UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

8-2011
College Choice Influences Among High-Achieving Students: An
Exploratory Case Study of College Freshmen
Derek Takumi Furukawa
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations
Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Higher Education and Teaching Commons

Repository Citation
Furukawa, Derek Takumi, "College Choice Influences Among High-Achieving Students: An Exploratory Case
Study of College Freshmen" (2011). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/2476207
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital
Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the
record and/or on the work itself.

This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an
authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ii
 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The areas that may influence college choice are numerous and dependent upon the
context in which previous research has been conducted. Thus, several models of both the
choice process and the matrix of college choice influences exist. In addressing the
characteristics of college choice, several of these studies also include factors related to
college access. However, this study focuses on the college choice process, which has
been identified as “the process through which students decide whether and where to go to
college” (Bergerson, 2009, p. 2). The purpose of this study is to explore high-achieving
undergraduate students perception of areas that may influence their college choice. The
study aims to examine high-achieving undergraduate students that may present a
particular set of characteristics that varies from the rest of the college-going population.
However, the general stages and influences of college choice are still factors in the
ultimate decision by these high-achieving undergraduate students.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant research and theory on high-achieving
undergraduate students, the choice process, and the areas that may influence college
choice. The chapter begins with a discussion of literature that characterizes the
uniqueness of high-achieving undergraduate students. The review of the literature is then
divided into two major categories about college choice: areas that may influence college
choice and college choice models. Following these categories of literature, there is an
explanation of the conceptual framework developed from relevant studies that is applied
and used as a lens in this study.
High-Achieving Undergraduate Students
The definition of high-achieving students tends to vary from study to study. In
some cases, a high-achieving group of students is identified by their affiliation with a
program geared toward academically talented students such as an honors program or a
college preparatory curriculum (Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Hébert & Reis, 1999). In other
cases, they use standardized test performance or grade point average to determine levels
of academic ability (Albaili, 1997; VanZile-Tamsen & Livingston, 1999). For high
school students transitioning to college, Geiger (2002) coins the term super students that
identifies students scoring 700 or higher on the math or verbal portion of the SAT or 30
or more on the ACT. His study looked at how these super students are distributed among
public and private universities. One of his findings is that these “super students” are
influenced by the academic reputation that an institution can provide and that public
universities have become competitive because of the financial benefits they can afford to
give these students.
Higher education runs in a market economy and “universities operate in
competitive markets for undergraduate students” (Geiger, 2002, p. 85). Geiger goes on to
show how high-ability undergraduate students are limited in supply and high in demand.
Understanding this dynamic, one can assume that high-achieving students are accepted to
more institutions and thus, have more of a decision process in their college choice.

1
“College discretionary aid offers are apparently used in large part to compete against
other schools for the most sought-after students” (Manski & Wise, 1983, p. 25). As
institutions are becoming more competitive for high-ability students, those institutions
considered second or third choice schools are purposefully exceeding the average
financial aid award of a first choice institution by at least $4,000 and $6,000 respectively
(Braxton, 1990). The idea behind the high awards is to lure high-ability students to
lessselective institutions in order to increase the academic reputation of the institution.
When high-achieving students are looking at the costs, their metrics vary slightly from
the traditional student population. Though they are indifferent to the distance the
institution is from their home, they are sensitive to tuition, room, and board (Avery &
Hoxby, 2004). Financial aid is included in this financial consideration. The “array of
scholarships, grants, loans, and work-study programs exists because many parties want to
alter meritorious students’ college choices” (2004, p. 240). Though the high-aptitude
students are attracted by grants, loans, and work-study commitments, they prefer to attend
the most selective colleges within the set to which they were admitted (2004, p. 288).
Another way to look at this is that high caliber students are more attracted to affluent
institutions. Blau (1974) indicates that the major reason for this tendency is that affluent
institutions pay higher salaries that enable them to recruit better faculty and that high
caliber students are attracted to institutions that have strong faculties.
One of the assumptions about high-achieving students is that they will
immediately be successful in college. However, Balduf (2009) conducted a study of
high-achieving students at Queen Mary College who received low marks and were put on
academic probation. The study found that the participants did not have the skills
necessary to succeed in college life. The identified skills that would have assisted them
included time management and adjustment to independent life. Though this level of
performance is considered an anomaly for high-achieving students, it is important to
show that assumptions should not be made about this particular student population.
College Choice
The influences and stages of choosing a college are similar whether a student is
deemed high-achieving or not. Research addressing the decision of a college applicant
can be viewed in two different perspectives. First, the decision can be examined through
the lens of identifying the factors that influence the college choice. Second, the decision
can be divided into the various stages of the choice process. Both perspectives provide
insight into how students approach the final decision of what institution to attend.
The Areas of Influence of College Choice
The first study on college choice was published in 1959 when John Holland
analyzed National Merit Scholarship students from 1957 to see what characteristics
caused them to choose a particular institution. He conducted a survey and found that the
student’s background, with emphasis on cultural and personal development from the
family influenced college choice. Holland (1959) went on to find that there was a
perception that popular colleges were seen as the best institutions and that parents
believed these schools were the superior choice.
Richards and Holland (1964) then studied the typical influences of college choice
used by high school and college personnel when assisting students. This study had

2
sample of 8,292 students from among ACT test takers for 1964. They grouped student
choice influences into four groups: intellectual, influential, practical, and social. The
level of influence that each of these groups has on a student’s choice varies from person
to person.
In 1966, Berdie and Hood investigated the predictability of college choice by
analyzing results from a 1961 survey of Minnesota high school graduates. Berdie and
Hood focused on a random sample of 3,817 students out of the 44,756 students who
completed the survey. They examined academic ability, along with socioeconomic,
cultural, and personal factors. Like Richards and Holland’s findings, this study found
that although there are several influences to college choice (ie: parents, friends, teachers,
and counselors) that have varying levels of influence, the extent of that influence varies
from person to person (Berdie & Hood, 1966).
Chapman (1981) developed a college choice model that focused on
traditionalaged prospective students. The development of this model was not based
directly from a study, but is a reflection of several findings from other studies that
Chapman investigated in order to develop a single, comprehensive model. His model
suggested that choice is influenced by student characteristics in combination with
external influences. “These external influences can be grouped into three general
categories: (1) the influence of significant persons; (2) the fixed characteristics of the
institution; and (3) the institution’s own efforts to communicate with prospective
students” (1981, p. 492). When looking at the areas that may influence choice, these
external influences provide a solid guide for a comprehensive look that is summarized in
this chapter.
Embedded within these models are several factors that must be taken into
consideration. Whether it is to match the student characteristics with institutional
characteristics (Zemsky & Odell, 1983) or to identify the institutional characteristics
needed to influence student choice (Martin & Dixon, 1991; Martin, 2006; Paulsen, 1990),
these factors all play a role in the way that students perceive and choose institutions. St.
John, Paulsen, and Starkey (1996) connect this stage of choice with student persistence
and connect characteristics of college choice with characteristics of students who persist
to graduation. Their study did not seek information about college choice or college
persistence, but solely looked at nexus between the two areas. They used data from the
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study of 1986-87 to find that there was both a direct
and indirect influence on persistence decisions. They also found that some highachieving
undergraduates stopped out mainly for reasons of financial constraint and desire to
transfer (St. Paul, Paulsen, & Starkey, 1996).
A good example of the development of college choice influences is detailed in a
report from the Lumina Foundation that chronicles the history of higher education in the
context of student college choice (Kinzie et al., 2004). The historical context has shown
how college choice has varied in context of political, social, and institutional influence,
but has stayed fairly consistent in areas of economic influences. The continued economic
influence in conjunction with the social influence of college choice are what have helped

3
drive the change in college marketing to outreach to a larger population of students.
In establishing these marketing strategies to affect student college choice, there have also
been concerns about subpopulations that may be affected by these changes. Kelpe Kern
(2000) discussed how community colleges might need to be more vigilant in the way they
look toward traditionally aged students from urban areas in order to serve their population
need. Her study surveyed 1,179 students from 20 high schools in a major southwest
urban school district, utilizing a modified version of the College Choice Influences Scale
originally developed by Dixon and Martin (1991). In relation, McDonough (1997)
discusses the way that social class and school structure can influence the way students
perceive higher education. All of these studies make a case for an inclusive recruitment
and admissions policy as to not exclude students from even the opportunity to make a
college choice.
The influence of family. Though college choice models look at a comprehensive
view of the factors influencing a student’s decision, one emergent theme is the role of the
family in the choice process. Litten (1982) found that although there are several
influences to a student’s choice of college, the parental education background played the
most significant role in shaping the conduct of students in the college choice process.
“Higher levels of parental education led to substantially greater incidence of usage of
commercial guidebooks and visits to campus” (1982, p. 394). Further, the level of
parental education had a strong influence on where their children sought expertise in the
search process. However, use of commercial guidebooks may not necessarily be a
deciding factor on a student’s choice. “There is some reason to question why guidebooks
and ratings have received so much attention in recent years in light of their limited impact
on the decisions of students and parents” (Hossler & Foley, 1995, p. 29). Regardless,
they are still a resource that can be of assistance and students are often encouraged to
utilize them as a resource in the choice process.
Related to education attainment, the role of a family alumnus plays a strong role
in the choice process. A student who has “a father or sibling who attended the college
greatly increases a student’s own probability of attending it” (Avery & Hoxby, 2004, p.
263). This alumnus effect has a significant impact on the probability of matriculation
with a 70 percent increase if a father attends and a 90 percent increase if a sibling attends.
This can be a reflection of shared family values or even family allegiance to a particular
institution (Avery & Hoxby, 2004).
The parental involvement in student choice can be critical in the role of family.
Bouse and Hossler (1991) found that parents must be involved early in any process
designed to increase enrollments. The early involvement prevents the parents from
feeling like an outsider in the process and provides a sense of inclusion in their child’s
decision. Reynolds (1981) reported that parents go through a similar process as their
children during the selection process and define their attitudes similarly to their children.
She even warns admission officers to be cognizant of the way they treat parents because
of their influence on the choice process. Thomas indicates that “parents winnowed the
college choice set down to six key characteristics of importance: campus safety, location,
costs of college, area of interest or program area, campus size, and campus environment”
(2003, p. 157). Looking at parents of eighth-grade students, Flint (1992) found that

4
among over 350 parents sampled in Illinois, there was more concern about college
reputation than costs. Degree offerings and selectivity were deemed as factors related to
an institutional reputation. Regardless, the ability of the student tends to influence the
level and quality of parental involvement (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000).
With community college students, in particular, the communication methods of
the institution play a role in the level of involvement by the parents of community college
students. Bers and Galowich (2002) conducted a mixed-methods study of community
college parents and found that in their sample of 13 parents used for a focus group, the
majority of information that the subjects utilized came from formal, printed materials
provided by the institution. The study revealed that traditional marketing would not be as
effective as providing resources to key individuals, such as high school guidance
counselors, who were in a position to effectively disseminate the information to parents.
The influence of family also differs slightly based on ethnicity. Nora (2004)
makes it clear that there are varying familial influences regarding the pursuit of higher
education among minority students. Litten reported, “certain information media,
particularly high school counselors and mothers, are more important to blacks than to
whites” (1982, p. 298). For Hispanics and African Americans, the level of parental
involvement pertains to the likelihood to enroll in a four-year college or university
(Perna, 2000). Further, Stewart and Post’s (1990) study found that minority students
were more likely to enroll in institutions that are close to their home and that attempts
should be made to recruit minority students who live within a several-hour radius of
campus to attend in order to maximize yield. Smith and Fleming (2010) studied 11
African American parents in California, mostly from the Los Angeles area, and their
parenting practices. Their qualitative study found that African American parents tended
to have influence in the college choice process beyond the stages of predisposition and
search as previously identified by Hossler. Schmit, and Vesper (1999). Further, as their
study consisted primarily of female parents, there was more encouragement for daughters
to pursue higher education, which matches the gender difference in college-going African
Americans.
The influence of peers. Although the evidence shows the clear influence of
family, it would be expected that peers also influence institutional choice. However,
research is somewhat inconsistent in this arena. Kealy and Rockel (1987) show that “the
student’s peer group of high school students is highly influential across all dimensions of
perceived college quality (p. 689). Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith (1989) indicate
just the opposite and say that peers have no reported effects on influencing institutional
choice. Perhaps the best way to interpret these two findings is to say that peers have
influence on a student’s perception of college quality, but do not go as far as having a
direct influence on institutional choice. In other words, peers serve as an influence to one
of the many factors that comprise college choice.
Perhaps the most contrary finding to the influence of peers came from Kelpe
Kern’s (2000) study on college choice influences. She notes that “participants indicated
that going to college because of friends were going was not a motivating factor (77.6%

5
responded disagree or disagree strongly to the statement, ‘I am attending college because
my friends are going to college’)” (2000, p. 492).
If we broaden the definition of what a peer group is, then there are a few other
ways of looking at peer influence on college choice. In looking at peers in the context of
a shared experience, the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer (GLBTQ)
community was described by Burleson (2010) as a community that doesn’t consider a
gay-friendly campus as the most important factor in deciding where to go, but does take
into consideration the overall campus climate when selecting a school. In other words,
the climate of the GLBTQ community plays a factor in whether a student chooses to
include an institution in their short list of options for college.
The other non-traditional peer group could include guidance staff. Counselors, as
familiar voices of authority, often provide insight into the choice decisions of their
students. Johnson and Stewart (1991) conducted a study of 3,708 freshmen that
responded to a questionnaire during their freshman orientation. The study examined the
points in when the choice of a college was first made and a final choice made; the factors
in making a college choice; and the resources used in considering colleges they might
attend. In the latter part of the study, high school counselors were used more than both
parents and high school teachers, making them an important factor in where students
gather information during the search stage of college choice.
The influence of institutional characteristics. The institutional characteristics
of higher education vary immensely. The great diversity of institutions with distinct
characteristics is the reason why the college choice process is so complex (Litten, 1991).
When you combine this complexity with the diverse nature of applicants, the process of
college choice no longer becomes a cut and dry system.
It is difficult to look at the college choice process without taking into
consideration factors that the institution controls. Cost is an influence on whether an
institution can be viewed as a viable choice for a student. Tied with cost is an
institution’s tradition of awarding financial aid. “The parties’ objectives are diverse—
from a purely altruistic desire to relax constraints facing the needy to a college’s
selfinterested desire to enroll high-aptitude student who raise its profile or improve
education for other students on campus” (Avery & Hoxby, 2004, p. 240). The use of aid
to reduce the sticker price of the institution is quite common, but has been shown to be a
selfserving interest by the institution. Depending on a student’s background and need for
aid, this shapes the personality of the institution.
Hossler and Litten (1993) conducted a study and found that two principal criteria
were used to define a selective institution: the admission rate and the quality of the
students who apply to the institution. Part of the institutional characteristics is the
reputation that students perceive about the school. The focus groups in the study
identified other factors that were important to students. They “indicated interest in the
character of the community surrounding a college; the diversity of the student body; the
potential for faculty-student interaction; opportunities for student involvement in campus
activities; issues of safety; curricular emphasis on pre-professional and professional
programs or on the liberal arts; how many classes are taught by teaching assistants; and
whether most classes are taught in seminar, laboratory or lecture formats” (1993, p. 81).

6
In regard to public universities, the factor of state public policies can also play a role in
influencing student choice. Perna and Titus (2004) conducted a study looking at the
relationship between state public policies and the type of institution that high school
graduates attend. Their data comes from the National Educational Longitudinal Study
from 1992-94. One of the major findings of the study is that “state need-based financial
aid and institutional financial aid promote student choice among different types of
colleges and universities” (2004, p. 520). Essentially, a state public policy that supports
financial assistance to college students encourages the choice decisions of those students.
DesJardins, Ahlburg, and McCall (2006) tracked a sample of over 86,000 Iowa students
through the process of sending ACT scores, application, admission, financial aid
determination, and enrollment during a five-year span of time. They followed an
approach that incorporated multiple factors in the eventual choice decision in order to
isolate variables so that the most pertinent influences would emerge. They found that
disappointing students with regard to their financial aid expectations had a negative effect
on enrollment.
College rankings also serve as a comparative means for institutions. Most of the
people that work in higher education know about rankings and criticisms of rankings that
are released by groups such as US News & World Report. In an article in Change, Monks
and Ehrenberg (1999) indicate that many institutions use their rankings as a selling point
in their brochures. Their study of 17 institutions, within or near the top 25 in the
rankings, indicates that the institutional ranking in this publication has an affect on how
an institution may adjust their tuition in order to better adapt to the students being
recruited. There have been several criticisms of these rankings, but recently, the
Chronicle of Higher Education, had an article that talked about a group of scholars has
begun to develop a new ranking system that looks more at rankings based on student
choice preference rather than institutional selectivity (Glenn, 2004). Glenn (2004)
describes the contents of a working paper that has Christopher Avery, Mark Glickman,
Caroline Minter Hoxby, and Andrew Metrick pitting institutions against each other in
final decisions of admitted students. This perspective moves the concept of quality away
from institutional selectivity and closer to actual student preference.
The influence of institutional communication. To maximize their
communication efforts, institutions have turned toward marketing strategies used in the
business world to identify potential students. They use software to be able to “identify
sets of student characteristics that predispose (students) to be interested in specific
colleges or universities” (Hossler, 2007). Pagano and Terkla (1991) conducted research
on the institutional contacts at Tufts University to evaluate the effectiveness of their
communication with potential students. The study evaluated written materials
disseminated by Tufts and sought to gauge the level of satisfaction with these contacts
from both students and parents alike. They found that parents were more dissatisfied with
the availability of professional staff than their children, but they were satisfied with the
overall admissions process. In the case of communication, “an ongoing admissions
research effort enables both the admissions and financial aid offices to further improve

7
their interactions with prospective students and parents” (Pagano & Terkla, 1991, p. 44).
This finding circles back to the increased need to evaluate the services to function in a
more market-driven model of student recruitment (Kelpe Kern, 2000).
The manner in which an institution conveys its information to students is also
critical. Johnson and Chapman (1979) found that the college catalogues, which were the
most commonly used reference to send to potential students, were written at a reading
level difficulty “well above that of the major intended audience—the high school senior”
(p. 316). This relationship is important because the link between college recruitment
efforts and student choice is based on student perceptions of college quality (Kealy &
Rockel, 1987). The influence of these perceptions is based on interactions with
significant people, written materials, and admissions officials.
Hartley and Morphew (2008) conducted a content analysis of 48 viewbooks from
four-year institutions. They found that beyond the viewbook images depicting an idyllic
haven for potential students, there are six major themes that emerged from the analysis.
These thematic areas are institutional context or campus features; academics or faculty;
co-curricular opportunities; admissions and financial aid; value of an education; and the
purpose of higher education. Their analysis shows that viewbooks tend to convey the
same messages that print ads, billboards, and television screens do. This message
conveys that the institution will make you happy, meet your needs, and help you succeed.
However, the Education Conservancy found through student focus groups that students
dislike “disingenuous” college recruiting, college fairs, and “generic” college recruiting
(Jaschik, 2007). These same focus groups also indicated that students felt institutions
encouraged application in order to get their money and to better their acceptance
statistics.
In regard to the effect on students, LeFauve (2001) examined the use online web
content in college choice. Specifically, she looked at how viewbooks and web sites have
similar properties of providing both information and persuasion to potential students
seeking information. The ability to persuade a student has developed new vehicles in the
various social media technologies such as blogs, podcasts, and instant messaging (Tower,
2006). There are several ways in which an institution can get information out to potential
students and encourage, and often persuade, their enrollment. An article in The
Chronicle of Higher Education noted that colleges were able to get more applicants by
personalizing their recruitment web site to the student (Foster, 2003). This included such
programs as admissions portfolios that take into consideration a student’s demographics
before sending out more specific information. Donehower (2003) criticized the
admissions process as being without any personal touch and notes that it’s the personal
touch in a recruitment message that can help applicants and their families distinguish one
school from another.
College admissions offices have also taken to specific forms of recruitment to try
to recruit particular populations of students. This has existed in the past with the
recruitment of student-athletes, where institutions have had to promote the institutional
characteristics as well as the team and the coach (Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, &
Palmer, 2003). With recruitment becoming more specific, institutions are adjusting their
way of recruiting to be more specific. Docters (1999) talks about marketing in terms of

8
having specific aims in mind and taking more of a rifle approach instead of a shotgun
approach. This approach to recruiting student populations is shown in Figure 4. The
shotgun approach takes a broad stroke at reaching students in the general population,
while the rifle approach targets specific student populations. The difference in these
approaches is that the shotgun approach may not hit the specific populations intended in
the recruitment process.

In the area of admissions, the Internet has helped streamline the process, allowing for
easy sorting and evaluation of applications. Tansey (2005) echoes the personalized
admissions portal, noting that getting personal helps the yield of applicants. Much of the
literature is based around showing that technology has increased efficiency and ease of
interaction for college admissions offices (Gifford, Briceño-Perriot, & Mizano, 2005;
Hossler, 1999; Lim & Sun, 2003; Stoner, 2001). In general, these articles praise the
integration of technology in admissions and suggest ways in which to enhance their
effectiveness.
In 2010, the Lipman Hearne consulting firm partnered with the Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) to review marketing practices in higher
education in order to identify trends among college recruitment offices. Their study
consisted of an email survey of 212 CASE member institutions across a spectrum of
institutional types. Their study found five trends from the survey. First, institutions that
invested in research and planning to set their marketing agenda were more likely to
employ a diverse and varied marketing effort. Second, despite there being a general
thought that print media was a thing of the past, nearly all (96 percent) institutions
engaged in print publications. Third, in a year’s span, institutions allocated more money
to both interactive marketing and social media while decreasing allocations to traditional
advertising. Fourth, the investment into social media is paying off for investors, showing
increases in website hits, positioning, and alumni-giving rates. Finally, the study found
that those institutions that partnered with an outside agency to handle their marketing
experienced a positive impact on the quality of their applicants. As a whole, this study
helps validate the use of social media as a viable choice for marketing practices.
The influence of institutional fit. Despite the amount of communication
provided by the institution, the final decision of institution comes down to how well the
student feels they fit with a particular institution. Classic research on student
development Astin (1965) identified six factors that measured variation among college
freshmen. These factors were intellectualism, estheticism, status, leadership, pragmatism,
and masculinity. Astin then examined the type of institution that tended to attract
students with high scores on each dimension. He indicates that these factors can be used
by institutions to help develop their institutional profiles to recruit students effectively.
In some cases, the institution in comparison can be dominated and irrelevant
given a student is admitted to a dominating school (Avery & Hoxby, 2004). In this
scenario, the viability of a “safety school” is non-existent if an applicant is accepted to

9
one or more of his or her preferred schools. McDonough (1994) indicates that high-SES,
middle-range academic performers have changed college choice into a very rationalized
process rather than a soul-searching discovery or independent research. Investigating
the concept of institutional fit, Williams (1986) encourages enrollment managers to look
at three sets of variables: characteristics of students, characteristics of the institutional
environment, and the effects or outcomes resulting from the interaction of the student
with the campus environment. Student characteristics have already been mentioned in
the description of preference (Jackson, 1982) and predisposition (Hossler & Gallagher,
1987). Institutional characteristics “include a wide array of physical, academic, social,
and psychological variables that together comprise the campus environment” (Williams,
1986, p. 36). The institutional characteristics become increasingly important in the way
the student interacts with the institution. Even beyond the point of the choice process,
these institutional characteristics, also considered cultural artifacts (Kuh & Hall, 1993),
need to continue to be communicated, along with their underlying meaning, to incoming
students through important moments such as new student orientation (Theroux, 2008).
When the factors of choice are all put together, there is an assumption that college
students end up happy with their decision. In an article describing his own experiences as
a father of two college students, David Kraus (2008) describes the complex factors of
student choice as worrisome and frustrating. He mentions that over 67% of students
attending college are attending their first choice of colleges and that some of the process
that students go through in deciding which school to attend makes a difference with their
expectations when they arrive there.
College Choice Process
There are several choices that students have to make in their college career and
the first decision is that choice of college. Bateman and Spruill (1996) provide an
overview of models that identify the stages of college choice. They divide these models
into four major categories: econometric models, sociological models, combined models,
and an expanded model. Econometric models specify that student exclude and evaluate
the alternatives to postsecondary education based on the following criteria: geographic
location, economic factors, and academic factors. The sociological model specifies a
variety of individual and social factors that lead to educational aspirations. Combined
models blend the most powerful indicators in the decision-making process from both
econometric and sociological models. Finally, an expanded model focuses on personal
and social phenomena that influence the college choice process.
Each of these models provides different stages of influence during the college
choice process. The models described in this section tend to fit under the description of
“process models” that Henrickson (2002) identifies in describing models of choice.
“Process models” aim to capture elements of potential students, institutional
characteristics, and the application process. This section identifies the various models and
conceptualizations that college choice incorporates. Whether it’s Holland’s (1959) model
that started viewing the choice process in stages or the more current studies by Hossler,
the contributions of these models and conceptualizations have shaped the current study of
college choice.

10
 College choice models have evolved since the first study by Holland in 1959. His
study looked at 814 high-ability high school students and identified the complexity of the
college choice process. The study showed that different kinds of students select different
kinds of institutions. He notes, “like many personal decisions, the choice patterns found
here are probably not really amenable to change because they are grounded in cultural
and personal development” (Holland, 1959, p. 26). Numerous studies have looked at the
various influences of college choice, but the process of making that choice emerged a few
years later. The first model of college choice began with Kolter (1976) who looked at
marketing theory to show how there are seven stages in the process of enrolling. These
seven stages include: the decision to attend; information seeking and receiving; specific
college inquiries; applications; admissions; college choice; and registration. Kolter’s
stages of enrollment were accepted as accurate by most scholars until more recent work
refined the mode.
Building on what Kolter had established, Hanson and Litten (1982) then
reexamined the stages of college choice, creating a model that reduced the process to five
stages: college aspirations; beginning the search process; gathering information; sending
applications; and enrolling. Though their study introduced this new model of the choice
process, their findings focused on the differences between sexes on the measures of
college attendance, selection, and admissions process. The stages of their model helped
define where the differences existed between sexes in the choice process.
Jackson (1982) developed a model that combined both the sociological and
economic influences of the choice process. His model separated the choice process into
three phases: preference; exclusion; and evaluation. Within these phases, family
background and social context influence factors leading to exclusion factors that
ultimately lead to the choice decision. The interrelation of these factors can be a bit
confusing and is best seen in a visual flow as shown in Figure 5. He recognizes the first
stage in the model as one that focuses more on sociological influences such as family,
friends, personal aspirations, and academic achievement. Within this first phase, “the
strongest correlate of high school students’ aspirations (educational or occupational) is
Figure 5. Jackson’s (1982) combined student choice model their academic achievement”
(Jackson, 1982, p. 239). However, Jackson makes sure to show that these factors are only
preferences and have no direct influence on choice, but influence other areas that
ultimately lead to a decision.
The second phase of the model tends to introduce the economic influences of
college choice. This includes the cost of attendance and the amount of financial
assistance provided by the institution. Included in this phase is the geographic location of
the institution as it can be directly tied with cost factors. This stage of exclusion begins
the use of resources provided by the institution that may help inform students about their
choices. “Students exclude colleges as unfeasible based on partial information when
more information would lead them to do otherwise, and quite reasonably they do not
consider colleges unknown to them or about which they can obtain no information”
(Jackson, 1982, p. 240). This is the point in the choice process where the accuracy and

11
availability of information from an institution is vital to avoid being excluded from
consideration. In looking at the current use of technology in this phase, Cox-Otto (2006)
indicates that potential students are more likely to use a website to exclude an institution
than to include it.
Finally, the third phase of Jackson’s model is where students evaluate their
options and ultimately make a final decision. In this phase, each student develops their
own rating scheme to which they use to rank institutions and ultimately make a decision
that makes the most sense. Jackson (1982) notes that although students create their rating
scheme in this final phase, the opinions developed from the creation of their choice set in
the exclusion phase are seldom changed by the rating scheme, giving those decisions
direct influence on the ultimate choice decision.
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) also created a college choice model that looked at
the process in three phases: predisposition; search; and choice. Hossler and Gallagher’s
model gave the first comprehensive model for traditional students. The model is
considered comprehensive because it includes in the influential factors both individual
factors of the students as well as organizational factors of the institutions. The individual
factors include student characteristics, significant others, educational activities, student
preliminary college values, student search activities, and the student choice set. The
organizational factors include school characteristics, college and university search
activities, and college and university courtship activities. The model also looks at the
expected outcomes in each of the phases. Each phase contains student outcomes as well,
noting that at each of the stages, there is a factor of other options that plays into the
decisions that are made by students in the choice process. A table of Hossler and
Gallagher’s three-phase model of college choice is depicted in Figure 5.
The first phase of predisposition is similar to Jackson’s (1982) stage of
preferences in that it entails characteristics of the students and whether they have the
aspirations to pursue higher education. This phase also includes influences from
individuals involved in the student’s life. The organizational factors include the existing
characteristics of the institution. Upon leaving this phase, the student will have searched
for college options as well as the alternative options to attending college (Hossler &
Gallagher, 1987).
The second phase in the model involves the search process and the way that
students and institutions seek out each other. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) characterize
this phase with the initial interaction with the institutions in order to gather more
information. The search phase can be the stage when students reduce the number of
institutions from every school to only those that meet a set of preferences established.
This narrowing down of schools helps to create the desired outcome of a choice set. It is
important to note that in the search phase, there is still a possible outcome of other
options to college, showing that the search process could still influence whether a student
wishes to pursue college.
The final phase of the model is the choice process of the student. This is when the
student takes the information gathered from the search phase and evaluates the
institutions to make a decision on which school they will attend. During this phase,
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identify the courtship activities that colleges and

12
universities utilize to influence the choice decision. These activities include offering
financial aid and communicating with the students. However, they do point out that the
students surveyed by Astin, Green, Korn, and Maier (1984) in the American Freshman
Survey had only 1-2 institutions as part of their final choice set. This means that at the
point of making a decision, most of the options have already been eliminated through the
search phase. The interaction of the students, and parents, with the institution increases
throughout the three phases, but the major influences occur during the final phase of
making a decision on where to matriculate. The complete model is shown in Figure 6.
Galotti (1995) conducted a study that had students look back at the criteria they
used to make decisions to see if those decisions followed the decision process outlined by
Hossler and Gallagher (1987). Galotti found that of the 207 participants, about half
recalled the criteria they had originally reported using when making their college choice.
This study looked more at how individuals recalled their choice decision. In doing so, it
shed light on the level of importance the college choice decision has on student lives.
Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith (1989) reiterate the model presented by
Hossler and Gallagher (1987), but refine much of the terminology to describe the three
phases. They divide these steps into three stages: decision to participate in postsecondary
education; the investigation of institutions; and the process of applying and enrolling.
The framework of predisposition, search, and choice still are apparent with this model.
Providing more longitudinal data, Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) wrote a
book that explained the college choice process in more detail. Again, the conceptual
framework for the book was based on Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-phase model.
The predisposition portion is divided into two aspects of college aspirations. They
present the three-phase model by providing several anecdotes for each phase of the
process and follow up with the theoretical and empirical explanation of these decisions.
The study found that the “influences of college decisions of ninth-grade students are
different from the influences on decisions of twelfth-grade students” (Hossler, Schmit, &
Vesper, 1999, p. 128). More specifically, they indicate that as students move closer to
high school graduation, they learn more about their college options and the gaps between
their aspirations and their realistic expectations become more apparent and accepted.

Conceptual Framework
To best understand an institution’s role in student choice, it is necessary to look at
the choice process in its entirety. There are a lot of decisions made by traditional students
in the choice process such as what type of school to attend, where to go, and what field to
study. These choices all appear in various stages of a student’s transition from high
school to college. By using an integrated framework of the stages of choice, it is easiest
to identify an institution’s role in each of these stages. There are several works that
address the stages of student college choice (Chapman, 1981; Hanson & Litten, 1982;
Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Hossler, Schmit & Vesper, 1999; Jackson, 1982).
Henrickson (2002) notes that regardless of the number of stages that comprise the model,
there tends to be similar characteristics. There are two designs in particular that best

13
summarize the stages of choice. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) and Jackson (1982) both
address stages of the choice process that, in combination, best align with literature.
Understanding the importance of both the models of Hossler and Gallagher (1987)
and Jackson (1982), combining the two models into an integrated choice process model is
most appropriate for this study. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identify the process of
college choice inclusive of stages of student predispositions, the search process, and the
choice process. Jackson (1982) identifies the choice process inclusive of stages of
preferences, exclusion, and evaluation. In combining these two models, the framework
for the study establishes that students enter the choice process with their predispositions
or preferences, go through the process of searching for schools, and conclude with
choosing an institution that includes both exclusion and evaluation of institutions.
By developing a hybrid of two existing models, it allows this study to focus on the
choice process through a commonly used model (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987), while
incorporating an important aspect of exclusion and evaluation provided by another model
(Jackson, 1982). This integrated model (see Figure 7) creates a framework that still
views the college choice process as a three-stage process, but with two sub-stages during
Figure 7. Integrated choice process

the search stage. This allows the study to not only delve into the positive factors that
influence choice, but the negative factors that influenced exclusion of institutions.
Further, the integrated model allows us to insert the various influences of college choice
into the model at the various stages where they provide the most salient influence. The
integrated model incorporates the themes of influence including family influences, peer
influences, institutional characteristics, institutional communication, and institutional fit.

Research Questions
The review of literature identifies several ways in which we can explore the areas
that may influence college choice. To explore all of these areas would be both extensive
and may even cause conflicting findings. The following set of research questions
provided guidance for the establishment of data collection and analysis for the study:

14
1. What areas do high-achieving undergraduate students at a public university perceive to
influence college choice?
2.How do personal characteristics, such as family and peers, influence a student’s choice
of college?
3. What experiences are identified as the most influential in a student’s decision to attend
a particular institution?
4. How do institutional characteristics, institutional communication, and institutional fit,
influence a student’s choice of college?
5. In what way does the institution intentionally try to influence college choice for
potential freshman students?
6. To what extent do intentional college recruitment activities affect college choice?

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter provides a discussion of the findings, a review of the research

questions and connections to the previous literature, a discussion of the implications for
theory and practice, limitations of the study, future research, and conclusion.
Research Questions
The research questions were established to find out whether there are trends
among high-achieving student in their college choice decision. The questions were
designed purposefully to look at both student perceptions of influences of college choice
as well as the way the institution purposefully recruits its students.
Research Question 1
What areas do high-achieving undergraduate students at a public university perceive to
influence college choice?
Previous research in the area of high-achieving students is limited. Manski and
Wise (1983) discuss how discretionary aid is used to recruit target populations of students
and Braxton (1990) discusses how the schools that are not first-choice tend to have
$4,000 to $6,000 more financial aid, but neither look at the decision from the perspective
of students. Avery and Hoxby (2004) say high-achieving students consider financial aid
as part of their decision, but at the same time, identify cost as an institutional
characteristic that all students consider in the college choice decision.
Chapter 2 identified cost as a factor that was part of the larger context of
institutional characteristics. Avery and Hoxby (2004) talk about the sticker price of
institutions and how financial aid is used to try and drive that price down for potential
students. This study made it clear that cost was a driving factor among the participants.
Students’ college choice decisions are influenced and even guided by the cost established
by the institution and student aid is manipulated by institutions in order to be a
promotional tool to potential students (Avery & Hoxby, 2004). Cost was identified as a

15
factor used both early on in the choice process as well as in the final decisions of the
students.
High-achieving students perceived other influences on college choice in this
study. Consistent with the literature, students identified such factors as family influence,
cost, communication, and institutional characteristics as factors affecting their ultimate
choice decision. Though the influences vary from person to person as Berdie and Hood
(1966) explained, there were still several influences in common for this population of
high-achieving students. The various influences identified by the student participants are
shown in Appendix M.
Chapman (1981) presented a model of external influences, which included the
role of significant persons, institutional characteristics, and institutional communication.
This study was consistent with Chapman’s (1981) findings with some slight
modifications. The findings of this study identified significant persons as family
members, more often parents. Institutional characteristics emerged from the study when
student participants recalled comparing institutions against each other during the
evaluation stage as well as when they compared their final institutions just prior to
making their final choice. This second level of comparison may be most closely aligned
with Glenn’s (2004) article where he describes a working paper that discusses pitting
institutions against each other in final decisions. Institutional communication was
reflected upon during most of the conversations about college choice. It included both
the initial outreach from the institution as well as the follow-up communication to prepare
the students for matriculation. Though communication by institutions was deemed as
something driven from more of a market economy, it was still an important step in the
college choice process (Hossler, 2007).
The most significant finding of this study surfaced when students identified a final
comparison between Choice University and other institutions. This comparison emerged
when students were making their final choice decision and weighing the final merits of
each institution. This second evaluation showed a sense of consumerism where decisions
are best made by comparing institutions against each other. After students made their
choice of their first institution, they made the additional decision to compare the final
institutions one last time before making their decision. This new finding emphasizes that
in this study’s population, high-achieving students take additional time in the choice
process to include additional factors before making their final decision.
Research Question 2
How do personal characteristics, such as family and peers, influence a student’s choice
of college?
The role of personal characteristics has a strong tie with college choice. The
literature identified factors such as parental education background (Litten, 1982) and
legacy status (Avery & Hoxby, 2004) as important factors in college choice. Parental
involvement in the decision was deemed an important relationship to foster for an
institution (Bouse & Hossler, 1991). The influence of family, though mentioned less
often, held a more significant role in the students’ choice of college and in this study, it
proved to be consistent among all student participants, making the involvement of parents
of high-achieving students similar to that of parents of first-generation and

16
underrepresented minority students. The interviews with Admissions staff recognized the
importance in catering to parents of students to influence their choice. This was
emphasized even more with first-generation students, which is consistent with literature
about familial influences of higher education (Nora, 2004) and parental involvement in
the process (Perna, 2000).
Students identified parents as being a major influence on their choice decision. In
a case like Kendall’s, her parents’ experience with Choice University provided the
alumnus effect that influenced her chances of matriculating (Avery & Hoxby, 2004).
Though it was not identified in Chapter 2, the other recurring theme within family
influence revolved around the financial aspect of higher education. The participants in
this study never self-identified as paying for school on their own. Aside from the
scholarships that were earned and financial aid that was provided, each of the participants
identified at least some assistance or financial influence that was provided by their
parents.
Although Kealy and Rockel (1987) identified a student’s peer group as influential
in their choice decision, their theory was contradicted when peers had little to no reported
effects on influencing institutional choice (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989; Kelpe
Kern, 2000). In this study, participants identified where they had peers attending college,
but none of their responses seemed to have influence on their own decision of what
school to attend. In fact, the only peer group that was brought up with any significance
was with high school counselors. However, that influence proved to contradict Johnson
and Stewart (1991) who said counselors provide insight into student choice decisions.
The Admissions staff identified counselors as being counterproductive to recruiting
students. Lance mentioned that counselors were not a help to Choice University at all,
noting that they seemed to focus their time more on the troubled students than planning
for college with the successful students. Students also identified the lack of assistance
that they experienced from their own high school guidance counselors.
The significance of personal characteristics boils down to the emphasis on
communication with both students and parents alike. As much as higher education talks
about empowering students to make decisions on their own, the decision of college
choice is still strongly influenced by family, particularly parents. In other words, the
college choice decision is not one that is made solely by an individual student, but by the
student and his or her family.
Research Questions 3 and 4
What experiences are identified as the most influential in a student’s decision to attend a
particular institution?
How do institutional characteristics, institutional communication, and institutional fit,
influence a student’s choice of college?
Institutional communication and institutional fit both emerged as influential in the
college choice process. As such, research questions three and four are addressed jointly
to address their shared content. Institutional characteristics are addressed afterwards in
relation to communication and fit.

17
 Chapter 2 identifies the role of institutional communication and institutional fit.
Students in this study identified a sense of personal connection that was most significant
in influencing their choice decision. The combination of institutional communication and
institutional fit are what comprise that feeling of personal connectedness. Donehower
(2003) criticizes the lack of personal touch in the recruitment process, but identifies this
personal touch as the way for one institution to distinguish itself from another. The
literature on institutional communication focused more on strategies to outreach to
students rather than the effect of these communications on student decisions. Regarding
institutional fit, research shows that this relationship is controlled by both the institution
and the student. Williams (1986) identifies the three variables that comprise institutional
fit: characteristics of students, characteristics of the institutional environment, and the
effects or outcomes resulting from the interaction of the student with the campus
environment. In other words, the student has to interact with a campus in order to
establish whether or not they feel that institutional fit.
The students in this study felt that the experience that resonated most was the
personal connection with the campus. Though this varied from student to student, it
included such things as campus tours, campus visits, and individual communication with
campus staff. Students identified a moment where they either were swayed to choose
Choice University or had their decision reconfirmed to attend Choice University that was
associated with some form of personal connection with the campus. In addition, the
Honors College played a large role in a student’s satisfaction with the institution, but was
not identified as a factor in making their choice decision as much as it was a validating
factor of their final decision. This has to do with the fact that the Honors College
communication, as strong as it was identified, did not come into play until a student
decided to attend Choice University and began matriculation. Williams (1986) talked
about matching up institutional characteristics with student characteristics to establish an
institutional fit. As important as these characteristics were in the student choice decision,
it was an individual moment that emerged as the turning point for college choice. For
those participants who identified it, the institutional fit came when they felt connected
through a campus program or a communication with institutional staff that they felt
resonated with their own beliefs and motivations.
Regarding institutional characteristics, they are most prevalent at the early stages
of the college search process when students are identifying institutions that could
potentially be options to attend. In that early stage, admission rate and student quality are
factored into the institutional characteristics (Hossler & Litten, 1993). However,
institutional characteristics are used to influence student choice at several points in the
process (Martin & Dixon, 1991; Martin, 2006; Paulsen, 1990). The first research
question addressed how cost is a factor that is included within the institutional
characteristics. This study identified the influence of institutional characteristics not only
in the initial search stage, but also in the final choice decision. In reflection, this is where
student participants identified student activities and organizations as factors that create a
positive image of the campus. Although they do not identify these as being highly
significant factors in their decision to attend Choice University, they were identified as

18
factors that would have made a difference, had they been communicated better to
prospective students.
The bottom line is that institutional characteristics, communication, and fit all
play roles in the choice decision. However, identifying an individual experience that
influences college choice the most is important because it helps institutions identify ways
to best strategize their recruitment efforts to be most effective. Though this was a single
case study, the personal connection that students identified was addressed in a broader
context of their overall interactions with institutions. As such, emphasis can be placed on
making concerted efforts to connect on an individual basis with these students.
Research Questions 5 and 6
In what way does the institution intentionally try to influence college choice for potential
freshman students?
To what extent do intentional college recruitment activities affect college choice?
Intentional recruitment is something that was both identified in the literature and
addressed in this study. As such, research questions five and six can be combined to
discuss both the methods and impact of intentional recruitment.
The Lipman Hearne (2010) report identified the need to diversity the marketing
strategy of higher education institutions. The report also talked about investing into
interactive marketing programs and firms to handle recruitment. The emphasis was that
institutions should be funneling funds into specific marketing strategies as opposed to
maintaining the old recruitment techniques in order to be effective. Intentional
recruitment as has been done with student athletes (Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, &
Palmer, 2003) should also be considered when looking at other populations such as
highachieving students addressed in this study.
Choice University intentionally sought after high-achieving students. By
purchasing lists from the College Board and other entities, they recruit to a much more
targeted sample. The approach was closer to the rifle approach described by Docters
(1999). Choice University looked at past yield and what factors students most likely are
swayed by in order to try and cater to the individual motivators for student choice. This
intentional recruitment was presented by the Admissions staff as being a way to get more
bang for their buck by going after a particular targeted population.
In addition, Choice University sought to try and get potential students to visit the
campus to influence their choice decision. The Admissions counselor said that if they
can get the student to visit the campus, there is a much higher likelihood that Choice
University becomes competitive. These intentional efforts seek to follow the focus on
institutional fit where students are connected closely with the campus through some form
of in-person interaction. By doing intentional recruitment, institutions are better able to
provide that personal connection that students identified as critical in their choice
decision.
It became clear that the intentional recruitment activities only helped open the
door to opportunity. The work of the Admissions office was to help bring students to
look seriously at Choice University in their college decisions. The Admissions staff

19
presented a depiction of the Choice University campus that they felt was most appropriate
for potential students. However, the information that the institution presented was not
always received well. Student participants indicated that there was a disconnect between
what the institution was marketing and what students can actually experience at the
institution. This disconnect was actually underselling the campus and not providing a
solid depiction of what the institution was all about.
At the same time, students who were a part of an intentional recruitment felt that
if they were treated more as individuals, the impact of the recruitment would be greater.
Again, this connection came down to feeling like they fit into the Choice University plan.
Students recognized that if an intentional recruitment were to be individualized to each
recruit, Choice University would do well in recruiting the best and brightest students.
This perspective can be applied to nearly any institution seeking intentional outreach to
prospective students.

20