Why Brown University: a Case Study

Introduction

This essay explores the factors influencing the choice of university among different student groups. This particular field of investigation will bring a wider and more informative perspective to the issue of student decision-making in choosing a university. Specifically, the values and promises of a university will be analyzed and informed by the students themselves, who are considering attending this university in the near future. This research has some objectives and is guided by the research questions. The literature on how students make decisions in choosing a university is vast.

However, to date, most of these studies investigate student choice in the public, not-for-profit university sector. What a limited body of research exists in the field of student decision-making in the context of a pricey, intensive private institution is characterized by addressing the behavior of and providing information to the admission office.

The purposes of this essay, then, are to first gain a better understanding of the underlying student decision-making process and thereby construct a qualitative model. We then use inductive analysis to extend upon and deepen the arguments articulated for particular constructs identified by and theories suggested by others. While the findings in this essay should assist college admission offices and marketing departments in the design of strategies for attracting and retaining a diverse student body, they can also assist the university's faculty and an inter-departmental student recruitment team in designing a program that strategically aligns with organizational value propositions. Finally, it provides other universities and colleges with some preliminary snapshot data about a group of students who will graduate from one of the top three Ivy League universities in the next couple of years. Overall, this essay is structured as follows. The following section provides an overview of the literature that informs the values and promises that the university promotes in its recruitment materials.

Literature Review

With a changing higher education field, there has been a rise in studies that seek to understand what factors influence where students choose to go to college. Broadly, this research can be put into five categories: academic quality and character, financial considerations, campus culture and community, geographic location, and demographics. In examining these factors, we can more closely understand what aspects of a school attract students, which ones are merely standard operating procedure for our peer institutions, and which ones belong to us alone. Doing so can bring us information that can be valuable in our planning for the future of this university. The purpose of this literature review is to present recent research examining selection as a process influenced by more than simply the financial cost-benefit analysis emphasized in traditional economic models.

The demand for higher education has moved beyond merely academic drive to secure good job opportunities, leading to a more diversified understanding of university selection, embracing an array of personal intentions. However, little work has been done from a cognitive frame of reference, which explores qualitative data to ascertain underlying factors influencing students' university selections. The process of making a university selection is complicated and multidimensional. A number of studies have explored in some depth the broad range of issues influencing students' decisions, from established bodies of work drawing comparisons between public and private universities to cutting-edge research comparing the factors that influence university selection among e-learners to on-campus students. However, most of this research appears based on a relatively simplistic collection of factors.

Methodology

This case study pursued an interpretive approach to identify the relevant factors influencing recruitment decision-making in choosing a university by answering two interconnected research questions, which concern purposive choice of only some of the possible cases. The selection of the current subject of research is driven by an educational institution, the identification of many engaged stakeholders (apex and functional/operational management inadvertently or directly involved in enrollment, students, families, faculty and staff, alumni, and news viewers on cable television), which provided permission to conduct the case study. We argue that the institution performs differently in its recruitment function as a result of both its unique, value-driven culture and the other factors associated with it, as identified by the analytic generalizing techniques.

The first research question asks, "What are the reasons for application that student candidates entering the university in the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 academic years give for choosing it and not another university that also admitted them?" The second research question seeks the answer to, "Who shaped, influenced, and/or contributed to the reasons for application that student candidates gave, and in what ways?" Semi-structured interviews were the only data gathering method. This case study uses eight cases, all of which are student candidates who were admitted to the university. Purposive sampling was chosen based on student status (admitted), and selection criteria included time of response, whereas regionalism and full-pay status were minimally considered. A total of 656 applicants were admitted for the above time period, and all were eligible for as many as four different distributions; a drawing was held to assign each eligible admit to either one, two, three, or all four of the distributions. Requirements for the drawing included the availability of contact information and a completed consent form. A total of eight different draws were held for each distribution to achieve the predetermined number of participants. Recruitment for participants ended after acquiring at least four participants within three of the four possible distributions (admitted freshmen from the classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027), as determined by the researchers. The total number of participants in the panels was 45; five dropped out, leaving 40 for data analysis. Data analysis favored a focus on demographic variables. Data collection and analyses continued until data saturation was reached, which was determined after data collection commenced; saturation was presumed during analysis with no foreknowledge as to timing. Additionally, the data was of such a nature that repetition was seen as unimportant; thus, we were confident in determining saturation. Although each draw included only one EFI and one Fee, AdComs were paid the honorarium offered in Distribution 1, and three separate distributions had identical Fee amounts, making selection random and non-differentiated. For each assigned distribution, researchers began with the first participant and continued in numeric order to the participants who chose to participate in all four distributions (receiving notification at the fourth draw) or, alternatively, to those who selected only certain draws. Results were determined quantitatively, with each distribution listing either a positive or negative linear relationship followed by the names of those participants who chose it. Interview Length: Interviews were expected to last 30–45 minutes; the average time spent on each recruitment interaction was 53 minutes. Of the four draw activities, Distribution 2 went the longest (to a little over an hour), while Distribution 1 went the shortest, slightly over half an hour.

Findings and Analysis

Approximately 35 responses were collected from members of the student body, staff, and faculty during the data collection process. Six key themes emerged from their qualitative responses. These themes were related to the following factors that influenced prospective student decision-making processes: 1. Understanding and utilizing "word of mouth"; 2. Effects of campus visits; 3. Brown's emphasis on education; 4. A "looming presence"; 5. The influence of an applied education; and 6. Demographic data. The quotes provided by the participants are a direct representation of the student mindsets at Brown, but they are also observable nationally.

In this portion of the analysis, we will detail these six themes and compare our findings with those mentioned above in order to make logical sense of our findings. In this section, we will delve further into each of the findings to examine the nuanced responses that were collected. This will get at the "why" behind all of the data, as well as provide the "how" of our findings. The quotations in this section may be analyzed one by one rather than coded because the rest of the research considers the findings as a whole. Statistical representations in this section may include data counts; for example, if one anecdotal piece of data is coded eight times, this may be relevant information in order to provide data that effectively represents the views of the participant pool. For ease of reading, it does not represent this data graphically, however.

Conclusion

Over the span of this paper, the author has explored the many factors influencing student decision-making when it comes to university selection. Beneath the veil of literature, unique, institution-specific research concerning this topic has been lacking. As an Ivy League institution known for its open curriculum and commitment to undergraduate education, Brown has a distinct reputation different from other colleges in the U.S.

We find that, through a complex evolution of decision-making processes and the crossroads cleverly termed "states of confusion," all of the students interviewed often went back to their first preferences despite the acknowledgment of changed priorities. This has profound implications for the way universities recruit and approach student applicants, allowing the university admission officers to shift from the hard-sell tactic to a more balanced combination of information sharing, demonstrating opportunity, and highlighting unique institutional factors. In regard to the advice given to future students: If there is one message for Brown administration to communicate, it is this: prospective students free from a decision based mostly on monetary concerns are interested in attending Brown University exclusively for its academic strengths, curricular structure, and commitment to undergraduate education and community. Therefore, rather than marketing flashy academic programs and infrastructure, the best stories that Brown can tell get back to the core elements of the academic institution. Future work should focus on widening the population of participants to reflect the incoming class and re-performing the study initially. Future work should then include a comparative external perspective with incoming students. The process could then be renewed when students become graduating seniors, focusing on their reflection—through aggregating all the interview data—on their first and only decision to attend Brown. With students crumbling under the weight of escalating competition and institutional expectations, educational marketers and administrators are required to practice the art and science of "reading minds" in order to secure, serve, and retain a dwindling customer base. It is no longer a luxury to know the prospective student; rather, it is a necessity for economic survival and social well-being. Given these high stakes, it behooves universities to understand what drives a student to campus and what keeps the student on campus until graduation.

Did you like this example?

235

10