MacAllum et al., 2007):

(a) Predisposition is the self-reﬂective stage culminating in the

decision to pursue postsecondary education. Individual and
environmental background factors have the strongest
inﬂuence at this stage, informing one’s self-image,
preferences, and inclinations.

(b) The search stage is characterized by the gathering of

information about college in general and speciﬁc colleges,

and culminates in a “choice set” of preferred college
options. At the outset of this stage, social networks tend to

12

have the strongest inﬂuence, but these yield to the
institutions themselves as prospective students come to
interact more with individual institutions.

(c) In the choice stage, students and their families interpret the
collected information within the context of their personal
and social circumstances, resulting in decisions about
whether to apply to college, which colleges to apply to, and
which college to attend (Rosenfeld, 1980, p.7).

There has been a signiﬁcant amount of research on the predisposition and
choice phases and less research on the search phase (MacAllum et al., 2007). In
addition, Hosler’s model assumes two things: that a family or supportive others are
actively involved in the process and that the process is logical, sequential, and rational.
This may not take into account the experiences of some “ﬁrst generation” college
students who do not have a supportive network advocating college. In addition, some
choice research suggests there may be inﬂuencers more powerful than logic at work.

In other attempts to deconstruct the process, choice is not seen as one decision,
but rather as a series of decisions throughout secondary school (Mare, 1977),
including “whether to continue in secondary school and, if so, what courses to take;
whether to get a high school diploma; whether to plan on going to college at all;
whether to go right after high school or wait; what sort of institution to choose”
(Rosenfeld, 1980 , p. 10).

Again, this seems to suggest a stable, long term, supportive environment and a
logical choice process. However, for some students, the process is not neat. Research

on educational equity describes how the process may be very different for different

types of students, particularly those lacking social capital (Lopez et al., 2007).

13

College choice is unique for many students because it is usually “the ﬁrst life-
altering, real-life decision they will make to some extent on their own” (Astin, 1965;
Svenson & Salo, 2007). From this perspective, college choice is similar to buying a
new home, or getting married, and as a result there is a high degree of involvement
and emotion. However, Canterbury (1999) notes several ways that college choice is
dissimilar to other major decisions:

(a) College choice is a “unique decision”- usually made only once.

(b) Colleges may have the inﬂuence of “total institutions,” meaning

they provide for social, cultural, ﬁnancial, and all aspects of life,
similar to a nursing home.

(c) Issues of human development constrain this process.

((1) The importance of college choice discourages open mindedness.

(6) Colleges seem to question the competence of their “customers” to
choose wisely.

(1) Family life is irretrievably altered by this choice process.

(g) What buyers are choosing is not clear (Canterbury, 1999, p. 8)

Canterbury is suggesting that something is occurring within the student that is
not clear to the visible eye and represents an underlying change in the chooser’s
nature. This is often described in terms of student and personal development, one of
several possible frameworks for understanding college choice.

There are several frameworks for looking at what students’ value in the college
choice process. There is a signiﬁcant amount of literature that attempts to describe
college choice within the context of social networks and socio-demographic
characteristics (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000) that act as predictors about college choice.

Some research examines the social capital involved in choice by considering the

14

beneﬁts, rewards, and pay-offs related to college choice (Beattie, 2002). Other
research looks at the high school student moving into college as a part of an identity
development and maturation process (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). There is also a
signiﬁcant body of literature that considers the student a consumer inﬂuenced by

emotion and brand loyalty (Kirp, 2003).

Social Network Framework
This body of research examines how social networks inﬂuence student choice

behavior. In this model, inﬂuencers include the environment, social status, family
status, demographics, ethnicity, economic status, and other shared group
characteristics. Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that student transition between
institutions can best be understood by considering the individual within a series of
nested environments, ranging from immediate family to world events. Transition from
one institution to another, such as moving from secondary school to a post-secondary
institution, is inﬂuenced by others in the immediate vicinity, institutions the student is
directly involved in, and then by those environmental factors that impact all of them.
That is, world events affect the local economy, which affects the employment
opportunities of parents, which subsequently colors the message the parent might give
a child about the value of educational opportunities. Furthermore, these “ecological”
systems create a set of understandings about the world or “macrosystems” that are
shared with others in the same environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.26).

It is as if within each society or subculture there existed a blueprint for

the organization of every type of setting. Homes, day care centers,

neighborhoods, work settings, are not the same for well-to-do families
as for the poor. The systems blueprints differ for various

15

socioeconomic, ethnic, religious, and other sub-cultural groups,
reﬂecting contrasting belief systems and lifestyles, which in turn help
to perpetuate the ecological environments speciﬁc to each group.
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.216).

Consequently, the name Harvard might suggest “elitism” in one macrosystem
and “heritage” in another. Likewise, community colleges may suggest upward
mobility to some groups and continuation of high school to others. Bronfenbrenner
goes on to suggest that when a person moves from one institution to another, such as
moving from high school to college, the success of that transition depends on the
supporting social structures, particularly dyads, in the environment. “For a young
teenager leaving home for the ﬁrst time—or for a minority member visiting city hall—
going with a friend or knowing someone in the new location can make a difference”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.216). Key network members, or “pointers,” act as guides
and are instrumental in the transition. This framework looks at how socioeconomic
and demographic factors impact the choice process, and attempts to identify
characteristics that are likely to predict behavior, including success and matriculation.
It is not only the immediate environment, but also all “nested” environments, such as
the state economy and the local labor market, that impact the parents, family status,
and subsequent college choice (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.26).

Research about social context is often done through large-scale surveys in
order to correlate information about group characteristics and choice. Other large-scale
surveys have been used to model and predict student choice. In the study “Who Goes
Where to College?”, Astin (1965) surveyed 127,212 entering freshmen, correlating

college choice with characteristics such as socioeconomic background and parents’

16

education. Later, researchers used similar models and applied more sophisticated
statistical approaches to create predictive models. It was found that “Bayesian
methodology was more accurate than a conditional logit approach at creating a choice
set” (Carroll & Relles, June 1976, p 7). Researchers also included variables such as
tuition, G.P.A. and SAT scores in prediction models. Currently, enrollment simulation
is used to predict enrollment trends based on such factors as demographics,
economics, social and cultural trends, public policy, tuition and fees, campus sites and
campus climates, marketing, and services (McIntyre, 1999).

Several well-known, large-scale, longitudinal surveys of population groups
that have been performed by the National Center for Educational Statistics (N CES)
including “High School and Beyond” (HSB) and “Deciding on Postsecondary
Education” (MacAllum et al., 2007) examine the choices of college juniors and
seniors and follow them over time. HSB considers gender, ethnicity, socio-economic
status, etc. in describing the social context of college choice. HSB data were used to
create several studies, including twenty-year longitudinal studies that follow high
school students after graduation. This body of research concerns itself with how large
groups of students act and how the individual behaves within the context of a group
setting, not with what an individual student might be going through to arrive at a
choice. How social networks inﬂuence choice and how groups behave is the subject of
much research.

Two types of research are common in social network theory. First, there is a
type that looks at the structural part of social networks, particularly through links to

institutions and personal and familial networks. This type of research focuses on

17

relational networks (Watts, 2003). Second, there is a type of research that considers
how information ﬂows through a network (Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1996). Network
research is common in both marketing research and to a lesser degree in enrollment
planning research. Social networks and macrosystem views suggest a research sub-
question.

Research Question 1. Are there signiﬁcant socio-economic or demographic
factors that help explain how community colleges are perceived in the choice process?

This question looks at whether there are any connections between relationship
and social networks and perceived attributes of community colleges.
Social Capital Framework

In the human capital or social capital framework, would-be college students
and their families evaluate institutional attributes such as cost, location, and program
of study, and compare them against their personal reward system, which might include
long term economic gain and social connections. “Human capital theory posits that a
rational cost-beneﬁt calculus guides students’ decision about whether to continue their
education” (Beattie, 2002, p.1). The student may be considered an “adolescent
econometrician” making decisions based on future income and other payoffs (Beattie,
2002, p. 1). He or she weighs the alternatives and makes a decision about the best
institution, presumably based on the long-term economic beneﬁt as a result of social
connections and job opportunities after graduation (Beattie, 2002). Research on
academic equity describes inequities in the social capital of potential students (Kao &

Thompson, 2003; Lopez, et al., 2007; Morgan, 1996).

18

In the social and human capital frameworks, rewards and economics are what
students value most. College choice is considered a rational economic decision
(Cabrera and La Nasa, 2000). There is an emphasis on the “return on investment” in
college costs and access to ﬁnancial aid (Manski, 1983). However, not all researchers
agree this framework provides the only explanation of college choice behavior.

According to Mumper (1998, p. 83), “The decision to go to college is not
based on an economic calculation of costs and beneﬁts. It is, instead, a choice that
emerges out of a complex interaction of personal, family and social factors.” Other
research suggests that “for traditional-aged students, socio-cultural factors appear to be
the main drivers of the college decision making process” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p.
55). Furthermore, while the role that money plays in the choice process would seem
very important on a social capital framework, recent years have seen an increase in the
number of students choosing more costly private institutions (Green et al., 1995). In
fact, some research suggests that during the choice process students do not consider
cost signiﬁcantly. For example in an econometric analysis, Cameiro and Heckman
(2002) found that special government scholarship programs did not increase college
attendance. Their research found that only a small amount of enrollment gap was
explained by lack of money. “Financial interventions, while inﬂuential for those
predisposed to postsecondary education, are not sufﬁcient to ensure equal access for
many economically disadvantaged groups” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 55). So while
money and costs may have some impact on college choice, they are not shown to be
major factors, perhaps because graduating seniors do not have a realistic

understanding of the role that money plays in college choice. Understanding what

19

students indicate they are looking for and what they think they will ﬁnd if they choose
a community college become the next research sub-questions:

Research Question 2. What do students value when they are choosing a higher
education institution?

Research Question 4. What attributes are connected to the community college?

The Student Development and Transition Framework

Another way to look at the choice process is to consider the social and
emotional development of the student. According to this view, the choice process is
about preparing to move from one life to another. Schlossberg’s transition theory
states that transition occurs whenever by doing something or failing to do something,
there is a change in roles, relationships, assumptions, and day-to-day life (Schlossberg
& Robinson, 1996; Schlossberg & Entine, 1977). What is important during a transition
is that the individual going through it recognizes that there is a difference in their life
(Pascarella, et al., 1998). Bronfenbrenner suggests “an ecological transition occurs
whenever a person’s position in the ecological environment is altered as a result of a
change in role, setting or both” (p.26). However, Baxter-Magolda (2001) posits that
transition is more about self-authorship and that movement between institutions occurs
when an individual takes an active role in his or her own decision-making. According
to some researchers, the process of education is about identity development
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Movement to new levels takes place when there is

consistency and congruence in the student’s identity formation (Falco, 2006).

20

Tinto (1997), on the other hand, focuses on the environment that needs to be
created in order for students to successfully make a transition. Tinto and others
suggest that it is student involvement with the institution that is critical to creating an
environment that allows the learner to develop and successfully change (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980). This creates a challenge for community colleges that serve a large
numbers of commuter students (Tinto, 1997).

Identity, identity development, and self-image are other factors in
developmental studies. Falco (2006) looked at image congruence theory as a predictor
of college preference, attempting to connect the concepts of brand image and self-image
(Borden, 2004). Falco used cluster analysis, multiple regression and image congruence
theory and found that image congruence emerged as the most powerful predictor of
college choice. MacAllum also found that

The concepts of self-image and ﬁtting in, often discussed in the popular

media, have been borne out in academic research. Students choose

colleges with campus cultures and student bodies that are perceived to
match their own self-image of where they belong along both
sociodemographic and academic dimensions (Paulsen 1990; Hemsley-

Brown 1999; Zimbroff 2005). Paulsen (1990), Hemsley-Brown (1999),

and others have found that when students reach the choice stage, they

tend to utilize a selection process based on the relationship between their
own aptitude and the average aptitude of students attending the choice

set of schools (MacAllum etal., 2007, p.13).

In other words, prospective students seem to be looking for an environment where they
can feel comfortable and where they believe they will succeed. In order to select such
an environment, they take into account characteristics they attribute to the institutions

they are considering. These characteristics, or attributes, are often a part of consumer-

type research (Davis, 1997).

21

What the student development framework addresses is the growth process of
the individual during the transition from one institution to the next with a focus on
internal and psychological formation, most often self-determination (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993). Institutions contribute to this growth process by creating supportive
structures within the environment (Tinto, 1997). As an example, in the movie “Good
Will Hunting”, the main character is conﬂicted about whether to go to college and
follow proscribed goals or to ﬁnd and follow his personal dream (Sant, 1998). The
institutional guides are in conﬂict about contributing to the goals of the academic ﬁeld
versus helping the main character develop personal strength and agency. This gave
rise to the research sub-questions:

Research Question 3. How important is familiarity when considering community
colleges as a choice and Research Question 5. What barriers are associated with the

community college?

College Choice in a Consumer Choice Framework
Whether caused by changes in the individual or changes in the environment,
recent student behavior suggests that the traditional “linear matriculation” choice
process may no longer be the norm.
‘Student swirl’ was coined by Alfredo de los Santos and Irene
Wright in 1990, along with the term ‘double-dipping’ (concurrent
enrollment at two institutions), to characterize the back-and—forth,
multi-institutional attendance pattern common among students
attending community colleges (Domino, Libraire, Lutwiller,
Superczynski, & Tian, 2006, p.112).

Student swirl behavior suggests that students consider options at multiple

institutions, cost effectiveness, and other possible advantages when making a college

22

choice. Students may be acting more like consumers, a challenge to institutional
notions that students are incompetent and need guidance in the choice process.

When considering college choice within a consumption framework,
researchers often look at the values, attributes, and emotions underlying the college
choice process and use them to explain and describe the behavior of decision-makers.
Modeled on marketing and consumer research, this type of study often attempts to
quantify what motivates the consumer in order to better understand how to inﬂuence
the consumer’s decision making (Cialdini, 2001). Emotional and affective aspects of
college choice are important in this model, as well as identity, attributes, and value
systems. The attribute and niche marketing models use factors to distinguish between
products and messages, so that it is possible to identify what is unique and whether it
is viewed in a positive or negative way.

As an example of applying this type of research to college choice, Simmons
(1997) used, the Seth, Newman, and Gross (SNG) Model, more commonly used to
predict market choice and consumer behavior and applied it to college choice.
Simmons found that while traditional consumer values were useful predictors, the
ranking of values for college choice was somewhat different, with emotion emerging
as the major factor in the college choice process. In the consumer framework, the goal
is to understand what emotional forces inﬂuence college choice. Domino (2006)
suggests “the term ‘inﬂuence’ implies a force that exerts considerable strength”
(MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 31) while Cialdini (2001) refers to inﬂuence as any force

that changes the way people think when making decisions.

23

While parents might seem to be a major inﬂuencer, a questionnaire and
interview of 3,000 students at a small private college showed that “when they
interviewed parents, all indicated they had little or no inﬂuence on child’s decision
about which college to attend, although all indicated they made an economic choice to
support, such as not buying a new car” (Domino et al., 2006 p. 102). Instead, parents
identiﬁed things like academic majors, school environment, and the campus’s physical
appearance as major inﬂuencers on their children.

Institutional attributes may reﬂect the underlying values of the consumer.
Often, understanding attribute-based decision-making is helpful to institutions wanting
to identify the best ways to appeal to students or groups of students. “Presumably,
students use objective (quantitative) data to narrow down a choice set and subjective
(qualitative) data to decide between their top-ranked choices. This may in part account
for the seemingly capricious decision making reported in the media” (MacAllum et al,
2007, p. 31). Attributes and the perceptions they represent are used to deﬁne and
clarify consumer thinking.

In summary, there are several distinct conceptual frameworks that are

commonly used to describe the college choice process. Four are included in Table 1.

24

Table 1 Comparison of Frameworks

 

Framework Values Individual’s Role Metaphor

Social Capital Economic, social Determine best “Adolescent
rewards pay- offs Econometrician”

Consumer Feels like good Make emotional “Bucky Badger”
match connection

Developmental Internal transition Recognize “Good Will

transition Hunting”

Social Network Others pave the Find supportive “Six Degrees of

way relationships Separation”

 

As the table indicates, these four frameworks provide different explanations for
an individual’s college choice behavior; however, they are all important and useful in
understanding the college choice process. The powerful role of economic and social
rewards as compared to tuition and ﬁnancial commitments is clear (Beattie, 2002)..
However, as the real-life decision “Bucky Badger” quote (Schmidman, 2005, p. 1)
indicates, some level of decision-making is based on emotional attachments that don’t
have a visible pay-off. Such mental shortcuts and brand loyalty reﬂect a consumer
approach to decision making. Another aspect, the concept of college as a vehicle for
personal growth and transition to the next stage of life, is reﬂected in the movie “Good
Will Hunting” where the protagonist rejects the economic rewards of one college path
in order to follow a path of personal growth. Finally, the social context framework, as
symbolized by the movie “Six Degrees of Separation” suggests that decisions are
impacted by whom one knows and how one is connected to them. In this macrosystem
view, social context is the driving force behind decisions. The role of parents, peers,

high school counselors and other signiﬁcant others is all important in the decision

25

making process. It may be that all of these conceptual frameworks are useful to
decision-maker, perhaps layered so that social capital (reward of future opportunities),
consumer attachments (brand loyalty), social network (signiﬁcant others), or
individual development (identity congruence) all impact college choice. It makes
sense to consider all four conceptual frameworks in explaining college choice so that it
is understood holistically, as a transition that is made from one social network to
another when an individual is ready, often supported by signiﬁcant others, with an
expectation of reward and in congruence with personal identity development.

While all of these factors are worthy of consideration, it is also useful to
consider what inﬂuenced the student’s belief that a particular institution had the right
set of attributes. The student’s role in the choice process is, therefore, only a part of
the equation. In order to fully understand what is occurring, it is also important to

examine inﬂuence.

Inﬂuence during College Choice

Although much of the preceding research on college choice focuses on
deconstructing who, what, where, and how choice occurs, it is also important to
consider what inﬂuences the construction of mental models during the choice process.
Much research on this topic comes from the ﬁeld of marketing and persuasion.
Inﬂuence can be deﬁned as anything that exerts some type of force that affects
people’s thinking or actions (Cialdini, 2001). There are several powerful factors that

may have an impact on the college choice process. One category—inﬂuences created

26

by higher education institutions—will be discussed in the next section. What follows
is a discussion of the internal activities that inﬂuence the college choice process.

Inﬂuences on the internal consideration of choice. In order for a choice to
be made, a type of mental or internal activity occurs and two factors are typically
present for an option to be selected. The chooser must both know about an option, also
known as salience, and then feel that the option is of value in some way, called
relevance (Walker, 2008). Using the four frameworks mentioned earlier, the student
might then undertake an examination of rewards, consider what in the environment is
most likely to make one happy, dwell on who the chooser wants to become, or observe
what everyone around the chooser is doing. The internal discussion mentioned by
Walker (2008) may include all four categories. Relevance, salience and inner dialogue
are what institutional marketing efforts often attempt to inﬂuence.

The idea that there is an internal dialogue might suggest a rational, sequential
process. However, choice behavior may occur instantaneously and be based on long-
term culturally transmitted belief systems. Rapaille (2006) calls these “cultural codes”
or a set of understandings about an institution conveyed by social context.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) refers to them as well. For example, the attributes associated
with a college may not be based on speciﬁc information but on ideas that have been
shaped over a lifetime. As a result, one may not know about a speciﬁc course or
program that is offered at Harvard, or even Harvard’s mission, but still may have a
reaction to the name Harvard. In addition, the internal dialogue that takes place often

involves what Cialdini (2001) describes as mental shortcuts.

27

Mental shortcuts and college choice. Mental shortcuts, or heuristics, are tools
that help the individual process large amounts of information quickly. However,
speedy processing could result in an irrational choice or be easily inﬂuenced by
persuasion Some common heuristics are important to college choice because there is
rarely an opportunity to try out, sample, or have a “dry run” at a college. Many high
school students are bombarded with information about college options, and the task of
ﬁguring out a good institutional match can be overwhelming. Even choosing between
a small number of college options can be daunting, given the attributes that need to be
considered. As a result, choosers rely on “cultural codes”, “macrosystem” beliefs, and
mental shortcuts during the choice process.

Brafrnan & Brafrnan (2008) identify several signiﬁcant heuristics during
decision-making that are relevant to the college choice process.

Hidden currents and forces include loss aversion (our tendency to go

to great lengths to avoid possible losses), value attribution (our

inclination to imbue a person or thing with certain qualities based on

initial perceived values), and the diagnosis bias (our blindness to all

evidence that contradicts our initial assessment of a person or

situation). (Brafman & Brafman, 2008, p. 55).

An example of loss aversion in the choice process might include working to
get into top colleges based on the fear of missing out on connections and
opportunities.

Diagnosis bias is the “propensity to label people, ideas, or things, based on our initial
opinions of them and our inability to reconsider those judgments once we’ve made

them” (Braﬁnan & Brafman, 2008, p. 70). In the college choice process this means

that ﬁrst impressions of an institution, often based on a website, a brochure, or a

28

counselor’s opinion, are likely to remain with the chooser throughout the entire
process.

Attribution, the tendency to “imbue someone or something with certain
qualities based on perceived value, rather than objective data” (Brafman & Brafman,
2008, p. 49) seems particularly relevant to college choice. Value attribution acts as a
quick heuristic. “Once we attribute a certain value to a person or a thing, it
dramatically alters our perceptions of subsequent information” (Braﬁnan & Brafman,
2008, p. 55). As a result, a student’s initial perception of an institution—perhaps based
only on a web site—is likely to remain the same, regardless of subsequent information
to the contrary.

Several heuristics involve quality perception. First, if something is difﬁcult to
obtain, it is perceived as having more value (Cialdini, 2001). A corollary is that if
something is easy to get, it is worth less. Most high school students have come to
expect a competitive experience applying for college; this challenge is considered a
standard part of the process, with more selective schools demanding a more difﬁcult
application procedure. If a college does not require a stringent application, it may be
considered of lesser quality (Brafman & Brafman, 2008; Cialdini, 2001). “On average,
the attractiveness of speciﬁc institutions dining the search stage increases with their
selectivity or ‘quality’” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p.27).

Another heuristic is that the more an item costs, the higher its quality. Its
corollary is that less expensive equates to low quality. Many experiments suggest that
the same product or activity is evaluated more highly when it costs more (Cialdini,

2001). Furthermore, the perception of value has an impact on enjoyment of events

29

and performance. In one experiment where subjects were given two identical drinks
that were supposed to improve performance and one was more expensive than the
other, the majority of subjects given the most expensive drink actually performed
better on tests than those who drank the same lower cost product (Brafman &
Brafman, 2008, p. 70) Similarly, when subjects were given tickets to the same
performance but at two different prices, those who received the higher priced tickets
evaluated the performance more positively than those who received lower priced
tickets. In the college choice process this heuristic suggests that a degree from a high-
priced private institution might be perceived as more valuable than the same degree
from a public institution, even if the two provide the same level of academic
coursework.

Another heuristic equates scarcity with desirability (Cialdini, 2001). Its
corollary is that if there is plenty of something, it is less desirable. One sees this when
certain toys are in limited supply during a holiday season, and a subsequent increase in
demand occurs. The same seems to be true for higher education. In other words, the
harder it is to get in and the fewer seats available make an institution seem more
desirable.

Additional heuristics are based on the inﬂuence of other people in the choice
process. “Social proof’ often drives decisions; if it appears that other people—
particularly those in trust positions—are doing something, it is a more acceptable
activity (Cialdini, 2001). It follows that if a high school counselor recommends a
college, it is likely that students will consider attending. Furthermore, an object or

institution is considered more desirable if the “like” factor is involved (Cialdini,

30

2001). This includes both liking the person who is representing the product and feeling
that he or she is similar or like the chooser.

Evidence of this can be seen clearly during college recruitment campaigns that
show the faces of happy, attractive students of the same ethnicity as the target
audience. It seems that no one shows hard-working, stressed, broke, or struggling
students during recruitment efforts, even though this may be the reality of student life.
Image congruence is an important factor. Choosing an institution where there are
people who are either similar to the student or similar to whom the student wants to
become is important. An example in higher education practice includes highlighting
the reputation of famous research faculty and touting college rankings in order to
suggest academic reputation, even though high status faculty may spend little time in
the classroom with students.

These heuristics are signiﬁcant for two reasons. First, they make it difﬁcult for
choosers to see institutions realistically which impacts their ability to make rational
choices. “Presumably, students use objective (quantitative) data to narrow down a
choice set and subjective (qualitative) data to decide between their top-ranked choices.
This may in part account for the seemingly capricious decision-making reported in the
media” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 31). Secondly, shortcuts in decision-making can
affect not only college selection but also subsequent performance in the institution.
Performance seems to be highly correlated to belief in choice. In one study, the most
signiﬁcant predictor of performance was based on the value attributed to the
perception of the choice (Brafman & Brafman, 2008, p.17). Higher education

institutions use marketing practices, particularly branding, to encourage mental

31

shortcuts. Therefore, it is vital to examine the marketing and branding practices of
higher education institutions, as these are their tools of inﬂuence.

How higher education institutions inﬂuence choice. While students consider
their options, it is not only signiﬁcant others, family members, social networks, and
peers who inﬂuence their decision. Colleges and universities are an important part of
the decision equation in that they attempt to reach and convince the potential student
about the merit of their institutions. It is important to understand these inﬂuencers in
order to understand why students might hold a set of perceptions about an institution
and its attributes. Colleges then make use of some common strategies to inﬂuence
students during the choice process.

What makes higher education marketing unique? While reaching out to
potential students shares many characteristics with other marketing endeavors, there
are somethings that make higher education marketing different. First, college culture
does not typically support the “student as consumer” model. Faculty in particular do
not like to think of education as a product or students as consumers (Stimpson, 2006).
Second, college ofﬁcials often think students are not capable of making the college
choice decision independently (Canterbury, 1999). Third, colleges and universities are
expected to maintain a higher level of integrity in marketing than other organizations
(Holland, 2006). Finally, institutional mission often drives the recruiting process,
selection, and student admission, so strategies differ based on institutional type
(Krachenberg, 1972; Smith & Cavusgil, 1984).

Common practices in higher education marketing. Marketing practices in

higher education are often called “enrollment management” and usually focus on

32

recruiting and retaining students (Whiteside, 2004). These efforts are tied to the
success of the institution and are sometimes based on core institutional values such as
helping students succeed, developing independent thinkers, or encouraging diverse
students to attend the institution. Financial assistance is another typical form of
marketing in that it is used to encourage attendance of speciﬁc students. However,
according to some,i“what schools refer to as recruiting is really a euphemism for
advertising, ﬁnancial aid is pricing, and the bloodletting ritual of revamping the
curriculum is nothing more than product development” (Kirp, 2003, p.12;
Krachenberg, 1972).

Demographic changes often spur an increase in marketing activities, in part
because of a few demographic realities: when the number of higher education
institutions increases and the number of college-aged students decreases, competition
for enrollment becomes greater (Newman & Couturier). As a result, higher education
institutions ﬂuctuate in their enrollments in response to demographic trends (Murphy,
1985). When competition increases, many higher education institutions consider tools
developed in the ﬁeld of marketing and persuasion (Kirp, 2003).

One survey of higher education institutions indicated that the most commonly
used marketing techniques include direct mail, literature, advertising on television and
radio, and holding open houses (Murphy, 1985; Williams, 1984). More current
practices include the use of DVDs, intemet-based communication, social media,
interactive web pages, e-mail, social networks, and mobile phone messaging (Li, Fall
2005). In many institutions, ﬁnancial aid is also used as a recruitment technique (Kirp,

2003). One challenge to marketing to ﬁrst-time students is that they have little

33

opportunity to become familiar with the institution. As a result, efforts to bring
students to campus through college visits and summer youth programs are also
popular. Colleges strive to create a positive impression about the experience expected
when a student chooses their campus. Efforts to create an expected experience are

called “brands” or “branding” (Joyce, 2005).

Branding in higher education.

In marketing terms, brand refers to “the expected experience of a product or
service” (Newman & Couturier, p. 65). This concept is useful to colleges because it
deals directly with how potential students create a mental model about an institution
before having experienced it. Brand also refers to “the sum of the tangible and
intangible beneﬁts provided by a product or service and encompasses the entire
customer experience” (Mathieson, 2005). Graduating high school students often make
their college choice based on intangibles such as reputation, social connections, and
what their friends and family members have done. “A brand can be viewed as a
composite image of everything people associate with it. These impressions determine
how a prospective buyer feels about it and inﬂuence his selection. The brand of an
institution may include everything, positive and negative, that has been believed about
it” (Bullmore, 2001).

However, the concepts of brand and branding are more complex. Brands rely
on images of importance that connect to people on many levels (Clifton & Simmons,
2004). Brands also rely on symbolism. “People buy things not only for what they can

do, but also for what they mean. The things people buy are seen to have personal and

34

social meanings” (Palgrave & Macmillan, 2006, p. 346). In the case of higher
education institutions, these symbols are a part of school logos, colors, apparel, and
other visual materials. These items can represent more than the current experience.
They can also represent future experience and identity. “Brand choice communicates
by semiotics ‘who I would like to be’ as an individual” (Ballantyne, 2006). “The
authenticity of the promise conveyed by a brand name is particularly important in
higher education, where the college or university brand becomes part of individuals'
identities, one of the key badges that we all wear in understanding and explaining
ourselves” (Moore, 2004). It seems that the brand is a symbol that represents a
meaningful part of a future identity. It is not only the promise of expected experience
but of who the student will become.

The brand creates an emotional and developmental connection Since the
transitioning high school student may be at a point in personal development where it is
important to ﬁnd a connection and a sense of identity, an institutional brand that
represents who the student would like to become could be very powerful (F alco,
2006). Branding as a concept begins to make clear how emotional attachment works,
that is, how identiﬁcation with a college or university begins then becomes a part of
the identity development of the individual often over a lifetime. Emotional and
identity connections to an institution pave the way for future decisions to attend.

Branding efforts for non-proﬁt colleges and universities are different than
other types of consumer branding in that a higher degree of integrity is expected of
public institutions (Holland, 2006). Higher education is expected to contribute not

only to the private good but also to the public good and to avoid the appearance of

35

simply selling a product. Furthermore, higher education institutions often strive to
recruit students that are a good match with their institutional values, so one institution
seeks liberal arts students and another looks for engineering types. Institutional
culture and goals should be reﬂected in the brand. The brand should explain what
norms will be expected of the would-be student (Toma, Dubrow, & Hartley).

There are many examples of branding initiatives in higher education that
demonstrate this alignment with institutional values. Ramsey (2006) provides a case
study describing how branding was used effectively to turn around a struggling
institution. Dickenson University used its branding process, including strategic
planning and re-positioning the goals of the institution, to change from a struggling,
marginal institution on the brink of economic collapse to a healthy institution with a
clear identity and high enrollments.

In its brochure describing new goals, the President of Sacramento State said,
"These values guide what we do at Sacramento State. They're reﬂected in our new
logo and graphic identity package. And they're at the heart of our Destination” ("Sac
State Gets an Image Makeover," 2005, p.38).

Other branding efforts focus on visual and symbolic images of the institution.
For example, Ohio University spent large amounts of money in order to re-make its
logo. “The task of coming up with a signature -- the most basic OU identiﬁer,
consisting of its logo next to the words ‘Ohio University’ in speciﬁed typeface and
colors was between $200,000 and $400,000” (Phillips, 2002). As competition for
student enrollments increases, institutions spend more on marketing efforts (Wolfson,

2005)

36

Although branding plays a role in institutional message making and meaning
making, not all members of the academic community see branding as positive. Many
members of the academic community express anger toward “reducing faculty to a
‘labor force,’ students to ‘clients’ or ‘customers,’ knowledge to a ‘product,’ and
education to an ‘industry’... branding is the worst of these practices because it belittles
the academic nature of the institution” (Stimpson, 2006 p. 16). Some academicians
feel it is important to maintain a distinction between image and academic reputation
(Ivy, 2001).

Some suggest that branding is a superﬁcial activity. “Universities on the make
hire image creators to give themselves an academic facelift, what the trade calls a new
‘brand”’ (Kirp, 2003 p. 11). While college and university ofﬁcials may see the value
of “committing institutional resources to identity changes and visual icons that are
meant to explain their mission and portray the student’s expected experience”
(Wolfson, 2005); there is still a mixed reaction within the academic community.
Community colleges, with their smaller budgets and limited resources, do not appear
to use marketing and branding on the same scale as universities (Leone, 2009).

Using the conceptual frameworks mentioned earlier, academic marketing and

branding efforts may be classiﬁed in the ways described in Table 2.

37

Table 2 Higher Education Marketing Efforts and Related to Choice Frameworks

 

Conceptual Institutional Attribution Heuristics
Framework Strategies
Social Capital Promote Rewards, wealth, Trappings,
opportunities for connections, pay- social
graduates-jobs, offs, connections,
careers, accomplishment expensive=quali
professions ty
Consumer Create culture, Emotional appeal, Brand loyalty
sports teams, fun, environment appears brand and
school colors, safe, fun branding, logos,
logo, weekend sports teams
visits,
market brand
Developmental Appeal to parents, Maturation process, Safe people are
personal values, growth in environment,
image congruence opportunities, such Selectivity=qual
as travel abroad ity
“who I want to
become”
Social Network Use peers, blogs, Feel accepted, Informal
social networking, capable reputation, (e. g.
college visits, party school)
photos of groups family member
or fn'end
attended

 

Table 2 shows that institutions use different marketing or branding strategies to

appeal to students on multiple levels. Within the previously discussed conceptual

frameworks, this suggests that different strategies inﬂuence the internal mental choice

process in varying ways. Primarily universities use many of the strategies mentioned

previously. While there seems to be little existing literature about branding practices

within community colleges, the question of community college brand can be coupled

with the earlier question about whether heuristics are involved in the choice process

38

because, in essence, a purposely constructed brand attempts to create a mental
shortcut.
The Choice to Attend a Community College

Although there appears to be little research on branding community colleges
and college choice, the choice to attend a community college is often described as
within the context of “enrollment management” (Whiteside, 2004). Enrollment
management focuses on three activities: recruitment, retention and student success.
Most studies about college choice and community colleges are usually embedded
within research that focuses on college choice in general, such as High School and
Beyond (HSB) where community college results tend to be a minor part of the
ﬁndings. Even research about under-represented students—a major population at
community colleges—is scarce (Bers, 2008),

According to several national studies of the intentions of high school students,
including High School and Beyond (HSB) (Zahs et al., 2005), and Trends Among
High School Seniors (Ingels & Dalton, 2008) all based on National Center for
Education Statistics (N CES) reports over the past forty years,

The number of high school students who seriously consider going to

college has increased from 34 percent to 6lpercent for 4-year academic

institutions. . .the percent of seniors intending attendance at 2-year

academic institutions increased from a low of 9 percent in 1980 to 18

percent in 2004. Between 1972 and 2004, the percent of seniors

planning to attend a 2-year vocational, trade, or technical school

declined from 17 percent to 5 percent (Ingels & Dalton, 2008 , p. 3).

However during the same time period, enrollments at community college

increased to around ﬁfty percent for ﬁrst time freshmen (MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 15)

suggesting a gap between intentions and actual attendance.

39

The decision to attend a community college may stem from ﬁnancial concerns
(De La Rosa 2006; McDonough 1997) or uncertainties about college (Post, 1990).
Some afﬂuent students whose parents have high education levels also promote
community college attendance (Bers & Galowich, 2002). Kurlaender (2006) ﬁnds that
there is a high rate of Hispanic enrollment in community colleges regardless of
academic achievement and SES perhaps because their community-based nature allows
students to stay close to home which may be a cultural value. Students who plan early
are less likely to enroll in a community college (Bers & Galowich, 2002), suggesting
that community college is considered an option later in the choice process. According
to the 2007 study “Deciding on Postsecondary Education,” focus groups with students
and parents showed that “two-year colleges were the primary choice for lower income
and older returning students for three commonly cited reasons: cost, location (also
related to cost and convenience), and the inability to meet academic admission
requirements at four-year institutions” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 1 5).

Other reasons for selecting the community college option cited by parents of
traditional-aged students was that “community colleges offered ‘affordable exposure’
since their children had no idea what they wanted to major in or what career or
vocation they wanted to pursue” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p. 1 5). In addition, parents
stated, “I thought of the community college as being subpar to the local four-year
university until I learned that many of the university faculty also teach at the
community college” (MacAllum et al., 2007, p.15).

Community colleges and college choice are sometimes tied to research about

lost talent and inequity in educational attainment. In “Lost Talent: Unrealized

40

Educational Aspirations and Expectations among US. Youths,” Hansen (1994) uses
the HSB data to examine a multi-stage, stratiﬁed, cluster sample of 1,100 students to
explore non-individual factors that impact social mobility. She describes loss of talent
occurring when “a secondary student show signs of early talent and has reduced
college expectations over time or is not able to realize early expectations” (Hansen,
1994 p.159). She indicates the loss of talent is signiﬁcant: 27% had reduced
expectations in the period of the study. She found that “class had the largest and most
consistent effect on lost talent; membership in a lower socioeconomic group
sometimes doubled the risk of lost talent” (Hansen, 1994 p.159). These are the
students who may be likely to attend community colleges.

Morgan (1996) also uses the HSB 1992 data to examine longitudinal
differences in educational aspirations by different groups, speciﬁcally whites, African
Americans and females, using regression coefﬁcients for two models of educational
expectations. He uses Signiﬁcant Others’ Inﬂuence ($01) as a measurable inﬂuence.
His conclusions are that “the expectations of females had increased more than males,
and the expectations of whites increased more than Aﬁican Americans ﬁ'om the
original 1980 data” (Morgan, 1996, p. 311) which he explains through status
attainment theory and labor market incentives based on a social capital framework.
These studies on lost talent are signiﬁcant because during current policy discussions,
community colleges are often described as the bridge between high school and
university for lower socioeconomic groups and minority students. Both groups attend
community colleges in larger percentages than universities. This suggests that

community college choice has a role to play in reducing lost talent (NATN, 2008).

41

One national survey that looked speciﬁcally at the perception of community
colleges from the viewpoint of the general population is called the “National Survey of
Commrmity Colleges”. It was administered in 2004 to 1,055 adults living in the US.
The survey was conducted via phone and measured perceptions about community
colleges (Gould, 2004). The results indicated “Americans hold very positive
impressions of community colleges and express appreciation for the contributions they
make as affordable, convenient, educational providers in their communities” (Gould,
2004 p. 15). On the other hand, “Three quarters say it is true at least some of the time
that students who go to community colleges do not have high enough grades or test
scores to get into a four-year college” (Gould, 2004 p. 15,). Also, “Seven in ten
believe it is true at least some of the time that the students who go to community
colleges do not have the commitment to attend a four-year college” (Gould, 2004 p.
16) and three quarters say, “The college level courses at community colleges are easier
than the same courses taught in four-year colleges” (Gould, 2004 p. 16).

A Michigan survey mirrored Gould’s results, (Attitudes and Opinions of Voters
About Higher Education Services in Livingston County, 1993). A signiﬁcant number
of participants gave community colleges high marks for their contributions to the
community, particularly for their occupational training. However, a large number of
respondents indicated that they would be unlikely to attend, or have their children
attend a community college for those same courses (p.35).

Negative attributes associated with community colleges are everywhere in the

culture, particularly in the media (Bers, 2009). LaPaglia analyzed ﬁfteen-years of

42

community college in the media and ﬁction and found that the media messages about
community colleges were overwhelmingly negative.
The student's ﬁctional stereotype is a re-entry woman who is white,
working-class and of ‘non-traditional’ age. Unenlightened and
passive, life just sort of happens to her. The formulaic teacher is a
white male in the English Department. He rarely thinks his job is
important, and he may expend much of his energy on sexual liaisons
with his students. The typical intent in both cases is ridicule, and
‘community college’ and ‘junior college’ have become shorthand
terms for ‘loser’ and ‘not worth taking seriously.’ (LaPaglia, 1993,
p.32)
LaPaglia goes on to note, “F iction's negative deﬁnition of the millions of two-year
college students and faculty in the United States does them unwarranted violence”
(LaPaglia, 1993, p. 35). These stereotypes and media portrayals surrounding
community colleges inﬂuence the lens through which would-be students see the
community college and may contribute to the use of heuristics and weak choice in the
college choice process.
The College Choice Filters
The college choice process can be seen as a series of ﬁlters involving the
background and readiness of the chooser, the impact of his or her environment,
institutional messages, perceived attributes, mental short-cuts in the decision making
process, inﬂuences from the institutions and the public, and the lens through which

institutions are seen. As portrayed in Figure 1, college choice involves a series of

ﬁlters that help deﬁne the attributes associated with an institution.

43

Figure l Inﬂuences on Community College Choice

 

 

Parents or Student internal Institutions Signiﬁcant Other
immediate development Involvement
support system

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income Goals High School Friends

Race Needs . Church Family

Culture Strategies Organizations Inﬂuencers
Skills Media .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filter: Internal Driving Forces

 

 

 

 

Internal Development
and Choice

 

 

Perceived Choices
Goals
Desires
Identity
Skills
Potential

 

 

 

 

Filter: Marketing, Branding, Other
Institutional Messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception of Choices Perception of College
Options Attributes
Heuristics
Barriers Social
Academic
Financial
Opportunity

 

 

 

As the Figure 1 indicates, a student’s background and environment act as a
ﬁlter through which college choice is seen.

Shortcuts in decision-making add further lenses.

Gaps in Literature
In a nation that has supported a policy of creating an educated workforce for

the general populace, college choice and lost talent should be a major concern
44

(McPhee, 2006). In addition, little has been studied about community colleges in the
choice, persistence and completion of education stages. Five percent (Bers, 2008) of
approximately 2,600 studies reviewed in How College Affects Students, focused on
community college students (Pascarella, 1997). Only 10% of the nearly 2000
publications on college persistence found in ERIC included two-year students (Cofers
& Somers, 2000). Only 8% of ﬁve major higher education journals articles mentioned
community colleges (Bers, 2008).

While there is much literature about the college choice process, studies about
how community colleges are viewed in the college choice process seem to be a by-
product of university-focused studies. Little is known about what happens to student
motivation when potential students do not see a community college as a ﬁrst choice
yet end up attending one.

Summary

While the college choice process can be deconstructed into phases, these
phases do not entirely explain some of the hidden inﬂuencers in the choice process.
This is important because a weak choice process is associated with retention, success
rates, and lower performance. Literature about the college choice process includes
several conceptual frameworks that explain choice behavior: social capital, consumer,
human development, and social network frameworks. The choice process is inﬂuenced
by higher education branding and marketing activities that create an expected
experience. Mental short cuts, sometimes irrational, may shape the choice process and
impact how an institution’s attributes are understood. Community colleges are viewed

uniquely in the college choice process and often in a negative way.

45

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research and Design

This study used a mixed method, three-phase approach with the end goal of
associating demographic and psychographic segments with their perceptions about
community colleges, and is modeled after the branding segmentation process (Davis,
1997). This approach is useful because it allows for both the collection and analysis of
a national sample (quantitative) and a more in-depth (qualitative) analysis of
perceptions (Creswell, 2008). The data were collected concurrently in the same
instrument (Becker, 2007) but were analyzed sequentially. The initial closed questions
were analyzed with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and the open-
ended questions were analyzed using MAXQDA—a professional software tool for
qualitative data analysis. The analysis took place in three phases: Phase I consisted of
the analysis of sixteen questions; Phase II the segmentation and coding of groups
based on the statistical analysis; Phase III consisted of the retrieval and
exempliﬁcation of an additional open-ended question using qualitative software. The
Student Insights survey was selected as a tool because it had questions pertaining to
both universities and community colleges.

First, sixteen questions from the Student Insights survey were analyzed. The
instrument used was a large-scale, national survey that identiﬁes socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics and poses questions about college choice. Sixteen of

forty-six questions were considered in this analysis and selected because they address

46

issues related to community colleges. Appendix A contains a list of all questions

selected for this research.

Survey Design
The company provided the following description of its survey design:

The survey asked students to rate their awareness and the overall
favorability each college and university in their state. The list of
institutions presented to students is developed by Student Insights
using US News and World Report and Department of Education
database. In some cases, students from one state were asked to rate
their awareness and perception of selected institutions in adjoining
states. Student Insights classiﬁes institutions into two broad groups —
core institutions and super-regional institutions. Core institutions are
public- and private institutions, which draw approximately 75% or
more of their enrollment from in-state students and have third quartile,
average SAT score of 1200 or higher and/or ACT score of 27 or
higher. All survey respondent’s rate core institutions. Students with
higher test scores (i.e. SAT — 1200 + and/or ACT 27+) rate all super-
regional institutions from around the United States. Respondents are
instructed to not rate any institution of which they have never heard.
Students also rate a smaller set of institutions on speciﬁc attributes
such as academic strength, tuition cost, residence facilities, campus
safety, and others (Becker, 2007).

The answers to the survey questions were analyzed for correlations and other
relationships using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

I Next, the results of the analysis is used to identify themes. Themes can be
developed based on demographics or psychographics, such as attributes, values,
motivation, lifestyle, and brand perceptions (Davis, 1997). The segmentation process
was used to further deﬁne and reﬁne the survey results into groups of respondents who

share demographics, perceptions, values, or attributes (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca,

2001).

47

The next phase of the research was qualitative in nature. The population groups
are used in the exploration of an open-ended question about local community colleges
in order to identify common themes. The open-ended question was analyzed using
MAXQDA. First, a lexical analysis was performed considering frequency using
content analysis and a tag cloud. Next, themes were developed based on the lexical
analysis. Then responses of each population segment were reviewed and coded.
Finally, responses from each segment and shared attributes were reviewed for
emotionality, frequency, uniqueness, and representation (Davis, 1997). These results
were collected and used for the ﬁnal phase of the research. The ﬁnal phase involved
taking the set of themes, retrieving responses that were representative or signiﬁcant,
and then providing descriptions and examples of the themes (Davis, 1997, p.445).
Phase I used statistical analysis to address Research Questions 1-5:

Research Question 1. Are there any signiﬁcant socio-economic or

demographic factors that help explain how community colleges are perceived

during the choice process?

Research Question 2. What do prospective students hold of value when

choosing a higher education institution? Is it different for a community

coﬂege?

Research Question 3. How important is familiarity in the community college
choice process?

Research Question 4. What attributes are associated with the community
college?

Research Question 5. What constitutes a barrier to the selection of a
community college?

The analysis of the survey questions was used to create themes to be used in the next

phase of the research.

48

During Phase II of the research, the answers to an open-ended question were
coded using the themes identiﬁed in Phase I. Research Questions 1-5 were addressed
again, and because the sample size was over 36,000 responses, MAXQDAsoftware
was used to assist with the coding.

Phase III of the research involved retrieving examples of the coded comments
that best represented the population and themes, and also addressed Research
Question 6. Is there any evidence that heuristics take place when prospective students
consider community colleges as an option?

The overall research plan is described in Figure 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Research Plan
Segments i
Sam le Data _ _
Populzftion Selection Analysrs .an'd Examples 1
Findings - ;
'1
Close-
‘ ended , Group i
/» Questions tw-w— SPSS in... Attributes \ E
I, E\\\
' Survey <‘\/ ‘4 Themes
\ 311218;: a“ MAXQD i Comments //- Themes
Questions A
\- .r' \.___,___________./ ‘_ J: J

 

 

These three phases and six research questions together answered the

overarching question: What attributes, values, and influences can help explain

49

perceptions about expected experiences at community colleges within the context of
the college choice process?

Population and Background Information for the Study
Respondent Population

The population consisted of college-bound high school seniors from across the
United States who were over eighteen years old. The population was referred to the
survey’s web site through high school counselors, web advertising, and promotional
materials.

Sample bias. Because students were notiﬁed about the opportunity to
participate primarily through advising, counseling, and websites that offer the chance
of winning a scholarship, the following biases are identiﬁed:

0 Participants perceived themselves as college-bound.
0 Participants saw the value of a scholarship to help pay for college.
0 Participants were able to take the survey through a web-based medium.

0 Participants had to be over eighteen to be eligible, so younger seniors could not
participate.

While these biases may have limited the scope of the study, they were useful
and appropriate for the research questions posed here for several reasons. First, it was
not the focus of this research to examine the intentions of all high school students,
only those who are considering college. Second, it would not have been useful to
examine only students who have strong positive reasons for attending a community
college because this would tell little about the reasons for not selecting a community
college. Third, the fact that these students were far enough along in the college choice

process that they saw the value of a scholarship indicates they had given some thought

50

about paying for college so the timing of the survey was appropriate. Fourth, the
medium was appropriate for the target population as demonstrated by the large

numbers that responded to the survey.

Survey Design
The company provided the following description of its survey design:

The survey asked students to rate their awareness and the overall

favorability each college and university in their state. The list of

institutions presented to students is developed by Student Insights

using US News and World Report and Department of Education

database ...Respondents are instructed to not rate any institution of

which they have never heard. Students also rate a smaller set of

institutions on speciﬁc attributes such as academic strength, tuition

cost, residence facilities, campus safety, and others (Becker, 2007).

Rationale for Mixed Framework for the Study

The reason for using this concurrent mixed method was to better identify and
explain perceptions held by college-bound high school students about community
colleges. In the study, a statistical analysis of 36,000 survey results using SPSS
measured the relationship between demographics, values, attributes, familiarity, and
barriers, and serious consideration of the community college option, as well as overall
favorability of the local community college. During the same instrument
administration, open-ended survey questions were addressed to the same 36,000
respondents and analyzed using MAXQDAin order to learn more about the
perceptions held by respondents. The reason for using both quantitative and qualitative

data was to “better understand a research problem by converging both quantitative

(broad numeric trends) and qualitative (detailed views) data” (Davis, 1997, p. 443).

51

Quantitative Procedures

Phase 1

Phase I included the analysis of the ﬁrst ﬁve research questions related by
hypothesis, variables, and statistical analysis. Each question and its subsequent
quantitative analysis follows:
Research Question 1. Are there any signiﬁcant socio-economic or demographic
factors that help explain how community colleges are perceived in the choice process?
Purpose: Identify demographic groups and their intention to attend a community
college.
Variables: Gender, ethnicity, income, GPA, and test scores
Statistical tools: Correlation
Survey Questions: How seriously did you consider the community college option?
How favorably would you describe your local community college? What is your race,
gender, income, G.P.A., test score?
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between geographic, demographic, and socio-
graphic groups and their serious consideration of community colleges or perception
favorability of community colleges.
Variables: Race, location, gender, academic preparation
Statistical test: Correlation
Research Question 2. What do students hold of value when they are choosing a
higher education institution and are those values different for students considering a
community college?
Survey Question: How important are the following factors in your college choice?
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in serious consideration of community college

between students who value attributes associated with a community college and those

who do not.

52

Variables: Job opportunities for grads, academic strength, tuition cost, academic
facilities, residential, campus safety, religious afﬁliation, distance from home, size,
public vs. private, social life on campus, small class sizes. Compare speciﬁc attributes
to additional survey question: How seriously did you consider the community college
option?

Statistical tool: Correlation.

Survey Question: What best describes your immediate college objective?

The results of this analysis reﬂects the factors respondents value most (relevance),
then showed factors that those who seriously considered the community college option
value most, in order to determine if there were a difference.

Research Question 3. How important is familiarity in the choice process? This
question will be addressed by looking at the relationship between the familiarity
question and the serious consideration question using a correlation analysis. The null
hypothesis: There is no difference in serious consideration or favorability between
those who are very familiar and those who are unfamiliar with community colleges.
Survey Questions: How seriously did you consider a community college, and how
familiar are you with community college?

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between familiarity and serious
consideration.

Variables: 1. Not at all, 2. Not very seriously, 3. Somewhat seriously, 4. Very
seriously

Statistical tools: Correlation co-efﬁcient

Research Question 4. When considering community colleges as a college choice,

what attributes are connected to the community college? What are the lowest ranked
and highest ranked attributes associated with a community college?

53

Purpose: Identify attributes associated with community colleges

Variables: Attributes

Statistical test: Means

Survey Question: How favorably do you feel about community college?

Purpose: Identify proﬁle of students most likely to ﬁnd community colleges favorable
and least likely to ﬁnd community colleges favorable.

Variables: Attributes and favorability ranking

Statistical tools: Re-code questions and regression

The analysis of the results of these questions reﬂected whether there was a relationship
between favorability and perceived attributes.

Research Question 5. What constitutes a barrier to the selection of a community
college?

Statistical Method: This question was addressed by identifying the mean score of
answers related to options about barriers to attending a community college.

Research Question 6. Is there any evidence of heuristics related to community
colleges during the search process?

This question was addressed by looking at the results of the analysis of questions one,
two, three, and the survey question that addressed high favorability, then comparing
them to see if there is a connection between relevance, salience, and favorability. It is
also addressed in the qualitative section with answers showing heuristics during the

choice process.

These questions and their analyses were used to identify groups of participants

with common characteristics. Those common characteristics were then used to create

54

possible market segments or groups that have shared views. The viewpoints of the

market segments were examined in greater detail throughout the open-ended question.

55

Qualitative Procedures
Phase II: Segmentation

In order to properly interpret the survey results, this researcher took the
analysis a step further and organized the survey outcomes according to themes
showing shared characteristics. The process allowed for the identiﬁcation of small
groups with unique shared characteristics for the purpose of better understanding the
viewpoints of the participants (Davis, 1997). The segmentation process helped identify
the differences in opinions about community colleges. Typically, themes can be based
on demographics, geography, psychographics (personal attitudes, values, motivations,
and lifestyle), and/or brand/category-related attitudes and behaviors (Davis, p. 43).
The survey results were used here to identify groups that have shared views about
community colleges or similar backgrounds.

The ﬁrst part of the study identiﬁed groups based on categories such as
demographics, shared views, or shared attributes. During Phase II the groups were
described and categorized by their attributes, and participants with similarities were
grouped together.

Phase III-Qualitative Analysis

After the statistical analysis in Phase I and the identiﬁcation of themes and
coding in Phase II, the Phase III involved retrieving comments by population segments
and selecting those most representative or in some way characterizing, explaining, or
exemplifying the segment’s attitudes. The signiﬁcant groups, themes, and segments
identiﬁed using SPSS in Phase I and II were used to code comments from the open-

ended question using MAXQDA. The process involved searching, organizing, coding,

56

and looking for relationships within the data. MAXQDA was selected as a tool after
comparing several computer aided qualitative data analysis programs for
appropriateness, ease of use, and ability to manage content (Driscoll, Appiah—Yeboah,
Salib, & Rupert, 2007). The lexical analysis tool and matrix coding were particularly
useful tools for looking for relationships within the data.

The next phase of the research was qualitative and involved examining an
open-ended question, “What is the name of your local community college and how
would you describe it?” Survey participants were limited to 25 word responses. The
results were used for identifying respondent shared themes or perceptions. Themes
were suggested by the preceding analysis of the closed survey questions, particularly
those that showed statistical or demographic signiﬁcance in the analysis.

' The process of segmentation involved identifying groups of like-minded
individuals who shared values, perceptions, or feelings about a subject (Davis, 1997).
There does not need to be a large number of respondents who share the view (Penn &
Zalesne, 2007). In this case, any relationship that showed statistical signiﬁcance,
positive or negative, was considered as a possible segment. Groups that slightly
differed from this means were also considered. Overall responses were considered as
well, in relation to attributes, values, and overall consideration of the community
college option. In order to continue answering the research sub-questions, the
respondents’ answers were examined through multiple lenses: all races as subgroups;
races in relation to income levels and G.P.A.s; respondents who mentioned values,
such as proximity and low tuition; respondents who mentioned faculty; respondents

who mentioned speciﬁc attributes, such as size, facility, social life, faculty or

57

academic strength; respondents categorized by serious consideration; respondents who
did not consider community colleges at all; respondents who were very familiar with
community colleges; and respondents who were not at all familiar with community
colleges. Table 3 shows the relationship between the themes, population groupings
and research questions.

Table 3 Groupings and Themes Explored in Relation to Research Sub-Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RQ3 RQl RQ2 RQ4 RQ5 RQ6
Attributed Demographics Objectives Familiarity Barrier Heuristics
Perceptions
Academic X X X X X X X X X
Strength

8 Facilities X X X

3’ Proximity X X

E Offerings X X X

< Faculty x x x x
Cost X X X X X

8 Size X X

% Diversity X X X

> Favorability x x x x x x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These themes were also explored in the qualitative analysis. The responses to
the open ended questions were then evaluated using the following steps.
Steps in Qualitative Analysis

MAXQDA is a qualitative data analysis software package that is used to
analyze language and was used here to examine the answer to the survey’s open-ended
question. First, a content or lexical analysis was performed using MAXQDA Dictio

and Tag Crowd to identify word frequency and order. This lexical analysis was

58

performed on individual population segments and on all respondents. Figure 3 shows
an example of an initial lexical analysis.

Figure 3. Terms Used by Population Group “No Consideration at All”, Listed
Alphabetically with Frequency of Response

academic (5 5 2)affordable (65 8)alot (145)area (23 4 )around (I 18)atmosphere (126)att
end (649)bad (183)basic (1 4 0)best (3 32)better (1 94)campus (720)career (212)challen
ging (I I 9)cheap (28 7)choice (231)classes (I 1 79)college ( 64 43 )community (2141)conv
enient (1 66)cost (33 7)courses (2 76)credits (23 6)decent (1 73 )degree (3 3 3 )describe (2]
5 )dont (1 6 7)easy (3 58)education (941)enough (I 43)environment (I 94)everyone (1 1 6)
excellent (23 0)experience (1 45 )facilities (329)familiar (123)favorable (189)feel (1 4 9)f
riendly (184)future (130)general (200)gives (1 48)going (25 9)heard (266)help (23 2)ho
me (1 1 24)inexpensive (1 I 9)interested ( I 3 3 )junior (284)kids (1 68)known (I 78)learnin
g (140)1ife (35 7)live (I 12)local (I 6 7)location (294)looking (220)lot (339)major (345)
money (29 7)needs (12 7)nice (94 7)nursing (15 7)offers (3 91)opportunities (224 )option
(142)0verall (1 41)people (1 042)prepare (131)pretty (1 73 )price (I 36)professors (143)
program ( 6 74 )provides (281 )ready (I 66)really (414)reputation (419)safe (1 75 )save (1
2 7)school (2908)seems ( 3 3 5 )social (1 90)start ( 724 )state (1 3 9)stay (1 3 6)stepping (1 68
)stone (1 19)strong (1 94)students (1843)stua'y (1 1 6)sure (124)teachers (242)think (344
)town (1 1 7)transfer (54 7)tuition (310)university ( 745 )variety (I 41)work (158)year (66

5)

 

This list in Figure 3 was then purged of words that were inconsequential, such
as “lot” by using a “stop list”.

Next, words were ordered by frequency, and a list of the most commonly
observed words was created and used to develop a lexicon. This initial lexicon was
grouped into themes then supplemented with words from the thesaurus. The frequently
observed words that were connected to themes that came out of the original
quantitative analysis were considered ﬁrst. For example, “academic reputation”
emerged as barrier in the quantitative analysis; the words “academic” and “reputation”
were also frequent words in the lexical analysis. A review of all words potentially

connected to “academic reputation” was conducted and the ﬁnal lexicon for “academic

59

reputation” was created. Next, the lexicon was reviewed for common themes and the
lexicon items (words) were sorted and grouped together by common themes. Each
theme was then given a code name and a code color. Figure 4 shows the lexical set
developed for “academic reputation”.

Figure 4 Lexical Terms Used to Code Academic Reputation

 

easylchallenginglhard|poor|academic|thirteenth gradel grade thirteenlhigh school |not
collegelnot prepared|not readylstronglreputation|learning|badldecentlnicelexcellencel

 

The lexical terms as in Figure 4 became a part of the lexicon for the theme
“academic reputation”.

Next each theme was given was assigned a color. A list of the most often
referenced themes and assigned colors follows.

Academic Reputation (Orange)
Proximity (Grey/Green)
Offerings (Blue)

Size (Aqua)

Facilities (Brown)

Cost (Red)

Nursing (Purple)

Faculty (Bright Green)
Diversity (Pink)

Missing (White)

DI. II-Ilﬂ

Using MAXQDA software, this color-coding was applied to all responses. The
color-coded answers were analyzed by the total population and by population
segments. This analysis provided two things. First, a visual overview of all responses,

called a matrix, displaying all answers for speciﬁc populations as shown in Figure 6.

60

Figure 5. Matrix Showing Lexical Coding of all Respondents who Seriously
Considered a Community College

II I I IIIIIIII II I IIIII
-::a:i=i.iE!-:E"a::.'l=ia

"sweet;-
EE-ﬂ
=E=I
5..

utiliﬁiilii.
Em. .

    
 

is:
ﬁll
II FEE-I

The matrix provides a visual overview showing which themes were most referenced
by the respondents. Next, the actual comments about community colleges were
highlighted using the color-coding.

Finally, individual were retrieved by population segments and reviewed. An
example of items retrieved by coding for “academic reputation” is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Sample Responses from Respondents Who Were Very Familiar with but
Chose not to Attend Community College, Code: academic reputation

Position: 8 - 8

Demonstrates goals geared for academic excellence

Position: 20 - 20

Its very easy it helps you to get ready for the act and a university.

Position: 24 - 24

A good, reputable small-town campus with decent academic strength.
Where position refers to the order the comments appear in. These comments were then
used to explain and provide examples of how different population segments described
their local community college based on selected themes.

61

After the answers were categorized and coded, each population segment was
reviewed by theme or topic. Connections between the statements and population
segments were identiﬁed and selected as examples based on frequency, emotionality,

and representation. In some cases, new emergent themes were identiﬁed.

Data Collection

Survey Instrument

The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions that high school
senior students hold about community colleges. Data from an existing national survey
created by Student Insights were analyzed. Student Insights provided a data set with
responses to all 2007 survey responses, with answers form over 36,000 respondents.
Looking at populations from across the country allowed for an examination of
differences in socio-demographic and geographic factors.
Instrumentation

This phase of the study was secondary research in that it used the data from an
intact survey instrument developed and administered by Student Insights, a proprietary
company that normally provides the results of the survey questions about universities
to universities. The permission to use the instrument is included in Appendix B. All
results were provided in the form of raw data.
The total number of responses in 2007 was approximately 36,000 nationwide.

The survey sample is generally reﬂective of each state’s population

distribution and demographic characteristics. The margin of error varies

according the number of respondents, the consistency of responses to

each survey question, and level of conﬁdence. In general, the margin of

error for overall awareness and perception is approximately +/- 2 - 6% at
a 90% conﬁdence level (Becker, 2007).

62

The survey was a cross-sectional study collected at a set point in time. Since
the survey was administered electronically, it allowed for a quick turnaround time
while being an appropriate and comfortable medium for the target population.

The survey used a single stage process and in order to participate, students self-
identiﬁed as being over 18 and planning to attend college. Therefore, this was not a
random sample of high school seniors’ future intentions but was a sample of the
population who had some desire to attend college. For the purpose of this research,
this was a useful population because it positions and the community college as a
choice among several other educational opportunities.

Survey Administration

Student Insights’ online survey of high school seniors is conducted annually.
The 2007 survey was conducted from January 1 to April 20, 2007. Students
participated in the survey as part of the Student-View Scholarship program. All
students who completed the survey were entered into a random drawing for nine
scholarships worth $8,000 each. Students were asked to provide geographic and
demographic information including ZIP code, county, high school name, high school
size (i.e. senior class), gender, race, family income, SAT and/or ACT scores, grade
point average, and intended major.

The scholarship opportunity was promoted primarily through mailings to high
school guidance counselors across the country and website advertisements. In
addition, the Student-View Scholarship was listed by most online scholarship sites and

published in scholarship directories. The scholarship was available in all 50 states.

63

The survey used a single stage process, and students self-identiﬁed as being
over 18 and planning to attend college in order to participate. Therefore, this was not a
random sample of high school seniors’ future intentions but was a sample of the
population who has some desire to attend college. For the purpose of this research, this
was a useful population because it positioned the community college as a choice
among several other educational opportunities.

Survey takers chose to participate because they were introduced to or came
across the survey, so this is considered a convenience sample (Creswell, 1994). The
sample is stratiﬁed by gender, economics, locale, and academic preparedness as
deﬁned by national standardized test scores and grade point average. The number of
respondents in the sample was over 36,000. The data were collected through an
electronic process. Respondents ﬁlled out the survey on a website and were entered
into a drawing because to win a college scholarship.

Data Analyses

Data were collected from January to April of 2007. The analysis of the data
occurred between 2008-2009. Over 36,000 surveys were considered. Scaled questions
about college plans, barriers, demographic information, and one open-ended question
were included in the analysis.

The survey sample is generally reﬂective of each state’s population

distribution and demographic characteristics. The margin of error

varies according to the number of respondents, the consistency of

responses to each survey question, and level of conﬁdence. In

general, the margin of error for overall awareness and perception is
approximately +/- 2 - 6% at a 90% conﬁdence level (Becker, 2007).

64

Two separate tools were used in the analysis of the data: SPSS for the
statistical and demographic analysis and MAXQDA for the analysis of language in the

qualitative section.

Summary

This study looked at college choice using a mixed methods approach using a
large population of college-bound students participating in a national survey. The
survey results were analyzed by student background, student values, attributes
associated with community colleges, familiarity with community colleges, serious
consideration of the community college option, and overall favorability related to
community colleges. The themes and populations that emerged included small, unique
groups of respondents. The open-ended question was used to explore the meaning and
shared values associated within each population segment. The survey analysis,
segmentation, open-ended question analysis, and the resulting discussion helped to
explain student perceptions about the community college within the college choice
process. This mixed methods approach included both the general population survey

results and the in-depth analysis of the open-ended question.

65

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the college choice
process. Community colleges were of particular interest because they enroll a large
number of ﬁrst time freshmen. The college choice process has been shown to impact
student success. In order to create some understanding about college choice and
community colleges, this research looks at college-bound high school students and
their perceptions about community colleges on a national basis. Using a mixed
methods approach, a quantitative analysis of survey results and a qualitative analysis
of an open-ended question about community colleges were employed.

Organization of Data Analysis

The research ﬁndings are based on 17 questions selected from a national
proprietary survey, the 2007 Student Insights Survey of High School Seniors, in order
to explore perceptions held about community colleges. Six research sub-questions
about community college perceptions are addressed in the analysis. Sixteen survey
questions were analyzed for relationships using SPSS. Next an open-ended question
from the same respondents was analyzed using text analysis software, MAXQDA. The
results of both analyses were used to develop thematic groupings. Finally, comments
representing each segment were retrieved for a more in-depth exploration of the
subject matter using MAXQDA. Not every theme within every question was analyzed
qualitatively. Only those that surfaced as major themes in the lexical analysis of the

open-ended question were included in the qualitative analysis. This process mirrored

66

the research process used in brand analysis and brand segmentation. The results were
used to answer the question: What attributes, values, and inﬂuences can help explain
perceptions about expected experiences at community colleges within the context of
the college choice process? The following sub-questions are addressed:
Research Question 1. Are there any signiﬁcant socio-economic or
demographic factors that help explain how community colleges are
perceived during the choice process?
Research Question 2. What do prospective students hold of value when
choosing a higher education institution? Is it different for a community

college?

Research Question 3. How important is familiarity in the community
college choice process?

Research Question 4. What attributes are associated with the community
college?

Research Question 5. What constitutes a barrier to the selection of a
community college?

Research Question 6. Is there any evidence that heuristics take place when

prospective students consider community colleges as an option?
Background

Surveys were made available online in April of 2007. The entire survey
questionnaire consisted of 44 questions, several with multiple options; the majority
were closed questions. The results are owned by the proprietary company Student
Insights and are used primarily with universities to help implement branding
strategies. The survey asked respondents to rate perceptions about nearby universities.
Some respondents scoring higher on college entrance tests are asked to score other
national major universities. One set of questions was designed speciﬁcally to address

community colleges. Seventeen questions were used for this analysis; the list of those

67

questions is located in Appendix A. Responses were received by the end of May 2007
and came from all regions of the country. There were over 36,000 responses to the
survey.

Respondents were asked whether they intended to enroll at a community
college, and if not, were asked a series of follow-up questions. While there were many
respondents who intended to enroll at a community college this analysis looks at the
answers of the population not intending to enroll at a community college. The study
looked at the independent variables of demographics, values, familiarity, institutional
attributes, and institutional barriers compared to two dependent variables, “serious
consideration” and “overall favorability”. Questions about serious consideration and
favorability were asked of the respondents only if they were not planning to attend a

community college.

Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents

In order to understand the context of respondents’ answers, it is important to
understand who responded to the survey. The following information is provided to
explain selected socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Geography of Respondents

While responses were collected form across the country, it is useful to look at
responses based on regions. Those established by the National Center for Education
Statistics (N CES) are useful because regions are connected by cultural and social
constructs ("National Center for Educational Statistics," 2008). There are survey

responses from each NCES region. A complete breakdown of respondents by state can

68

be found in Appendix D. Figure 7 shows responses by zip code while Figure 9 shows

responses by NCES regions.

69

Figure 7 Map Showing all Survey Responses by Zip Code

 

Legend
Survey Responses By ZIPCode

 

0 87.5 175 350 Miles
LLLLL_L.L__.I

GIS Cartography: Zachary Foster

70

Zip code responses are heavily concentrated in the eastern part of the country,
possibly because the survey originated in Pennsylvania. It is more useful to consider
the concentration of responses in terms of the nine geographic locations deﬁned by
National Center for Education Statistics, 2009. The geographic regions are:

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV)

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA)

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI)

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD)

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX)

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA)

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY)

Outlying Areas (AS, FM, GU, MH, MP, PR, PW, VI)

More responses were received from the Southeast and Mideast, followed by
Southwest regions of the country, suggesting survey distribution and response was not
consistent for all states and regions. Some regions, such as New England and the
Plains, were not represented well. This suggests that when perceptions are explored, it

must be done with the understanding that most responses come from speciﬁc parts of

the country (see Figure 8).

71

Figure 8 Map Showing Survey Responses by NCES Region of Country

 

Legend
NCES Region

 

0 87.5 175 350 Miles
u..1_L_L.L_L____J

GIS Cartography: Zachary Foster

72

Gender

A breakdown of the gender of survey respondents is described in Table 4.

 

Table 4 Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
' Percent
Missing 1 174 3.2 3.2 3.2
Female 24779 67.8 67.8 71.0
Male 10618 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 36571 100.0 100.0

 

There were more female respondents to the survey than there were male
respondents.

Income

Income level has long been examined in relation to college choice ("Fast
Facts," 2009). In addition, several answers in this survey—particularly about family
' income—might best be understood as perceptions, as there is no way to determine that
the respondents can provide an accurate estimation of their household income.

Table 5 shows perceived family income for all respondents.

 

 

 

Table 5 Family Income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Crunulative
Percent
Missing 1199 3.3 3.3 3.3
$0—25,000 4245 11.6 11.6 14.9
$25,000-$50,000 3330 9.1 9.1 24.0
$50,000-$75,000 1265 3.5 3.5 27.5
$75,000-$100,000 6917 18.9 18.9 46.4
$100,000- 5965 16.3 16.3 62.7
$150,000
$150,000+ 4946 13.5 13.5 76.2
I don’t know or 8704 23.8 23.8 100.0
prefer not to
disclose
TOTAL 36571 100.0 100.0

 

73

The table indicates that the largest number of respondents (N=8,704, 23.8%)
either do not know or prefer not to disclose their family income. Of those who believe
they know their family income, the largest group (N=6,917, 18.9%) believe their
family income to be between $75,000 and $100,000. Twenty percent believed their
family income to be below $50,000 (N=7575) and of those, many believe their income
to be below $25,000 (N =4,245, 11.6%), near the federal poverty guidelines for a
family of four as established by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The 11.6% number is also similar to the number of
students overall who indicated the community college option as a college objective.
Almost a third of the respondents believed their family income to be above $100,000.
Likewise, ranking high overall favorability of a local community college option does

not strictly follow income ascendance.

Race/Ethnicity
Another question asked respondents to indicate their race or ethnicity. The
table that follows shows the overall distribution of race/ethnicity of respondents.
This racial distribution differs slightly from the race distribution of students

who actually enrolled in a college or university during fall of 2007:

74

Table 6 Race/Ethnicity of Respondents

 

 

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Missing 1115 3.0 3.0 3.0
Asian 2998 8.2 8.2 11.2
American/Paciﬁc
Islander
African American 4739 13.3 13.3 24.2
Hispanic 3530 9.7 9.7 33.9
Other 1189 3.3 3.3 39.8
White 21999 60.2 60.2 100.0
TOTAL 36571 100.0 100.0

 

African American 13.1%, Hispanic 11.4%, Asian American or Paciﬁc Islander
6.7%, American Indian/Alaskan or Native 1.0%, White 64.4%, Nonresident alien
3.4%, with total minority 32.2. IPEDS ("Encarta," 2009). There were slightly fewer
Hispanic survey respondents (9.7% compared to 11.4%) and slightly more Asian
American/Paciﬁc Islanders (8.2% compared to 6.7%) than the numbers who
eventually enroll in college the fall of 2007 subsequent to this survey being
administered.
Academic Preparation

The SAT scores (Table 7) and G.P.A. (Table 8) of the respondents are included
because they speak to the students’ college readiness and ability to compete for slots at
selective institutions. If most respondents could not compete for slots at selective
institutions, it is expected that their view of open access institutions might be different
and open access institutions might be more appealing.

Over one third of the respondents had not taken the SAT; but of those who had

taken it, the majority scored between 1000 and 1299 suggesting the ability to be

75

considered for top tier institutions. Likewise, most respondents were within the top

 

 

 

half of their class.
Table 7 SAT Scores
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Missing 1212 3.3 3.3 3.3
1000-1099 3931 10.7 10.7 14.1
1100-1199 5166 14.1 14.1 28.2
1200-1299 4640 12.7 12.7 40.9
1300-1399 3157 8.6 8.6 49.5
1400-1499 1708 4.7 4.7 54.2
1500-1600 817 2.2 2.2 56.4
699 or less 344 .9 .9 57.4
700-799 407 1.1 1.1 58.5
800-899 1165 3.2 3.2 61.7
900-999 2494 6.8 6.8 68.5
I haven’t taken 11530 31.5 31.5 100.0
the SAT test
TOTAL 36571 100.0 100.0

 

The largest group of respondents who reported taking SATs listed a score

between 1200-1299. This suggests that most respondents could compete for selective
admission institutions. Another indication of college competitiveness is overall G.P.A,
as reported in Table 8.

Table 8 Reported Grade Point Average of Respondents

 

 

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
1.9 or less 111 .3 .3 .3

2.0 — 2.4 807 2.2 2.3 2.6

2.5 — 2.9 3472 9.5 9.8 12.4

3.0 — 3.4 8884 24.3 25.1 37.5

3.5 — 3.9 15329 41.9 43.3 80.9
4.0 or higher 6764 18.5 19.1 100.0

Total 35367 96.7 100.0
Missing 1204 3.3
TOTAL 36571 100.0

 

76

As the table indicates, the largest number of respondents reported a 3.0 grade
point average or higher. This is also demonstrated in Figure 9 that follows.

Figure 9 Respondent G.P.A.s

 

20000

100001

 

 

 

Masha 2.0 : 2.4 3.0: 3.4 4.0 or higher
1.9 or less 2.5 - 2.9 3.5 . 3.9

GPA5

These two items suggest and university competitiveness.

Summary of Respondent Characteristics

The location, gender, family income, racial identity, SAT scores, and G.P.A.
information are provided as background information in order to better understand

respondents and whether they are reﬂective of the general college-bound population.

The largest group of respondents came from the Southeast and Southwest.
Only one tenth of the respondents indicated family income to be near the poverty

guidelines. The majority of respondents believe their family income to be above

77

$75,000. There were slightly more Asian Americans and slightly fewer Hispanics
responding to the survey than the actual number who subsequently enrolled in college.
Respondents appeared to have G.P.A.s and SAT scores that would allow them

consideration at many selective admission institutions.

Analysis of Data by Factors and Research Questions

This study looked at environmental, personal, and institutional factors. The
factors were explored by six research sub-questions, and analyzed ﬁrst using
quantitative methods then qualitatively. Based on themes that emerged from the
quantitative analysis, some topics were explored and examined qualitatively by
looking at the responses to an open-ended question.

Environmental and Demographic Factors

There are several environmental factors that are considered under research sub-
question 1, including geographic location, gender, race, income, and academic
preparedness. These factors help to explain the macrosystems of the respondents.
Research Question 1

Research question 1 addresses this issue by asking: Are there any signiﬁcant
socio-economic or demographic factors that help explain how community colleges are
perceived during the choice process? The results are shown ﬁrst through quantitative
analysis in which themes are identiﬁed the explained more fully in the qualitative
analysis.

Quantitative Analysis
Two dependent variables are examined by geographic region: serious

consideration and overall favorability. The two survey questions used to examine

78

these variables are: How seriously did you consider the community college option?
What is the overall favorability of your local community college?

The Southeast and Mideast regions, in addition to having the highest
concentration of respondents, have the highest concentration of respondents who had a
very favorable (highest possible response) perception of community colleges. In
addition to having a low number of responses, New England also had a low
concentration of high favorability. The map in Figure 10 shows high consideration of

the community college option.

79

Figure 10 Map Showing Regions with High Favorability of Community Colleges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend
NCES Region

 

GIS Cartography: Zachary Foster
80

Figure 11 Map Showing Regions with Highest Serious Consideration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend
NCES Region

 

0 87.5 175 350 Miles
Ll.LLL—|_l__l

GIS Cartography: Zachary Foster
8 1

This map (Figure 11) suggests several anomalies about serious consideration
of the community college option. Three regions that responded low to “high
favorability”—the Southwest, Plains, and Outlying regions—showed high serious
consideration. The Southeast region demonstrated highest favorability but did not
show highest consideration. One possible explanation could be the existence of other
educational opportunities within the region. While it is beyond the scope of this study
to explain why, there does not seem to be a direct connection between the perception
of high overall favorability of local community colleges and high serious
consideration of the community college as an option within geographic.

It is also worth looking at the regions of the country that did not consider the

community college option at all (Figure 12).

82

Figure 12 Map Showing No Consideration at All

 

Legend
NCES Region

 

0 87.5 175 350 Miles
1.1—1.4.1.1.;__|

GIS Cartography: Zachary Foster
83

The New England region showed the largest concentration of respondents who
did not consider the community college option at all. This is consistent with New
England showing the lowest “high favorability” rating and may be consistent with
having many higher education opportunities available because of the high
concentration of higher education in the region. These maps suggest that while low
favorability might be connected to low consideration, high favorability is not
necessarily connected to high consideration. It was hoped that other factors that
mediate the connection would be revealed in this research.
Gender

While there were more female respondents than male respondents, comparing
the percentage of overall favorability between genders did not suggest signiﬁcant
differences.

Figure 13 Percentage of Overall F avorability by Gender

 

100

Gender
a

a Female
- Male

 

 

Percent

   

Overall Favorability

84

Figure 13 indicates that female respondents are only slightly more likely to
think very favorably about community colleges and slightly less likely to be neutral or
think unfavorably than male respondents. This suggests that even though more
females responded to the survey, there were not major differences between male and
female responses.

Income

The majority of respondents believed their family income to be above $75,000.
It is of value to understand if there were any connection between perceived income
levels and community college within the choice context. By examining serious
consideration and family income level helped to explain the role of income.

Table 9 Correlation between Serious Consideration and Income

SERIOUS INCOME

 

SERIOUS Pearson 1 -.03 8* *
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N

INCOME Pearson -.03 8* * 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N

 

In Table 9 the null hypothesis—there is no difference between income and
serious consideration of the community college—is rejected. There was a negative
correlation between income and serious consideration of the community college
option. However, there were some anomalies in relation to income and serious

consideration.

85

Figure 14 suggests that the least serious consideration occurred in working and
lower class categories and not in the highest income ranges. Another factor may have
been at work between income and serious consideration. While it was true that the
lowest income category had the highest serious consideration and the highest income
category had the lowest serious consideration, the income levels in the middle did not
follow the same pattern. Lower-middle class respondents expressed very low serious
consideration of community colleges while middle to middle-upper class respondents
indicated a higher serious consideration of the community college option.

Figure 14 Income Levels and Serious Consideration of the Community College
Option

 

120

Consider Seriously
aVery seriously
nSomewhat seriously

.Not very seriously
DNot at all
“Missing

 

 

 

Percent

7 3.0.356

9. 040404.400
cab is '91} s, . 0
6900000000

reel
{5937007060
9

. 6‘0
000 Q), 0%;

Family Income

86

Income and overall favorability

Respondents were asked to rank Overall F avorability of the Community
College Option on a score from 0-4, with 0 being the lowest and 4 having the highest
overall favorability of the community college as a college choice. Stratifying
responses by income level showed that income did make a signiﬁcant difference in
perceptions of favorability. While the highest ranking came from the lowest income
category, the next lowest income category did not rank the community colleges as
highly as those in the upper income categories. The lowest ranking of overall
favorability of community colleges came from the middle-income category.

Figure 15 also shows that lower and middle class income categories had lower
overall favorability toward the community college option than did higher income

categories.

87

Figure 15 Family Income and Overall Favorability

160

 

140 -
Overall Favorability
120 -

100 . DVery favorable
80 . Somewhat favorable
.Neulral
-Somewhat favorable
.Very unfavorable

“Missing

 

Percent
N
O

 

 

Family Income

It is clear that middle and middle lower income students gave community colleges the
lowest overall favorability rankings of all income categories.
Race
The role of race in relation to serious consideration of community colleges is
was addressed by stratifying by racial group the answer to the question “How
seriously did you consider the community college option?” Rank 0-4 with 0 being the
lowest. Figure 16 shows the average of serious consideration of different racial/ethnic
groups.
Figure 16 shows that of those who disclosed their racial/ethnic status, the most
serious consideration given to community colleges was on the part of Hispanics,

followed by African Americans. Minorities in general considered community colleges
88

more seriously than Caucasian Americans. However, it should be noted that the group
with highest serious consideration of community college choice was the group that
simply did not answer the question about race while the group that selected “I prefer
not to disclose” had the lowest consideration of community colleges, suggesting that
the politics of choosing to answer questions about race may have some implications
for future studies.

Figure 16 Serious Consideration by Racial/Ethnic Groups

 

2.2

E

2.1 4

2.0 ..

1.94

1.8.

1.7.

1.61 J

 

 

Mean of SERIOUS2

1.5

 

1 ' Blgck ' lprefer n61 to disc ' White
AsiantPacitic Island Hispanic Other

RACE3

89

The other variable of overall favorability is compared by race. Table 10 shows
the mean of favorability by race when respondents were asked: “How favorably do
you consider the community college option?” Answers were ranked on a scale of 0-4
with 0 being the least favorable.

Table 10 Overall Favorability by Race

 

 

Race MEAN N Std. Deviation
Missing 2.1 l 8 1.410
Asian-American/Paciﬁc 2.1 5 2732 1.094
Islander

African American 2.48 4091 1.167
Hispanic 2.58 3157 1.081

I prefer not to disclose 2.02 881 1.192
Other 2.37 1068 1.159
White 2.30 20033 1.113
TOTAL 2.33 31980 1.126

As other literature has shown, Hispanic survey respondents indicated the
highest overall favorability perception of community colleges. White and “prefer not
to disclose” had the lowest favorability. While the overall rating of a 2.33 on a 4.0 is
low, it should be remembered that this group of respondents did not intend to attend a
community college. While Asian Americans seriously considered the community
college option, their overall favorability ranking of community colleges was lower
than any other racial group.

Academic preparation

Considering the Grade Point Average (G.P.A.) of the respondents is useful for
understanding whether the population should consider the community college as an
option because the respondent would be unlikely to be accepted by a more selective

institution. Figure 17 shows the G.P.A. levels of all respondents.

90

Figure 17 Respondent G.P.A.s

 

20000

10000 I

 

 

Count

 

OI
r-——-—. i

Mssing 2.0 -' 2.4 3.0T- 3.4 4.0 or higher
1.9 or less 2.5 - 2.9 3.5 - 3.9

GPAS

G.P.A. levels were self-reported and appeared to suggest a population that had
G.P.A. levels appropriate for entering some selective admissions institutions.
Both the self-identiﬁed SAT scores and G.P.A. scores indicate college readiness and
ability to compete for most institutions on the part of the respondents. Since
community colleges typically do not require G.P.A. or SAT scores for admittance, but
instead rely on internal assessment measures; it useful to know that respondents had a

range of rankings. The G.P.A is compared to serious consideration in the Table 11.

91

Table 11 Serious Consideration and G.P.A.

 

SERIOUS INCOME

SERIOUS Pearson 1 -.212"‘ *

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 29890 29872
GPA Pearson -.212* * 1

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 29872 35367

 

In Table 11 the null hypothesis is rejected. As is the case with income, there is

a negative correlation between the serious consideration of the community college

option and higher G.P.A.s. The highest G.P.A. scores had the least serious

consideration of the community college option. Favorability rating of the local

community college option, on the other hand, does not seem to be closely connected to

academic preparedness.

Lower SAT scores actually suggest lower favorability than do higher SAT

scores. The largest group for favorability had not yet taken the test, even though this

survey took place late in the choice process. This might suggest that the community

college option seems more favorable when one is uncertain about college choice (see

Figure 18).

92

Figure 18 Overall Favorability and SAT Scores

200

 

OVFAVCC

Dyery favorable
Dsomewhat favorable
ﬂneutral
.somewhat favorable
Every unfavorable

"Missing

 

Percent

 

 

707

00700900 uI‘oofoo‘ {5‘00 5390 %Hofo‘%b 4%
7

\
\

oga’ggiegg? .139 ":96;;’6’%‘?9 %’%bo°/Qf

+0650
SAT

Another academic preparation characteristic worth considering is whether the
respondents had already selected a college. Some highly competitive universities have
an early selection process, and many college choices are made by spring of the junior
year or fall of the senior year rather than during the spring of the senior year. Since the
survey was administered in the spring of the senior year, it is worth considering

whether most respondents have already made their college choice, as described in
Table 12.

93

Table 12 Already Selected a College

 

 

Freq Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Missing 1533 4.2 4.2 4.2
No 13093 35.8 35.8 40.0
Yes 21945 60.0 60.0 100.0
Total 36571 100.0 100.0

As Table 12 indicates, 60% of the respondents had selected a college at the
time of the survey. Since many highly selective colleges have early admissions
processes, there might be a relationship between not having selected a college and

consideration of a community college.

Summary of Demographic Factors

In general, Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans considered the
community college option more seriously than did Caucasian Americans, and
Hispanics show the greatest interest in community colleges. However, Asian
Americans viewed the community college option least favorably. Most respondents
had G.P.A.s and SAT scores that suggested college readiness. Those with the lowest
income and lowest G.P.A. were most likely to give the community college serious
consideration. The higher the G.P.A. and the higher the income, the less likely the
serious consideration of the community college option. However, middle lower and
middle income respondents had the least consideration and favorability for community
colleges. At the same time, middle income and G.P.A. were linked to higher overall
favorability ratings for community college choice. The majority of respondents (60%)
had not selected a college at the time of the survey. The quantitative analysis

suggested several themes to consider for the qualitative analysis. Since family income

94

and race were of signiﬁcance, the open-ended question was examined for responses

related to those themes.
Qualitative Analysis

Besides geographic location, two themes emerged as being very signiﬁcant
from the quantitative analysis of demographic factors: race and income. In order to
understand more about the respondent perspective on those two issues, a search was
done of all open-ended responses to ﬁnd terms related to race and income. Next, a
lexical analysis of all terms related to race, ethnic groups and diversity, as well as
income and costs was performed. Examples of responses reﬂecting frequency,

urgency and representation were examined and exempliﬁed in the sections that follow.

Diversity

Since race played a signiﬁcant role in the perception of community colleges
and encouraging diversity is sometimes mentioned as one of the missions of the
community college, the concept of diversity was looked as a possible theme. A search
of all respondents’ comments about diversity turned up very little. Comments were
predominantly neutral or positive.
Source: All Respondents

0 It is a very diverse college.

0 One of the most unique and diverse community college in the bay area.

0 A mixture of ages and intellects combined on one very large campus

0 CC is characterized by a diverse range of students in terms of ethnicities,
age and socioeconomic class.

These comments suggest recognition of the theme without it having any value or

95

relevance to the respondent. Those who expressed positive comments had the

following to say:

0 It is very aﬂordable, good access for minorities, it provides AA classes
which it can be transferred to an University.

0 This community college is a well-round establishment. It is very nice
college because of its diversity.

It's very diverse which is, I think, a very important quality.
Very diverse and good atmosphere.
Very diverse and has a great urban feeling.
Connecting diversity with an urban setting was a common positive theme;
however, diversity by itself did not surface as a signiﬁcant motivator. There were a

few negative comments about diversity, as well:

0 T 00 diverse

0 Too many of the Armenian Race, not enough racial integration

0 It’s located in a predominately African American neighborhood.

By examining a coded map of comments about diversity, African America and
Hispanic respondents mention diversity more than other groups. However, few
expressed an intention to enroll based on diversity as a value. Diversity seems to be
recognized but not necessarily a motivator.

Tuition and cost

Income was an important factor in relation to favorability and serious
consideration of the community college option. Responses that reﬂected valuing lower
tuition costs were examined. Also, low tuition is one of the selling points that
community colleges use. However, low cost was not necessarily a good thing. Valuing
low tuition depended on the respondent perspective of other qualities of the

community college option.

0 It is very easy on your wallet but harder on your social life.
96

0 You get what you pay for: High quality instruction; personal attention;
aﬂordable tuition rates.

0 An easy and cheap way to get out there and start without ruining my
ﬁnancial assets.

The word cheap occurs frequently in comments about cost.

Close cheap affordable well-known

cheap, basic, efﬁcient, and friendly

a cheap and wise way to begin your college career
Close to home, cheap, and easy

While the word “cheap” suggests low costs, it may also have connotations of
poor quality, little worth, and undeserving of respect (Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, &

Rhee, 1997).

Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice

There were several personal factors that may inﬂuence whether to consider a
community college. The survey asked questions related to personal values, objectives,
and familiarity. The results follow under research sub-questions 2 and 3.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asks: What do students hold of value when they are

choosing a higher education institution, and are those values different for students

considering a community college?

97

Quantitative Analysis of Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice

Two survey questions addressed this research question, the ﬁrst asked about
respondent objectives for college and the second asked what students value most in the
choice process.
College objectives

Respondents were asked about their primary objective in attending college and
how community colleges ﬁtted in their deliberations. As Table 13 indicates, most
respondents intended to attend a university and to earn a bachelors degree from a
university.

Table 13 also indicates that 11.8% (N=4,317) of respondents planned to attend
a community college. When respondents were asked how seriously they considered
the community college as an option, most did not consider the community college.

In fact, the largest number of students (N=17,183, 47%), nearly half, did not
consider the community college as an option at all and only 5% (N=1 ,83 7) considered

the community college seriously.

98

Table 13 College Objective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freq Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent

Missing 1423 3.9 3.9 3.9
First enroll in a two- _
year 3073 8.4 8.4 12.3
community/Junior
College-transfer
Enroll in a four year
Bachelor’s degree 30107 82.3 82.3 94.6
prtgram
Enroll in a two-year
community/junior 1244 3.4 3.4 98.0
college to earn an
associate’s degree
Other 724 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 36571 100.0 100.0

 

 

Values

It is useful to look at what prospective students value when making their
college choice and whether these values align with attributes associated with a
community college.

When respondents were asked about values, mean scores identiﬁed academic
strength and job opportunities as the highest values and religious afﬁliation as the
lowest. Several categories most closely associated with community colleges are useful
for the purpose of this research: the distance expected to drive; the tuition expected to
pay; the importance of social life, on and off-campus; and the importance of facility,
class size, campus size, and academic strength. The values most often described as
being related to community colleges are averaged in the table that follows, with 0= not

at all important and 4= very important.

99

Table 14 shows that respondents ranked academic strength, job opportunities,
and tuition as their highest values; size and distance had the least value.

Table 14 Mean of scores for values for all respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation

Academic 35201 0 4 3.38 1.124
Strength
Tuition 35201 O 4 3.21 1.154
Residential 35059 0 4 2.84 1 .072
Facility
Distance 35200 0 4 2.47 1.151
Size 35201 O 4 2.51 1.047
Social Life on 35201 0 4 2.78 1.053
Campus
Small class size 35201 O 4 2.60 1.074
Job Opportunity 35135 0 4 3.32 1.157
Valid N 34994

 

 

Figure 19 shows that when selected values were examined, particularly those
associated with community colleges, the mean scores of answers is ﬁrst, academic
strength, second, campus safety and tuition, and of least importance is social life, on
and off campus. Table 15 looks at a selected value in relation to serious consideration

of the community college option.

100

Figure 19 Means of Scores of Values Most Relevant to Community Colleges

 

2.8 a

2.6 -

2.4 <

 

Mean

2.2

 

 

Social Life- Campus Academic Strength Campus Safety
Social Life-Off Academic Facilities Tuition

Values
The ranked values in Figure 19 are closely associated with community colleges, such
as distance from home, (community colleges are chartered by local communities) so it
is useful to see if respondents who valued highly those attributes associated with
community colleges also considered the community college option more seriously.
Table 15 shows the relationship between tuition and serious
consideration of the community college choice.

Table 15 Serious Consideration and Expected Tuition Expense

 

SERIOUS TUITION

SERIOUS Pearson 1 .050‘“I

Correlation

Sig. (2-tai1ed) . .000

N 29890 29872
TUITION Pearson .050" 1

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 29872 35367

 

101

In Table 15 the null hypothesis is rejected. This table shows there is a
signiﬁcant relationship between serious consideration and high valuing of tuition.
There are two other attributes associated with community colleges that are
worth looking at in terms of how highly they are valued and how they relate to serious
consideration: distance expected to travel and small class size.
Table 16 shows the relationship between valuing driving distance and
seriously considering the community college option.

Table 16 Serious Consideration and Expected Distance

 

SERIOUS DISTANCE

SERIOUS Pearson 1 .045 * *

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 29890 29872
DISTANCE Pearson .045 * * 1

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 29872 35200

 

In Table 16 the null hypothesis is rejected. This table shows there is signiﬁcant
correlation between those who value driving distance and serious consideration of the
community college option.

Likewise, small classes are often marketed by community colleges as a
counterpoint to large lecture classes. Valuing small class size may suggest serious
consideration of community college. Table 17 shows the relationship between valuing

small class size and serious consideration of the community college option.

102

Table 17 Serious Consideration and Small Class Size

 

SERIOUS SMALL CLASS
SIZE

SERIOUS Pearson 1 -.011 **

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) . .064

N 29890 29872
SMALLCLASS Pearson -.01 1* * 1
SIZE Correlation .

Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .

N 29872 3 5201

 

In Table 17 the null hypothesis is rejected. This table shows there is a negative
correlation between small class size as a value and serious consideration. Those who
valued small class size clearly did not tend to seriously consider the community
college option, possibly because small class size may be associated with personal
assistance not believed to be available at large commuter institutions.

Of all the values ranked by respondents, “social life” was the least important
value and “academic strength” was the most important value. Strongly valuing
“tuition” and “distance expected to drive” were two factors that also suggested serious

consideration of the community college Option.

103

Qualitative Analysis of Personal Factors Inﬂuencing Choice

The signiﬁcant themes suggested by the quantitative analysis, Phase I, include
size of institution, distance from home, academic reputation, and facilities. During
Phase II, the open-ended question asking respondents to describe their local
community college was analyzed and a set of lexical themes were established. In
Phase III, these themes are considered more in depth by providing examples of
respondent comments followed by a discussion about the meaning behind the
comments. Personal values, such as academic reputation size, distance from home, and
facilities are addressed in the section on attributes, research question 4.
Values

One of the signiﬁcant values mentioned was academic reputation. The
meaning behind the phrase academic reputation is explored further through identifying
and examining answers to the open-ended question that address academic reputation.
Academic reputation

The concepts of academic strength and academic reputation were mentioned
regularly but seem to represent several different concepts. Academic strength was not
mentioned in conjunction with rigorous coursework, challenging faculty, or a
demanding ﬁeld of study. The comments about academic strength were more closely
connected to making a transition away from an existing macrosystem. Themes about
academic strength included a continuation of high school, underachieving, multiple
offerings, nursing, and stepping-stones. All student comments are italicized.
Comment Source: Did not consider attending at all

Theme: Continuation of High School

104

13’“ grade ”- The local community college is seen as an extension of
high school, or not like being in high school, but taking college
courses, because you live at home.

It is called "My High School Part 2 ”

This college: everyone in my high school attends after high school
High school all over again

A second high school close to home

College of CC is like a second High School to anyone that has just
graduated around the Valley

0 It seems as if it were high school all over again and I am ready to
step into college.

These comments suggest that while “13‘“ grade” might be a next step after 12th
grade, it does not equate to going to college. Going to college suggested some type of
change from the way things were done in high school: leaving home; leaving
classmates, leaving the safety or conﬁnement of a community, and/or learning
differently. The local community college was not seen as accomplishing this change.

Some respondents felt community college classes do not provide courses that
are challenging:

o bland and boring just like high school
0 desolate, dull, providing no opportunity

Another theme about academic strength has to do with attitudes about others
who might attend community college. This was felt that community colleges are for
those who did not prepare adequately, who did not work hard, or who do not deserve
to go to the next level:

An outlet for unsuccessful high school students

A hole in the wall college where you go if you had extremely low
grades in high school and did not work to get any scholarships.
People go here because they want to go to an easy college.

A place for those who slacked off in High School, or for parents who

desire degrees.

0 A well known Jr college with classes easier than those in high
105

school, where all of the underachievers go.

0 CC is referred to as somewhat of a joke, many students end up
attending there after high school, they do offer a lot of activities.

0 A last ditch eﬂort for people that didn ’t try hard in high school and
have no future plans.

These comments suggest that there was a perception dichotomy between those
who saw themselves as prepared for college and how they saw those who they thought
slacked off, and that the community college was the place for those who either did not
learn or did not deserve access to transition into the next life stage: college. The
vehemence of some answers suggested that respondents felt it unfair that those who
did not work hard should be in college; and that, by extension, based on who was
accepted, the college would not or could not have quality programs.

There were those who felt positively about a community college’s academic

strength: (Source: Both Seriously Considered and Did Not Consider at All):

0 I would describe this community college a very educational place to
be, they make learning easy to learn.

0 I would describe CC Community College as a great place to get
started for an academic future.
Small but still very academic
CC Community College is a very good community college as it has
great academic classes, a great environment, and the teachers are
welcoming
A great place to start your academic career.
A great stepping stone from high school to a four year university.

For those who have a positive regard for the academics of a community
college,‘ ‘getting started”, “stepping stone”, “and place to begin” were common
themes.

The group who had a G.P.A. over 3.0 and gave community colleges serious

consideration had the most positive comments about academic ‘reputation’:

106

0 This community college has great academic strength and many
students appreciate attending this college.
It has very strong academic programs, and offers many scholarships.
It is a great college great academic and great education good tuition
cost.

0 Demonstrates goals geared for academic excellence.

0 CC is a great academic college and it is rated very high in the
nation.

0 CC has excellence academic performance, community service,

affordable, great environment and great facilities.

0 It does have a rigorous academic curriculum.

The positive attitude and level of speciﬁcity present in the Serious
Consideration and over 3.0 G.P.A. suggested a departure from the notion that high
G.P.A. students have a low regard for the community college option. While earlier it
was shown that high G.P.A. students were not likely to consider or select the
community college option, it may not be because of low favorability.

Research Question 3

Research question 3 asks: How important is familiarity in the community
college choice process?
Quantitative Analysis

Familiarity
This section considers the role of familiarity and asked the whether respondents
familiarity plays a role in the selection of a community college. In other words, does
being more familiar with the local community college suggest a higher positive regard
or serious consideration, or does familiarity minimize serious consideration? (see
Table 18).

Most participants (Table 18), 55%, indicated they were somewhat familiar or

very familiar with their local community college.

107

Table 18 How Familiar are You with the Local Community College?

 

 

FREQUENCY Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
OF Percent Percent
FAMILIARITY
Very Unfamiliar 5110 14.0 15.1 15.1
Somewhat 4860 13.3 14.3 29.4
Unfamiliar
Neutral 3763 10.3 11.1 40.5
Somewhat 1 1407 31.2 33.6 74.1
Familiar
Very Familiar 8778 24.0 25.9 100.0
Total 33918 92.7 100.0
Missing 2653 7.3

Total 36571 100.0 100.0

Figure 20 shows that the higher the familiarity, the more serious the

consideration of the community college option.

Figure 20 Relationship Between Serious Consideration and Familiarity

 

 

 

 

4.0
3.0 I
—e——
3.6 1
—B—
3.4 1
3.2 1
—B—
3.0 ﬂ j _ D
warm 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00
SERIOUSZ

correlation between familiarity and serious consideration.

man MAM:
man MAM:
Mean MAW

In Table 19 the null hypothesis is rejected. This table shows there is a

108

Table 19 Familiarity and Serious Consideration

 

HOWFAM SERIOUS

HOWFAM Pearson 1 .178 **

Correlation

Sig. (2-tai1ed) .000

N 33918 29621
SERIOUS Pearson .178" 1

Correlation

Sig. (2-tai1ed) .000 .

N 29621 29890

 

The quantitative analysis of familiarity suggested several themes that bear

further analysis. Themes for further exploration include familiarity with offerings,

programs, facilities, and faculty.

Qualitative Analysis

In this matrix (Figure 21) facilities and diversity played a major role.

Figure 21 Comments of Respondents Who Were Not at All Familiar with

Community Colleges, All Codes

 

'.I-::EE'E'.'
.- =III-El-IE-= =II

In this matrix (Figure 22) diversity was rarely mentioned and the variety of

offerings and faculty are the dominant themes. These matrices show that familiarity

109

played a signiﬁcant role in the way that respondents thought about the attributes and
values associated with a community college.

Figure 22 Comments of Respondents Who Are Very Familiar with Community
Colleges, All Codes

Institutional Factors

This section examines factors that may be inﬂuenced by institutions. By
examining attributes and barriers associated with a local community college, those
attributes may be made more understandable. It is beyond the scope of this study to
measure whether the associations are accurate or whether they are constructed by the
respondents. It is only possible to examine the constructs and try to understand the
meaning behind them.
Research Question 4

Research question 4 asks: What attributes are associated with the community
1 10

college? It is important to understand what attributes are associated with the

community college and how favorably they are rated.

Quantitative Analysis
Attributes associated with community colleges. Respondents ranked
community college attributes as follows in Figure 22.

Figure 23 Mean of Scores of Common Attributes Associated with Community
Colleges

 

 

 

4.0
—B— —B—
3.8 l
__B_
3.01
__B_
3.41
3.2 I
I Mean Howmm
Mean l-OAFANQ
3.0 - r T - :1 Man MAW

 

using 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

SERIOUSZ

111

Table 20 Characteristics Valued During College Choice How important are the
following when choosing a college?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation
Job Opportunity 35135 0 4 3.32 1.157
Academic Strength 35201 0 4 3.38 1.124
Tuition 35201 0 4 3.21 1.154
Academic Facilities 35201 O 4 3.26 1.113
Residential Facilities 35059 0 4 2.84 1.072
Campus Safety 35201 0 4 3.21 1.158
Religious Afﬁliation 35201 0 4 1.73 1.138
Setting 35200 0 4 2.61 1.048
Distance 35200 O 4 2.47 1.151
Size 35201 0 4 2.51 1.047
Public/Private 35200 0 4 2.13 1 .066
Social Life-campus 35201 0 4 2.78 1.053
Social Life-off 35087 0 4 2.46 1.029
Small class size 35201 0 4 2.60 1.074
Valid N 34884

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In line with other studies, respondents characterized their local community
college as favorable for tuition and least favorable for social life. Facilities received
the highest ratings. When compared to Table 20, the description of values is very
closely aligned with the attribute ranking, except for the category of academic
strength. Although low academic strength was an issue, almost half of the respondents
(N=18,011, 49.2%) were either neutral or somewhat favorable about community
colleges and academic strength, suggesting a contradiction.

Qualitative Analysis
Facility

Many comments addressed facility and location, suggesting it is a fairly
important value:

0 Clean campus with wonderful security and teachers!

112

Very open, spacious and colorful campus.

It is not generally known due to its location.

Metropolitan, and New.

CC College is a small junior college with descent facilities and great
professors.

Big, slightly old, not very interesting to me

All comments suggested that facilities are important. The issue of facility

seemed to be about whether there is a “college” look and feel and whether the

facilities are new or old.

Faculty

A small but good sized college where your teachers know your
name.

Very good quality of teachers.

CC is a small school that has small classes and teachers who are
dedicated to their students.

Where the faculty is very good; they help you if needed.
Somewhat large college with kind teachers and wide variety of
campuses to choose to attend high quality instruction, personal
attention, affordable tuition rate.

Comments about community college faculty were for the most part positive,

and comments about caring, knowing students’ names and helping students succeed

were common. There were few comments that reinforced negative stereotypes about

community college faculty.

Offerings.

Academic reputation also includes the speciﬁc understanding of the range of

courses, programs, majors, and offerings of the local community college.

Source: All Respondents:

It offers a wide variety of courses meets the needs of the local area.
It has many challenging courses and majors to offer.
Lots of different majors and minors to choose ﬁom.
Offering a variety programs.
113

o A lot of majors; a lot of classes that can transfer to major
universities; high school students can get credit

A “wide variety” surfaces as a theme in many comments. This suggests some
recognition of the community college’s mixed mission. There were no concerns about
too may offerings or that the mixed mission created role conﬂict, sometimes of
concern to college administrators and policy makers.

Proximity and size.

Distance did matter and it meant different things to different people.

A place way too close to home

A decent school, just way too close to home.

T 00 close to home and I know too many people that are going their.
Close, but it’s in a bad neighborhood and lazy people go there.

I am going to move out of state.

To some, the college experience required moving away from home or the local
community, something the community college by its nature cannot fulﬁll. On the other
hand, those who spoke positively about the proximity of the community college often
expressed the value of being close to home.

It feels like home.

Affordable close to home community college

Local Community College is very close to my home and it has the
major i(sic) want to do

0 There is a very at home feeling.

Home was often mentioned as a feeling of safeness at college. In this regard,
community colleges seemed to represent safety and caring, two things that can make a
transition to a new institution easier ("National Center for Educational Statistics,"
2008)

Like proximity, size had multiple values. A large school was important to

some people and a small school was preferred by others. Small was seen as good:
114

Small, friendly college.

Small but roomy; education is revered by staff not necessarily
"enforced";

small, student-oriented

Small, friendly junior college

Small hometown community college

But small was also seen as bad:

It's really small and there is basically no campus life
Small and dirty

Small, undesirable

It's a little crowded

Very small and closed campus.

Small seemed to be most positive when smallness supports connections that

help students. It seemed to be bad when smallness is connected to other negative

attributes like facility issues or when it suggests no transition to a larger world. On the

other hand, large was seen as a positive attribute:

The school has a big campus and good academic reputation.
A large campus somewhat safe and has a good coffee shop.
Its kinda big and has a lot of students

It is a big college that can profide alot.

Large and Affordable

Big campus with a wide range of academic choices

There was little evidence of large being associated with a negative value. Large

seems to represent a college’s ability to connect with the larger world.

Research Question 5

The research question 5 looks at what respondents considered barriers to

attending a community college by asking: What constitutes a barrier to the selection of

a community college? The upcoming ﬁgure shows the major barriers to selecting a

community college.

The largest barriers of low academic strength and low social life were

115

consistent with value and attribute statements discussed earlier. Being “too close to
home” was seen as a barrier that was connected to not having residential facilities.
Being “too small” also constituted a barrier (Figure 24).

Figure 24 Barrier Analysis

 

    
 
 
 

 

 

Cost
Not Convenient Too Far
High Social Life Too Close

 

 

Low Social Life

  

Major not Available

   
  

No Res Facility

   

Too Small
High Acad. Standards

Low Acad. Standards

As Figure 24 shows, a college seen as being “too small” is connected to the idea that a
desired major is not available.

Figure 25 suggests there is a signiﬁcant difference between academic strength
and academic reputation. There was some recognition that the poor academic
reputation of the community college may not be reﬂective of the actual academic

strength of the institution.

116

Figure 25 Difference between Academic Strength and Academic Reputation

 

3.4

3.2 r

3.0 '

2.8 ‘

2.6 <

2.4 4

2.2 ‘

 

Mean

 

 

2.0 _

Academic Reputation Academic Strength

Academic Attributes

Source: Becker, 2007

Together these tables provide an overall understanding of what barriers were
associated with community colleges and explain some signiﬁcant factors in the
perception of the community college as a college choice by the respondents.
Research Question 6

The ﬁnal research sub-question asks: Is there any evidence of heuristics related
to community colleges during the search process? If a logic-based search process can
be said to include examining values, goals, and resources and comparing them to the
attributes of an institution, then there are ﬁndings that suggest heuristics or mental
shortcuts take place during the search process related to community colleges. For the
most part they surfaced as inconsistencies in the survey results.

117

One example of an inconsistency relates to the perception of academic
reputation of the community college. It is noticeable in the difference between
perceived academic reputation and actual academic strength of the institutions. This is
shown in Figure 25 where respondents indicated a full point difference between what
they perceived was the actual academic strength of their local community college and
the reputation of the institution. Inconsistency in academic strength was also
demonstrated in the open-ended answers where the difference between what
“everyone says” about community colleges and what was personally known about
community colleges was mentioned frequently. The perceptions of academic strength
are also mediated by social context and values, as demonstrated by the difference
between Asian American males and Aﬁican American males who mention academic
reputation at different rates. Finally, the community college academic reputation was
cited as the major selection barrier at the same time that academic reputation was low
on the value scale.

Another inconsistency is that serious consideration and high favorability were
not linked to each other. Of the sub-set of respondents who did not seriously consider
the community college as on option, nearly a half felt somewhat or very favorable
about community colleges (Figure 25). One explanation is that community colleges
are “okay, but not for me”. Another explanation is that community colleges were seen
as simply the lowest on a hierarchical list of options. Something besides “overall
favorability” created priorities in the choice process.

Furthermore, survey respondents of different races and socio-economic groups

viewed community colleges differently. Different observations and comments

118

surfaced depending upon the environment, demographic or macrosystem to which a
respondent belonged. Bronfenbrenner’s observation that the macrosystem that one is a
member of inﬂuences how one sees an institution, “It is as if within each society or
subculture there existed a blueprint for the organization of every type of setting.
Homes, day care centers, neighborhoods, work settings, are not the same for well-to-
do families as for the poor” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Additional inconsistencies surfaced in values and attribution. Valuing low
tuition cost did not make one more likely to consider a community college, even
though community college’s low tuition was one of the recognized attributes. The
highest income respondents and the lowest income respondents showed consistent low
and high regard for the community college choice respectively; but in the middle, the
opposite was true. The working and lower-middle classes indicated the worst
consideration and lowest favorability of community colleges (Figure 14). Nor did not
caring about social life make one more interested in attending a community college.
Respondents seemed to equate the facilities with the learning that was going on inside
of the facility.

These inconsistencies suggest that the college choice process was based on
mental constructs created within a macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), rather than
the “adolescent econometrician” (Beattie, 2002) model of logical decision-making.

F avorability and serious consideration were both improved by familiarity.
Total of favorability and serious consideration rankings.
The largest number of respondents did not consider the community college

option at all, and the smallest percentage considered the community college option

119

seriously. Overall favorability ratings, however, reﬂect something very different

(Figure 26).

Figure 26 Percentage of Respondents Considering the Community College
Option

Very seriously

 

     
    
    
 

Somewhat seriously

Not very seriousl

Not at all

The ﬁgures in Table 21 show the overall favorability ratingof local
community colleges. Only 15 % of respondents considered the community college
very favorable.

More graphically, the distribution of answers is demonstrated in Figure 27.

120

Table 21 Overall Favorability Ratings

 

 

OVERALL Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
FAVORABILITY Percent Percent
RATINGS
Very Unfavorable 243 8 6.7 7.6 7.6
Somewhat 4450 12.2 13.9 21.5
Unfavorable
Neutral 10003 27.4 31.3 52.8
Somewhat Favorable 10142 27.7 3 1.7 84.5
Very Favorable 4947 13.5 15.5 100.0
Total 31980 87.4 100.0
Missing 4591 12.6

Total 36571 100.0 100.0

While the majority of respondents indicated neutral or somewhat favorable

responses, all responses were from respondents who indicated they did not intend to

attend a community college (Figure 27). The concepts of high overall favorability and

low serious consideration taken together reinforce the idea that there is a gap between

valuing a community college, perhaps as beneﬁcial to the community, and one’s

personal interest in attending one.

121

Figure 27 Overall Favorability

Very favorable Missing

     
 
  

 

 

Very unfavorable

Somewhat unfavorable

    
 

Somewhat favorable

Neutral

 

Summary of Analysis of Questions

In summary, respondents’ geographic locations were fairly well distributed
with the largest population coming from eastern and southeastern part of the country
and fewer responses from the middle of the country. The race/ethnicity of the sample
was slightly different than the average college-bound population with sixty percent
white, thirteen percent Aﬁican American, ten percent Hispanic and eight percent
Asian American. A11 minorities considered community colleges more seriously than
did whites, and Hispanics gave community colleges the most serious consideration.
Asian Americans gave the community college option serious consideration but ranked

community colleges most poorly for overall favorability.

122

Twenty three percent of the participants did not know their family income. Of
those who did, the majority believed their family income to be between $50,000-
$lO0,000. There was a negative correlation between income and serious consideration
of community colleges—the higher the income, the less serious the consideration.
However, lower-middle class income groups had less overall favorable ratings about
the community college than did the middle and upper middle class respondents and
similar views about serious consideration to attendance.

The majority of respondents (82.3%) intended to attend a university for a four-
year degree and only 8.3% intended to attend a two-year college and then transfer in
order to receive a bachelors’ degree. Even those respondents who indicated social life
was not a major value, viewed community colleges as low in tuition and low in social
life. The worst attribute and the largest barrier to attending a community college was
academic reputation. There was somewhat of an understanding that the low academic
reputation of community colleges is undeserved and that the academic strength of
community colleges may actually be higher. Additional barriers seen to selecting a
community college included a lack of residential facilities, low social life, and
proximity to home.

Familiarity did encourage serious consideration of attending a community
college while both high G.P.A. and high income were negatively reﬂected in serious
consideration of the community college option. Even if respondents expressed a high
value of concern about tuition, small classrooms, or expecting to take courses closer to

home—all attributes associated with community colleges—these values did not

123

suggest a stronger likelihood of serious consideration of the community college
option.

These comments suggested that there is a dichotomy in perception between
those who saw themselves as prepared for college and how they saw those who they
think were not prepared, and that the community college is the place for those who
either did not learn or did not deserve access to the transition to the next life stage:
college. The vehemence of some answers suggests that respondents felt it unfair that
those who did not work hard should be in college, and that some colleges, by
extension of who they accepted, cannot have quality programs or academic strength.

The positive attitude and level of speciﬁcity present in the Serious
Consideration and over 3.0 G.P.A. group was a departure from the notion that high
G.P.A. students have a low regard for the community college option. Earlier in this
study it was shown that high G.P.A. students were not likely to consider or select the
community college option; this result suggests it may not be because of low regard.

The survey results and comments made by respondents about the values and
attributes associated with community colleges reinforce some stereotypes connected
with community colleges. However, they also offer new insights into the meaning
behind those stereotypes. Academic reputation of community college was by far the
most often mentioned issue; however, the reputation issue seems to be tied more to
transition than to an actual consideration of scholarly activities. For high school
students, the choice of a community college can be tied to not working hard, not
taking high school seriously, and/or not “earning” the rite of passage into the next

phase of life. Thirteenth grade is not the same thing as going to college. According to

124

these survey respondents, academic reputation isn’t so much about how much one will
learn, but rather how much one has demonstrated the adult-required willingness to
work hard to learn.

The role of race, income, academic preparation and familiarity all contributed
to the consideration of community colleges but not in a direct correlation. Lower and
middle-income respondents had less favorable opinions than middle higher income
respondents. Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans showed lower considerations
of community colleges unless income was considered as a factor.

Attributes connected with community colleges also had different meanings
when examined more thoroughly. Concerns about proximity were more about making
a transition—moving away from home or high school—than actual distance.
Likewise, size seem to be more about looking for either a place where one is
comfortable, or a place where new experiences can take place. Both examples are
about the transitional and developmental needs of the respondent as opposed to the
actual attributes of a college. Likewise, concerns about facilities are about going
someplace that is backward, not forward.

The most negative and emotion laden comments came from lower income
respondents, while the most positive comments come from high G.P.A. students. This
ﬁnding was in direct contrast to the low serious consideration of high G.P.A.s and
high serious consideration of the low income respondents in the quantitative section of
the analysis.

Community college faculty members were often mentioned in a positive light,

contrary to many of the stereotypes in the media (LaPaglia, 1994). The teaching

125

mission of community colleges seemed to be recognized, although that did not seem to
be enough to encourage the serious consideration of a community college or to make
up for the perceived deﬁcit in academic reputation.

Diversity was an interesting issue because community colleges often promote
diversity as a part of their mission, and they enroll the most diverse populations of all
higher education entities. However, diversity, although recognized as an attribute of
the community college when mentioned by the high school students, is most often

mentioned in a neutral manner.

126

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction

For me, the decision was easy. I was a few weeks old when my cousin bought
me a red Bucky Badger sleeper. Red was obviously my color, because since then, I
never thought about going to another schooll. (Schmidman, 2005 ).

Every year millions of high school students in the United States make
decisions about the college or university they plan to attend upon graduation from high
school (Ingels & Dalton, 2008). Because the college decision process is a major life
decision that has an impact not only on an individual level, but also on an institutional
and a national policy level, it has been studied extensively (Svenson & Salo, 2007).
College choice has been de-constructed into phases (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987), has
been considered socio-economically, studied longitudinally and been examined from
multiple frameworks (Cabrera, 2000). However, college choice is still complex and to
some degree may be based on emotional and social factors, as the Schmidman
comment above suggests.

Since almost half of ﬁrst time college freshmen choose to enroll in a
community college each year (Provasnik & Planty, 2008), one might expect
community colleges to have a strong inﬂuence during the college choice process of
high school students, but the opposite seems to be true. Much of the research has
shown that the majority of college-bound high school students do not consider the

community college option seriously when making a college choice (Zahs et al., 2005).

127

Perhaps as a result, little research has been done about the how community colleges
are viewed during the college choice process. This study seeks to explain how college-
bound high school students see the community college option during the college
decision-making process, particularly from the point of view of those who are not
seriously considering attending a community college.

Of the multiple frameworks used for considering college decision-making,
there was evidence supporting four conceptual frameworks found in the study: the
social capital framework, where college decision is based on economic and societal
rewards (Beattie, 2002); the consumer framework, where college choice is based on an
underlying emotional attachment (Kirp, 2003); the social network framework, where
college choice is heavily inﬂuenced by demographic, economic and social networks
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979); and the developmental framework, where college choice is
based on the need of the individual to transition to another stage or role in life
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

This study used survey data, collected on a national level, to explore and
explain how community colleges are positioned in the college choice process, as
perceived by college-bound high school students. Many of the questions were
addressed only to students who were not seriously considering enrolling in a
community college and therefore, the study does not generally explain the viewpoints
of students who were planning to attend a community college.

These data were collected in 2007 and since then an economic downturn in the
United States has resulted in increased community college enrollments across the

country (AACC, 2010). This makes the study more relevant because of the increased

128

number of students who in the past might not have considered a community college.
This study should help students, community college practitioners, and policy makers
understand what is perceived about community colleges during the choice process by
those college-bound high school students not planning to attend one. Starting in one
place—university-bound—and ending up in another—at a community college—may
be more common today than it was in the past.

This chapter provides a summary of the study, an overview of the ﬁndings, a
discussion of the study results, limitations of the study, implications for practitioners,
and recommendations for future research.

Summary of the Study

This study examined the responses to a national survey of over 36,000 college-
bound high school students and employed a three-phased approach to identify
respondents’ attitudes and perceptions. In Phase I, sixteen questions were analyzed
using SPSS as a statistical tool to identify signiﬁcant values, perceptions, and
attributes. In Phase 11, respondents, concepts, perceptions, and themes were grouped
together in segments based on the content identiﬁed in Phase I. Finally, in Phase III,
MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software was used to further explain the results
based on an open-ended question about local community colleges addressed to the
same respondent group. This mixed methods approach was similar to the market
segmentation process used to evaluate brand effectiveness (Davis, 1997). While no
single college brand was measured during this process, this research did expose the
expected experience and multiplicity of views and perceptions held about community

colleges across socio-economic and geographic groups.

129

Summary of Findings

In a few areas the results of this study upheld some long-time stereotypes about
community colleges. For example, poor academic reputation and lack of social life
were consistent themes throughout the literature about community colleges and
throughout the comments in the survey. However, the deeper signiﬁcance behind these
stereotypes and comments became clearer through the respondent explanation. Other
perceptions that are less-often connected to community colleges also surfaced.
Environmental Factors

The ﬁrst major research question considers the environmental, social, and
demographic factors that impact college choice and reﬂects the social network
framework addressing,: Are there any signiﬁcant socio-economic or demographic
factors that help explain how community colleges are perceived during the choice
process?

Overall favorability and serious consideration of the community college
option. The lowest income groups and respondents with the lowest G.P.A.s
considered the community college option most favorably and most seriously; however,
the community college was also considered highly favorable by high-income groups
and unfavorable by lower-middle and middle class groups. While high G.P.A.
respondents were the least likely to seriously consider the community college option,
they also ranked community colleges high in terms of favorability. Lower-middle-
income respondents often expressed vehement, negative comments about the

community college option.

130

Geography, serious consideration, and overall favorability. Respondents in
regions of the country that demonstrate the highest favorable perceptions of
community colleges are not the same regions that have the highest percentage of
respondents who express serious consideration of the community college option. This
suggests that the community college option is nested in the context of options and
consideration depends upon the position of the community college within those
options. .

Race/ethnicity and serious consideration. Overall, Hispanics and African
Americans rated community colleges highest, and Asian Americans and Caucasian
Americans reported a lower regard for the community college. However, when sorted
by income, the differences were not supported. While some Hispanics valued
closeness to home, upper income Hispanics did not. Diversity is mentioned in
dissimilar ways by different racial/ethnic groups. Each racial/ethnic group described
the community college with different attributes and values.

Academic reputation. Survey respondents chose academic reputation as the
most important value and community colleges are consistently ranked poorly in this
area. However, during the open-ended question analysis, the issue of academic
reputation is not tied to challenging or rigorous academic work. Instead, academic
reputation is connected to those who lack the mental and moral cormnitment needed to
become an adult by doing the work that is expected. According to respondent
comments, students who did not prepare “stayed behind” and went to community
college. Academic reputation is most closely connected to underprepared peers in the

social network and the experiencing the consequences of their behavior.

131

Macrosystem/Social network framework. These results reﬂect
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) notion that each person belongs to a macrosystem that
impacts how one views the choices available (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). . That the
community college option is seen least favorably by lower-middle and lower income
groups suggests a speciﬁc message in the macrosystem about relegation and staying
behind. Geography and race impact how seriously the community college option is
considered.

Personal Factors

There are two research sub-questions that address personal factors—one that
considers personal values and another that considers personal familiarity, with the
local community college. The ﬁrst research question, research question 2, asks: What
do prospective students hold of value when choosing a higher education institution? Is
it the same for a community college?

Transition. Transition and transformation appear to be critical concepts to the
respondents. Those who do not consider the community college option also do not like
staying home orgoingor going to a college with their high school classmates. They
indicate they are ready for a change... Those that seriously consider the community
college option favor going someplace where a faculty member know one’s name or
where it feels like home. Attendance at a community college represents a beginning.
Going to college is a life transition that for some cannot be accomplished at a
community college, because it represents staying in the place one came from. There is

a signiﬁcant distinction between the community college academic reputation and its

132

academic strength, and respondents identiﬁed that the academic reputation of
community colleges may be undeserved, but based on “what others say”.

Values. Academic reputation and low tuition costs are the most highly
expressed values. However, valuing low tuition does not suggest serious consideration
of the community college option, nor does small class, nor does not caring about
social life, all attributes associated with community colleges. Valuing a shorter driving
distance does show a correlation to serious consideration of a community college.

Another personal factor that contributes to choice is familiarity, which research
question 3 addresses by asking: How important is familiarity in the community college
choice process?

Familiarity, salience, and relevance. Familiarity, or salience, creates a
signiﬁcant increase in serious consideration and overall favorability of community
colleges. Familiarity was connected to taking classes while in high school and was
connected to perceptions about facilities. Relevance, on the other hand, is much more
complicated. For example, there was no correlation between valuing low tuition and
serious consideration of the community college option. Likewise, respondents who
placed a low value on social life are not more likely to seriously consider a community
college.

Developmental framework. The developmental framework is supported by
the theme of transition, change, growth, and movement that runs through respondent
comments. Like the character of Will Hunting (1998) mentioned earlier in the

literature review, respondents seem to be seeking a life change that will take them

133

away from their current role in high school and help them become a new,
differentiated person.

Social capital framework. The social capital framework appears less
prevalent because there is little evidence supporting the notion that respondents were
“adolescent econometricians” (Beattie, 2002). While tuition was valued ,valued, low
tuition did not inﬂuence seriousinﬂuence serious consideration. The reputation of the
local community college presents a risk that offsets the advantage of low tuition.
Institutional Factors

There are two sub-questions that address factors that are connected to speciﬁc
local institutions, one about attributes and the other about barriers. The ﬁrst considered
what attributes are associated with the community college.Thecollege. The second
asks what barriers prevented respondents from considering the community college
option seriously.

Attributes

Location, size and proximity have meanings that are reported differently by
different groups. While community colleges sometimes report convenient location as
an asset, closeness to home may represent not making the transition to adulthood. Size
is both positive and negative. When positive, it is often closely linked to facility and
proximity. Likewise, small sometimes means more personal attention and other times
means not being exposed to a larger world. Some respondents associate small
classrooms with poor teaching, others associate small classrooms with more individual

attention.

134

Facilities. Facilities do matter a great deal. Dilapidated, old, crowded facilities
are mentioned negatively, and new, modern, comfortable facilities are mentioned
positively. Respondents seem to sometimes equate learning with the building in which
it would occur. As Boyer noted, “When High School Students were asked how they
chose their college, 62% said that it was mainly by the appearance of the buildings and
grounds” (Boyer, 1987, p.1). In today’s environment, web pages may play a similar
role in representing the institutional experience.

Mission and brand. The complicated community college mission is
understood surprisingly well. Many respondents describe community colleges as being
local, affordable, a good place to start, and a place to acquire job training. The shadow
side is that the same attributes are seen as too close to home, cheap, easy, and a good
place if you want to become a nurse but not if you want to become a doctor.

Faculty. There is an overall positive perception that community college faculty
are available and caring. While popular media sometimes portray community college
faculty negatively, most respondents feel that community college faculty would help
them to succeed.

Connections. Several of the perceptions about community colleges are linked
together. Low costs are linked to academic reputation. Size and distance from home
are connected. Facilities are linked with offerings. Diversity is mentioned in
conjunction with low costs. I
Barriers

The most often mentioned barrier to community college attendance is

academic reputation. However, academic reputation appears to have little connection

135

with academic rigor. It is associated with those who do not mature, or move on from
high school. Social life is also mentioned as a barrier, even though respondents do not
rank social life as a major value, suggesting a discrepancy between what respondents
actually value and what they think they should value.

The ﬁnal research question draws upon all categories of factors—institutional,
environmental, and personal. It most reﬂects the consumer framework, where

decisions are made based on emotions and attachments.

Heuristics,Heuristics or mental shortcuts

There is evidence of mental shortcuts and rules about perceptions of
community colleges during the choice process. Many respondents identiﬁed a
signiﬁcant difference between actual academic strength and perceived academic
reputation. Some respondents commented that “others” say things about community
colleges just because they are community colleges. Other respondents indicated tuition
costs were one of their highest values and ranked community colleges highly for
tuition costs yet did not consider the community college option. There were
respondents who considered access or lack of selectivity in the application process to
be equivalent to low quality.

Consumer framework. An example of the consumer framework is the
“Bucky Badger” story mentioned earlier. In this model, the student chooses a college

based on something other than logic. Often it is based on identity or an emotional

136

appeal. The mental shortcuts and examples of emotional reactions to the community
college option provide examples of how the consumer framework works.
Summary

In summary, there was evidence that environmental and personal factors
inﬂuenced consideration of of the community college option during the college choice
experience. Four conceptual frameworks identiﬁed in the literature review- social
capital, socioeconomic/macrosystem, consumer, and developmental- were revealed in
the survey results. A synthesis of the ﬁndings follows, connecting the factors and
research question results to conceptual frameworks.

An important aspect of the study is that respondents were ﬁrst asked their
college objective and then asked “If you did not consider the community college
option, answer questions about attributes, values, familiarity, etc.” Therefore, the
results do not reﬂect the beliefs and attitudes of the eight percent of the respondent
population who had already chosen the community college option. For the purpose of
this study, it was important to understand why the community college was not
considered seriously so many questions were examined from the perspective of only
those who did not expect to attend a community college.

There were several ﬁndings that helped explain the community college image.
Geographic location and the availability of other opportunities make a difference in
how community colleges were viewed. Different racial and ethnic groups reported that
they viewed community colleges differently. Income level impacted the favorability
and serious consideration of a community college. Academic preparedness and

familiarity with community colleges also inﬂuenced how seriously one considers the

137

community college option. Attributes associated with community colleges, such as
size, lack of residential facilities, diversity, or social life did not seem to inﬂuence
choice as much as poor academic reputation, a term with multiple and sometimes
conﬂicting meanings.

Distinct groups constructed college attributes and their meanings differently.
Respondents recognized that community colleges had many roles, such as training,
transfer, and developmental education; some saw this as positive and others saw this
as negative. Affordability, diversity, and access are all things that community college
leaders typically promote. However, some respondents equated these concepts with
cheap, easy, scattered, and poor quality.

Conclusions and Discussion

The research brought to light some interesting constructs about perceptions of
college choice in relation to community colleges and the factors that inﬂuence
perceptions about them. First, college options are impacted by the macrosystem, or
social and demographic inﬂuences of the individual. Geography, race, income, and
how many other options are available in the environment all make a difference about
how seriously to consider the community college option.

Second, it is not uncommon to think favorably of a community college and still
not consider attending one. The long-range social capital beneﬁt loss associated with a
community college may be too risky, particularly for the lower-middle class. This
helps to explain why so many community surveys give community colleges high

rankings while traditional age student surveys rank them poorly.

138

Third, even though a potential student indicates high attention to speciﬁc
values, such as low tuition, it does not mean a decision will be made based on those
values. Those who valued low tuition did not consider a community college; other
factors mediated its relevance.

Fourth, the academic strength, or reputation of community colleges are ﬁlled
with inconsistencies and contradictions, including some recognition of the difference
between academic strength and academic reputation. Academic reputation appears to
be based on staying behind, not preparing, and not making a solid life transition.
Transition is the most vital and operative force in the college decision process for
many students.

Fifth, many of the concepts marketed most by community colleges—access,
affordability, and location-- can have a negative side that equates them to easy, cheap,
and poor quality. Respondents exhibited some understanding of the complex
community college mission, however, the complexity of the mission was perceived as
either aeither a negative attribute, when too diffuse, or as a positive attribute that
suggested a broad array of course offerings. Community colleges, positioned as the
least expensive, least selective, and most easily accessible institutions may be at a
disadvantage during the choice process because these very same characteristics
suggest low value or quality (Brafman & Braﬁnan, 2008). Following these heuristics,
a tough, selective admissions process at an expensive institution would suggest a
higher quality and more rewarding experience than a community college, whether the

academic coursework is the same or not. Furthermore, students would be expected to

139

report greater satisfaction at the costlier institutions and might actually perform better
as a result of believing the education is superior.

Finally, there were barriers and advantages associated with attending a
community college. Perceptions about low social life position the community college
poorly. Also, it was not clear to many respondents how community colleges help one
transition into adulthood. Advantages of attending a community college included
faculty, who were viewed as being caring and helpful, certain programs, such as
Nursing, and for some respondents, proximity and facilities were seen as major
advantages.

The most signiﬁcant barrier to serious consideration of the community college
option is poor academic reputation. However, academic reputation was not equated
with rigorous coursework and strong academic programs. Rather, it referred to staying
behind with those who did not take serious the preparation needed for adult life. It
meant not transitioning to the next step of adulthood. Academic reputation was high
on the priority list for some groups of respondents, but other groups did not consider
it. Prospective students tended to equate the academic activities of an institution with
the facilities that housed them.

High favorable opinion and serious consideration of the community college
option did not go hand-in-hand. High income and high G.P.A. respondents have the
most favorable opinions of their local community colleges but do not consider them at
all. Lower income students did not prefer community colleges. While the lowest
income students indicated a high likelihood of attending a community college, lower-

middle-class and middle class students did not consider the community college option

140

favorably. Familiarity served as a mediating factor and improves overall favorability
of the community college option.

The perceptions and misperceptions held by respondents about
communityabout community colleges are not just marketing problems that branding or
messaging can solve. They reﬂect a national policy ambiguity about whether higher
education should be available for all, particularly those with limited ﬁnancial
resources. If core competencies exist, then it makes no difference in the long run
whether the competencies are learned in ivory towers, in large urban campuses, or in a
black box. If, on the other hand, the college going population believes that the
education is not taught at an institution, but in fact is the institution, then the size and
shape of the black box environment matters for the learning outcomes. No amount of
social marketing can then correct for the different expectations of the two- and four-
year student. Academic credentialing through hard work (and eventually, economic
equity) is not likely to occur if students do not believe they are getting an equivalent
education at a community college.

Some respondents expressed an almost violent opposition to community
colleges, particularly lower-middle income minority students. As Chickering (1993)
observed, there may be two different agendas for going to college. The ﬁrst is to learn
how to be an obedient worker: to listen, to follow directions, and to be useful to
employers by being available and on time. The second is to learn mastery of others, to
become part of the upper class, to lead, to innovate and to be in charge (Chickering'&

Reisser, 1993). Community colleges may represent being relegated to the ﬁrst group.

141

Confusion about community college academic standards creates problems for
both students and institutions alike. Almost twenty-eight percent of community
college students come unprepared for college level work and are diverted to
developmental courses (A. Russell, 2008). This may mean that although the message
of access is clear, the message that there is a distinction between open admission and
admission to college level coursework work is not.

There is a possible structural and communication problem with other
educational institutions. If community college offerings are not aligned properly with
local high schools and universities, community college courses will be deemed too
easy, a repletion of high school, or too challenging, resulting in many students failing.
This could signiﬁcantly contribute to one of the problems community colleges face
about their success rates. If the college search process is weak or if the student attends
as a default when they did not originally seriously consider the community college
option, they may be less likely to succeed.

Limitations

This research beganvvithbegan with a descriptive and constructivist analysis of
survey results. It then used the results to develop themes, followed by an analysis of an
open-ended question about community colleges. The survey was administered to
college-bound high school students. Since the survey was administered via the
Internet, it is assumed that the participants had access to and felt comfortable with
electronically mediated communications and therefore, might be biased toward the
technologically literate respondent, possibly slightly different than the general

population of college-bound students. Students had to be 18 years of age to participate

142

in the study so respondents might be slightly older than the typical college-bound high
school student. While the survey was originally developed for use with universities,
the focus of this research is on community colleges. The respondents may have been
predisposed to express more interest in the university rather than the two-year college
option.

While there may be many reasons for selecting or not selecting a community
college, this research focused on how social context and shared attribute perceptions
inﬂuenced expected experience and contributed to decision-making. It does not
address whether institutions deserve their reputations. Nor is one speciﬁc community
college, one part of the country, or one district isolated. Since the survey also asked
about universities, respondents may have only seen community colleges in comparison
to universities. Furthermore, the researcher is a full-time community college
administrator and community college graduate whose view about community colleges
may have been inﬂuenced by being an advocate for the community college system.

Recommendations for Practice

Community college administrators, trustees, faculty members, and other
educators who are concerned that students make good choices about college can
employ several strategies to address these issues.

Recommendations Based on Environmental Factors

Understand local social networks, particularly high schools. The study
indicated that context is very important. The available options and social, ethnic, and
income groups impact how community colleges are viewed. For high school students

involved in the college choice process, the macrosystem, social network or personal

143

environment may not include positive discussions of community colleges.
Partnerships and open and honest communications about achievements with area high
school personnel are good methods for reaching students in their environment.

Do not confuse high favorability with serious consideration. The study
indicated that some groups rate community colleges high for overall favorability, but
low for serious consideration. Some community members will identify the strengths
and assets of the community college; however, when asked if they would attend or
send their children, the answer is no. When measuring public commitment to the
institution, it is important to not confuse these two opinions, one often held by the
general public. A separate set of tools should be used for communicating with would-
be students than the general public.

Be aware that racial differences are mediated by class differences. The study
indicated that there are differences in perceptions held by different racial groups,
however, when income is added to the equation, answers align more closely along
income levels. Despite advice to the contrary and current practice, it does not seem to
make sense to categorize messages to minority groups along racial terms, because
respondents’ perceptions were mediated by income differences. Consider income,
G.P.A., majors, and other factors as critical points in message making to racial
minorities. Likewise, valuing diversity does by itself does not seem to be sufﬁcient.
Institutions would be better served showing it rather than talking about it.

Showcase community college graduates’ long-term success. Respondents
showed an interest in long-term success. Many community college transfer students

become professionals who transition to the upper middle class; do not suggest

144

relegation to lower classes by emphasizing occupational training. It is the lower socio-
economic classes that have the sharpest criticism and the least interest in community
colleges. Upper and upper-middle class respondents had a positive view of community
colleges; however, they felt they had other options.

Personal Factors

Focus on the transformational nature of community college. Respondents
clearly cared more about their transition away from home and current roles to new
roles more than any other factor. Institutions can highlight events that suggest such
transformations: study abroad, work-study, service learning, and immersion learning,
for example. Point out the advantages of going to school in an adult environment
where connections to the local community afford unique opportunities. Transition and
transformation very often occur at the community college level where there is more
interaction with the adult population.

Understand that familiarity helps. One barrier that surfaced in the study is lack
of familiarity. Potential students could connect to the community college campus by
getting involved in youth programs. Focus on gifted and talented education and
leadership opportunities that offer community education and community involvement
opportunities.

Make others aware that community college students do have social lives. For
some respondents, social life was equated with “people like me”. For young adults
who have worked, purchased cars, and helped to support families, moving into a dorm
isa family, moving into a dormresidence hall is going backwards. Social interactions

of community college students offer more opportunities to act as an adult and to

145

interact with adults. Community college students oﬁen rent homes, own vehicles, pay
bills, and have an opportunity for interesting local employment, giving them a leg up
on future employment opportunities. Off-campus communities are oﬁen hip, urban,
and trend setting. Show relationships and lifetime ﬁiendships that begin at community
colleges. Visual images of students having fun together, whatever the venue, help
potential students understand the growth can happen in many different environments.
The social life of community college students has been hidden but should be brought
into the light.
Institutional Factors

Identify alignment issues with secondary instiutionsinstitutions and universities
to address issues related to academic strength. Many survey respondents used the
phrase “thirteenth grade” to suggest that freshmen community college courses do not
equate to ﬁrst year university courses. The explanation was often an extension or a
repetition of high school classes. This could be attributed to a misalignment of
coursework standards, particularly where there is no P-16 system in place. If K-12 and
community college course content are the same, college courses will indeed be a
repetition of high school. If the content is too far removed, there is a gap that creates a
need for more developmental education. It is also important that students’ outcomes
align successfully to university transfer options. Regionally aligned curricula may
reduce concerns about the community college academic reputation.

Do not mix the mission with the brand. Respondents recognized many roles of
the community college. However, while affordability and access may be a part of the

mission, respondents are more interested in their expected experience at the institution,

146

which should be represented by the brand, not the mission. Students expect to
experience fun, growth, transformation, and a better life, not access or affordability.
The community college’s mixed mission makes most sense to the institution, not the
student.

Be cautious about the language of affordability. While tuition was an
expressed value of most respondents, the low tuition associated with community
colleges was not always viewed positively. Instead, the heuristic or mental short cut
equating low cost to a low quality educational product diminished the value of the
community college experience.

Promote the institution ’s high quality academic offerings. Respondents made a
distinction between academicbetween academic strength and academic reputation,
and a low academic reputation of a local community college served as a barrier to
selecting a community college. Make sure that high school students are aware of
honors programs and accelerated programs. There should be as much positive press
about an Astronomy program as there is about Nursing. Likewise, students need to
understand the importance of preparing for college level work or the likelihood of
ending up in developmental classes. Highlight contributions to the community, faculty
achievements, and rigorous academic activities such as honors programs. Create some
special admittance, selective admissions programs of interest to the highest achieving
population.

Realize that facilities matter to would-be students. Respondents mentioned
facilities quite often, and seemed to equate the facility with the expected experience at

the institution. During economic downturns, facility improvements are sometimes

147

delayed. Facilities are often represented by websites, and these can have the same
pitfalls.

Highlight faculty members and their accomplishments. There was a high
positive regard for the reputation of community college faculty on the part of most
respondents. Faculty members at community colleges often create life-changing
relationships with students. They are regarded as having time for student concerns. In
an era where large institutions can lose young adults, a caring faculty member is a
golden asset.

When communicating to prospective students stress the values of community
colleges. Being welcomed into a more adult world or doing something meaningful in
the community such as service learning are excellent transformation messages.
Highlight some of the activities that community colleges participate in even if they are
not a part of the institution. Rather than competing with the dorm/football scene, focus
on the community partnership assets, such as starting a business, playing in a local
band, cleaning up the river, or volunteering at the local zoo. Highlight the life of the
community college student which is often rich, varied, challenging, and meaningful.
The struggle should be a badge of honor.

The complex mission of the community college sometimes requires complex
messages. According to one community college president, Brent Knight (2009), the
mission and the messages are so complex they must be “zig-zagged” or layered so that
each message adds to the whole. This adds to the branding complexity of an
institution, although it is still possible best to have a few good things that represent an

institution exceptionally well and to stand behind them. These suggestions serve not

148

only to send clear and realistic messages about the community college experience but
also help to create expectations that will in the end lead to student success.
Recommendations for Future Research

Much of the existing research on college choice focuses on university-bound
students. Studies that focus on community colleges have often focused on perceptions
of the community. Community members tend to rate community colleges highly
however, their viewpoints do not necessarily reﬂect the perceptions of potential
students. More longitudinal research on the student seriously considering the
community college is needed, in part to answer whether the community college
standing in selection process should be improved.

Since community colleges enroll a signiﬁcant number of minority and
economically disadvantaged students (Adelman, 2003), those concerned with equity
issues in higher education should ﬁnd it worthwhile to extend this analysis about how
different racial, ethnic, and economically diverse groups view their college options. Of
particular interest were the negative perceptions of community colleges held by lower-
middle income students.

This study suggests that geography and demographics clearly have an impact
on the selection of a community college. This suggests more research is needed on
why different regions of the country view community colleges differently, and what
the impact of rural, suburban, and urban settings is on college choice.

The academicreputationacademic reputation of the community college is
perceived negatively by many college-bound high school students. It would be useful

to know if community colleges’ academic reputations are really deserved. What

149

impact does inappropriate institutional alignment play in the perceptions of
community college academic reputation?

One of the most important questions needing further study has to do with
student success. Since some students begin the search process not intending to attend a
community college yet eventually attend one, it would useful to know at how this
change in direction occurs, where its antecedents lay, and what, if any, lasting impact
the change has on a student’s ability to succeed. How closely is a weak search or a
poor search connected to student failure when a student who does not intend to enroll
at a community college “ends up” there?

Final Thoughts, Reﬂections

Perhaps community colleges do not become involved in branding efforts
because they do not want for students. With the recent economic slowdown, most
community colleges are experiencing double-digit growth. However, completion,
graduation, and transfer rates are critical to community colleges, and those are
dependent upon students having a clear understanding of what to expect at a
community college. Knowing that expected experience and perceived quality affects
performance, community college educators who want to improve student performance
in completion, graduation, and transfer rates need to pay close attention to how
students understand expected academic demands and quality at their college.

Community colleges have a mission based on affordability, diversity, and
access. However, these attributes may have a negative connotation cheapconnotations
such as cheap, easy, diﬁuse, or poor quality institutions. Whether those negative

reputations become the foreground is critical to institutional success. Community

150

college administrators need to safeguard the messages about their institutions and
become more careful about how they promote their institutions. While some high
school students may have not prepared well for college, they might also
misunderstanmisunderstand the academic standards required to enter college
levelworklevel work at a communitya community college. This might in turn
contribute to the national rate of comrhunity college students starting in developmental
classes. It is not that community colleges should not serve under-prepared students;
that is their mission. What is important is that students not be surprised when they
come to a community college and encounter the same academic rigor and standards
for academic courses as at a four—year college.

Graduating high school students are at a critical juncture in their lives and are
concerned about their choices. According to this study, they are worried about more
than just social life and the cost of tuition. They are concerned that they will or will
not disconnect from home. They are concerned about their ability to transition to adult
roles and responsibilities. They often believe the world is a competitive place and
selective institutions are a part of that competition. High school seniors are struggling
with issues involving identity, values, mastery, and separation. In the end, a realistic
understanding of college options, including clarity about the expected experience at a
community college, will help make their decisions more robust and contribute to their

future success.

151

APPENDICIES

152

APPENDIX A Survey Instrument Questions Used

Seventeen Questions that will be used from the Student Insights Survey:

23) Which best describes your immediate college objective?

0
O
O

O

Enroll in a four-year bachelors degree program

Enroll in a two year community/junior college to earn an associate’s degree
First enroll in a two year community/junior college, then transfer to a four year
institution

Other (please specify)

If you selected other, please specify;

41) How seriously did you consider ﬁrst attending a two year community/junior
college then transferring to four year college?

0000

37) Which community/junior college is nearest to your home?

Very seriously
Somewhat seriously
Not very seriously
Not at all

 

38) How familiar are you with this community college?

00000

Very unfamiliar
Somewhat unfamiliar
Neutral

Somewhat familiar
Very familiar

39) How would you rate this community college on the following attributes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Unfavorable Unfavorable Favorable Favorable
Actual Academic o o o o o
strength
Perceived o o o o 0
academic
reputation
Tuition cost 0 o o O 0
Campus facilities 0 o o o 0
Campus safety 0 o o o 0
Social life 0 o o o 0
Overall 0 o O o o
favorability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

40) How would you describe this community/junior college? (25 words or less)

22) What do you expect to pay for college tuition? Consider only the published tuition
rate not including any form of ﬁnancial aid that you may receive.

$0 — 5,000

$5,000 — 10,000
$10,000 - 15,000
$15,000 - 20,000
$20,000 — 25,000
$25,000 — 30,000
$30,000 — 35,000
$35,000 or more

I have no expectation.

000000000

17) What distance from home do you prefer a college to be?

30 minutes or less (1/2 hour or less)
30 — 60 minutes (1/2 — 1 hour)

60 — 120 minutes (1 — 2 hours)

120 - 180 minutes (2 — 3 hours)

180 minutes or more (3 hours or more)
I have no preference.

000000

18) What size college do you prefer?

0 — 999 students

1,000 — 2,500 students
2,500 - 5,000 students
5,000 - 10,000 students
10,000 students or more
I have no preference.

000000

19) What college setting you do prefer?

Urban

Suburban

Rural

I have no preference.

0000

154

16) How important are the following factors when choosing a college?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Unimportant Unimportant Important Important
Job 0 o o o 0
opportunities
for graduates
Academic o o o o o
strength
Tuition cost 0 o o o 0
Facilities — o o o o 0
Academic
Facilities — o o o o 0
Residential
Campus safety 0 o o o 0
College 0 o o o 0
religious
afﬁliation
Campus setting 0 o o o 0
(Urban
/Suburban
/Rural)
Distance from o o o o 0
home
College size 0 o o o 0
(number of
students)
Public vs. 0 o o o 0
Private
Social life — on o o o o o
campus
Social life — off 0 o o o o
campus
Small class size 0 o o o o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14) What was your best SAT score (out of 1600)?
If you took the new version of the test, do not include your score in the new
“writing" section. Only include the total of your Math and Verbal scores.

699 or less
700 — 799
800 — 899
900 - 999
1000 - 1099
1100 — 1199
1200 - 1299
1300 — 1399
1400 —- 1499
1500 - 1600
I haven’t taken the SAT test.

00000000000

155

13) What is your cumulative grade point average? (4.0 scale)

000000

1.9 or less
2.0 — 2.4

2.5 — 2.9

3.0 — 3.4

3.5 — 3.9

4.0 or higher

12) What is your family’s approximate annual income?

0000000

I don’t know or prefer not to disclose.
$0 — 25,000

$25,000 - 50,000

$50,000 — 75,000

$75,000 - 100,000

$100,000 — 150,000

$150,000 or more

1 1) What is your race?

0
o
o
o
o
o
If

you selected other, please specify

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Paciﬁc Islander
I prefer not to disclose.
Other (please specify)

 

10) What is your gender?

0
0

Male
Female

9) Approximately how many students are in your senior class?

0000000

99 or fewer
100 — 199
200 — 299
300 — 399
400 - 499
500 or more
Don’t know.

156

APPENDIX B Permission to use survey results

Dear John,

Thank you for allowing me to use your Student Insight data set for research related to
my dissertation. This is my understanding of the limitations of usage of the date
pursuant to your note and our telephone conversations of the past few months. I agree
to the following:

I will be able to use the entire data set for academic research purposes only.

I will not share or sell the raw data set.

I will not sell the resulting analysis without your permission.

I agree not to use any of the data you are providing in any commercial or
entrepreneurial endeavor, or research with a for-proﬁt entity, nor use it to compete
commercially with Student Insights.

The purpose of this agreement is to support and promote Student Insights and its
educational research function in a positive way.

Sincerely,

Jean Morciglio

157

APPENDIX C - Table 22 Survey Respondents by State

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 .0 .0 .0
AL 250 .7 .7 .7
AR 299 .8 .8 1.5
AZ 438 1.2 1.2 2.7
CA 3066 8.4 8.4 11.1
C0 416 1.1 1.1 12.2
CT 381 1.0 1.0 13.3
DE 97 .3 .3 13.5
FL 2042 5.6 5.6 19.1
GA 997 2.7 2.7 21.8
H1 154 .4 .4 22.3
IA 195 .5 .5 22.8
1D 55 .2 .2 22.9
IL 1580 4.3 4.3 27.3
IN 1000 2.7 2.7 30.0
KS 240 .7 .7 30.7
KY 735 2.0 2.0 32.7
LA 231 .6 .6 33.3
MA 588 1.6 1.6 34.9
MD 614 1.7 1.7 36.6
ME 47 .1 .1 36.7
MO 962 2.6 2.6 39.3
MN 804 2.2 2.2 41.5
MS 284 .8 .8 42.3
MT 74 .2 .2 42.5
NC 2057 5.6 5.6 48.1
ND 1 10 .3 .3 48.4
NE 207 .6 .6 49.0
NH 121 .3 .3 49.3
NJ 1573 4.3 4.3 53.6
NM 156 .4 .4 54.1
NV 68 .2 .2 54.3
NY 3039 8.3 8.3 62.6
OH 1885 5.2 5.2 67.7
OK 195 .5 .5 68.3
OR 290 .8 .8 69.0
PA 1957 5.4 5.4 74.4
RI 124 .3 .3 74.7
SC 993 2.7 2.7 77.5
SD 86 .2 .2 77.7
TN 867 2.4 2.4 80.1
TX 3771 10.3 10.3 90.4
UT 349 1.0 1.0 91.3
VA 1295 3.5 3.5 94.9
VT 11 .0 .0 94.9
WA 700 1.9 1.9 96.8
WI 870 2.4 2.4 99.2
WV 245 .7 .7 99.9
WY 52 .1 .1 100.0
TOTAL 36571 100.0 100.

 

158

 

APPENDIX D Lexical Searches
Figure 28 NO CONSIDERATION AT ALL

Academic (552) affordable (658) a lot (145) area (234) around (118) atmosphere (126)
attend (649) bad (183) basic (140) best (332) better (194) campus (720) career (212)
challenging (119) cheap (287) choice (231) classes (1179) college (6443) community
(2141) convenient (166) cost (337) courses (276) credits (236) decent (173) degree
(333) describe (215) dont (167) easy (358) education (941) enough (143) environment
(194) everyone (116) excellent (230) experience (145) facilities (329) familiar (123)
favorable (189) feel (149) friendly (184) future (130) general (200) gives (148) going
(259) heard (266) help (232) home (1124) inexpensive (119) interested (133) junior
(284) kids (168) known (178) learning (140) life (357) live (112) local (167) location
(294) looking (220) lot (339) major (345) money (297) needs (127) nice (947) nursing
(157) offers (391) opportunities (224) option (142) overall (141) people (1042)
prepare (131) pretty (173) price (136) professors (143) program (674) provides (281)
ready (166) really (414) reputation (419) safe (175) save (127) school (2908) seems
(335) social (190) start (724) state (139) stay (136) stepping (168) stone (119) strong
(194) students (1843) study (116) sure (124) teachers (242) think (344) town (117)
transfer (547) tuition (310) university (745) variety (141) work (158) year (665)

Figure 29 SERIOUS CONSIDERATION

Academic (43) affordable (47) a lot (13) anything (14) area (24) atmosphere (11)
attend (68) bad (14) basics (39) best (18) campus (48) career (20) challenging (13)
cheap (22) choice (15) classes (81) college (535) community (128) convenient (25)
cost (30) courses (26) credit (32) degree (50) describe (14) dont (14) dual (15) earn
(10) easy (39) education (75) enough (10) environment (15) everyone (20) excellent
(18) expensive (10) experience (14) facilities (27) familiar (17) far (14) feel (15)
friendly (11) future (12) getting (15) gives (15) going (29) heard (30) help (46) higher
(13) home (122) inexpensive (13) interested (12) junior (24) larger (10) learning (14)
life (29) local (18) location (19) looking (31) lot (34) major (30) money (18) needs
(14) nice (107) nursing (20) offers (44) opportunities (16) people (91) pretty (12) price
(13) professors (22) program (32) provides (15) ready (14) real (12) really (50)
reputation (32) safe (14) school (281) seems (32) size (18) social (14) someone (15)
start (78) state (23) stepping (12) strong (14) students (100) study (12) sure (14)
teachers (29) tech (13) technical (14) things (13) think (3 8) town (14) transfer (29)
tuition (25) university (58) wants (15) work (13) year (79)

159

References

160

Adelman, C. (2003). A growing plurality: The traditional age community college
dominant student. Community College Journal, 32, 27-30.

Astin, A. W. (1965). Who goes where to college? Chicago: Science Research
Associates.

Attitudes and Opinions of Voters About Higher Education Services in Livingston
County. (1993) Howell, MI: School Public Relations Consultant Services.

Ballantyne, W. N. (2006). Brand Management. Brand Management, 13(4/5), 339-352.

Beattie, I. R. (2002). Are All "Adolescent Econometricians" Created Equal? Racial,
Class, Gender Differences in College Enrollment. Sociology of Education,
75(No. 1), 19-43.

Becker, J. (2007). Student Insights. 2007, from http://www.studentinsights.com/

Bers, T. H. (2008). Conference Proceedings. Paper presented at the Center for the
Study of Community Colleges, Philadelphia, PA.

Bers, T. H. (2009). Introductory comments. Paper presented at the Council for the
Study of Community Colleges, Phoenix, AZ.

Borden, V. M. H. (2004). Accommodating Student Swirl: When Traditional Students
Are No Longer the Tradition. Change, v36 (n2 ), p10

Brafman, 0., & Braﬁnan, R. (2008). Sway: the irresistible pull of irrational behavior.
New York: Doubleday.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Bullrnore, J. (2001). The Brands Lecture: British Brands Group.

Canterbury, R. M. (1999). Higher Education Marketing: A Challenge. Journal of
College Admission, 1 65(F all), 22-30.

Carroll, S. R., & Carol, D. J. (2002). Statistics made simple for school leaders: data-
driven decision making. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation Inc.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Inﬂuence: science and practice (Fourth ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

161

Clark, B. (1960). The 'cooling out' function in higher education. American Journal of
Sociology, 65(6), 569-576.

Clifton, R., & Simmons, J. (2004). Brands and branding. Princeton, New Jersey:
Bloomberg Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Presentation made to Social Work-Nursing Graduate Students,
University of Michigan.

Davis, J. J. (1997). Advertising research: theory and practice. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Domino, S., Libraire, T., Lutwiller, D., Superczynski, S., & Tian, R. (2006). Higher
Education Marketing Concerns: Factors Inﬂuencing Students' Choice of
Colleges. The Business Review, 6(2), 101-111.

Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging
Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How To and
Why Not Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 3(1).

Encarta (Ed.)"(Eds.). (2009).

Falco, L. L. (2006). A quantitative study of image congruence theory as a predictor of
college preference. Unpublished D.B.A., Anderson University, United States --
Indiana.

Gould, D. (2004). Expanding Opportunity: Communicating about the Role of
Community College. Washington, DC: Douglas Gould and Company.

Green, P., Dugoni, B. L., & Ingels, S. J. (1995). Trends Among High School Seniors,
1972-1992: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., & Bell, D. (2003). Community colleges and the equity
agenda: The potential of noncredit education. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 586.

Hansen, S. L. (1994). Lost Talent: Unrealized Educational Aspirations and
Expectations among US. Youths. Sociology of Education, 67(3), 159-183.

Holland, D. K. (2006). Branding for nonproﬁts: developing identity with integrity.
New York: Allworth Press.

162

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying Student College Choice: A T hree-
Phase Model and the Implications for Policymakers. Retrieved. from
http://eric.ed. gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ 3 54226.

Differences in College Access and Choice Among Racial/Ethnic Groups: Identifying
Continuing Barriers( 1 997).

Ingels, S. J ., & Dalton, B. W. (2008 ). Trends Among High School Seniors 1972-2004.
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis
approach. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6/7),
276.

Jefﬁies, J. M. (1987). Black and white choices of postsecondary noncollegiate
education and training. Unpublished Ph.D., New School for Social Research,
United States -- New York.

Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: the marketing of higher
education. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

Krachenberg, A. R. (1972). Bringing the Concept of Marketing to Higher Education.
Journal of Higher Education, 43.

LaPaglia, N. (1993). Story-tellers: The image of the two-year college in American
fiction and in "insider " journals. Unpublished Ed.D., Northern Illinois
University, United States -- Illinois.

LaPaglia, N. (1994). Storytellers: the image of the two-year college in American
fiction and in women 's journals. DeKalb IL: LEPS Press, Northern Illinois
University.

Leone, L. (2009). Director of Marketing, Lansing Community College (Interview ed.).
Lansing, MI.

Li, H. (Fall 2005). Advertising 864, PowerPoint Presentation. Michigan State
University.

Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2001). Characteristics of Virtual Experience in
Electronic Commerce: A Protocol Analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
15(3), 13-30.

Lopez, R. N., Santos, M., & Ceja, C. (2007). Social origin and college opportunity
expectations across cohorts. Social Science research, 36, 1200-1218.

163

MacAllum, K., Glover, D. M., Queen, B., & Riggs, A. (2007). Deciding on
Postsecondary Education: F inal Report Washington, DC.

College Choice in America.(1983).

Mathieson, R. (2005). Branding unbound. New York: AMACOM American
Management Association.

McIntyre, C. (1999). Enrollment simulation and planning. Washington, DC:
Community College Press.

McPhee. (2006). En route to the Baccalaureate: Community college student
outcomes: American Association of Community Colleges.

McPhee, S. (2006). En Route to the Baccalaureate (Research Brief): AACC.

Mehlman, B. (2006, April 28, 2006). US. Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Paper
presented at the Bernard Schwartz Forum: U.S. Competitiveness in the 21 st
Century, Washington DC.

Moore, R. M. (2004). The rising tide: "branding" and the academic marketplace.
Change, May/June 2004.

Morgan, S. L. (1996). Trends in Black-White Differences in Educational
Expectations: 1980-92. Sociology of Education, 69(4), 308-319.

Murphy, L. (1985). Market or Perish! Sales and Marketing Management, 134(7), 50.

National Association of Transfer Network. Retrieved 02/21/09, 2009, from
http://www.natn.org/

National Center for Education Statistics- Fast Facts. (2009). Retrieved 09 O9 09,
2009, from http://nces.ngpv/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008). Retrieved 10/23/2008, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/list/iS.ag)

Newman, F ., & Couturier, L. K. The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces Invade
the Academy. Change, 33(5), 11.

Ola, S., & Ilkka, S. (2007). Mental representations of important real-life decisions.
European Journal of Operational Research, 1 77(3), 1353.

Palgrave, & Macmillan. (2006). Brand Management, 13(No. 4), 339-3 52.

164

Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedom, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Does
community college versus four-year college attendance inﬂuence students'

educational plans? Journal of College Student Development, 39(2), 179-193.

Penn, M. J ., & Zalesne, E. K. (2007). Microtrends: the small forces behind
tommorow's big changes. New York: Hatchette Book Group USA.

Phillips, J. (2002). OU spends big to seal and sharpen image. The Athens News.

Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the
condition of education 2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational
Statistics. ‘

Ramsey, J. L. (2006). "Distinctively Dickinson ": The evolution of brand at a liberal
arts college. Unpublished 3209982, University of Pennsylvania, United States
-- Pennsylvania.

Rapaille, G. C. (2006). The culture code. New York: Broadway Books.

Rosenfeld, R. A. (1980 ). Postsecondary Education Plans and Choices:

Review of the Literature and Design for -Analysis of the Parents Data Washington,
DC: National; Center for Education Statistics.

Russell, A. (2008). Enhancing College Student Success Through Developmental
Education: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (1993). Issues for consideration when choosing a
qualitative data management system. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1806-
l 8 1 6.

Sac State Gets an Image Makeover. (2005, Sept 8-Sept 14, 2005). Sacramento
Observer, p. G3.

Sant, G. V. (Writer) (1998). Good Will Hunting. In L. Bender, S. Mosier, K. Smith, B.
Weinstein & H. Weinstein (Producer). United States: Mirimax.

Schlossberg, N. K., & Entine, A. D. (1977). Counseling adults Monterey, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

Schlossberg, N. K., & Robinson, S. P. (1996). Going to Plan B. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Schmidman, D. (2005, Oct. 7, 2005). School Choice. Isthmus, 30, 18.

165

Smith, L. R., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1984). Marketing Planning for Colleges and
Universities. Long Range Planning, 1 7(6), 104.

Spelling, M. (2008). Winning the Skills Race.
Stimpson, C. R. (2006). Asserting our "brand". Change, 38(4), 30.

Svenson, 0., & Salo, I. (Cartographer). (2005). Mental representations of important
real-life decisions

Svenson, 0., & Salo, I. (2007). Mental representations of important real-life decisions.
European Journal of Operational Research, 1 77(3).Tinto, V. (1997).
Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Toma, J. D., Dubrow, G., & Hartley, M. The Uses of Institutional Culture:
Strengthening Identiﬁcation and Building Brand Equity in Higher Education.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative Approaches. Retrieved November 20, 2009,
from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualapp.php

Walker, R. (2008). Buying In. New York: Random House.

Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: the science of a connected age. New York London:
W.W. Norton & Company.

Whiteside, R. (Ed.). (2004). Student Marketing for Colleges and Universities.
Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Ofﬁcers.

Williams, D. A. (1984). A Buyers' Market: Too Many Colleges, Too Few Students.
Marketing News, 18(15), 14.

Wolfson, J. (2005). University, Inc. Boston, 43(5), 134.
Zahs, D., Pedlow, S., Monissey, M., Marnell, P., & Nichols, B. (2005). High School

and Beyond Fourth F ollow- Up Methodology Report Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.

166

 

mllllllilll ii iii Illillllllllllllllllllll ES
3 1293 03063 7197