Chapter 9: Discussion and Conclusions
9.4 Objective two
9.4.3 Positions held by the different universities
Overall in the rating of the universities based on the factors important in the selection of a university only a small percentage of respondents rated any of the institutions negatively, i.e. either very poor or poor. This could possibly be due to the respondents not having sufficient knowledge of the universities or the universities seem far better than the conditions they are used to in their schools. A large portion of the respondents had very little knowledge of the universities as seen in the frequencies of the ‘I don’t know’ response in the rating of the universities. “These are their perceptions but perceptions are what individuals base their buying decisions on (Kotler and Armstrong, 2004, p.192 and Wilson et al, 1992, p.109). Therefore it is important to know what their perceptions are. Focus group participants has very little or no knowledge of the other institutions or Foundation Programmes that they might offer. Two out of the three schools had never even heard about the Foundation Programme at UKZN. Therefore they were not able to rate UKZN in response to the competing institutions.
Looking at the overall positive ratings and mean scores of the other universities, University of Zululand’s rating followed UKZN, being the next highest and this was followed by University of Cape Town.
For the rating of the University of Cape Town the majority of the responses were shared among the positive (i.e. good and excellent) and the unknown (i.e. I don’t know ranging from 25% to 44% or no response ranging from 6% to 11%) with very close percentages. UCT had mean scores ranging from 2.57 to 4.36. The positive responses for the University of Cape Town ranged from 22% to 53%. A large portion of the responses were in the I don’t know (25% to 44%) or no response (6%
to 11%) category The highest rated factor for the University of Cape Town was infrastructure of the
university with a mean score of 4.36. This was followed by Factor 11, quality education with a mean score of 4.33.
There was a different pattern for the University of Fort Hare where majority of the responses were in the I don’t know (41% to 63%) or no response (6% to 11%) categories with ratings from.
University of Fort Hare had mean scores ranging from 2.53 to 4.14. For the University of Fort Hare the positive responses ranged from 16% to 31%. The University of Fort Hare was rated highest for infrastructure of the university with a mean of 4.14. This was followed by security with a mean of 4.07.
Most of the responses for the University of the Witswatersrand was also in the I don’t know (30% to 50%) or no response (6% to 12%) category. University of the Witswatersrand had mean scores ranging from 2.61 to 4.24. The positive responses for the University of the Witswatersrand ranged from 20% to 41%. University of the Witswatersrand was rated highest for the Factor infrastructure of the university with a mean of 4.24. This was followed by quality education with a mean of 4.20.
A large portion responded in the I don’t know(40% to 62%) or no response (6% to 11%) category for the University of Stellenbosch. There was only 14% to 32% of positive responses on the factors for selecting a university. University of Stellenbosch had mean scores ranging from 2.42 to 4.12.
University of Stellenbosch was rated highest for security with a mean of 4.12. This was followed by quality education with a mean of 4.11.
An even larger response for the University of Rhodes was also in the I don’t know (41% to 65%) or no response (6% to 11) category. University of Rhodes had means scores ranging from 2.44 to 4.16.
The positive responses for the University of Rhodes ranged from 15% to 31%. University of Rhodes was rated the highest for quality education with a mean of 4.16. This was followed by infrastructure of the university with a mean of 4.10.
For the rating of the University of Pretoria the majority of the responses were shared among the positive (i.e. good and excellent – 23% to 50%) and the unknown (i.e. I don’t know with 26% to 41% or no response with 6% to 14%) with very close percentages. The University of Pretoria had mean scores ranging from 2.66 to 4.35. The highest rated factor for the University of Pretoria was infrastructure of the university with a mean score of 4.35. This was followed by quality education with a rating of 43% and a mean score of 4.34.
The University of Zululand’s positive responses ranged from 36% to 57%. The University of Zululand had mean scores ranging from 3.21 to 4.36. The University of Zululand was rated highest for Factor 15, the university will allow be to be independent with a mean score of 4.36. This was followed by Factor 10, security with a mean score of 4.33.
From the results it can be deduced that the respondents know very little about the Universities of Fort Hare, Witswatersrand, Stellenbosch and Rhodes as can be seen in the high I don’t know responses. The respondents seem to be a little more knowledgeable with University of Cape Town and Pretoria. The highest positive responses were the University of KwaZulu-Natal and followed by the University of Zululand which are both in the province of KwaZulu-Natal and closest to the respondents. Both these also had the highest mean scores.
9.4.4 Conclusion for Objective 2
Thus is looking at Objective 2 Graph 8.4 in Chapter 8 provides a visual representation of the importance of the factors to the respondents and the ratings of the various universities confirmed the target market’s need, i.e. the importance of the factors exceeded that of any of the universities.
UKZN was rated the highest for all the factors compared to the other universities. However the ratings of the other universities were very close. Thus UKZN should not be complacent but improve on the areas important to this target market. There is possible bias as respondents might have thought rating UKZN favourably might benefit them. There is also a possibility of familiarity bias.
The University of Zululand was rated the second best. UKZN and the University of Zululand are both in KwaZulu-Natal and closest to the respondents. University of Zululand’s ratings were followed by UCT. Fort Hare, Stellenbosch and Rhodes were close in their ratings and were given the lowest ratings compared to the other universities. These were among the ones that the respondents knew the least about. The curves for all the universities except for UKZN and University of Zululand took a similar shape. The biggest gap (.28) between UKZN’s rating and the respondents’s ideal position was with financial assistance. As explained already financial assistance is crucial for this target market because of their background. UKZN is really lagging behind in an important area for this target market. The second biggest gap (.25) between the respondents ideal position and UKZN’s rating was to do with infrastructure of the university. This includes libraries, laboratories, computer labs, accommodation etc. which are also especially sought after by the target market because of the lack of these facilities and the associated experiences at their schools. These
two biggest gaps are important areas especially important for this target market because of their unique needs and therefore important to them in their selection of a university.