FARKLI MESLEK GRUPLARININ SATIN ALMA GÜCÜNE GÖRE VAKIF ÜNİVERSİTELERİ LOJİSTİK BÖLÜMLERİNİN EKONOMİK ERİŞİLEBİLİRLİĞİNİN ANALİZİ: 2014-2024

Öz

Eğitim, toplumsal kalkınmanın temel unsurlarından biridir ve yükseköğretim bireylerin sosyoekonomik statülerini iyileştirme gücüne sahiptir. Ancak vakıf üniversiteleri gibi özel eğitim kurumlarına erişim, bireylerin ekonomik durumu doğrultusunda farklılık göstermektedir. Türkiye'deki vakıf üniversiteleri kaliteli eğitim sunmalarına rağmen, yükseköğrenim ücretleri birçok aile için erişimi güçleştirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, farklı meslek gruplarının vakıf üniversitelerine ekonomik erişimi analiz edilmiştir. 2014–2024 yılları arasında asgari ücretli, memur, akademik personel, mühendis, uzman hekim, yönetici ve avukatlara ait maaş verileri ile vakıf üniversitelerinin yıllık eğitim ücretleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Satın alma gücü, nominal oranlama yöntemiyle hesaplanmış ve ortalama mutlak sapma ile standart sapma analizleriyle desteklenmiştir. Ayrıca maaş ve eğitim ücreti artış oranları karşılaştırılarak erişim düzeylerindeki değişim ortaya konmuştur. Bulgular, bazı meslek gruplarında eğitime erişilebilirliğin azaldığını, bazılarında ise arttığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, gelir temelli eşitsizliklere dikkat çekmekte ve eğitim ücretinde son yıllarda meydana gelen radikal artış ile ücret politikalarının gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Betimsel istatistik
• Ekonomik erişilebilirlik
• Lojistik eğitimi
• Satın alma gücü
• Yükseköğretim Ücretleri.

ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC ACCESSIBILITY OF LOGISTICS DEPARTMENTS OF FOUNDATION UNIVERSITIES BASED ON PURCHASING POWER OF DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS: 2014-2024

Öz

Education is one of the key components of social development, and higher education has the potential to improve individuals' socioeconomic status. However, access to private educational institutions such as foundation universities varies depending on individuals’ economic conditions. Although foundation universities in Turkey offer high-quality education, rising tuition fees have made access increasingly difficult for many families. This study analyzes the economic accessibility of foundation universities for individuals from various occupational groups. Between 2014 and 2024, salary data for minimum wage workers, civil servants, academic staff, engineers, specialist physicians, managers, and lawyers were compared with the annual tuition fees of foundation universities. Purchasing power was calculated using a nominal ratio-based approach and supported with mean absolute deviation and standard deviation analyses. Additionally, salary and tuition growth rates were compared to assess changes in accessibility. The findings indicate that while access has declined for certain professions, it has improved for others. The study highlights income-based inequalities and emphasizes the need to review tuition pricing policies in light of the sharp increases in recent years.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Descriptive statistics
• Economic accessibility
• Logistics education
• Purchasing power
• Higher education tuition fees.

Kaynakça

1. Abdullaeva, B., Abdullaev, D., Kholmurodova, D., Rakhmatova, F. ve Tashtemirova, G. (2024). The Role Of Higher Education In Economic Development and Reducing The Unemployment Rate: a Comparative Study of Developing Countries. Economic Annals-XXI, 207(1-2), 10-15.
2. Abongdia, J. (2014). Ideologies and Attitudes of Foundation Students at a Multilingual University. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 415-422.
3. Akpınar, B. C. ve Akgündüz, D. (2017). The Opinions of Academicians from a Foundation University on School, Education and Society. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 235-246.
4. Al Tamimi, N. N. M., Al Mashrafi, O. M. S. ve Thottoli, M. M. (2023). Exploring the Factors that Influence University Selection: Insights from College Students. Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(6), 439-454.
5. Arslan, İ. ve Bektaş, H. (2019). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Yaşam Doyumunun Ölçülmesi. Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Health Sciences, (8), 767-784.
6. Aydın, O. T. (2013). Location As A Competitive Advantage To Attract Students: An Empirical Study From a Turkish Foundation University. International Review of Management and Marketing, 3(4), 204-211.
7. Aydın, O. T. (2015). University Choice Process: A Literature Review on Models and Factors Affecting the Process. Journal of Higher Education/Yüksekögretim Dergisi, 5(2).
8. Aydin, O. T. ve Bayir, F. (2016). The Impact of Different Demographic Variables on Determinants of University Choice Decision: A Study on Business Administration Students of the Foundation Universities in Istanbul. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 1147-1169.

9. Ayvat, A. G. ve Gunturkun, F. (2022). Analysis of The Effect of a University’s Integrated Marketing Communication Activities On University Choices Using The Decision Tree Technique. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-23.
10. Baroni, E., Eklöf, M., Hallberg, D., Lindh, T.ve Žamac, J. (2017). Fertility Decisions–Simulation in An Agent-Based Model (IFSIM). New Frontiers in Microsimulation Modelling,265-286. Routledge.
11. Busemeyer, M. R. (2010). Redistribution And The Political Economy Of Education: An Analysis Of İndividual Preferences in OECD Countries. Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS).
12. Chandan, H. C. (2016). Rational, Emotional, and Neural Foundations of Economic Preferences. In Neuroeconomics and the Decision-Making Process (pp. 45-65). IGI Global.
13. Cover, B. (2016). Purchasing Power: Using Wage Statistics With Regional Price Parities To Create A Standard For Comparing Wages Across US Areas. Monthly Lab. Rev., 139, 1.
14. Demirbag, M., Sahadev, S. ve Mellahi, K. (2010). Country Image And Consumer Preference For Emerging Economy Products: The Moderating Role Of Consumer Materialism. International Marketing Review, 27(2), 141-163.
15. Dernóczi-Polyák, A., Keller, V. (2024, June). Where To Go And Why? Motivational Factors İn The Choice Of Higher Education İnstitutions: The Example Of A University In Central Eastern Europe. In 10th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’24). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
16. Dhaliwal, M. S., Mittal, A., Aggarwal, A. ve Chand, P. K. (2019). Determining The Factors Affecting The Selection Of Private Universities And Colleges In Indian Context: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, 11(8), 2579-2590.
17. Geuna, A. ve Rossi, F. (2015). The University And The Economy: Pathways To Growth And Economic Development. In The University and the Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
18. Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. ve Özdemir, N. (2010). Vakıf Üniversitesi Lisans Öğrencilerinin Üniversiteye Bakışı Ve Beklentileri, Öğrenci Profili: Üniversite Yönetimine Öneriler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155).
19. Harahap, D. A., Amanah, D., Gunarto, M. ve Purwanto, P. (2023). The Importance Factors That Students Consider in Choosing a University. Migration Letters, 20, 341-356.
20. Heathcote, D., Savage, S. ve Hosseinian-Far, A. (2020). Factors Affecting University Choice Behaviour In The UK Higher Education. Education Sciences, 10(8), 199.
21. Jingoezian-Moughalian, S. (2010). Factors Influencing Major Choosing Process in the University: A Qualitative Research Analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Emphasize Counseling at Haigazian University.
22. Juhaidi, A. (2024). University Choice Factors: A Case of Two Types of Higher Education In The Third-Largest Island In The World. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2367731.
23. Kökalan, Ö., Yumuşak, İ. G. ve Gürleyen, S. Ö. (2022). The Service Quality Of Public And Foundation (Private) Universities In Turkey From The Perspectives Of Turkish And International Students. TEM Journal, 11(2),820-828.
24. Kravchenko, S. (2018). Development of the Educational Environment through the Formation of Private Corporate Universities. Research Papers in Economics and Finance, 2(4), 29-36.
25. Lee, Y. (2019). Understanding Parents’ View on US Higher Education Marketing Communication. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18, 279-299.
26. Liu, C. (2023). The Well-Endowed University: Philanthropy and Financialization in Higher Education. Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 56(1), 135-143.
27. Mankiw, N. G. (1998). Teaching the principles of economics. Eastern Economic Journal, 24(4), 519-524.
28. Miah, S., Pang, K. H., Rebello, W., Rubakumar, Z., Fung, V., Venugopal, S. ve Begum, H. (2017). What Factors Influence UK Medical Students’ Choice of Foundation School?. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 293-297.
29. Mohobelo, M. I., Mashinini, P. M. ve Mushwana, B. N. (2022, November). Investigating and Evaluating Factors Influencing Undergraduate Engineering Students' Choice of University. In 2022 IEEE IFEES World Engineering Education Forum-Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) (pp. 1-4). Cape Town, South Africa.
30. ÖSYM. (t.y).ÖSYM Kılavuzları. https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,29146/2024.html
31. Por, N., Say, C. ve Mov, S. (2024). Factors Influencıng Students'decısıon in Choosıng Universities: Build Bright University Students. Jurnal As-Salam, 8(1), 1-15.
32. Rahmatillah, N., Sudirman, H. A. ve Anindita, M. (2025, February). The Influence of Digital Marketing and E-Wom on the Decision to Choose A University. In The Fourth International Conference on Government Education Management and Tourism (Vol. 4, pp. 018-018).
33. Schwab, P. M. (1971). Two Measures of Purchasing Power Contrasted. Monthly Lab. Rev., 94, 3.
34. SGK. (t.y.). Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Veri Uygulaması. https://veri.sgk.gov.tr/ .
35. Simarmata, J. E., Mone, F. ve Chrisinta, D. (2024). Structural Equations Modeling Approach: Issues in selecting a University. JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 8(3), 1203-1212.
36. Sofi, H. H. (2023). Statistical Analysis to Determine the Most Important Factors Affecting the Student’s Choice of University. Tikrit Journal of Administrative and Economic Sciences, 19(64 part 1).
37. Szeląg-Sikora, A., Oleksy-Gębczyk, A. ve Kowalska-Jarnot, K. (2024, May). Factors Determining the Choice of University by Candidates. In Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 254-263).
38. Teker, S. ve Özer, B. (2012). Yeni Vakıf Üniversiteleri Kuruluş Yeri Seçimi ve Akademik Alan Odaklanma Önerileri. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 66-93.
39. Torres, A. G., Avendaño-López, P. D. U. ve Bojorges, G. Q. (2025). Systematic Study on the Choice of Higher Education Institutions in the Engineering Field. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(1), 728-736.
40. Tuan, B. N., Deswina, M., Darwin, W. ve Febrianti, N. (2025). Analysis of Factors Influencing the Decision to Select Thai Nguyen University of Information Technology and Communication. Jurnal Teknologi Informasi dan Pendidikan, 18(1), 584-601.
41. Tuan, N. A., Hieu, A. Q., Huong, B. T. T., Thuy, H. T. T. ve Khuyen, M. (2023). Determination of Factors Affecting the Study Decision of Students at University of Education, Vietnam National University Hanoi. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 20, 225-235.
42. YÖK. (2021). Vakıf Yükseköğretim Kurumları Raporu 2021, https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/2021/vakif-yuksekogretim-kurumlari-raporu- 2021.pdf .
43. YÖK. (t.y).Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetimi Sistemi. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ .
44. Zabun, S. (2021). Saray-ı Hümayun Bekçilerinin 1908 Yılı Maaşları ve Günümüzdeki Reel Karşılığı. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(41), 505-516.
45. Zengin, B. ve Uzut, İ. (2017). Lisans Düzeyinde Turizm Eğitimi Alan Öğrencilerin Üniversite Tercihlerini Etkileyen Nedenler: İstanbul Vakıf Üniversiteleri Örneği. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 16-30.