Tertiary Education and Management

Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2008, pp. 191–207

International Students: The Canadian

experience
Paul J. Madgetta* and Charles Bélangerb
aUniversity of Rochester, New York, USA; bLaurentian University, Ontario, Canada
0000002008
[email protected]
PaulMadgett
Taylor
Tertiary
10.1080/13583880802228182
RTEM_A_322985.sgm
1358-3883
Original
32008
14 &
and
Education
Article
Francis
(print)/1573-1936
Francis and Management
(online)

This paper is an analysis of the results of a voluntary on-line survey administered to international
students attending Canadian universities. The participants include students attending a full
programme of study as well as English as a second language (ESL) and exchange students. This
study examines the role of the university with reference to providing the pertinent information/
services to the students, pre- and post-arrival. Certain choice patterns of international students in
selecting Canada vis-à-vis other countries are also examined. The results of our analyses indicate
that Canada seems to have performed well in meeting the expectations of international students.
Furthermore, this study did help to illustrate some of our inherent strengths that, if marketed
properly, could allow Canada to enlarge its share of the foreign student market.

Introduction
In the last few decades, many western governments have been reducing their expen-
ditures in higher education, either to invest in other policy imperatives and/or to
balance their fiscal budgets. Canada is one of those nations where higher education
has passed into the era of post-massification with governments assuming a less crucial
role in maintaining the affordability of postsecondary education. In order to compen-
sate for this shortage of capital and for a maturing domestic market of students,
higher education institutions looked abroad, finding a financial bonanza in the
surplus of postsecondary age students in developing countries, namely those in Asia.
In 2003, the USA was the largest player in the international student market,
attracting approximately 27% of those studying abroad, while Canada had a market
segment of only 3% (Scott, 2005; Tremblay, 2005). Canada is not unlike its nearest
geographical competitor, the USA, which charges international students a differential
tuition rate. In most disciplines, international students studying in Canada are

*Corresponding author. 410–271 Lockhart Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, K2A 3R8, Canada. Email:
[email protected]

ISSN 1358-3883 (print)/ISSN 1573-1936 (online)/08/030191–17

© 2008 European Higher Education Society
DOI 10.1080/13583880802228182
192 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

charged approximately twice as much the domestic rates, thus providing additional
revenues to the institutions. The USA has a unique system with strong public and
private (non-profit) higher education institutions. These private institutions charge
an elevated and constant tuition to all domestic and international students whereas
their publicly funded brethren offer in-state and out-of-state rates. The out-of-state
rate is normally at least a few times higher than the tuition paid by in-state residents,
bringing added revenue to the university. Although these tuition differentials help the
universities better finance operations, these elevated costs heighten various other
responsibilities such as: providing their geographic and ethnically diverse student
population with practical and straightforward marketing materials, additional
ethnocentric services and various other adjustment programmes to enhance their
experience.
The market for foreign students in higher education is globalised, with many
countries now competing for this source of economic and financial stimuli. The lack
of capacity, in developing countries, to provide access to higher education to their
citizenry has enabled this phenomenon. In addition, the growing demand of skill sets
related to the “knowledge economy and innovation” is readily disseminated in many
universities in the developed world, fostering the exodus (Advisory Council on
Science and Technology, 1999; Conference Board of Canada, 2003; Kitagawa,
2004; Lagendijk & Cornford, 2000).
Thus, this paper will examine literature relating to the globalisation of higher
education which has facilitated greater competition between countries and universi-
ties. Additionally, student choice theory will help to decipher some of the factors
influencing foreign student decision processes, meanwhile providing a framework
for some of our findings. This global actuality has enabled greater competition
between English-speaking nations, namely Australia, Canada, the UK and the
USA. Simultaneously, various other nations are attempting to increase their
involvement in becoming a destination of choice for foreign students. Hence, these
various countries have developed or are developing an expertise in selling a
currency, education, to the masses (Arimoto, 2005).
In this global context, the terrorist attacks which occurred in the USA, the UK
and Spain may have long-term effects on their international application pool. For
example, in 2003–2005, the number of international students studying in the USA
declined by 3.7 % (Institute of International Education, 2005). This reduction was
kindled by numerous factors, including new domestic security legislation increasing
the international student requirements. In a recent study, US visa requirements were
listed as a reason for Chinese students having chosen Canada over the USA (Chen,
2006). Once these horrific acts occur, fear and safety concerns as well as protection-
ism diffuse into the regional, national and international communities.

Goals and Objectives of This Study

In Canada, there is a need to research the patterns of international student choice
and whether services have met pre-disposed expectations. To accomplish this
 International Students: The Canadian experience 193

mission, the authors administered a voluntary questionnaire to a convenience

sample of foreign students from various regions of Canada to collect data to address
the following three questions:

(1) How does Canada fare against its competitors?

(2) What was the degree of concordance between information rendered at pre-
departure and post-arrival points?
(3) What factors attracted the international student to his/her institution?

The input received on those questions will provide a template allowing for an analysis
of the students’ experiences and decision patterns. Numerous studies conducted with
domestic students have shown that institutions always benefit from learning from
their main stakeholders and usually make the necessary adjustments to accommodate
both parties. These types of studies help to establish Canada’s responsiveness to the
requirements of their students. Improvements are always required in a continuous
effort to fine tune our commitment in providing a good experience and quality educa-
tion to these newcomers.

Literature Review
Globalisation
In our case, Alderman (2001) provides a very accurate definition of globalisation
which is: “the trend whereby national providers of higher education, hitherto
restricted to providing their services within the national boundaries of the countries
in which they are located, have been able to export these services to other countries”
(p. 1). However, globalisation can also be linked to various other postsecondary policy
shifts such as: internationalisation, trans-national education, international quality
assurance, entrepreneurial approaches, regional and interregional co-operation, infor-
mation technology and issues of equity and access (McBurnie, 2001). In the 1980s
and 90s, the world faced a growing trend of globalisation where great dividing barriers
between countries began to collapse. Economic and trade treaties were signed, for
example: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), American Free Trade
Agreement (AFTA), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) whereas,
similarly after the fall of Communism and the Berlin Wall, the economic powerhouse
of the European Union began to emerge. As well, the next political imperative, the
Bologna Process, will set constant educational frameworks throughout the European
Union, facilitating transfer and comparability between tertiary institutions and their
programmes (Kettunen & Kantola, 2006; Yorke, 2005).
In retrospect, the elimination of isolationism helped broaden the political ideals
of the free-market economies and neo-liberalism (Kwiek, 2001) hence, introducing
external influences from the market to higher education. This shift in political
philosophy was determined to limit the role of the state which for higher education
was shifting the financial burden to universities that would dutifully spread the
responsibility to foreign and domestic students (Sidhu & Matthews, 2005). The
194 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

removal of these barriers aided in the growth of our knowledge-based economies for
two reasons: (1) lowered barriers allowing for developing countries to provide
certain goods in the economy at an unmatchable price; (2) governments reduced
their protectionism behaviour for certain manufacturing industries. Consequently,
this resulted in industrialised countries having to rely on their competitive advan-
tage, an expertise in developing knowledge-based industries. The UK’s white paper
“The future of higher education” denotes the following about this trend: “Society is
changing. Our economy is becoming ever more knowledge-based—we are increas-
ingly making our living through selling high-value services, rather than physical
goods. These trends demand a more highly-skilled workforce” (Department of
Education and Skills, 2003, p. 58). Therefore, there is a necessity to develop/attract
the best students and academics in the world to ensure our advantage in this transi-
tional economy, an essential shift from our natural resources to assets of intellectual
human capital.
In recent decades, many of the Asian countries, wishing to participate in this
knowledge economy, specifically for its economic spill-over, have realised that
there is a need for certain skill sets. However, the problem lies in that these coun-
tries have limited capacity to enrol their students and in most part have not been
able to meet a growing demand for postsecondary education. From 1980 to 1995,
Asian countries did not have the educational capacity to handle the increasing
demand for postsecondary education; therefore, these students represented 52% of
the 60.8% worldwide increase in the flow of foreign students (Bennell & Pearce,
2003). Furthermore, this publication highlighted that 42% of the worldwide
increase of international students was in the European states, the original stalwart
developers of such abroad study programmes as ERASMUS/SOCRATES (Bennell
& Pearce).
Thus, globalisation has internationalised academic mobility resulting in students
having the opportunity to study in most countries (Altbach, 2004; Enders, 2004).
Hence, this decision to leave may be the result of the lack of quality education in the
source country, as well as political and economic disparities (Halliday, 1999; Portes,
1976). Unfortunately, some of the top students from developing countries have
stayed abroad upon the completion of their studies, further enabling and intensifying
these issues (Altbach, 2004; Halliday, 1999). Supporting this trend, Cheng and
Yang (1998) believed the articulation of higher education between a more developed
country and a less developed country has made the students more employable in
their host country due to their body of scientific knowledge, common research
methods and style of thinking. Consequently, many students choose to remain in
their host countries because of greater societal flexibility, quality of life, stable
government and professional opportunities (Alberts & Hazen, 2005).

International Education as a Business

The growth of studying abroad has provided further economic stimuli to certain
regions, namely those in the north that have a strong English language education
 International Students: The Canadian experience 195

(Altbatch, 2004; Bennell & Pearce, 2003; Halliday, 1999; Van Damme, 2000).
Currently, this concentration of English education has been beneficial to the following
countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the UK and the USA
(Altbach, 2004; Chen & Barnett, 2000; Eastman, 2003; Halliday, 1999). For exam-
ple, it is estimated that Canada exports $3.5 billion of education (Eastman, 2003)
which is substantially less than Australia, the UK and the USA. Highlighting the value
of this service, Deputy Secretary General of the OECD, Berglind Ásgeirsdóttir,
recently reported that in 2003, the 2.3 million global international students were
generating $40 billion in export income (Labi, 2005).
The current corporate model of focusing on growing market share, maintaining
one’s reputation and increasing export revenues may retard the advancement of
many developing countries. Furthermore, this entrenches the current practice that
allows more affluent individuals to purchase the competitive advantage of foreign
education, perpetuating the income stratification in these countries (Chen &
Barnett, 2000; Van Damme, 2000). Chiefly, there are various positive and negative
factors that affect the host and the source countries with a permanent displacement
of their students. Hence, this dilemma of attracting and retaining their elite talent
has also been consequential to Canada due to the fact that within three years of
graduation, an estimated 12% of the doctoral graduates from 1995 had left Canada
for the USA (Finnie, 2001). This can be explained by specific market externalities,
not the least, the personnel mobility and business opportunities created by
NAFTA.
The growing demands of globalisation have instilled an increase of global migra-
tion, and competition for higher education students, resulting in a need for all western
countries to market their systems by differentiating their education product from their
competitors (Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002). In general, there are five differentiation
characteristics controllable by all tertiary education institutions, namely: faculty
composition and development, curriculum content, instructional resources, student
recruitment and placement and faculty’s intellectual contributions (Settoon & Wyld,
2004, p. 343). A mélange of these factors is required to create a niche in this ever
evolving competitive world of higher education in order to attract the best talent from
abroad (Pulley, 2003). Overall, Bulotaite (2003) explains image management to be
the key to a successful branding process based on a unique communicative identity
(p. 454).
National brands of higher education have been strongly marketed overseas in
order for universities to recruit their share of the forecasted international student
growth. These elite institutions, from a handful of countries, have strongly
marketed their reputation and namesake to the world. The students unknowingly
will choose the credentials of a prestigious university because he or she may be left
unaware of the comparative undergraduate teaching quality at other institutions
(Marginson, 2006). For example, Canada has only four universities ranked in the
top 100 of the Shanghai Jiao Tong World Universities 2006 rankings and those are
University of Toronto (24th), University of British Columbia (36th), McGill
(62nd) and McMaster (90th) (Institute of Higher Education, 2006). Meanwhile
196 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

these institutions have relatively large undergraduate classes in the first few years of
study. Also, there are smaller institutions, for instance King’s University College,
which offer a strong quality experience with very small class sizes. These two types
of educational experience are quite distinct but one will certainly be more person-
able and be more adapted to the needs of a student than the other.

Methodology and Sample Demographics

A questionnaire using a five-point semantic differential scale (Likert or Likert-like)
was used to establish the respondents’ endorsement of particular opinions with
respect to their university. The questionnaire, for this exploratory study, was made
available on-line to all students from participating universities. Taking into account
this growing flow of international students confronted by a lack of national capacity,
our study consisted of a diverse group of respondents from 73 countries and all 6
continents. Succinctly, the top five source countries in our sample were China (and
Hong Kong) at 25.1%, followed by India at 12.3%, Japan at 4.2% and the USA and
Malaysia at 3.6%.
Students were made aware of the existence of this study through the usual institu-
tional communication channels utilised by respective international offices. The
website included a very short abstract explaining the project and contact informa-
tion. The project allowed each student the opportunity to view all questions before
submitting any results. It is expected that the equation between expectations and in
vivo experiences will not always be balanced, that is, expectations will be surpassed
in some cases and unmet in others. For this study, the authors chose to use: (1)
percentages to illustrate the respondents’ demographics and global student percep-
tions; (2) frequency tables to present the data for service assessments; (3) factor
analysis to illustrate the significant themes for choosing an institution; (4) analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to compare the factor constructs between undergraduate and
graduate students; (5) dependent t-tests to signify whether a difference exists
between pre-arrival expectations and in vivo experiences for arrival services; and (6)
descriptive statistics to provide additional detailed information about respondents’
choices to illustrate the positive response frequencies between expectations and in
vivo experiences. These analytical tools will help to explain the responses obtained
from our sample of 359 respondents.

Results and Discussion

How does Canada Fare Against its Competitors?
Canada’s main global competitors, for prestigious institutions as well as mass-
education, are the following (Van Damme, 2000): the USA, Australia and the UK.
These countries, including Canada, have an advantage for a multitude of reasons
(Eastman, 2003; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002): strong international reputation with
excellent MBA, engineering and computer science programmes and all courses
 International Students: The Canadian experience 197

offered in English (except for a few universities in Canada mainly in the province of
Quebec and a handful of others scattered in other provinces). Therefore, an important
factor in competing against similar services and products is the pricing. Subsequently,
a recent publication from IDP Education Australia calculated the total costs of
sought-after degrees for the major competitors stated above (Follari, 2004); these are
shown below in Table 1.
As Table 1 shows, Canada offers its educational services at the lowest prices in
half of the programme categories except for three; only the UK provides a less
expensive Master of Engineering; both the USA and the UK offer a less pricey
Master of Information Technology and Australia a less costly MBA.
The questions at the beginning of the survey were aimed at gathering basic demo-
graphic data to establish the profile of our respondents. Here is the portrait it
yielded—sex: male = 50.4%, female = 49.6%; average age = 24.57 (range, 17–56);
type of students: full-time students = 94.1%, exchange = 5.6% and English as a
second language (ESL) = 0.3%; level of education: undergraduate = 66.6%,
master’s = 17.1% and PhD = 16.3%.
Then, the survey moved into more specific questions and issues that international
students have to face before their arrival and during their enrolment at a particular
institution. Table 2 looks at how Canada is perceived vis-à-vis its three main
competitors.
Canada seems to have done well in its “openness to foreign students”, “security
concerns” and “visa availability”. The USA and the UK have increased their domes-
tic security because of terrorist attacks as well as their participation in the Iraq War.
These two factors have resulted in the enactment of legislation to limit the opportu-
nities for potential terrorists to enter their respective countries. For example, the USA
now charges a US $100 Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
fee to help defray some of the costs relating to the validation of the verification of
international students. One of the respondents to our study provided further feedback

Table 1. Comparative costs per annum

USA

Item UK Australia Private Public Canada Rank

aCost of living (per $11,152 $9,519 $8,989 $8,925 1
annum)
Total median costs (living + studying)
Bachelor in $91,670 $90,019 $167,828 $119,882 $81,037 1
Engineering
Bachelor in IT $91,208 $61,818 $110,292 $59,909 1
Master of Engineering $31,319 $46,013 $41,771 $64,249 $40,215 2
Master of IT $31,136 $45,296 $30,052 $35,364 3
MBA $42,870 $33,856 $92,580 $69,085 $39,844 2

aFigures in US$.
198 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

Table 2. Perception of Canada compared to its competitors

USA UK Australia

What is your perception of Canada

compared to: Better Worse Better Worse Better Worse

1. Openness to foreign students 73.1 26.9 65.6 34.4 63.8 36.2

2. Security concerns 73.1 26.9 74.1 25.9 75.8 24.2
3. Visa availability 70.8 29.2 62.6 37.4 60.9 39.1
4. Costs to study 68.1 31.9 66.1 33.9 52.1 47.9
5. Quality of universities 50.5 49.5 58.2 41.8 71.3 28.7
6. International reputation 49.7 50.3 54.5 45.5 70.3 29.7
7. Value of degree in your country 45.0 55.0 57.4 42.6 70.2 29.8

on the international student’s decision. This individual believed that it was easier to
immigrate to Canada; later if the person wished, he/she could emigrate to the USA.
The USA seems to be comparable to Canada in the “quality of universities” and
“international reputation” but has a greater “value of degree” in its country citizen-
ship. The USA is arguably unmatched in size and reputation in terms of their elite
private and land-grant institutions, whereas Canada offers a homogeneous quality of
education. The UK is relatively close to Canada on the “international reputation”
item and trails slightly on “quality of universities” and “value of degree”. Overall,
Canada fares well on these characteristics vis-à-vis its main competitors. It could be
that international students are truly content with their choice; that they don’t want to
admit that perhaps they could have made a better choice; or that they ignore what
other countries have to offer. What counts is the fact that their level of satisfaction is
reasonably high.
To maintain their competitive advantages, universities and colleges must not
underestimate the needs of the students/customers. Accordingly, this would include
the creation of services and programmes which would minimise student attrition
and maximise the student experience. Bélanger, Mount, and Wilson (2002) stated
that: “In that increasingly constricting fiscal environment, the competition for
recruiting and retaining the “right” students has also increased on the basis that
money to a large extent follows the student” (p. 228). The heterogeneity of interna-
tional students offers added responsibility to the university community in preparing
culturally sensitive materials and programmes. A recent study from Australia
concluded that a difference existed between what the students perceived to be of
great importance and what was compiled by administrators in the student booklet
(Gatfield, Barker, & Graham, 1999). Levitz, Noel, and Richter (1999) claimed that
“An unhappy student who drops out has not only fallen short of meeting a personal
goal, but also may negatively influence others about their future choice of that insti-
tution” (p. 32). The effect on institutional image is reliant on contact factors such
as faculty members, other employees, facilities and services (Nguyen & LeBlanc,
2001).
 International Students: The Canadian experience 199

Was the Information Rendered for Pre-departure and Post-arrival Adequate?

Another objective of this survey was aimed at evaluating the quality of the informa-
tion and services provided by the institution to students on pre-departure and upon
their arrival. Table 3 illustrates how the foreign students rated their host universities
in terms of the following variables:
Table 3 illustrates that Canadian universities have generally been rated favourably
in most of the variables chosen. Universities have done well in the areas of the inter-
national student office, providing information from the department, and/or having a
contact person within the department. However, there are three variables that
should be highlighted as areas for improvement such as: assistance in locating your
housing, tuition, incidental and government fees explanation and department
website for questions and answers. All these variables have a negativity factor of over
20% and a higher neutral factor, illustrating areas that should be further diagnosed
and improved.
Table 4 uses a dependent t-test to illustrate whether a significant difference exists
between the student’s expectation and actual experience.
In this analysis, the t-critical value for a one-tailed test (α = 0.01) is −2.33; thus,
any t-value which is less than or equal to the above t-critical value would be consid-
ered significant. Looking at our results, the authors can readily deduce that 10 out of
11 cases were significant; as a result, a significant difference exists between actual
experience and prior expectations which indicate expectations are not being met.
Although these results can be viewed negatively, additional analysis to investigate
these institutional implications even further was warranted. Looking at these
responses as shown in Table 5, the authors noticed that the aggregate percentage for
the positive responses relating to service expectations were very high.
Table 5 illustrates that in most cases the positive responses for the actual services
rendered were above 50%, which is reasonably good. Meanwhile, the positive
responses for prior expectations for all services are all near or above 60%; conse-
quently, this may be an underlying construct in their expectations not being met.
Three explanations come to the forefront: first, prior expectations are heightened

Table 3. Assessment of information and services

Information and services Negatively Neutral Positively

1. International Student Office services and information 9.9 25.0 65.1

2. Departmental information relating to your studies 13.4 25.6 61.0
3. Contact person from your department 17.0 22.5 60.5
4. Process to obtain a student visa or related document 15.9 25.5 58.6
5. University website for questions and answers 14.5 27.5 58.1
6. Explanation of location of your university 14.2 29.9 55.8
7. Information on weather and temperature 17.8 28.6 53.6
8. Department website for questions and answers 23.4 31.9 44.7
8. Tuition, incidental and government fees explanation 23.1 32.2 44.7
10. Assistance in locating your housing 27.7 30.6 41.7
 Table 4. Actual experience vs. prior expectations

Upon your arrival, please rate the following: Paired differences

95% CI of the
difference

No. Pairs (μ1 = Actual experience; μ2 = Prior expectations) Mean SD Lower Upper t-test

1.* Town shopping information: actual experience −0.55 1.30 −0.69 −0.41 −7.52
Town shopping information: prior expectations
2.* University assistance in locating your housing: actual experience −0.50 1.25 −0.63 −0.36 −7.09
University assistance in locating your housing: prior expectations
3.* Airport/bus pickup: actual experience −0.45 1.39 −0.60 −0.29 −5.63
200 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

Airport/bus pickup: prior expectations

4.* Support to finish paperwork: actual experience −0.32 1.17 −0.45 −0.19 −4.85
Support to finish paperwork: prior expectations
5.* Counseling services: actual experience −0.35 1.29 −0.49 −0.21 −4.82
Counseling services: prior expectations
6.* Government officials: actual experience −0.30 1.35 −0.44 −0.15 −3.94
Government officials: prior expectations
7.* Easy to locate services: actual experience −0.23 1.14 −0.35 −0.10 −3.59
Easy to locate services: prior expectations
8.* University information sessions: actual experience −0.19 1.08 −0.31 −0.07 −3.20
University information sessions: prior expectations
9.* Registration: actual experience −0.19 1.15 −0.32 −0.07 −3.00
Registration: prior expectations
10.* Finding phone, Internet, cable services: actual experience −0.18 1.19 −0.31 −0.05 −2.64
Finding phone, Internet, cable services: prior expectations
11. Computer services: actual experience −0.02 1.22 −0.15 0.11 −0.32
Computer services: prior expectations

*Paired significance at α = 0.01.

 International Students: The Canadian experience 201

Table 5. Positive responses for arrival services

Positive responses (good + excellent)

Actual experience Prior expectations Difference

Arrival services (%) (%) (%)

University assistance in locating your housing 42.2 66.3 −24.0

Town shopping information 36.3 58.5 −22.2
Airport/bus pickup 42.3 59.7 −17.4
Counseling services 52.3 68.6 −16.3
Support to finish paperwork 51.5 67.2 −15.7
Government officials 52.0 65.3 −13.4
Registration 67.0 76.2 −9.3
Finding phone, Internet, cable services 57.1 66.2 −9.1
Easy to locate services 58.0 66.4 −8.4
University information sessions 61.7 68.9 −7.2
Computer services 77.5 75.7 1.8

because of the elevated tuition fees paid by these individuals coming from abroad;
second, institutions are priming up pre-arrival expectations by producing flashy and
perhaps unrealistic communication materials to attract them; or third, there is a
semantic gap in that a “positively” response as shown in Table 3 was a notch or two
below a “good or excellent” response as tallied in Table 4. Whatever the reason, there
are three services that could be ameliorated: university assistance in locating your
housing, town shopping information and airport/bus pickup. It should be noted that
the actual experience for computer services surpassed the expectations of international
students.
In summary, the Canadian universities seem to have performed well and have
received relatively positive results from the students on the services rendered. With
these findings, the authors hope that continued institutional betterment could result
in an experience that would rival if not eclipse our competitors in the foreign student
market.

What Factors Attracted the International Student to His/Her Institution?

This section explores how foreign student decisions weigh heavily on certain internal
and external factors. The ability for universities to better understand the choice
patterns of international students will allow for cost savings in marketing and for the
process to become more efficient and customer satisfaction oriented. According to
Chapman’s Model of Student College Choice, when the student chooses an institu-
tion, the following three underlying external factors are an intricate part of the selec-
tion (Chapman, 1981, p. 492): “(1) the influence of significant persons (parents,
friends); (2) the fixed characteristics of the institution (cost, financial aid, location,
availability of program); and (3) the institution’s own effort to communicate with
prospective students (written information, campus visit, admission/recruiting)”.
202 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

Most of these factors may be controlled by the universities except for location; it
would be quite difficult to move an entire university but not impossible to ameliorate
the surrounding environment. A recent study also concluded that disappointing a
student with reference to aid expectations may negatively affect his or her decision of
enrolment (Desjardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2006). Menon (2004) identified in her
study that students with lower socio-economic status (SES) spent more time
engaged in information search about their decision. In selecting a department,
Medalia (1968) believed that “choices of majors are evaluated in terms of the degree
to which they represent “winning” or “failing to win” the student’s initial curricular
objective” (p. 289).
A decision to study abroad is dissected by most students in an attempt to find the
best educational fit. In many countries, the opportunity to travel and visit these
potential campuses are limited by cost barriers. Therefore, the student must rely on
certain factors that will enable his/her ability to make a decision. These are mostly
external factors that will aid in the decision process explained by the “push” factors
as well as “pull” factors. These unique factors, featured in Table 6, have been
researched by McMahon (1992) as well as by Mazzarol and Soutar (2002):
The “push” factors play a fundamental role for international students in their
decision-making process. In the same train of thought, the three following factors
summarised by Teichler (1999, p. 8) help attract or repel students: “the ups and
down of the nation state, international power and domination, and support by inter-
nal political forces”.
The level of economic wealth provides the financial assets to attend higher educa-
tion. Canada may have an advantage due to the relatively low costs of attendance
and limited immigration barriers. Attendance may also be linked to a country’s

Table 6. Enrollment “push” and “pull” factors

Push factors Pull factors

1. Level of economic strength 1. Institutional reputation

2. Level of involvement of the developing 2. Recognition of qualifications
country’s economy vis-à-vis the global
economy
3. A national interest in education 3. Personal recommendation from family and
friends
4. Host country’s dependency linkages 4. Cost issues (living expenses, etc.)
5. Host country’s economic links with home 5. Social costs
country
6. Ability to gain entry to local programmes 6. Environment
7. Better understanding of the West 7. Geographical proximity to home country
8. Intention to migrate 8. Institutional link or alliance with familiar
institutions
9. Institutional alumni base and word-of-mouth
referral process
10. Number of students
 International Students: The Canadian experience 203

economic prosperity, for example, a developing economy, similar to China, could

supply government sponsorship for a student to study abroad. In our study, 10.7%
of our respondents received funding from the government to attend universities
while 65.4% found their cost expectations to be realistic. The multicultural nature of
Canada provides a heightened experience by having a pre-established community in
most of our metropolitan areas. Thus, the international student knows that there is a
strong link with his/her particular culture. In addition, Canada offers a relatively safe
environment with greater openness to all ethnicities by virtue of its large ethnic
population.
The costs of attending seem to be an important factor in choosing a university for
international students. Chen (2006) highlighted some of the following reasons for
East Asian students to matriculate their graduate studies at University of Toronto
and York: university’s reputation, financial aid, programme’s reputation, university
rankings, etc. Furthermore, research illustrates that for international students, SES
continues to play an important if not pre-dominant role in the choice of their institu-
tion (Menon, 2004); therefore, those less affluent may have to prioritise their choice
of country by the total costs of attendance which places Canada in the forefront.
Although, cost would likely hamper many countries, the USA is partly immune to
these effects because the majority of their foreign students are attending graduate
schools. Therefore, in many cases graduate assistantships providing full-tuition
waivers are employed to minimise costs.
The authors chose to employ factor analysis as a data reduction method to
decrease the number of variables. This technique aims at simplifying the analysis by
decreasing the number of items. Also, this statistical tool aids in highlighting a few
important points out of series of questions. The results of our factor analysis on vari-
ables which affected the student’s decision to attend his or her institution are listed
in Table 7.

Table 7. Factor analysis of various characteristics

Factor loading

Variables (N = 359) 1 2 3

Institutional characteristics (Cronbach’s alpha = .515)

Reputation .755
Location .582
Programme .634
Size of institution .527
Schooling costs (Cronbach’s alpha = .721)
Tuition .809
Other costs .874
Academic environment (Cronbach’s alpha = .528)
Scholarship .711
Supervisor .825
204 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

Table 8. ANOVA between undergraduate and graduate students

Constructs F-ratio Significance

Institutional characteristics 1.663 .198

Schooling costs 9.872 .002

Academic environment 74.039 .000

In our case, the authors retained eight items representing some factors that could
be influential in choosing an institution. In this case, these variables were placed in
three scales illustrated in our factor analysis, all having Eigenvalues of 1 or greater.
The next step was to choose those variables with factor loading greater than 0.50
with their selected component as shown in the table above. Then, the authors used
the Cronbach’s alpha to measure whether the factor analysis construct groupings
were reliable. This was achieved by analysing inter-item correlations within each
category. Results indicate that “schooling cost” variables had higher reliability (.721)
than “institutional characteristics” (.515) and “academic environment” (.528).
Subsequently, the authors compared the means of the undergraduate and graduate
students for these three underlying constructs. The results of the ANOVA test are
provided in Table 8.
The authors can conclude that there is a difference in the means between graduate
and undergraduate students when dealing with “schooling costs” (factor 2) and
“academic environment” (factor 3) because the p-values for significance are smaller
than the alpha level of 0.05. In other words, “schooling costs” and “academic envi-
ronment” are likely to produce different patterns of institutional selection between
undergraduate and graduate students, whereas “institutional characteristics” were
not a discriminating factor between the two levels of students. These results illustrate
that further research would be beneficial to investigate the existing differences in
student choices pattern for undergraduate vis-à-vis their graduate counterparts with
regards to the following two factors: schooling costs and academic environment.

Conclusion
In higher education, the concept of marketing and reputation allows the institution
to attract the best faculty, students and administration in the marketplace as well as
a slew of fund providers. This proves to be the life blood of most institutions. There
are few elite universities in Canada which are able to poach faculty and students from
other primary undergraduate, comprehensive and medical/doctoral institutions. But
there are far more solid institutions that thrive due to a culture, a unique feature, a
 International Students: The Canadian experience 205

specialised programme or a location. Davies and Hammack (2005) surmises that

Canadian students are competing to enter more selective fields at universities and not
the university itself contrary to the decision of many international students.
Globalisation provides new avenues to learn about diverse cultures. The current
market trends are to reward students with a broad cultural background. International
student programmes must become more accountable for providing suitable services
to these individuals who are paying hefty fees to have the privilege of participating in
our system. It is important because: “The success of an institution and the success of
its students are inseparable” (Levitz et al., 1999, p. 1). The authors continue by
saying: “Institutions that take this credo seriously, commit the institution—and every
individual in it, from the president to the faculty members to support staff—to a path
of radical and permanent change” (Levitz et al., 1999, p. 1).
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) must also admit
that there are strong economic factors to harnessing this exportation of higher
education; this current reality is not evident in their current narrative of developing
skill sets for foreign countries. Nokkala and Uppstrom (2003) state the following
about this claim:
Many developing and transition countries are at the risk of being further marginalised
because their higher education systems are not capable of capitalising knowledge at the
same rate as those of the developing countries. The emphasis on competition and
market values rather than co-operation in higher education have also been seen as
threatening the collaborative aid given to the higher education systems of the developing
countries …. (p. 5)
Colleges and universities cannot forget this path: “Globalisation cannot be
completely avoided. History shows that when universities shut themselves off from
economic and societal trends they become moribund and irrelevant” (Altbach,
2004, p. 6). Therefore, whether Canadian universities are servicing domestic or
international students, these institutions must recognise that student’s needs are
sometimes identical, at other times completely different. Accountability requires
continuous monitoring and assessment of these services in order to meet everyday
challenges of all students studying in Canada.

References
Advisory Council on Science and Technology. (1999). Stepping up: Skills and opportunities in the
knowledge economy. Ottawa: Industry Canada.
Alberts, H. C., & Hazen, H. D. (2005). ‘There are always two voices …’: International students’
intentions to stay in the United States or return to their home countries. International Migration,
43, 131–154.
Alderman, G. (2001). The globalization of higher education: Some observations regarding the free
market and national interest. Higher Education in Europe, 26(1), 47–52.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world.
Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3–25.
Arimoto, A. (2005). Globalization, academic productivity and higher education reforms. In A.
Arimoto, F. Huang, & K. Yokoyama (Eds.), Globalization and higher education (pp. 1–22).
Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University.
206 P. J. Madgett and C. Bélanger

Bélanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary Education
and Management, 8, 217–230.
Bennell, P., & Pearce, T. (2003). The internationalization of higher education: Exporting education
to developing and transitional economies. International Journal of Educational Development, 23,
215–232.
Bulotaite, N. (2003). University heritage: An institutional tool for branding and marketing. Higher
Education in Europe, 28(4), 449–454.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52(5),
490–505.
Chen, L.-H. (2006). Attracting East Asian students to Canadian graduate schools. Canadian Journal
of Higher Education, 36(2), 77–105.
Chen, T.-M., & Barnett G. A. (2000). Research on international student flows from a macro
perspective: A network analysis of 1985, 1989 and 1995. Higher Education, 39, 435–453.
Cheng, L., & Yang, P. Q. (1998). Global interaction, global inequality, and migration of the
highly trained to the United States. International Migration Review, 32(3), 626–653.
Conference Board of Canada. (2003, July). Solving Canada’s innovation conundrum: How public
education can help. Ottawa: Author.
Davies, S., & Hammack, F. M. (2005). The channeling of student competition in higher education
comparing Canada and the U.S. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 89–106.
Department of Education and Skills. (2003). The future of higher education. Norwich: The Licensing
Division, HMSO.
Desjardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2006). An integrated model of application,
admission, enrollment, and financial aid. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 381–429.
Eastman, J. (2003). Strategic management of universities? Canadian society for the study of higher
education. Professional File, 24, 1–55.
Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent develop-
ments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47, 361–382.
Finnie, R. (2001). The brain drain: Myths and reality – What it is and what should be done. Institute
for Research on Public Policy, 7(6), 3–29.
Follari, M. (2004). Comparative costs of higher education for international student 2004. Australia:
IDP Education Australia.
Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication impact for university
advertising materials. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), 73–79.
Halliday, F. (1999). The chimera of the ‘International University’. International Affairs, 75(1),
99–120.
Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong World Universities. (2006). Academic rankings
of world universities. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/
ARWU2006_Top100.htm
Institute of International Education. (2005). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://opendoors.iienet-
work.org/?p=69692
Kettunen, J., & Kantola, M. (2006). The implementation of the Bologna process. Tertiary Education
and Management, 12(3), 257–267.
Kitagawa, F. (2004). Universities and the learning region: Creation of knowledge and social capital
in the learning society. Hototsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 36(1), 9–28.
Kwiek, M. (2001). Globalization and higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 26(1), 28–38.
Labi, A. (2005, December 6). International agencies propose guidelines for cross-border higher
education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 8, 2005, from http://
chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120606n.htm
Lagendijk, A., & Cornford, J. (2000). Regional institutions and knowledge: Tracking new forms of
regional development policy. Geoforum, 31, 209–218.
Levitz, R. S., Noel, L., & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. New Direction
for Higher Education, 108, 31–49.
 International Students: The Canadian experience 207

Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher
Education, 52, 1–39.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, N. G. (2002). ‘Push-Pull’ factors influencing international student
destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90.
McBurnie, G. (2001). Globalization: A new paradigm for higher education. Higher Education in
Europe, 26(1), 12–26.
McMahon, M. E. (1992). Higher education in a world market: An historical look at the global
context of international study. Higher Education, 24(4), 465–482.
Medalia, N. Z. (1968). Choice of college major by contest mobility. Sociology of Education, 41(3),
282–290.
Menon, M. E. (2004). Information search as an indication of rationality in student choice of
higher education. Education Economics, 12(3), 267–283.
Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in
students’ retention decisions. International Journal of Education Management, 15(6/7), 303–311.
Nokkala, T., & Uppstrom, T. (2003, August). Internationalisation of higher education in the Nordic
countries: Cooperation and competition. Paper presented at the 25th EAIR Forum, Limerick,
Ireland.
Portes, A. (1976). Determinants of the brain drain. International Migration Review, 10(4), 489–508.
Pulley, J. L. (2003, October 24). Romancing the brand. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(9),
A30–A32.
Scott, P. (2005). The global dimension: Internationalising higher education. In Barbara M. Kehm
& Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global
perspective (pp. 8–22). Drukkerij Raddraaier, Amsterdam: EAIR and EAIE.
Settoon, R. P., & Wyld, D. C. (2004). The leader of the band: The pivotal role of the academic
department head in the pursuit of continuous improvement and innovation in business
education. College Student Journal, 38(3), 339–348.
Sidhu, R., & Matthews, J. (2005). International education for what? Under what conditions? The
global schoolhouse project. Social Alternatives, 25(4), 6–12.
Srikatanyoo, N., & Gnoth, J. (2002). National branding country image and international tertiary
education. Brand Management, 10(2), 139–146.
Teichler, U. (1999). Internationalisation as a challenge for higher education in Europe. Tertiary
Education and Management, 5, 5–23.
Tremblay, K. (2005). International student mobility in non-EU OECD countries. In Barbara M.
Kehm & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the
global perspective (pp. 26–52). Drukkerij Raddraaier, Amsterdam: EAIR and EAIE.
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 4, 1–20.
Yorke, M. (2005). Formative assessment in higher education: Its significance for employability,
and steps towards its enhancement. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(3), 219–238.