How Personality Shapes Study Location Choices

Abstract

In this paper I investigate undergraduate students' discrete location choices in presence of a plethora of potential destinations and psychic costs. I demonstrate how enrolment into institutions of tertiary education is influenced by personality and social preferences. More importantly, these individual traits are found to affect the valuation of location-specific conditions in alternative study locations. Eventually, the relevance of location attributes, such as urban or labour market characteristics, varies substantially with respect to distance and individuals' personality. This has direct implications for student recruitment, since prospective students display distinct geographic sorting patterns along these traits: students featuring higher levels of patience integrate post-graduation opportunities into their decision-making. As a consequence, institutions in economically less prosperous regions might attract a specific subset of the overall student population, which might also have repercussions on student performance.

Wind of Change? Cultural Determinants of Maternal Labor Supply

“…In 2016, only 13.9 percent of youth applied for apprenticeship training further than 50 km away from their primary residence (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung 2018). Drawing on a 2013 survey on business and economics studies from six universities in northern and central Germany,Weisser (2019) shows that students on average attended university within 71 km of their homes and that a quarter stay within a radius of 25 km. Along similar lines, using data from the GSOEP,Busch and Weigert (2010, 568) document that even ten years after graduation, more than 70 percent of university graduates still live in the state where they completed their studies.16 Marginal employment only gained popularity after substantial reforms in 1999, and then particularly in 2003.…”

Selection of An Engineering Institution: Students’ Perceptions of Choice Characteristics and Suitability under the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Image and reputation (µ=4.140, R 2 =0.718) are rated of highest importance for the overall sample in making their EI choice, similar to most of the literature, such as (S. Briggs, 2006) (M. Palmer et al, 2004) (Conard & Conard, 2000) (Gill et al, 2018). Next, location and locality (µ=4.120, R 2 =0.621), as the measures of EI choice (Weisser, 2020) as evidenced by this study, has been referred to as accessibility and suitability of hi-tech facilities and amenities wherein it is situated (Hannagan, 1992;. Curriculum delivery (µ=4.020, R 2 =0.761), campus placement activities (µ=4.070, R 2 =0.663), faculty profile (µ=4.060, R 2 =0.715), alumni profile (µ=4.020, R 2 =0.654), and quality education (µ=4.080, R 2 =0.663) are noted to be the foremost selection criteria in EI choice.…”

“…Location and locality is a structure of ambient conditions, spatial layout and functionality (Bitner, 1992) that is a swaying character in making institute choice (Mahajan et al, 2014) (Weisser, 2020) (Gibbs & Knapp, 2012). Location labels as the site of the institute and its connectivity from home, while locality refers to culture, amenities and facilities available in surrounding place wherein the institute is located.…”

Selection of an engineering institution: Students’ perceptions on choice characteristics and suitability under Covid-19 pandemic

“…Despite the fact that choice characteristics in the pandemic acted in a comparative manner to ordinary conditions, they incredibly affected the suitability of an EI under the COVID-19 pandemic situation. (Weisser, 2020) as evidenced by this study, has been referred to as accessibility and suitability of hi-tech facilities and amenities wherein it is situated (Hannagan, 1992;. Curriculum delivery (µ=4.020, R 2 =0.761), campus placement activities (µ=4.070, R 2 =0.663), faculty pro le (µ=4.060, R 2 =0.715), alumni pro le (µ=4.020, R 2 =0.654), and quality education (µ=4.080, R 2 =0.663) are noted to be the foremost selection criteria in EI choice.…”