Publication | Closed Access
The impact of facilities on student choice of university
428
Citations
10
References
2003
Year
EducationStudent ChoiceProgram EvaluationGlobal LevelInstitutional ProductivityManagementHospitality MarketingHigher Education PolicyUniversity Student RetentionCampus PlanningFacility ManagementBusiness AdministrationHospitality IndustryInstitutional EnvironmentAdded ValueGeneral BusinessStrategic ManagementHigher Education ManagementMarketingHigher EducationBusinessFacilities FactorsHospitality Management
Facilities management lacks objective research on its impact, yet high‑standard facilities are perceived to influence student choice of university. This paper aims to correct that situation for UK higher education institutions. A comparison of reputational pull and facilities pull is suggested to differentiate the brand of different institutions. A 2001 undergraduate survey confirms earlier findings, with year‑on‑year comparisons showing strong global and institutional agreement, while individual institutions exhibit significant differences exceeding 95% confidence.
Despite rhetoric of added value, facilities management suffers a dearth of objectively researched, publicly available information concerning the impact of facilities on businesses at the level of market sectors or individual organisations. This paper aims to correct that situation for UK higher education institutions. A survey of undergraduates starting university in 2001 has confirmed, to high levels of significance, earlier research with the 2000 intake. For many institutions, facilities factors, where provided to a high standard, are perceived as having an important influence on students’ choice of institution. Year‐on‐year comparisons show strong agreement at the global level and, where data could be gathered, at the institutional level. Individual institutions show marked differences, significant at levels of confidence of over 95 per cent. A comparison of “reputational pull” and “facilities pull” is suggested as a means of differentiating the “brand” of different institutions.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1