What shapes cadets’ decisions? Factors influencing the choice of the Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy
Abstract
Background/Aim. To create an effective promotional strategy for the Medical Faculty of the Military Medical Academy (MF MMA), it is essential to understand why young people decide to enroll in this military higher education institution (MHEI). The aim of this study was to identify the key factors and examine their influence on cadets’ decisions to enroll in MF MMA. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted during the second semester of the 2023/2024 academic year with 121 participants (cadets and candidates for enrollment at the MF MMA). A qualitative phase, aimed at defining the research instrument, was implemented using the focus group method. Data collection was performed using an online questionnaire. Analysis was conducted using multiple linear regression. Results. The factors that have the greatest influence on cadets’ decisions to enroll in the MF MMA are: “cultural capital” (β = 0.260; р < 0.01), “physical culture” (β = 0.210; р < 0.05), “quality of military medical education” (β = 0.191; р < 0.05), “career” (β = 0.176; р < 0.05), and “status” (β = 0.171; р < 0.05). Conclusion. The results indicate that cadets’ decision to choose MF MMA is influenced by the combination of personal and institutional factors of a predominantly social nature. Candidates applying for enrollment at the MF MMA have strong personal affinities towards the profession of an army officer/military doctor, highly value the culture of the military organization, appreciate the educational offer of the MHEI, and recognize opportunities for professional and career development. These findings may contribute to defining the promotional strategy of MF MMA and ensure that the institution maintains a stable influx of high-quality and motivated candidates for education.
References
Maringe F, Gibbs P. Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2008. p. 195.
Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Melanthiou Y. A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries. J Bus Res 2007; 60(9): 979–89.
Petrović A. Shaping military HEIS' promotional strategies for Gen Z's media landscape. In: Kostić-Stanković M, Mijatović I, Krivokapić J, editors. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium SymOrg 2024: Unlocking the hidden potentials of organization through merging of humans and digitals. Bel-grade: Faculty of Organizational Sciences; 2024. pp. 606−11.
Chapman DW. A Model of Student College Choice. J High Educ 1981; 52(5): 490−505.
Balık HH, Başpınar A. Psychometric Evaluation of the Fac-tors for University Choice Scale in a Military Academy. İstan-bul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 2022; 42(1): 45–63.
Mitić S, Mojić D. Student choice of higher education institu-tions in a post-transitional country: evidence from Serbia. Econ Res – Ekon Istraž 2020; 33(1): 3509–27.
Hemsley-Brown J, Oplatka I. University choice: what do we know, what don't we know and what do we still need to find out? Int J Educ Manag 2015; 29(3): 254–74.
Wei Y, Zhou S, Yang X. College expectations and choices: Ex-plaining the gaps in college enrollment for high- and low-SES students in China. Int J Educ Dev 2019; 70: 102079.
Kaye N. Evaluating the role of bursaries in widening participa-tion in higher education: a review of the literature and evi-dence. Educ Rev 2020; 73(6): 775–97.
Perna LW, Titus MA. Understanding Differences in the Choice of College Attended: The Role of State Public Poli-cies. Rev High Educ 2004; 27(4): 501–25.
Imenda SN, Kongolo M, Grewal AS. Factors Underlying Techni-kon and University Enrolment Trends in South Africa. Educ Manag Admin Leader 2004; 32(2): 195–215.
Angulo F, Pergelova A, Rialp J. A market segmentation ap-proach for higher education based on rational and emotional factors. J Market High Educ 2010; 20(1): 1–17.
Bourdieu P. The Forms of Capital. In: Granovetter M, editor. The Sociology of Economic Life. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge; 2018. pp. 78–92.
Gao F, Ng JCK, Lee WWS. Are the effects always positive? Rethinking the role of parental social capital in the university choice process. Int Stud Sociol Educ 2021; 32(3): 717–39.
Prakhov I, Kotomina O, Sazhina A. Parental involvement and the educational trajectories of youth in Russia. Int J Educ Dev 2020; 78: 102252.
Cattaneo M, Horta H, Malighetti P, Meoli M, Paleari S. Effects of the financial crisis on university choice by gender. High Educ 2016; 74(5): 775–98.
Zafar B. College Major Choice and the Gender Gap – FRB of New York Staff Report No. 364 [Internet]. NY: SSRN Elec-tronic Journal; 2009 [accessed on 2025 June 3]. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=134
López-Bonilla JM, Barrera Barrera R, Rodríguez Serrano MÁ, López-Bonilla LM, Palacios Florencio B, Reyes Rodríguez MC, et al. Reasons which influence on the student's decision to take a university course: differences by gender and degree. Educ Stud 2011; 38(3): 297–308.
Paulsen MB. College Choice: Understanding Student Enroll-ment Behavior. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. Washington: ERIC Publications; 1990. p. 121.
Platz S, Holtbrügge D. Student Expectations and Experiences in Higher Education: A Comparison of State and Private Universities in Germany. In: Wu T, Naidoo V, editors. Interna-tional Marketing of Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. pp. 171–90.
Le TD, Dobele AR, Robinson LJ. Information sought by pro-spective students from social media electronic word-of-mouth during the university choice process. J High Educ Policy Manag 2018; 41(1): 18–34.
Delavande A, Zafar B. University Choice: The Role of Ex-pected Earnings, Nonpecuniary Outcomes, and Financial Constraints. J Political Econ 2019; 127(5): 2343–93.
John SP, De Villiers R. Factors affecting the success of market-ing in higher education: a relationship marketing perspective. J Market High Educ 2022; 34(2): 875–94.
Dunnett A, Moorhouse J, Walsh C, Barry C. Choosing a Univer-sity: A conjoint analysis of the impact of higher fees on stu-dents applying for university in 2012. Tert Educ Manag 2012; 18(3): 199–220.
Brownie S, Yan AR, Broman P, Comer L, Blanchard D. Geo-graphic location of students and course choice, completion, and achievement in higher education: A scoping review. Equi-ty Educ Soc 2025; 4(1): 92–112.
Bonnema J, Van der Waldt DLR. Information and source pref-erences of a student market in higher education. Int J Educ Manag 2008; 22(4): 314–27.
Perna LW. Studying college access and choice: a proposed conceptual model. In: Smart JC, editor. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol 21. Dodrecht: Springer; 2006. pp. 99–157.
Stalmeijer RE, McNaughton N, Van Mook WNKA. Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Med Teach 2014; 36(11): 923–39.
Pasternak R. Choice of institutions of higher education and ac-ademic expectations: the impact of cost-benefit factors. Teach High Educ 2005; 10(2): 189–201.
Ivy J. A new higher education marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA marketing. Int J Educ Manag 2008; 22(4): 288–99.
Yang C, Jin X, Yan J, Zhang J, Chen C, Cheng Y, et al. An inves-tigation of the intention and reasons of senior high school stu-dents in China to choose medical school. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21: 242.
Marjanovic S. Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy - the first 15 years. Vojnosanit Pregl 2024; 81(5): 259–61.