This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]

On: 08 December 2014, At: 18:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

‘The best education in the world’:

reality, repetition or cliché?
International students' reasons for
choosing an English university
a
Jane Hemsley-Brown
a
School of Management , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK
Published online: 16 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Jane Hemsley-Brown (2012) ‘The best education in the world’: reality,
repetition or cliché? International students' reasons for choosing an English university, Studies in
Higher Education, 37:8, 1005-1022, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.562286

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.562286

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Studies in Higher Education
Vol. 37, No. 8, December 2012, 1005–1022

‘The best education in the world’: reality, repetition or cliché?

International students’ reasons for choosing an English university
Jane Hemsley-Brown∗

School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Universities and students collaborate in a shared language of excellence, quality

and choice, and become part of the same discourse of marketisation,
commodification and globalisation, where each plays their part as provider and
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

consumer in a highly competitive international area. Whilst there are an

increasing number of studies which focus on the use of the Internet and
websites, there are still very few articles on the use of websites in the context of
higher education and university choice. This study uses a sample of 60 personal
statements from online postgraduate applications submitted by international
students. The extracts are coded for analysis and compared against the website
information provided on university and British Council websites during the time
period of the applications. Applicants used specific nouns, adjectives and phrases
published on the British Council website and the website of their target
university as reasons for choosing a university.
Keywords: choice; marketing higher education; university marketing; student as
consumer; student choice

Introduction
The trends in global student mobility, and the simultaneous expansion of the use of the
Internet, have contributed to a rapidly evolving market in international education,
which in turn has created new opportunities and challenges (Binsardi and Ekwulugo
2003). The increasingly competitive environment of the education sector, diminishing
university funds and the introduction of new government-backed marketing campaigns
to increase the number of international students at British universities, further highlights
the growing importance of marketing, advertising and promotion of educational insti-
tutions (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2006).
The literature on higher education expansion indicates that the higher education
market is now well-established as a global phenomenon, especially in the major
English-speaking nations: Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK (Binsardi and Ekwu-
lugo 2003), and there is evidence of marketisation and the deregulation of universities
in the US (Allen and Shen 1999; Dill 2003), Canada (Kwong 2000; Young 2002), the
UK (Adams and Bumgardner 1991; Gibbs 2001; Middleton 1996; Taylor 2003;
Williams 1997), Australia (Baldwin and James 2000), and New Zealand (Ford,
Joseph, and Joseph 1999). However, governments have also turned to deregulatory
policies in Japan (Arimoto 1997), Russia (Hare and Lugachev 1999), former Eastern

∗
Email: j.hemsley-brown@surrey.ac.uk

ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online

# 2012 Society for Research into Higher Education
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.562286
http://www.tandfonline.com
 1006 J. Hemsley-Brown

Bloc countries (Czarniawska and Genell 2002), The Netherlands (Jongbloed 2003),
Spain (Mora 1997), Israel (Oplatka 2002), China (Adams and Bumgardner 1991;
Mok 1999; Mok 2000; Williams, Liu, and Shi 1997), Malaysia, Singapore and Hong
Kong (Gray, Fam, and Llanes 2003), South Africa (Ivy 2001; Maringe and Foskett
2002), and Zimbabwe (Maringe 2004).
Throughout these rapid developments, the British Council has worked intensively
and collaboratively with most British universities to promote higher education in
Britain and British education as a whole. This form of collaborative partnership is
now more common throughout the world, where countries are seeking to attract
increasing numbers of international students to study in their countries. For example,
although the British Council has been established for about 75 years (British Council
2005), Australia, Canada and New Zealand have created non-profit organisations
within the last 15 years to promote the internationalization of higher education in
their countries (Australian Education International, the Canadian Bureau for Inter-
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

national Education, and Education New Zealand). This partnership is a form of co-
branding and shows cooperation between two distinct brands: individual universities
in each country and a non-profit organisation to leverage the assets of both
(Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana 2007).
This article is based on the findings from a two-stage secondary-data, qualitative
research study of postgraduate applications to one business school in a 1994 Group uni-
versity in England (1994 Group universities comprise 19 small, internationally
renowned, research-intensive institutions in the UK which subscribe to a common
set of aims and beliefs about a university’s mission). A probability sample of 60
online applications for postgraduate programmes in management was identified for
the study: 30 applications submitted between 2005 and 2006, and a further sweep of
30 applications submitted between 2008 and 2009. During the period 2005 to 2008
there were substantial changes at the case-study university. A new vice-chancellor
took up post, and this was followed by re-structuring throughout the university. The
brand identity and the website for the university were redesigned and re-launched
with new logos, a clearer mission and substantially revised website content. The two
samples of students who are included in this study, therefore, were using different
website sources. During the same period the British Council website was also substan-
tially revised, and the two samples of students were also drawing on different website
content in this respect.

Background and context to international student choice

The Association of International Educators in the US (formerly known as NAFSA) cal-
culates the economic impact of international students and their dependants on the US
economy (NAFSA 2010). During the 2008 –2009 academic year, it was estimated
that international students and their dependants contributed approximately $17.6
billion to the US economy. In the UK income from international students also makes
a considerable contribution. UK higher education institutions are worth £45 billion
annually to the UK economy and are a major export earner. The annual contribution
to the UK’s national income made by international students is estimated at £5.5
billion (International Unit 2010). To some extent this is the result of the UK govern-
ment-backed, £5 million three-year worldwide campaign in 2000 to attract more inter-
national students to the UK (BBC News 2000). The intention was to ‘brand’ higher
education in the UK and ‘sell’ it through the British Council offices throughout the
 Studies in Higher Education 1007

world. This marketing campaign was viewed as a critical step in achieving the targets
set to increase the numbers of international students attending UK universities. When
the targets were first set in 1999 by the UK government, it was announced that the drive
for more international students would be achieved and led by a brand re-positioning
exercise for UK universities. The aims of the marketing campaign were to establish
a clear and competitive identity for UK education through creating awareness of
what the UK distinctively had to offer, reinforcing positive perceptions and countering
misconceptions (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana 2007). The British Council
website, alongside the websites of individual universities and faculties, has also
played a significant role in building and developing a distinctive identity for higher edu-
cation in the UK.
In the light of these rapid changes worldwide, there is considerable research that
attempts to explore higher education marketing (Binsardi and Ekwulugo 2003) and
key factors in the choice of higher education by international students (e.g. Cubillo,
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

Sanchez, and Cervino 2006; Gatfield and Chen 2006; Gomes and Murphy 2003;
Kemp and Madden 1998; Liang-Hsuan 2008; Maringe and Carter 2007; Pimpa 2003;
Pyvis and Chapman 2007; Salisbury et al. 2009; Shanka, Quintal, and Taylor 2005).
Searches also reveal that there is little or no research exploring the influence of the
British Council or other agencies on these decisions (with the possible exception of
Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana 2007), and there is limited research on the use of
websites for university choice, with the possible exception of Klassen (2002) and
Ooi, Ho, and Amri (2010). Considerable research thus far has been based in a single
country, and has concentrated almost exclusively on the direct relationship between
the student-chooser and the university, with considerable focus on demographics and
lifestyle: e.g. gender (Boudarbat and Montmarquette 2009; Briggs 2006; Cho et al.
2008; Davies and Guppy 1997; Dawes and Brown 2002; González-Arnal and Kilkey
2009; Gormley and Murphy 2006; Hung et al. 2000; Judson, James, and Aurund
2004; Mastekaasa and Smeby 2008; Yingui 2009), sexuality (Taulke-Johnson 2010),
financial constraints (Briggs and Wilson 2007; González-Arnal and Kilkey 2009;
Young 2002), social class differences (Menon 2004; Ozdemir and Hacifazlioglu
2008; Siegfried and Getz 2006; Yingui 2009), and ethnicity (Dawes and Brown
2004; Ishitani 2006; Judson, James, and Aurund 2004; Leslie 2003; Perna and Pern
2000; Reay et al. 2001; Yingui 2009).
The key factors which emerged from previous research on student choice of higher
education also include suitability, academic reputation, job prospects and teaching
quality (Soutar and Turner 2002), geographical or travel considerations (Kemp and
Madden 1998; Moogan, Baron, and Bainbridge 2001; Moogan, Baron, and Harris
1999), family influences (Pimpa 2003; Pugsley and Coffey 2002), and advertising
media (Gatfield and Chen 2006; Jugenheimer 1995; Simões and Soares 2010). Much
of the research is also in the form of quantitative surveys (Boudarbat and Montmar-
quette 2009; Briggs and Wilson 2007; Davies and Guppy 1997; Imenda, Kongol,
and Grewal 2004; Lang 2009; McClaran 2003; Menon 2004; Park 2009; Price et al.
2003), rather than qualitative research (Booth 2001; Reay, Ball, and David 2002;
Reay et al. 2001). The findings reported in this article, which aims to identify the
reasons international postgraduate applicants provide for choosing a specific university,
relies on qualitative secondary data for analysis. Using personal statements as a source
of secondary data for research in this field is rare but not unique. Ding (2007), for
example, conducted a multi-level discourse analysis on 30 medical and dentistry
 1008 J. Hemsley-Brown

personal statements to discover reasons students gave for pursuing medical dentistry
studies.
Much of the interest in research on university choice has been stimulated by increas-
ing competition for international students. For example, theoretical papers have focused
on: gaining competitive advantage (Czarniawska and Genell 2002; Mazzarol and
Soutar 1999) as well as institutional and sector image (Amiso 2000; Oplatka 2002).
Support is also provided for the argument that the image portrayed by a university
plays a crucial role in public attitudes towards that institution, and towards the sector
as a whole (Landrumm, Turrisi, and Harless 1998). A study by Paramewaran and
Glowacka (1995) into university image argues that higher education institutions need
to maintain or develop a distinct image to create a competitive advantage in an increas-
ingly international market. It is, after all, this image that will impact on a student’s will-
ingness to apply to that institution; therefore it becomes essential to establish an image
in the eyes of stakeholders (Ivy 2001). The basis of developing a brand in an
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

educational institution is to enable that institution to be attractive to students, to differ-

entiate British education and training, for example, from its major competitors, in
particular the USA and Australia.

The Internet and website use

Klassen (2002) argues that ‘universities and colleges in the US have increasingly devel-
oped websites to provide marketing information to students, alumni and shareholders’
(81). He observes that today’s websites provide students with the ability to apply for a
course programme online, experience a virtual tour of the campus and read course
details and assignment examples. Klassen also found three categories of studies relating
to the use of the Internet for the marketing of higher education: those identifying what
students want from websites; practical applications for how websites could be used for
recruitment; and those articles which assess existing university websites for content and
scope.
Gomes and Murphy’s (2003) study of potential students’ use of the Internet to
facilitate information searching and decision-making explores ‘how educational insti-
tutions use Internet technologies (websites and email) to market to prospective students,
as well as how prospective students use these same technologies in their decision-
making processes’ (116). These authors conclude that many variables influence stu-
dents’ decisions to study abroad, and that the most critical variable is information.
They found that, in choosing education abroad, prospective students find it hard to
investigate and verify the claims made by universities. Gomes and Murphy also
point out that educational courses are complex and long-term, and reliable information
from a reputable and independent source is one of the keys to students’ choices. For
these reasons it is clear that prospective international students will seek information
from a number of sources online in addition to the universities’ websites. An article
by Ooi, Ho, and Amri (2010) focused on education websites and their benefits to poten-
tial international students, and argued the importance of developing an Internet pres-
ence for all educational institutions. The study concluded that the source and
accuracy of the content was related to trust and the prestige of the educational insti-
tution, and found that the navigability and accessibility of the website was critical in
terms of encouraging and retaining web traffic. The study, however, was based on
only three websites in Malaysia, and therefore has limited generalisability
internationally.
 Studies in Higher Education 1009

Mission groups and mission statements

In their chapter on vision, values and international excellence, Sauntson and Morrish
(2010) assemble a corpus of university mission statements, and identify three sub-
corpora representing the three earliest mission groups: Russell Group universities
comprising the twenty major research-intensive universities in the UK; 1994 Group
universities comprising nineteen smaller, internationally renowned research-intensive
institutions; and Million+ universities which are mainly those that gained university
status after 1992. The analysis provides noun-frequency lists which are relevant to
this research. There is also an overlap between Russell Group and 1994 Group noun
lists in this respect, and these words are asterisked in the following listing. Thus, for
1994 Group universities the words: academic∗ , teaching∗ , quality∗ , knowledge∗ ,
learning∗ , excellence∗ , environment∗ , work, development, industry and community
were some of those listed. Excellence and quality are common nouns in all three
lists, but ‘work’ and ‘industry’ are only found in the 1994 Group list. One might reason-
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

ably expect, therefore, that the words emerging from this research would overlap with
those on the 1994 Group list provided by Sauntson and Morrish.
This article is based on analysis of secondary qualitative data, using personal state-
ments as a source, from a two-stage study of corporate and faculty-level marketing of
one 1994 Group university in the UK, which attracted over 4000 postgraduate appli-
cations to the business school in 2005–2006 and 2008–2009. The university has
agents and international centres offering undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral pro-
grammes in many locations (for example, Asia, Europe and the West Indies) through-
out the world. A key objective of this study is to examine the reasons students
themselves give for applying to the management school and the university – factors
(word and phrases) that relate to the university and the school specifically, and
which prompted their applications to the case study university. A second objective
was to make comparisons between the words and phrases used by each cohort, given
the considerable changes to the university and the websites during the period.

Methodology
This study relies on analysis of qualitative data collected from applicants to one
business school in a UK institution, and uses secondary data stored electronically by
the university. The data were accessed via the case study university’s admissions
system database. Over 90% of applicants apply on-line, and the remaining data from
hard copy applications are entered onto the database by administrators. Access was
granted to these data after gaining ethical permission from the institution. A total of
6195 online applications to the business school were recorded on the electronic admis-
sions system between 1 November 2005 and 31 October 2006 from applicants who
were seeking registration for the academic year 2006–2007. After applying the
sampling frame (to exclude those no longer accessible through data protection, those
who were still being processed, those who had not yet been entered on the database
from paper applications, and those who applied after August 1st), the population
from which the sample was drawn was 4800, in other words those applications acces-
sible on the system at the time of data collection on 1 August 2006. A random sample
was generated by utilising SPSS’s random sample feature, using only the identity
numbers of applicants who applied between 1 November 2005 and 31 July 2006.
Sixty numbers were selected with the intention of identifying 30 personal statements
 1010 J. Hemsley-Brown

(to allow for some which might not be available on the system). A simple substitution
approach was used so that identity numbers for applicants who had not provided a per-
sonal statement were replaced by the next number on the list until 30 personal state-
ments were identified and downloaded. A search facility was used to identify and
access each applicant’s record individually. This decision is supported by Cresswell
(2007), who suggests that for a general qualitative study you should expect to collect
data from 25–30 respondents.
A second stage of data collection was carried out using the 2008–2009 applications
database on 15 August 2010. There were 4510 applications on the system for this time
period. After applying the sampling frame 712 applicants were eligible for selection
(students who registered on a postgraduate programme for the year 2009–2010).
Random sampling could only be carried out using currently registered students due
to the searchable categories and deletion of those who did not register. Therefore, a
cluster sampling process was used for the selection of applicants, and at the first
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

stage two programmes were selected by a random process. All students in the cohort
are eligible for inclusion in the study (150 students) and a random sample of 60 (to
allow for replacements) was drawn using the SPSS randomiser feature to match as
closely as possible the process used to select the first cohort. University identity
numbers were used to search the database for original application details and personal
statements until 30 personal statements had been downloaded for the study. The
researcher inserted the personal statements into separate Word documents for analysis.
Quantitative data for both samples comprises categorical data indicating gender;
nationality and, for the 2005–2006 sample only, the key source of marketing infor-
mation which prompted the application (generated from one multiple choice question
with 70 options in a drop-down list). Sentences, paragraphs and sections of the personal
statement documents which specifically relate to choosing the university and the school
were extracted from the personal statements: all other information has been discarded.
Qualitative secondary data from personal statements were analysed and coded by
the author-researcher using a ground theory approach (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill
2009). The data were managed in a series of Word documents, and categorised through
open, axial and selective coding, which resulted in identifying patterns and extracts in a
series of quotes (words and phrases) from the two cohorts of applicants.
The reason for employing a qualitative inductive approach to the research is to
explore a substantive area about which little is known, and where there is a lack of
established theory for testing within the higher education sector: exploratory research
is therefore deemed the most appropriate. Survey methods used in previous studies
on choice (e.g. Boudarbat and Montmarquette 2009; Briggs and Wilson 2007; Price
et al. 2003) present a wide range of factors and items to respondents which have
already been identified as possible influences on generic choice, and respondents are
asked to give their opinion on the importance of each factor. This process masks the
individual or personal reasons for choice that students have for their application to a
university, particularly to a specific UK university, and introduces respondents to
factors they might not have otherwise considered important. The present research
relies on the applicants providing their own reasons for choosing the institution. The
concentration of effort on one institution rather than many institutions allows in-
depth insights to be gained from looking at the individual case and the related
website sources, which may not be feasible when respondents have written personal
statements to support applications to a wider range of institutions. For this study the
advertising and website information for both the institution and the British Council
 Studies in Higher Education 1011

changed between the two data collection points, and this cannot be monitored so easily
for more than one institution.

Profile of the sample

The data identified by the researcher for analysis comprises 60 student personal state-
ments, 30 for each year group (2005–2006 and 2008–2009); in 2005–2006 there
were 19 men and 11 women, and in 2008 –2009 there were 18 men and 12
women. In both samples the largest single nationality group was Chinese (12 and
13 respectively), with between one and four students from a range of other countries
around the world.
The content of the personal statements that relates to topics irrelevant to this
research was deleted (such as why the applicant wants to become a manager, how
they view their career path after studying for a masters degree, and information on
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

the applicant’s background and experience). This process produced extracts from the
personal statements that focused only on choice factors, including all references to
the school and the university (and others such as families, friends, agents, etc.). The
researcher acknowledges the limitations of this approach in terms of the generalisability
of the research. First, although probability sampling techniques were used to select the
sample for the study, this does not allow the researcher to generalise the findings to the
whole population of students in the sampling frame, because the study is qualitative and
inductive and no such claims can be made (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009).
Second, the use of personal statements as a source of secondary qualitative data may
result in bias despite the probability sampling method used due to the relatively
small sample size and the possibility that students from some countries may be more
likely to write a personal statement than others.

Findings
Students who applied during 2005 –2006 completed one multiple choice question
indicating what prompted their application. This question is no longer on the
system and so the data are not available for the second sample. Apart from word of
mouth (mentioned by seven applicants), the British Council was the most common
prompt (five applicants) for deciding to apply to the university. Even as early as
2005–2006 a web-link was providing the prompt for four students to make an
application.
The organisation of personal statement extracts for analysis followed the stages
described by Marshall and Rossman (1995), which are: organising data, generating cat-
egories, themes and patterns, testing any emergent hypotheses, and searching for
alternative explanations. The analysis aims to identify the central themes emerging
from the data, and to this end, data were coded and collated using a series of grids
to enable recurrent themes to be identified (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2005). As a
result of this process, the extracts are categorised based on whether they related to
the school, the university as a whole, or studying in the UK (which was most often
linked with reference to the school and university). Analysis of the wording and phras-
ing used by the students was followed by a search of the school, university and British
Council websites for comparison. Because of the exploratory nature of the study, and
the unusually formal wording the applicants were using, the researcher was prompted to
find some possible sources for these extracts. These data are presented under category
 1012 J. Hemsley-Brown

headings, by cohorts with the related website sources for comparison: reputation and
excellence, location and environment, and teaching learning and employment. These
themes emerged from the data analysis process.

Reputation and excellence

Students in this study from the 2005–2006 sample, who referred to the school or the
university in their personal statements, frequently used the words ‘reputation’ and/or
‘excellence’ to explain why they were submitting an application to the school. Extracts
taken from the school and the university website mention the ‘global reputation’ of the
school and the ‘excellence in teaching quality’, and the main university website also
makes claims for ‘excellent teaching quality’ and ‘reputation for excellence’. These
statements are shown in Table 1.
These words and phrases also appear in applicants’ personal statements for 2008–
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

2009 (see Table 2), where the emphasis continues to be on reputation, excellence and
quality – phrases that appear on the website for the school and the university during the
same period, and also feature on the revised British Council website. Although there are
variations in the descriptions on these websites, the wording still focuses on reputation,
quality and excellence, but with new vocabulary introduced by the British Council in
relation to a British education: ‘highly regarded’, ‘recognised’ and ‘respected’. The
applicants’ statements reflect the statements in the advertising on the relevant websites,
sometimes using the same wording, i.e. ‘excellent teaching quality’ (2005–2006) and
reflect the same overall meaning – an excellent reputation and either a global or a
worldwide reputation. One additional concept appears in the 2008 –2009 statements
and also on the newer British Council website: ‘innovation’, in relation to research
(applicant’s statement), and ‘world leader in innovation’ and ‘innovative approach’
(British Council 2010). Innovation was not mentioned on the 2005–2006 websites
and was not mentioned by 2005–2006 applicants.

Table 1. Reputation and excellence 2005 – 2006.

Applicants 2005 – 2006
. . . a global reputation for both teaching and
research in this sector. In addition, the
remarkable quality of the course attracted me
to the UK
. . . enjoys a high reputation of proven excellent
(sic) teaching quality
. . . is one of the top management schools in the
world
. . . being overwhelmed by the illustriousness
and reputation of the university of . . .
business school, I believe the university of . . .
will offer excellent teaching resources and
facilities to students
. . .The reputation of the university is among the
finest for sustaining academic excellence and
improving foundational skills, this has made
me very enthusiastic to join this programme
Website (source of the phrase)
has a global reputation for both teaching and
research (Head of School)
excellent teaching quality (school)
One of the top management schools (school)
excellent teaching resources and facilities
(university)
offers excellence in a broad range of subject
areas (university)
international university with a worldwide
reputation for excellencein teaching and
research (university)
 Studies in Higher Education 1013

Table 2. Reputation and excellence 2008 – 2009.

Applicants 2008 – 2009
. . . is listed as one of the top business schools . . . world-class management education to an
in UK
. . .it is one of the most distinguished
universities in United Kingdom. Namely, it
was ranked at 30th, in Good University
Guide 2008
. . . with the world-class faculties (sic)
excellent reputation that your university has
for quality education
. . . I believe that the Master’s programme
offered by your prestigious university. . .
recognised as a centre of excellence to the
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014
Website (source page)
international community, providing
internationally recognized undergraduate
and postgraduate degrees across a broad
range of business and management
disciplines. (school)
an international university with a worldwide
reputation for excellence in teaching and
research (university)
highly regarded international and vibrant
university (university)
. . . tradition of excellence and an innovative

partnerships with international companies approach to teaching makes UK education

. . . and its reputation for the support of the
innovation in research.
recognized and respected all over the world.
(British Council)
. . . tradition of excellence and an innovative
approach
The UK is a world-leader in innovation (British
Council)

Location and environment

Applicants also give reasons for choosing the school and the university based on issues
to do with the location of their studies (UK) and the environment which they view as
conducive to study (Table 3). From the 2005–2006 sample these statements included
phrases reflecting advertising claims that appeared on the British Council website at
that time. One dominant theme that emerged from statements written by the first
sample is from the British Council website, which boasted that ‘UK institutions are
among the best in the world’. This claim is reflected in statements by applicants,

Table 3. Location and environment 2005 – 2006.

Applicants 2005 – 2006
. . . For these many reasons, I feel that Great
Britain is the best place for me to study
I am attracted to your wide range of course
offerings, . . . and you could provide me with
a better environment for further study
I chose the UK as my destination because
Britain provides the best education in the
world
Universities in Britain offer the best education “‘Quality standards for UK institutions are
and graduates from it have exciting prospects
. . . that enables students to develop their
competencies for working in multi national
and multi cultural environments
Website (source pages)
“‘Quality standards for UK institutions are
among the best in the world”’ (British
Council)
challenging environment in which to develop
your potential (British Council)
“‘Quality standards for UK institutions are
among the best in the world”’ (British
Council)
among the best in the world”’ (British
Council)
. . . multi-national and multi-cultural
environment (school)
 1014 J. Hemsley-Brown

Table 4. Location and environment 2008 – 2009.

Applicants 2008 – 2009
is located in England, one of the most
cosmopolitan countries in the world
Website (source)
As the UK is such a cosmopolitan society you’ll
find that many UK customs are already familiar
to you – so you’ll settle in faster than you think.
(British Council)

who argue that ‘Britain provides the best education in the world’ or the ‘best place to
study’. The study environment is also mentioned both in advertising and in personal
statements, and the school’s advertising has been directly copied in one personal state-
ment which refers to a ‘multi-national and multi-cultural environment’.
The advertising claims made by both the British Council and the school are different
in 2008 –2009 (Table 4) – both websites have been updated during this period. However,
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

there is one statement made by an applicant in this cohort which refers to the study
environment in the UK. In this statement, the applicant uses the specific term ‘cosmopo-
litan’ – which also appears on the new British Council website (British Council 2010).

Teaching, learning and employment

Applicants also refer to issues to do with teaching, learning and employment in their
personal statements. The statements about employment are in evidence for both
cohorts (Table 5 and Table 6), and the university website highlights employment
success for graduates of the university. One 2005 –2006 applicant claims that improv-
ing employment prospects is one reason for applying to the school; the university’s
website mentions ‘employment prospects’ and boasts about the employment of gradu-
ates. The school’s website does not mention employment in 2005–2006 or 2008–
2009. There are references to skills and competencies by one applicant, but there
was nothing on the websites referring to this. Although the British Council does
mention the benefits of a variety of teaching and assessment methods (British
Council 2010), this is not referred to by any of the sample applicants.
Applicants’ statements for the 2008–2009 cohort raise a further issue of interest, the
statement ‘outstanding faculty and research facilities, emphasis on a collaborative learn-
ing environment, flexibility in curriculum’, has all the appearance of a statement taken
from advertising, but is not taken from business school, university or British Council
websites. A Google search using this specific phrase reveals that this is taken directly

Table 5. Teaching, learning & employment 2005 – 2006.

Applicants 2005 – 2006 Website (source)
. . . I am keen to build upon and develop further “‘[UK] institutions use a variety of teaching
a wide range of skills and competencies. and assessment methods to encourage
independence, as well as mastery of the
subject”’ (British Council)
I chose to apply for the . . . MSc in . . . . . . employment prospects. (university) our
management programme to improve my graduates enjoying full time employment
employment prospects (university)
 Studies in Higher Education 1015

Table 6. Teaching, learning & employment 2008 – 2009.

Applicants 2008 – 2009 Website (source)
. . . will equip me with the knowledge and . . . aims to develop business leaders with vision,
skills essential for my future success. knowledge, creativity, skills, ethics and
entrepreneurial ability (school)
. . . outstanding faculty and research . . . outstanding faculty and research facilities,
facilities, emphasis on a collaborative emphasis on a collaborative learning
learning environment, flexibility in environment, flexibility in curriculum . . .
curriculum (Statementofpurpose.com 2010)
It’s also well known that . . . university has high academic standards, employment successand
the best employment recordof almost a prime location in beautiful surroundings
any other UK university (university)
Meanwhile, the employment rate of
graduates lists top three in the UK
. . . because the strong international strong industry links and outstanding employment
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

enterprise link opportunities (university)

from a website giving advice on writing a personal statement. So it has been copied but
from a different source: statementofpurpose.com (2010). Further personal statement
content does not match well with the school or university website – although the
topics are similar, the wording is not identical. Knowledge and skills are mentioned
by one applicant but are not directly related to the school’s reference to these issues,
and although enterprise and links are mentioned, these are not taken from the university’s
advertising directly, although industry links and employment are referred to.

Overlapping themes
Further analysis by the researcher reveals that there are personal statements from the
second sample which refer to advertising statements made on the earlier websites.
For example, references to teaching and teaching resources were a feature of the
more descriptive 2005–2006 website, and this is deemed attractive for one of the
2008–2009 applicants. However, teaching resources and facilities are not mentioned
on the 2008–2009 websites.
Finally, one applicant from 2008–2009 also mentions that the university is one of
the top universities in the United Kingdom, which is not directly referred to on the web-
sites in 2008–2009 although it is implied (for example there are pages showing the
league table positions for subject disciplines). The 2005–2006 school website
claimed that the school was one of the top management schools, but this topic does
not feature on the recent website. The ‘best in the world’ claim on the British
Council website is also implied in the 2008 –2009 statement about the superiority of
the British education system, even though this no longer features on the British
Council website of this period.

Discussion
The key factors which emerged from previous research on student choice of higher edu-
cation focused on suitability, academic reputation, job prospects and teaching quality,
in addition to demographics, social constraints, and financial factors. Previous research
 1016 J. Hemsley-Brown

also tends to use quantitative research methods to measure the importance of a pre-
determined list of choice factors, and this approach has resulted in a focus on factors
associated with the student profile, as well as features associated with the institutions.
The research reported in this article uses an open-ended approach and secondary data
from personal statements, where applicants decide for themselves which factors are
important to them when choosing to make an application for a postgraduate degree pro-
gramme in management. Analysis of the specific personal statement content that
focused on the choice of the school and the university reveal that there is more align-
ment between the content of the applicants’ statements and the website information pro-
vided on the school, university and the British Council websites, than could be expected
simply by chance.
First, students are providing some insights into what they see as the reality of
making an international postgraduate application – their perception of the choice
factors is revealed in what they have chosen to comment upon. The process of
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

decision-making places students in both a strong and a weak situation – they feel
the empowerment of making a free choice of country of study, university and pro-
gramme, but they also feel their weakness as someone who is seeking to be selected
through a competitive process. Many applicants are also applying from abroad, and
they do not have the opportunity to visit campuses and speak to the faculty to verify
the claims made or to enable them to reach decisions for themselves about the strengths
of different institutions.
Second, personal statements provide an opportunity to give reasons, but they tend to
be the reasons the applicant might expect the admissions tutors would want to hear.
Many applicants also have somewhat limited English skills, and may seek to find
ways of writing perfect English by copying and repeating some phrases to supplement
their own words. They may wish to please admissions tutors and seek to demonstrate
that their skills, knowledge and aspirations meet those of the institution they are apply-
ing to. Nonetheless, the reasons applicants provide in these circumstances tend to be
realistic given the competition for places. They provide an appearance of rationality
in a situation where perhaps the applicant has made the choice for other less rational
reasons. Students try to be realistic in terms of the choices they make and try to
match their qualifications, experience and ambitions to the characteristics and strengths
of the university and the school. Applicants are faced, however, with a discourse that
largely fails to distinguish between institutions, but the familiarity of the nouns used
to describe universities in their advertising and promotion is easily adopted and
repeated by students seeking to be selected by those same institutions. Although it
has been argued that the choice process is not rational or is less than rational
(Menon, Saiti, and Socratous 2007), applicants provide reasons which give a public
face to their choice, because decision-making is both subjective and objective
(Hemsley-Brown 1999).
Third, students in this study, from both cohorts, state that they are applying to a uni-
versity because of reasons set out in the claims the advertisers make for that university
(and for a British education), and by most universities in the mission group. So, it
appears that the advertising slogans and strap lines become the reasons some applicants
provide to support a choice. Universities attempt to provide realistic information but at
the same time they boast about their strengths. Sauntson and Morrish (2010, 81) note
that the ‘teams of managers who write these documents are charged with propounding a
particular institutional narrative recounted through the lexicon of business and indus-
try’. However, the self promotion and branding for most universities relies on some
 Studies in Higher Education 1017

rather ‘abstract claims and this takes place through the use of the same few nouns and
adjectives which vary for each mission group’ (2010, 81). Similarly, the British Council
presents the most positive aspects of studying in Britain and relies on a very similar
lexicon. However, because nouns such as ‘excellent’ and ‘quality’ are used so fre-
quently by so many institutions the terms tend to become meaningless and semantically
vague. This study focused on applications to one 1994 Group university, and the
vocabulary used by students is in line with the vocabulary used to describe a university
that belongs to the 1994 Group, although there is also overlap with the more research-
focused and prestigious universities in the Russell Group.
Fourth, a more practical perspective is that universities begin to use the reasons
offered by students to provide ideas for their advertising content. Therefore, this can
be a two-way process – students respond to the advertising on the websites and give
these factors as reasons for choice; institutions monitor the reasons students give for
choosing that university and then use these reasons to reinforce and focus their adver-
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

tising. There is a process of reciprocity in the dialogue that is often not fully acknowl-
edged. Universities and students collaborate in a shared language of excellence, quality
and choice, and become part of the same ‘neo-liberal discourse of marketisation and
commodification and globalisation’ (Sauntson and Morrish 2010, 83), where each
plays their part as provider and consumer in a highly competitive international arena.
The claims made on the British Council website influence applicants’ thinking
about choosing to study in the UK – they argue that a British education is the best,
or the best in the world. This goes further than just a generic British education – the
claim made for a British education is assumed to apply to specific universities, and
to schools and faculties. How much of a reality this is depends perhaps on the univer-
sities the applicants choose, and this shapes their expectations and influences their
choices. The differences between a British education, a British university and a
faculty or school are obscured in the convention of the mission statements, and the
use of a limited range of nouns and adjectives seem to be multi-functional and
polysemic.
These exploratory research findings provide evidence that applicants use the adver-
tising provided by institutions and by the British Council to help them to articulate their
reasons for choosing a university. Applicants seem to apply the language of quality and
excellence across all levels, and claims made by the school are assumed to apply to the
university, in the same way that claims made by the British Council are assumed to
relate to British universities and faculties. In terms of the differences between the web-
sites (British Council, university, and school), and the statements from 2005 –2006 and
2008–2009, there does seem to be a slight shift, but a shift that perhaps shows move-
ment towards the reality of universities rather than just the more clichéd advertising
copy. Websites now have more links, pages and information about courses, but less
general text or copy about the university and the school. The British Council also
says less about a British education more specifically, and focuses on British life
rather than just higher education. The university seems to make less use of the nouns
and adjectives of ‘quality’, ‘reputation’ and ‘excellence’ which have an ‘indeterminate
semantic range’ (Sauntson and Morrish 2010, 83), and more recently refers to ‘learn-
ing’, ‘teaching’ and ‘innovation’ – the latter being more usually associated with a
Russell Group university than with a 1994 Group institution.
Finally, the repetition of some commonly used nouns, adjectives and phrases by
applicants could be based to some extent on obsequious behaviour – telling admissions
tutors what they want to hear – that is, parodying the advertisers’ copy and using the
 1018 J. Hemsley-Brown

language of the managers. For international students this ‘courtship dance that students
and colleges engage in’ (Murphy 2008) is more challenging, because admissions tutors
and applicants have to conduct the relationship at a distance. The inclusion of these
phrases demonstrates that applicants have done their research in terms of applying to
the UK for higher education, and that they have also read the websites related to the
university, the school and the programme they are interested in. For example, ‘centre
of excellence’ is a statement that managers and advertisers utilise, but one of the appli-
cants uses this phrase in his/her statement. Another applicant simply takes a phrase
from a website on how to write a personal statement, and has applied this to the univer-
sity s/he is applying to, even though it is not necessarily relevant to that university. In
this context the statement reads like an obsequious parody of what managers, educators
and advertisers write. The phrases taken from the personal statement website are longer
and more recognisable as a source than any of the other extracts.
In conclusion, there is no evidence from a study of this nature to enable the
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

researcher to make claims about whether these personal statements are written by appli-
cants in order to demonstrate that they engage with the university and its image and
reputation; or whether applicants are merely participating in the shared discourse of
marketisation and commodification. By 2008–2009 there does appear to be a more
modest use of language, fewer ‘excellence’ and ‘quality’ claims are made, and more
‘teaching and learning’, ‘skills’ and ‘innovation’ language is used. Innovation is an
additional word which emerged in 2008–2009 that was not part of the advertising in
2005–2006. One might speculate that the claims of ‘excellence’ and ‘quality’ are
becoming ‘semantically vague’ (Sauntson and Morrish 2010) and meaningless or
even recognised as clichéd. The phrase ‘best education in the world’ is less frequent,
both in personal statements and as an advertising catchphrase by 2008–2009, but is
replaced by ‘cosmopolitan society’, which is stated on the British Council website
(British Council 2010). Perhaps ‘the best education in the world’ is now a cliché or
is it just that it is no longer a reality given the world rankings?

Limitations of the study

The study has a number of limitations. First, the sample is small, but this is often the
case with qualitative research; however the study uses probability sampling methods
and two different cohorts in an attempt to reduce the bias in the samples. The
sample is made up of applicants seeking to study management and is likely to have
affected their willingness to engage with the language of business and the market, com-
pared with applicants for other disciplines. It is important to note that applicants are not
formally required to write a personal statement in support of a postgraduate application
(with the exception of MBA applicants), although more than half of students do provide
one. The applicants are international postgraduate students, but the study’s findings
are not intended to demonstrate that this behaviour is restricted either to postgraduate
students or to international students exclusively, rather than ‘home’ or undergraduate
students. The matching process with website information was carried out with great
care, but there is a possibility that the applicants themselves are using older material,
for example older brochures or other hard copy material or advertising from universities
other than the case study institution, to write their statements. Future research, however,
could focus on more than one institution and include follow-up interviews with
students and admissions tutors to explore some of the issues that emerge from the
secondary data.
 Studies in Higher Education 1019

Reference
Adams, M., and L. Bumgardner. 1991. The role of public relations in a successful fund-raising
campaign. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 3: 169 –75.
Allen, R.F., and J. Shen. 1999. Some evidence of the character of competition among higher
education institutions. Economics of Education Review 18: 465– 70.
Amiso, G. 2000. The new public relations: Integrated marketing and public relations strategies
for student recruitment and institutional image building: A case study of the University of
Texas at San Antonio. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 7: 17 – 31.
Arimoto, A. 1997. Market and higher education in Japan. Higher Education Policy 10: 199–210.
Baldwin, G., and R. James. 2000. The market in Australian higher education and the concept of
student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22:
139– 48.
BBC News. 2000. Advertising for overseas students. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/
618539.stm.
Binsardi, A., and F. Ekwulugo. 2003. International marketing of British education: Research on
the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
21: 318 –27.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

Booth, A. 2001. Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of quali-
tative research? Paper presented at the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference,
Taking a Critical Stance, May 14 – 16, at Coventry University. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/
educol/documents/00001724.htm.
Boudarbat, B., and C. Montmarquette. 2009. Choice of fields of study of Canadian university
graduates: The role of gender and their parents’ education. Education Economics 17:
185– 213.
Briggs, S. 2006. An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice:
The case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education 31: 705– 22.
Briggs, S., and A. Wilson. 2007. Which university? A study of the influence of cost and infor-
mation factors on Scottish undergraduate choice. Journal of Higher Education Policy &
Management 29: 57 –72.
British Council. 2005. History of the British Council. http://www.britishcouncil.org/history.
htm.
British Council. 2010. Study in the UK. http://www.britishcouncil.org/history.htm.
Cho, S., C. Hudley, S. Lee, L. Barry, and M. Kelly. 2008. Roles of gender, race, and SES in the
college choice process among first-generation and non-first-generation students. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education 1: 95– 107.
Cresswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cubillo, J.M., J. Sanchez, and J. Cervino. 2006. International students’ decision-making
process. International Journal of Educational Management 20: 101– 15.
Czarniawska, B., and K. Genell. 2002. Gone shopping? Universities on their way to the market.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 18: 455– 75.
Davies, S., and N. Guppy. 1997. Fields of study, college selectivity, and student inequalities in
higher education. Social Forces 75: 1417 – 38.
Dawes, P., and J. Brown. 2002. Determinants of awareness, consideration, and choice set size in
university choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 12: 49– 75.
Dawes, P.L., and J. Brown. 2004. The composition of consideration and choice sets in
undergraduate university choice: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education 14: 37– 59.
Dill, D.D. 2003. Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education
Quarterly 57: 136 –57.
Ding, H. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves on education essays to
medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368– 92.
Ford, J.B., M. Joseph, and B. Joseph. 1999. Importance performance analysis as a strategic tool
for service marketers: The case of service quality perceptions of business students in New
Zealand and the USA. The Journal of Services Marketing 13: 171– 86.
Gatfield, T., and C.H. Chen. 2006. Measuring student choice criteria using the theory of planned
behaviour: The case of Taiwan, Australia, UK, and USA. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education 16: 77– 95.
 1020 J. Hemsley-Brown

Gibbs, P. 2001. Higher education as a market: A problem or a solution?. Studies in Higher

Education 26: 85– 94.
Gomes, L., and J. Murphy. 2003. An exploratory study of marketing international education
online. The International Journal of Educational Management 17: 116– 25.
González-Arnal, S., and M. Kilkey. 2009. Contextualizing rationality: Mature student carers and
higher education in England. Feminist Economics 15: 85 –111.
Gormley, I.C., and T.B. Murphy. 2006. Analysis of Irish third-level college applications data.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 169: 361 –79.
Gray, B.J., K.S. Fam, and V.A. Llanes. 2003. Cross-cultural values and the positioning of
international education brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management 12: 108 – 19.
Hare, P., and M. Lugachev. 1999. Higher education in transition to a market economy: Two case
studies. Europe-Asia Studies 51: 101 –22.
Hemsley-Brown, J. 1999. College choice: Perceptions and priorities. Educational Management
and Administration 27: 85– 98.
Hemsley-Brown, J., and S. Goonawardana. 2007. Brand harmonisation in the international
higher education market. Journal of Business Research 60: 942 –48.
Hemsley-Brown, J., and I. Oplatka. 2005. Bridging the gap: Barriers and facilitators to research
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

use among school principals from England and Israel. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 18: 424 –46.
Hemsley-Brown, J., and I. Oplatka. 2006. Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A
systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of
Public Sector Management 19: 316 –38.
Hung, F.S., Y.P. Chung, and E.S.-C. Ho. 2000. To work or to continue to higher education?
The choice of senior secondary students in Shenzhen, China. Higher Education 39:
455– 67.
Imenda, S.N., M. Kongolo, and A.S. Grewal. 2004. Factors underlying technikon and university
enrolment trends in South Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
32: 195 –215.
International Unit. 2010. Global opportunities for higher education. http://www.international.ac.
uk/resources/Global%20Opportunities%20for%20UK%20Higher%20Education.pdf.
Ishitani, T.T. 2006. Studying attrition and degree completion behaviour among first-generation
college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education 77: 861 – 85.
Ivy, J. 2001. Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. The
International Journal of Educational Management 15: 276 –82.
Jongbloed, B. 2003. Marketisation in higher education, Clarke’s Triangle and the essential
ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly 57: 110 –35.
Judson, K.M., J.D. James, and T.W. Aurand. 2004. Marketing the university to student-athletes:
Understanding university selection criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14:
23– 40.
Jugenheimer, D. 1995. Advertising the university: A professional approach to promoting the
college or university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 6, no. 1: 1– 22.
Kemp, S., and G. Madden. 1998. Emerging Australian markets: A discrete choice model of
Taiwanese and Indonesian student intended study destination. Education Economics 6:
159– 70.
Klassen, M. 2002. Relationship marketing on the internet: The case of top-and lower-ranked
universities and colleges. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9: 81– 85.
Kwong, J. 2000. Introduction: Marketisation and privatisation in education. International
Journal of Educational Development 20: 87 –92.
Landrum, R.E., R. Turrisi, and C. Harless. 1998. University image: The benefits of assessment
and modelling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 9: 53– 68.
Lang, D. 2009. Articulation, transfer, and student choice in a binary post-secondary system.
Higher Education 57: 355 –71.
Leslie, D. 2003. Using success to measure quality in British higher education: Which subjects
attract the best-qualified students?. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A
(Statistics in Society) 166: 329– 47.
Liang-Hsuan, C. 2008. Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for
understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education 18: 1 –33.
 Studies in Higher Education 1021

Maringe, F. 2004. Vice chancellor’s perceptions of university marketing: A view from univer-
sities in a developing country. Higher Education Review 36: 53– 68.
Maringe, F., and S. Carter. 2007. International students’ motivations for studying in UK higher
education: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International
Journal of Educational Management 21: 459 –75.
Maringe, F., and N.H. Foskett. 2002. Marketing university education: The South African
experience. Higher Education Review 34: 35 –51.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 1995. Designing qualitative research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Mastekaasa, A., and J.C. Smeby. 2008. Educational choice and persistence in male- and female-
dominated fields. Higher Education 55: 189– 202.
Mazzarol, T., and G.N. Soutar. 1999. Sustainable competitive advantage for educational
institutions: A suggested model. International Journal of Educational Management 12:
287– 300.
McClaran, A. 2003. From ‘admissions’ to ‘recruitment’: The professionalisation of higher
education admissions. Tertiary Education and Management 9: 159– 67.
Menon, M.E. 2004. Information search as an indication of rationality in student choice of
higher education. Education Economics 12: 267 –83.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

Menon, M.E., A. Saiti, and M. Socratous. 2007. Rationality, information search and choice in
higher education: Evidence from Greece. Higher Education 54: 705– 21.
Middleton, C. 1996. Models of state and market in the ‘modernisation’ of higher education.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 21: 537– 54.
Mok, K.H. 1999. Education and the market place in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Higher
Education 37: 133– 58.
Mok, K.H. 2000. Marketising higher education in post-Mao China. International Journal of
Educational Development 20: 109 –26.
Moogan, Y.J., S. Baron, and S. Bainbridge. 2001. Timings and trade-offs in the marketing of
higher education courses: A conjoint approach. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19:
179– 87.
Moogan, Y.J., S. Baron, and K. Harris. 1999. Decision-making behaviour of potential higher
education students. Higher Education Quarterly 53: 211– 28.
Mora, J.G. 1997. Market trends in Spanish higher education. Higher Education Policy 10:
187– 98.
Murphy, J. 2008. Students, colleges play waiting game. Central PA News. http://www.pennlive.
com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/121011630358300.xml&coll=1.
NAFSA. 2010. International data and statistics. http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/
international_education_1/.
Ooi, C.T., H. Ho, and S. Amri. 2010. Education websites and their benefits to potential
international students: A case study of higher education service provides in Malaysia.
Current Issues in Education 13: 1– 29.
Oplatka, I. 2002. Implicit contradictions in public messages of ‘low-stratified’ HE institutions:
The case of Israeli teacher training colleges. The International Journal of Educational
Management 16: 248 –56.
Ozdemir, N., and O. Hacifazlioglu. 2008. Influence of family and environment on students’
occupational choices and expectations of their prospective universities. Social Behavior
& Personality: An International Journal 36: 433 –46.
Paramewaran, R., and A.E. Glowacka. 1995. University image: An information processing
perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 6: 41– 56.
Park, E. 2009. Analysis of Korean students’ international mobility by 2-D model: Driving force
factor and directional factor. Higher Education 57: 741– 55.
Perna, L.W. 2000. Racial/ethnic group differences in college enrollment decisions. In
Understanding the choice among disadvantaged students: New directions for institutional
research, no. 107, ed. A. Cabrera and S. La Nasa, 65 –83. San Francisco.
Pimpa, N. 2003. The influence of family on Thai students’ choices of international education.
The International Journal of Educational Management 17: 211 – 19.
Price, I., F. Matzdorf, L. Smith, and H. Agahi. 2003. The impact of facilities on student choice of
university. Facilities 21: 212 –22.
Pugsley, L., and A. Coffey. 2002. Keeping the customer satisfied: Parents in the higher
education market place. Welsh Journal of Education 11: 41– 58.
 1022 J. Hemsley-Brown

Pyvis, D., and A. Chapman. 2007. Why university students choose an international education: A
case study in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development 27: 235– 46.
Reay, D., S.J. Ball, and M. David. 2002. ‘It’s taking me a long time but I’ll get there in the end’:
Mature students on access courses and higher education choice. British Educational
Research Journal 28: 5 –19.
Reay, D., J. Davies, M. David, and S.J. Ball. 2001. Choices of degree or degrees of choice?
Class, ‘race’ and the higher education choice process. Sociology 35: 855 – 74.
Salisbury, M., P. Umbach, M. Paulsen, and E. Pascarella. 2009. Going global: Understanding
the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education 50: 119 –43.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2009. Research methods for business students. 5th ed.
Harlow, UK: Pearson EducationPrentice Hall.
Sauntson, H., and L. Morrish. 2010. Vision, values and international excellence: The ‘products’
that university mission statements sell to students. In The marketisation of higher education
and the student as consumer, ed. M. Molesworth, R. Scullion and E. Nixon, 73– 85.
London: Routledge.
Shanka, T., V. Quintal, and R. Taylor. 2005. Factors influencing international students’ choice
of an education destination – A correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 18:41 08 December 2014

Education 15: 31– 46.

Siegfried, J., and M. Getz. 2006. Where do the children of professors attend college? Economics
of Education Review 25: 201– 10.
Simões, C., and A.M. Soares. 2010. Applying to higher education: Information sources and
choice factors. Studies in Higher Education 35: 371 –89.
Soutar, G.N., and J.P. Turner. 2002. Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis.
The International Journal of Educational Management 16: 40 – 45.
Statementofpurpose.com. 2010. Uncritiqued Essay 4: Give your statement of purpose an edge at
EssayEdge.com! http://www.statementofpurpose.com/essayuncq_msmba.html.
Taulke-Johnson, R. 2010. Queer decisions? Gay male students’ university choices. Studies in
Higher Education 35: 247 –61.
Taylor, J. 2003. Institutional diversity in UK higher education: Policy and outcomes since the
end of the binary divide. Higher Education Quarterly 57: 266 – 93.
Williams, G. 1997. The market route to mass higher education: British experience 1979 – 1996.
Higher Education Policy 10: 275 – 89.
Williams, G., S.S. Liu, and Q. Shi. 1997. Marketisation of higher education in the People’s
Republic of China. Higher Education Policy 10: 151 –57.
Yingui, M.A. 2009. Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major
choices – Gender, race/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives 52: 211 –34.
Young, S. 2002. The use of market mechanisms in higher education finance and state control:
Ontario considered. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 32: 79 – 102.