Conventionally it is true that the availability of the financial assistance and the cost of attendance are the factors determining the student persistence, behavior, attainment and retention. Whenever the price of education is lowered while the financial aid increased, the student's achievement will rise and vice versa. Most research does mixed questions about the effects of funding of higher education on the student's behavior, retention and attainment (Thomas, E., 2012). This study examines the impact of funding of the higher education effect students behavior, achievement and retention. The results thus show no evidence that the level of funding of the higher education effects rates of retention and attainment of the student.
Introduction
This research starts with what appeared to be a comparatively quiet, sincere question. The question was whether or not the funding of higher education would effect the student attainment, behavior and retention to a certain level (Thomas, E., 2012). There has been a design of increase in the enrolment of the new comers in their first year of studies then followed by rapid drop as they continued to the upper level of university education due to financial reasons (Bryman, Alan,2016).This changes has seen in different universities and colleges for instance the university of Canada allows for the registration of more first years and the number do reduce randomly over the years of their study. The question also make sense as just below 40 percent of students in different universities were the one who usually benefits from the financial funding of their education by different stakeholders and the rest were privately sponsored. (Bryman, Alan,2016).
Literature review
The conventional wisdom is the cost of attendance and the availability of monetary assistance are among the factors, either directly or indirectly, in the resolution of student behavior and further that the price-response equation will, therefore, be considered as flexible (Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007). That is, as the cost is diminished or as financial aid is boosted, persistence will thrive, and vice versa. On closer analysis, however, we see that this assumption is an automatic extension of thinking and research about primary access. In other words, the hypothesis is that students stay in a university for the same reasons that they chose to attend it in the first place (Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007). It is here that the conventional wisdom about endurance and retention cuts down and the economic standard eventually shifts.
Research shows that perhaps 50 per cent of students decide to attend university for economic goals whether or not they are in descriptive terms to get the loan and thus returns equation right and that there are diverse other, equally powerful non-financial reasons for choice and persistence (Bryman, A., 2016). One large-scale investigation found that the description of financial aid could impact the economic incentives either positively or negatively, notwithstanding the level of education fee and how the funding helps the students (Bryman, A., 2016). For example, non-repayable aid in private United States of America colleges with high fees raised the rates of persistence above that rates in the public colleges with much lower costs (Lampard, R. and Pole, C., 2015). In Canada, two large-scale "student leaver surveys" indicated that more students who decide not to participate in post-secondary education cite non-financial than reasons for their decisions than those who do.
In 2010 a new funding prototype for higher education was introduced in Norway in response to the concerns about the cost-effectiveness of higher education, and with the intention of stimulating student progression and enhancing the advancement of new, attractive study programmers (Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M., 2013). Promoters of the reformation viewed the prior funding system as the cause of structural imbalance between research funding and education funding. In their opinion research funding had been far too closely linked to education and the number of students, allowing for too little discretion in the separate funding of research according to its particular needs and considerations (Bryman, A., 2016).
To some extent, the new funding system separates the funding of research and education within institutional block grants. This report investigates intended and unintended effects of the new funding model on higher education and the core tasks of teaching and research (Neuman, W.L., 2013). The term "effects" refers to the impacts of the model as perceived by various stakeholders (Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A., 2015). The report sums up the present points of view concerning the funding model.
In 2014 a review of the funding system was carried out in the Americans universities. The stakeholders who participated in the survey came up with the conclusions of the study approved in principle of the current funding system but called for the strengthening of its formula and lump-sum components as well as for the introduction of "qualitative" criteria. The reforms, therefore, should be accompanied by a significant increase of public expenditures, intended to compensate for the long-term underfunding of public HEIs. This proposal concentrated more than 70% of the proposed budget growth in the formula and lump-sum items (Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P., 2017) ( teaching activity, specific research and doctoral grants) while suggesting a relative decline of the programme funding. The report further advocated the distribution of a part of the resources within the university and colleges.
Main features of the funding system among the findings of our survey of academic staff, three conclusions stand out (Bryman, A., 2016). Firstly, a considerable part of academics probably do not have any definite view on the funding system – many respondents were not able to assess the system or its components as either positive or negative. Secondly, academic staff members tend to be more negative towards the funding system in general but more positive when it comes to details (Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015). Finally, the assessment becomes more positive with the ascent on the ladder of academic hierarchy as well as withholding a position in institutional governance.
According to the survey carried out by different researchers shows that approximately 50% of the respondents who participates were unable to estimate the funding system required by different universities as a whole either positively or negatively, and fewer than 25% of our respondents saw the system unquestionably, but 45% saw it negatively (Brown, G.A., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M., 2013). Those respondents who hold no opinion in academic policy are more often unable for the assessment; those respondents who hold a place in educational administration more often evaluate the financing system positively.
The current funding in different colleges and universities can be evaluated to determine their weaknesses and the strengths through a mechanism which is normally based on the responses from the open questions. (Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E. and King, N., 2015.). As a result of the evaluation by different researchers, there are some common discussed stability and the strengths which arise as a result of the funding of the higher education among the students. Though quite a number of the respondents have failed even to find any strength of the current funding systems to the higher education. It proved that the non-transparency and the insufficient expenditure are among the most factors which hinder the funding of the higher education. (Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E. and King, N., 2015).
Methods of data collection
The following are the method suggested for the data collection for the easy analysis and the resolution of the future trend;
Surveys
The survey does ask a systematic sample of the population which are concerning with the funding of the higher education and therefore set questions which can then be answered using the specific set of responses. The sample of the population may be the students, professors and the stakeholders within the education system. The surveys, therefore, ask a series of questions and provide a set of answers for each of them. They are therefore called the close-end, and they can be administered by the telephone, mail, over the web and in person.
Focus groups
This is whereby a group of individuals who are concerning with the sector will spend 2 to 3 hours in the guided discussion in a small set of questions, and they usually are have specific characteristics in common and in some cases they may have diverse on the characteristics. The interaction among the participants and how they influence each other are both parts of the data which they are interested. In some focus groups, participants complete a brief survey at the beginning to capture the information.
Web Analytics
With the growth of the internet has come to a parallel growth in methods to assess how and by whom a given Web site is being used. In this scenario, analytics can, therefore, indicate whether links are placed to let those who want to know what the research is all about. It will analyze how the funding effects students in different universities across the world since the data of the universities will be readily available for the data analytics
Conclusion
In conclusion, the funding of higher education does make a significant impact on student's behavior and retention in colleges as it regularly relies on the contractual and designated funding mechanisms to implement its policy aims. Correspondingly, it has newly raised the share of these items within the higher education budget as part of the overall increase of higher education expenditures. Its, therefore, recommended that the funding of education should start at the high school level to allow the students develop moral understanding before they joined higher education.
References
Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007. The ethics of management research: an exploratory content analysis.British Journal of Management,
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E. and King, N., 2015. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology
Brown, G.A., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M., 2013. Assessing student learning in higher education.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bryman, A., 2016. Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, Alan. Social research methods. Oxford university press, 2016.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P., 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A., 2015. Qualitative methods in business research:
Greenaway, D. and Haynes, M., 2003. Funding for higher education in the UK: The role of fees and loans.
Greenaway, D. and Haynes, M., 2014. Funding for higher education.
Lampard, R. and Pole, C., 2015. Practical social investigation:
Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C., 2017. Qualitative communication research methods. Sage publications.
Neuman, W.L., 2013. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students.
Saunders, M.L. and Lewis, P., 2009. P. & Thornhill, A.(2009). Research methods for business students,
Saunders, M.N. and Lewis, P., 2012. Researching business & management:
Saunders, M.N. and Lewis, P., 2012. Researching business & management:
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R., 2016. Research methods for business: A skill building approach.
Silverman, D., 2015. Interpreting qualitative data.
Smith, J.A. ed., 2015. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods.
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M., 2015. Introduction to qualitative research methods:
Thomas, E., 2012. Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time
Walliman, N., 2015. Social research methods: The Essentials. Sage.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M., 2013. Business research methods.
Word counts=1615
