Higher education preparation and decision making trends among international students
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
THIS PAPER EXAMINES HOW INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT COLLEGE IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN THEY ARE IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. THE FINDINGS REVEAL THAT THE MAJORITY OF STUDENTS VISIT UNIVERSITY WEBSITES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING VARIOUS PROGRAMS. STUDENTS ALSO RECEIVE SCHOLARSHIPS AND/OR ASSISTANTSHIPS FROM THE UNIVERSITY, FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM FAMILY, AND ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THEIR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO STUDY OVERSEAS. STUDENTS ARE SELF-MOTIVATED TO PURSUE HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN BETTER PROFESSIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. THESE FINDINGS WILL HELP COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CAMPUS RESOURCES, INCLUDING ADMISSION AND RECRUITMENT MATERIALS, AND WILL ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ON THEIR CAMPUSES.Today, the United States of America has the highest international student enrollment (819,644 in 2012-1 3) of any nation, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada (Open Doors 2013). Students around the world view the United States as a land of opportunity. Their choices to attend u.S. higher education institutions are associated with a wide range of factors, including scholarships and other financial assistance, relatives, and bilateral exchange programs between home and host universities (Kolster 2014, To et al. 2014). Students from China (28.7%), India (11.8%), and South Korea (8.6%) dominate international student enrollment in the United States, but emerging trends show increasing enrollment by from Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Brazil (Open Doors 2013).The majority of international attend u.S. colleges and universities in California (111,379), New York (88,250), Texas (62,923), Massachusetts (46,486), Illinois (39,132), and Pennsylvania (37,280) (Open Doors 2013). (Research does not reveal the precise factors that limit international students' attendance at institutions in other states.) U.S. colleges and universities have improved the resources they make available to international students- for example, English as a Second Language (esl) programs specifically for Chinese and Saudi Arabian (World Education Services 2012).International exchange programs between U.S. universities and those in foreign countries are another recent trend. Given budget cuts and increasing competition, U.S. institutions compete hard for talented and self-funded students (World Education Services 2012).Despite increasing international enrollments in u.S. postsecondary education, there are challenges related to cost, distance, visa complexity, and competition for and colleges (Marklein 2011). The potential to recruit more international exists, but U.S. institutions have not established themselves as leaders among their competitors: A few universities in the United Kingdom and Australia (e.g., the University of Buckingham, Central Queensland University) have international student populations that constitute more than 50 percent of their total enrollment. According to the World Education Services (2012), effective recruitment practices-including recruiting agents and liberal immigration policies for visas and traveling-are the primary causes of high enrollment at these institutions.The purpose of this paper is to examine how international obtain information about their chosen programs of study while in their home countries; what fac- tors motivate them to enroll at u.S. institutions; and what challenges they encounter as they prepare to study abroad.LITERATURE REVIEWPush and Pull FactorsInternational choose particular programs and locations in the United States for a variety of reasons, including relationships with other students, family and peer influences, local and national policies, and other motivational factors.Essentially, push and pull factors influence international students' decisions related to studying overseas. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle