Get documents about "62
Document Sample
Identification of Factors Influencing
Matriculation Decisions by Dental
School Applicants
Albert W. Whitehead, D.M.D., M.Ed., M.B.A.; Karen F. Novak, D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D.;
John M. Close, M.A.
Abstract: Recent dental school surveys have indicated a slight decrease in the overall number of dental school applicants. As a
result, competition for the most highly qualified students is increasing among dental schools. A number of factors may contribute
to an applicant’s decision on where to matriculate, such as tuition costs, cost of living in an area, location of the dental school,
reputation, availability of financial aid, and the school’s facilities. Identifying the reasons why students choose to attend a specific
school may be an important first step in formulating a strategic plan for recruitment. As a result, a survey was sent to all students
(250) interviewed at the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine for the 2000-01 admissions cycle. The results of this
survey were compared to a similar survey sent following the 1994-95 admissions cycle. In addition, the results of the University
of Pittsburgh surveys were compared to a similar survey conducted by a different northeastern dental school. The factors rated
most important in 1994-95 were reputation, facilities, and location, in order. In 2000-01, location, curriculum, tuition, and
reputation were rated the most important factors, in order. This information may assist admissions officers in formulating an
effective recruitment strategy for the most highly qualified applicants.
Dr. Whitehead is Assistant Professor, Office for Student Services and Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Pitts-
burgh School of Dental Medicine; Dr. Novak is Associate Professor, Center for Oral Health Research and Division of Periodon-
tics, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky; Mr. Close is Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Public Health,
University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Albert W. Whitehead,
University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, 3501 Terrace Street, Room 429 Salk Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261; 412-648-
842 phone; 412-648-9571 fax; aww1@pitt.edu.
Key words: dental school applicants, recruitment, matriculation, marketing strategies
Submitted for publication 8/8/01; accepted 10/15/01
A
number of factors may contribute to a or not to attend a particular institution focused not
student’s decision to attend a particular in- only on direct costs (tangible factors such as tuition
stitute of higher education. Some factors, and books), but also indirect, intangible factors such
such as tuition costs, cost of living in an area, loca- as reputation and desirability of location. These in-
tion of the school, financial aid availability, and fa- direct factors varied according to both the nature of
cilities available at the school, are tangible and eas- the college and the background of the student. Fur-
ily measured. Other factors, such as perceived thermore, Astin3 found that colleges contribute sig-
reputation of the school, personal contact, individual nificantly to an individual’s self-definition, both in
attention given to the applicant, and presence of a his or her own eyes and in the eyes of others. Per-
collegial atmosphere, may be less tangible but equally sonal accomplishments through college experiences
important. are major sources of self-definition. Other investi-
Sullivan and Litten1 determined that subgroups gators often use a student’s choice of undergraduate
of students systematically made decisions based upon college as proxy information for a variety of less
different criteria. Their survey of students who made easily obtained information regarding the individual’s
contact with a Minnesota college but did not enroll character and social status.
clearly identified two market segments: easterners Each student seeks to find the single institu-
and midwesterners. The easterners identified loca- tion that best satisfies his or her tangible and intan-
tion of the college as an important factor in their gible personal and educational objectives. In doing
matriculation decision. In contrast, the midwesterners so, the student acquires information about higher
perceived cost as a more important consideration than education in general and about specific institutions
location. Both of these are clearly tangible factors. and their programs, costs, facilities, faculty, reputa-
However, Litten et al.2 stated that the decision whether tion, characters, and cultures.
62 Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 66, No. 1
It is likely that similar factors are important in dental school they chose for matriculation and given
a student’s decision to attend a particular dental the opportunity, via a short-answer questionnaire, to
school. Recent dental school surveys have indicated identify reasons they did not select the school under
a slight decrease in the number of dental school ap- investigation. Finally, personal contact and individual
plicants. The overall 1999 applicant pool decreased attention were addressed by asking the applicants to
by 4.6 percent when compared with the1998 appli- rate the importance of an on-site interview, during
cant pool.4 Overall, applicant numbers have declined which they were given the opportunity to meet cur-
8.3 percent since 1997.4 With this decline in overall rent students and faculty during individual and small
numbers of applicants, the competition among den- group sessions.
tal schools for highly qualified students is increas- The questionnaire was mailed to 200 applicants
ing. Therefore, it is important for dental schools to who had been accepted for matriculation in the 1994-
identify tangible and intangible factors contributing 95 academic year. A self-addressed, stamped enve-
to a student’s decision to choose a particular institu- lope accompanied the questionnaire to facilitate a
tion for their dental education. Once identified, these response. To provide two time points for compari-
factors can be integrated into a strategic plan for re- son, a similar questionnaire (Figure 1) was sent to
cruitment. and received electronically from 250 applicants who
In general business terms, marketing research had been interviewed for the 2001-02 academic year.
seeks to identify specific target markets via market In addition to the seven variables included in the
segmentation. Following segmentation, market po- 1994-95 questionnaire, this second group also was
sitioning attempts to identify specific attributes, ben- asked to rank the importance of research opportuni-
efits, and advantages of a particular product for a ties and perceived patient pool. The subjects from
target segment. Marketing research for dental admis- each surveyed year included matriculants and
sions attempts to identify the characteristics of po- nonmatriculants. A matriculant was an applicant who
tential students who would be most likely to enroll was accepted into the program and enrolled, while a
and successfully complete the curriculum. The use nonmatriculant was an applicant who was accepted
of marketing techniques begins with market research. but declined to enroll.
In the instance of dental schools, there are four gen- The data collected from the questionnaires are
eral objectives: 1) identify the characteristics of the reported based on a descriptive comparative analy-
target market; 2) identify reasons for enrollment; 3) sis and presented as raw data, mean scores, and per-
identify reasons for nonenrollment; and 4) identify centages. This project was reviewed and approved
competing dental schools. This study attempted to by the Institutional Review Board at the University
identify variables that a dental school may utilize to of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine.
determine unique market segments lending to the es-
tablishment of a market position for that specific
school. The data obtained from this study may poten-
tially be used to develop an effective recruitment strat-
Results
egy for the most highly qualified dental applicants. The sample for this study was the entire pool
of applicants accepted for the 1994-95 academic
cycle and interviewed for the 2001-02 academic cycle
Methods at the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental
Medicine, a medium-size, private/state-related den-
In 1994, a questionnaire was developed to iden- tal school. Of those applicants, 49.5 percent (99/200)
tify some of the factors that may have had an impact accepted responded in the 1994-95 academic cycle.
on an applicant’s decision to matriculate at a dental There was a 32.4 percent (81/250) response rate from
school (Figure 1). Specifically, applicants were asked the 2000-01 academic cycle.
to rank potential contributing factors according to Geographic data revealed that, in 1994-95, 57.6
their importance in the decision-making process. In percent of the sample were residents of Pennsylva-
addition, to obtain data on the source and socioeco- nia, while 42.4 percent were out-of-state residents.
nomic status of the applicant pool, applicants were In the 2000-01 cycle, 33.7 percent of the sample were
asked to identify their state of residence and average from Pennsylvania, while 66.3 percent were from out
family income. They also were asked to identify the of state. This represented a substantial shift in the
January 2002 ■ Journal of Dental Education 63
Figure 1. Sample questionnaire administered by mail to the 1994-95 matriculants and nonmatriculants. A similar
questionnaire was administered electronically to the 2000-01 applicant pool.
demographics of the applicant pool from in-state to tation of the dental school as the number one factor
out-of-state when comparing the two samples ver- affecting their matriculation decision. Facilities
sus time. However, in both the 1994-95 and the 2000- ranked number two, with thirty-four (34.4 percent)
2001 surveys, the states of California and Ohio were ranking it first; location ranked number three, with
identified as two of the three most frequently repre- thirty-three ranking this factor number one (33.3
sented states of residence for the out-of-state appli- percent). Least important in the ranking system were
cants (Table 1). class size (5/99, 5 percent) and financial aid (5/99, 5
Table 2 indicates the responses for the rank percent). Responses were also examined utilizing the
order of factors influencing matriculation by the num- mean ranking for each factor. Similar trends in rank-
ber of responses in 1994-95. Among the ninety-nine ing were noted.
respondents, thirty-seven (37.4 percent) ranked repu-
64 Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 66, No. 1
teen ranking this factor number one (23.4 percent).
Table 1. State residence of respondents
The least important was research opportunities, with
State 1994-95 2000-01 twenty-two of the eighty-one respondents ranking this
CA 9 14 characteristic as last. For the 2000-01 data, if the high-
CD 1 0
CO 1 1 est ranked factors, by virtue of their first-place rat-
CT 0 1 ings (location, curriculum, tuition, and reputation)
DL 1 0
FL 1 2
were ranked according to the mean numerical score,
GA 1 1 facilities would be ranked first followed by reputa-
ID 0 2 tion, location, curriculum, and tuition.
IL 1 0
MD 0 6 Tuition cost was not ranked high as a factor in
MA 1 1 matriculation decision in either the 1994-95 or the
NC 1 4 2000-01 survey. A potential related variable exam-
NH 1 1
NJ 2 2 ined was average family income, which could be rep-
NY 8 3 resentative of socioeconomic status. Results of the
OH 9 6
PA 57 25 study revealed no correlation between family income
TX 0 3 and matriculation.
UT 0 1 In the 1994-95 survey, the data regarding im-
VA 3 1
WI 0 2 portance of an on-site interview revealed that 41.5
WV 2 0 percent of those individuals who responded believed
that interviews were important. Overall, 38.9 per-
In the 2000-01 survey (Table 3), location was cent of matriculants and nonmatriculants rated the
ranked as the most influential factor in making ma- on-site interview as very important, and 42.9 per-
triculation decisions by twenty-two of the eighty-one cent rated it as important. In contrast, only 17.3 per-
respondents (27.2 percent). Curriculum and tuition cent stated that an on-site interview was not impor-
costs were ranked first by twenty respondents (24.7 tant (Table 4). This data was not accessed in the
percent). Reputation, the most important factor in 2000-01 survey because interviews were deemed im-
1994-95, was fourth in the 2000-01 group, with nine- portant.
Table 2. Ranking of factors influencing matriculation by number of subjects responding in 1994-95 (N=99)
Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Reputation 37 19 13 14 7 2 7 2.69
Facilities 34 16 17 11 9 3 9 2.90
Factors Location 33 12 10 14 8 8 14 3.32
Curriculum 16 14 21 17 15 6 10 3.60
Tuition 13 20 7 7 11 15 26 4.33
Fin. Aid 5 6 10 8 14 25 31 5.21
Class Size 5 4 7 6 15 14 48 5.59
* Rank order based on what respondents selected as most important factor (rank=1).
Table 3. Ranking of factors influencing matriculation by number of subjects responding in 2000-01 (N=81)
Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean
Location 22 10 15 10 9 2 5 2 6 3.59
Curriculum 20 14 11 5 11 5 8 5 2 3.70
Tuition 20 9 9 5 11 7 9 5 6 4.18
Reputation 19 9 18 8 14 3 3 6 1 3.57
Factors Facilities 13 24 10 14 6 4 4 4 2 3.44
Fin Aid 10 7 4 2 8 12 9 15 14 5.74
Class Size 7 4 12 6 14 10 14 8 6 5.22
Pt. Pool 5 9 6 10 11 14 8 10 8 5.28
Research Op. 3 2 4 7 9 12 7 15 22 6.56
* Rank order based on what respondents selected as most important factor (rank=1).
January 2002 ■ Journal of Dental Education 65
study from Tufts University. Although reputation may
Table 4. Importance of interview in 1994-95 (N=99)\
be difficult to define and measure, evidence of aca-
Not Very demic impact (that is, numbers and quality of peer-
Important Important Important
reviewed publications and research; evidence of in-
Nonmatriculants 7.1% 25.5% 25.5%
Matriculants 10.2% 17.4% 14.3% novative teaching methodologies; and performance
Accepted Applicants 17.3% 42.9% 39.8% on national and regional licensure examinations) and
the national and regional recognition of the faculty,
the dental school, and the university as a whole may
Both surveys gave the applicants the opportu-
be key points to emphasize when developing a re-
nity to provide short answers as to why the applicant
cruitment strategy. Also, students reported that their
did not select the University of Pittsburgh School of
perception of a school’s reputation is garnered from
Dental Medicine. The data paralleled their main rea-
information conveyed by undergraduate advisors and
son for selecting a dental school.
alumni of the dental school. Ongoing communica-
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine
tion with pre-professional advisors and alumni can
conducted a similar survey in 2000 of those appli-
be critical in creating a positive reputation for the
cants interviewed and accepted to their school.5 In
dental school.
that survey, applicants were asked to rate what char-
A more tangible variable, location, also ranked
acteristics of a dental school were most important to
high as a reason for selection/nonselection. This fac-
them. The ten essential factors in rank order were: 1)
tor also was identified as important in the survey
clinical experience (68.2 percent); 2) accessibility of
conducted by Tufts University. Applicants are not only
faculty to students (51.5 percent); 3) employment
choosing a dental school; they also are choosing a
opportunities after graduation (51.2 percent); 4) clini-
place to live and, in some cases, relocate their fami-
cal facilities (49.2 percent); 5) acceptance of gradu-
lies. Highlighting the regional aspects of an area that
ates to postgraduate programs (46.1 percent); 6) aca-
make it a unique and pleasurable place to live is an
demic reputation (45.7 percent); 7) availability of
important part of a recruitment initiative. Employ-
financial aid (43.8 percent); 8) curriculum (40.8 per-
ment opportunities for spouses, safety and crime
cent); 9) location (39.1 percent); and 10) reputation
rates, child care, quality of schools, and opportuni-
of faculty (32.0 percent). However, when the appli-
ties for recreational and cultural enrichment may be
cants were asked to identify their “deciding factors”
considerations in the decision-making process.
for enrolling at their first choice of dental school,
In the 2000-01 survey, students rated curricu-
they indicated that academic reputation and cost of
lum and tuition equally as top factors in the selec-
attending were the most important factors in matricu-
tion process. With the introduction of problem-based
lation. Clinical experience, curriculum, and location
learning into dental curricula, applicants are increas-
were other considerations.
ingly aware of various approaches to learning and
consider this in their selection process. Realizing that
students learn differently, various curricular para-
Discussion digms enable applicants to better choose a dental
school based on their learning style preference. Stu-
Readers should be alerted to the fact that the dents are also becoming more conscious of costs in-
slight variations in the rankings of the top factors in volved in earning a dental degree and, as informed
both 1994-95 and 2000-01 data may indicate that a consumers, consider the level of indebtedness upon
number of factors have relatively equal importance graduation. Cost was also cited as an important vari-
in applicant decision-making. The differences in able in the study conducted by Tufts University. Nei-
ranking are not sufficiently definitive to indicate an ther the Tufts nor Pittsburgh surveys studied cost of
order of importance. It should also be noted that a living versus cost of tuition, but both of these factors
higher rate of return might have altered the results. undoubtedly weigh into the total indebtedness of
However, the results indicate that certain fac- dental students. Creating mechanisms for decreas-
tors should be emphasized in the development of a ing student indebtedness and then marketing those
marketing strategy for a dental school. Reputation, a mechanisms to the applicant pool would be impor-
somewhat tangible factor, ranked high in both 1994- tant strategies for recruitment and admissions offices
95 and 2000-01 as a reason for selecting a dental to develop. Highlighting the scholarships that are
school. This also was an important factor cited in the available through the institution, armed services, or
66 Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 66, No. 1
government agencies can also assist in alleviating ficers could utilize to determine their unique market
students’ concerns regarding their level of debt upon segments and concurrently establish a viable market
graduation. position. Identification of these variables requires
It was interesting to note that availability of marketing research that seeks to identify the charac-
research opportunities did not rank high as an im- teristics of potential students who would be most
portant variable in the 2000-01 questionnaire. In likely to enroll. The results of this study identified
many dental schools, research activities are being certain variables that may be valid criteria for a den-
expanded, and students are being encouraged to ac- tal school to assess, develop, and implement as a
tively participate in research endeavors. However, if marketing strategy for successful recruitment. These
the applicant pool for the institution does not per- variables included reputation, location, and cost, as
ceive research as a priority when selecting a school, well as personal contact. Marketing positioning ef-
individual applicants may not view participation in forts should be directed towards the development and
research as important once they matriculate. If one promotion of activities that highlight these variables.
goal of a dental school is to broaden the research
activities of its students, then marketing to a differ-
ent applicant pool may be necessary. Recruitment REFERENCES
strategies would need to reflect the applicant pool 1. Sullivan DF, Litton LH. Using research in analyzing stu-
being targeted. dent markets: a case study. In: Sullivan D, Litten LH, eds.
A role for marketing in college admissions. New York:
Finally, it appears that personal contact and at-
College Education Board, 1976:20-6.
tention may be important in the recruitment process. 2. Litten LH, Sullivan D, Brodigan DE. An introduction to
One way of accomplishing this is through the on- marketing concepts and principals and to the particular
site interview process. In the interview, applicants nature of academic marketing. In: Litten LH, Sullivan D,
are given the opportunity to interact with faculty and Brodigan DE, eds. Applying market research in college
students on a personal level and may perceive that admissions. New York: College Education Board, 1983:13-
6.
there is a collegial atmosphere in the school. In a 3. Astin AW. Attitudes, beliefs, and self-concept. In: Astin
time when students are being viewed more and more AW, ed. Four critical years: effects of college on beliefs,
as consumers, taking the personal side of the equa- attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
tion into consideration may be as important as the 1977:31-50.
educational side. The authors recognize the inherent 4. Valachovic R. Trends in dental education 2000: the past,
present, and future of the profession and the people it
problems associated with self-reported data, but this serves. Washington, DC: American Dental Education
type of initiative conducted through ADEA via a na- Association, 2000.
tional database could improve the recruitment strat- 5. Tufts School of Dental Medicine. Student survey. Bos-
egies for the dental profession. ton: Office for Student Affairs and Admissions, 2000 (un-
In summary, the present study attempted to published).
identify variables that dental school admission of-
January 2002 ■ Journal of Dental Education 67
