The Role of Criteria in Ranking University Preference: An Analysis with TOPSIS Method

Abstract

This study examines the factors affecting the decision-making processes of students who will make university choices in Turkey and ranks universities with these factors. The prominent criteria in student preferences are quality of education, program diversity, prestige of the university, adequacy of the university, cost, geographical location, and campus facilities. It has been noticed in the literature that the criteria are subjectively weighted more widely. It is aimed to provide a more rational guide to students in the university preference period by ranking schools using objective weighting methods focusing on criterion differentiation. The weights of the 20 criteria in the study were distributed by equal weighting, Entropy, Critic methods and then by averaging these criteria weights. Istanbul University is ranked 1st in the rankings made with all weight sets. The positions of some universities have changed in the rankings made with weights determined by equal weight, Entropy and Critic methods. This change is due to the fact that these criteria are considered more important with the high values assigned to the criteria in different weight sets. It can make significant contributions to the strategic planning of universities to attract successful students.

Keywords

• University preference
• TOPSIS
• Entropy
• Critic
• University ranking

Üniversite Tercihinde Kriterlerin Sıralamadaki Rolü: TOPSIS Yöntemi ile Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki üniversite tercihi yapacak öğrencilerin karar verme süreçlerini etkileyen faktörleri incelemekte ve bu faktörlerle üniversiteleri sıralamaktadır. Öğrenci tercihlerinde öne çıkan kriterler eğitim kalitesi, program çeşitliliği, üniversitenin prestiji, üniversitenin yeterliliği, maliyet, coğrafi konum, kampüs olanaklarıdır. İncelenen literatürde kriterlerin genellikle subjektif ağırlıklandırıldığı görülmüştür. Kriter farklılaşmasına odaklanan objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemleri kullanılarak okulların sıralamasının, tercih dönemindeki öğrencilere daha rasyonel bir kılavuz sunması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada seçilen 20 kriterin ağırlıkları eşit ağırlıklandırma, Entropy, Critic yöntemleri ve daha sonra bu kriter ağırlıklarının ortalaması alınarak dağıtılmıştır. Tüm ağırlık setleriyle yapılan sıralamalarda 1. Sırada İstanbul Üniversitesi yer almaktadır. Eşit ağırlık, Entropy ve Critic yöntemleriyle belirlenen ağırlıklarla yapılan sıralamalarda bazı üniversitelerin konumları değişmiştir. Bu değişiklik, farklı ağırlık setlerinde kriterlere atanan yüksek değerlerle bu kriterlerin daha önemli sayılmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Üniversitelerin başarılı öğrencileri çekmeye yönelik stratejik planlamalarında önemli katkılar sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üniversite tercihi
• TOPSIS
• Entropy
• Critic
• Üniversite Sıralama

Kaynakça

1. Akyol Özcan, K. (2023). Sustainability Ranking of Turkish Universities with Different Weighting Approaches and the TOPSIS Method. Sustainability, 15(16), s. 12234.
2. Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2020). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3), s. 290-305.
3. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2010). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. UNESCO Publishing.
4. Amiri, M., Zandieh, M., Vahdani, B., Soltani, R., & Roshanaei, V. (2010). An integrated eigenvector–DEA–TOPSIS methodology for portfolio risk evaluation in the FOREX spot market. Expert systems with applications, 37(1), s. 509-516.
5. Beneke, J., & Human, G. (2014). Student Recruitment Marketing in South Africa – An Exploratory Study into the Adoption of a Relationship Orientation. African Journal of Business Management, 8(8), s. 292-304.
6. Briggs, S. (2006). An Exploratory Study of the Factors Influencing Undergraduate Student Choice: The Case of Higher Education in Scotland. . Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), s. 705-722.
7. Briggs, S. (2013). An Exploratory Study of the Factors Influencing Undergraduate Student Choice: The Case of Higher Education in Ireland. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), s. 73-85.
8. Brown, R., & Mangan, J. (2018). Competition and the Reform of the Universities. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(1), s. 146-163.

9. Cai, X., Zhao, L., Bai, X., Yang, Z., Jiang, Y., Wang, P., & Huang, Z. (2022). Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Development of Entrepreneurship Education in Chinese Universities Using Entropy–TOPSIS Method. Sustainability, 14(22), s. 14772.
10. Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), s. 851-860.
11. Chen, L. H. (2007). East-Asian Students’ Choice of Canadian Graduate Schools. . International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(4), s. 217-306.
12. Chen, W., & Zhou, H. (2019). University Selection Criteria among Chinese Students: An Empirical Study. Asian Journal of Education, 22(1), s. 78-102.
13. Cheng, Y. (2016). Higher Education Development in China and India: The Role of The State. International Journal of Educational Development, 46, s. 124-135.
14. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), s. 763-770.
15. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2014). Student Satisfaction: An Alternative Approach to Assessing This Important Concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), s. 197-209.
16. Feng, C. M., & Wang, R. T. (2001). Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry. Transport reviews, 21(4), s. 449-467.
17. Gibbs, P. (2010). A Heideggerian Phenomenology Approach to Higher Education as Market. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(4), s. 333-345.
18. Glewwe, P., & Muralidharan, K. (2016). Improving Education Outcomes in Developing Countries: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Policy Implications. In In Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 5, pp. 653-743). Elsevier.
19. Gomes, L. A., Santos, A. F., Pinheiro, C. T., Góis, J. C., & Quina, M. J. (2020). Screening of waste materials as adjuvants for drying sewage sludge based on environmental, technical and economic criteria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, s. 120927.
20. González-Rodríguez, M. R., Díaz-Fernández, M., & Simonetti, B. (2018). University Choice, Reputation and the Undergraduate Student Decision-Making Process: Evidence from a Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), s. 789-813.
21. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). "University Choice: What Do We Know, What Don’t We Know And What Do We Still Need To Find Out?". International Journal of Educational Management, 29(3), s. 254-274.
23. Holdsworth, C. (2006). ‘Don’t You Think You’re Missing Out, Living At Home?’: Student Experiences and Residential Transitions. Sociology, 40(6), s. 1067-1084.
24. Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to College: How Social, Economic, and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make.
25. Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (2014). Understanding Student College Choice. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 5, s. 231-288.
26. https://iett.istanbul/icerik/. (2024, 7 10). Retrieved from https://iett.istanbul/icerik/IETT-Toplu-Ulasim-ucret- Tarifesi: https://iett.istanbul/icerik/IETT-Toplu-Ulasim-ucret-Tarifesi
27. https://itukuluplerbirligi.com/kuluplerimiz/. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from https://itukuluplerbirligi.com/: https://itukuluplerbirligi.com/kuluplerimiz/
28. https://sks.ankara.edu.tr/topluluklar/. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from https://sks.ankara.edu.tr/: https://sks.ankara.edu.tr/topluluklar/
29. https://universitem.hacettepe.edu.tr/ogrenci_topluluklari/. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from https://universitem.hacettepe.edu.tr/: https://universitem.hacettepe.edu.tr/ogrenci_topluluklari/
30. https://www.bogazici.edu.tr/tr_TR/Content/Kampus_Yasami/. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from https://www.bogazici.edu.tr/tr_TR/Content/Kampus_Yasami/KampusOgrenciKulupleri: https://www.bogazici.edu.tr/tr_TR/Content/Kampus_Yasami/KampusOgrenciKulupleri
31. https://www.ego.gov.tr/tr/. (2024, 7 10). Retrieved from https://www.ego.gov.tr/tr/sayfa/2098/tasima- ucretleri: https://www.ego.gov.tr/tr/sayfa/2098/tasima-ucretleri
32. https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/content/universitemizden/. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from
33. https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/: https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/content/universitemizden/sosyal-aktiviteler
34. https://www.metu.edu.tr/tr/ogrenci-topluluklari. (2022, 6 21). Retrieved from https://www.metu.edu.tr/: https://www.metu.edu.tr/tr/ogrenci-topluluklari
35. https://www.yok.gov.tr/. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Universiteler/arastirma- universiteleri.aspx
36. https://www.yok.gov.tr/:. (2022, 02 02). Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/universiteler/izleme-ve- degerlendirme-raporlari.: https://www.yok.gov.tr/universiteler/izleme-ve-degerlendirme-rapor
37. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag.
38. Jones, S. (2018). Student Perspectives on Choosing to Study at a UK University. . International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), s. 718-734.
39. Kara, A., Demir, M., & Yılmaz, E. (2018). Üniversite Seçiminde Öğrenci Tercihleri: Türkiye Örneği. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 43(4), s. 567-589.
40. Karadağ, E., & Yücel, C. (2020). Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Araştırması 2020. Üniar. Retrieved from Üniar.
41. Karadağ, E., & Yücel, C. (2021). Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Araştırmaları 2021. Üniar. Retrieved from Türkiye üniversite memnuniyet araştırması 2021.: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https: //www.uniar.net/_files/ugd/779fe1_c23bd34f09e9427aa16be7b04e49d637.pdf
42. Khurshid, M., Zahid, R., & Nisa, M. (2024). Factors Affecting Financial Decisions of University Students: Evidence from Pakistan. Managerial Finance, 50(2), s. 297-312.
43. Koçak, D., & Çokluk Bökeoglu, Ö. (2021). Üniversite Tercih Nedenlerinin İkili Karşılaştırma ve Sıralama Yargıları Yöntemleri ile Ölçeklenmesi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(3), s. 1580-1591.
44. Kusumawati, A. (2013). A Qualitative Study of the Factors Influencing Student Choice: The Case of Public University in Indonesia. . Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1), s. 67-90.
45. Li, I. W., & Dockery, A. (2014). Mobility of University Students. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 33(2), s. 103-116.
46. Li, Q., Yin, X., Shao, T., Li, X., & Wang, Q. (2023). Evaluating human–computer interaction education based on active learning methods using the CRITIC and TOPSIS approach. Soft Computing, s. 1-14.
47. Madic, M., & Radovanovic, M. (2015). Ranking of some most commonly used nontraditional machining processes using ROV and CRITIC methods. UPB Sci. Bull., Series D, 77(2), s. 193-204.
48. Maringe, F. (2006). University and Course Choice: Implications for Positioning, Recruitment and Marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), s. 466-479.
49. Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International Students’ Motivations for Studying in the UK. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), s. 459-475.
50. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). “Push-pull” Factors Influencing International Student Destination Choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), s. 82-90.
51. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2012). Revisiting the Global Market for Higher Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), s. 215-228.
52. McCartney, P. (2020). University Reputation and Alumni Networks: Evidence from Italy. European Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), s. 133-153.
53. Ming, J. S. (2010). Institutional Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice Decision in Malaysia: A conceptual framework. . International Journal of Business and Social Science,, 1(3), s. 53-58.
54. Mok, K. H., Wen, Z., & Dale, R. (2016). Employability and Mobility in the Valorization of Higher Education Qualifications: The Experiences and Reflections of Chinese Students And Graduates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(3), s. 268-281.
55. Moogan, Y. J., & Baron, S. (2003). An Analysis of Student Characteristics within the Student Decision-Making Process. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), s. 271-287.
56. Owen Korkut, F., Kepir, D., Özdemir, S., Ulaş, Ö., & Yılmaz, O. (2013). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Bölüm Seçme Nedenleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(3), s. 135-151.
57. Pang, X. L. (2021, July). Comprehensive Evaluation of High-Level Graduate School Based on Distanced Entropy-TOPSIS. In The International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (s. 1026-1033). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
58. Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. (2002). Social Class and College Costs: Examining The Financial Nexus between College Choice and Persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), s. 189-236.
59. Perna, L. W. (2015). Improving College Access and Completion for Low-Income and First-Generation Students: Lessons Learned from TRIO and GEAR UP. . Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 31, s. 405-456.
60. Sá, C. M., & Florax, R. (2018). University Reputation, Public Relations, and the Media. Economics of Education Review, 63, s. 125-134.
61. Shah, M., Nair, C., & Bennett, L. (2013). Factors Influencing Student Choice to Study at Private Higher Education Institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(4), s. 402-416.
62. Shen, Y., & Shang, Y. (2024). Online Teaching Effect Evaluation and Analysis Using Combined Weighting Technique. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, s. 19(3).
63. Smith, J., & Smith, L. (2020). Factors Influencing University Choice among American Students. Journal of Higher Education Research, 15(3), s. 123-145.
64. Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. (2002). Students’ Preferences for University: A Conjoint Analysis. International journal of educational management, 16(1), s. 40-45.
65. Teichler, U. (2017). Internationalisation Trends in Higher Education and the Changing Role of International Student Mobility. . Journal of International Mobility, 5, s. 177-216.
66. URAP. (2021, 9 20). Retrieved from 2020 Yılında Üniversitelerimizin 11 Dünya Genel Sıralamasındaki Durumu 2 MART 2021 (Ek: Araştırma üniversitelerimizin 2013-2020 dönemindeki durumu): https://newtr.urapcenter.org /cdn/storage/PDFs/R2kgApcmYcMEDD2hM/original/
67. Wang, T. C., & Lee, H. (2009). Developing a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach Based on Subjective Weights and Objective Weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), s. 8980–8985.
68. Wang, T. C., Thu Nguyen, T. T., & Phan, B. N. (2022). Analyzing higher education performance by Entropy- TOPSIS method: A case study in Viet Nam private universities. Measurement and Control, 55(5-6), s. 385-410.
69. Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student Recruitment at International Branch Campuses: Can They Compete in the Global Market? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 299-312.
70. Wilkins, S., Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2013). The Decision-Making and Changing Behaviour of International Students: Comparing Pre- and Post-Enrollment Choices. Journal of International Education in Business, 6(2), s. 62-78.
71. Wilkins, S., Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2013). The Decision-Making and Changing Behavioural Dynamics of Potential Higher Education Students: The Impacts of Increasing Tuition Fees in England. Educational studies, 39(2), s. 124-141.
72. www.ankara.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://www.ankara.edu.tr/kurumsal/tanitim/tarihce
73. www.boun.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://bogazici.edu.tr/tr-TR/Content/Genel/Tarihce
74. www.hacettepe.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://hacettepe.edu.tr/hakkinda/tarihce
75. www.istanbul.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://kurumsaliletisim.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/content/kurumsal-kimlik-kilavuzu/iu-tanitim-filmi
76. www.itu.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://itu.edu.tr/tarihce
77. www.metu.edu.tr. (2024, 7 9). Retrieved from https://www.metu.edu.tr/history
78. YÖK. . (2022, 11 26). Retrieved from Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi.: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
79. Zhu, Y., Tian, D., & Yan, F. (2020). Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, s. 3564835.