Higher education preparation and decision making trends among international students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".