The University as a Hub of Attraction: Examining the Influence of Localization and Family on University Choice Decisions in Hungary

Abstract

This study seeks to examine the attractiveness of higher education institutions as community spaces for students and the significance of the services they provide. It aims to explore students’ perspectives on planning their long-term futures, particularly in assessing whether the university environment serves as a stronger influence than their place of origin or family background. The role of the university is particularly significant if it is located outside the student’s town of origin, so the student’s decision to attend a particular institution is not necessarily based on the specific undergraduate program or the prestige of the university. The study combines a review of the national and international literature with an empirical investigation, utilizing a questionnaire survey to analyze students’ decision-making processes. Many students perceived the university as a transitional “island”, offering a temporary space to inhabit before embarking on their future careers. The degree obtained serves as a “passport” to professional opportunities, while the university experience provides a unique community environment and represents a significant step toward independence and separation from familial influence. These findings hold particular relevance for universities, which are continually redefining their roles in response to changing student expectations. Many students view the university not merely as a site of learning but as a precursor to adulthood and a foundational space for personal growth. This study addresses a gap in the existing literature by focusing on the appeal of universities as local hubs and comparing their influence to the retaining power of family ties, offering insights for student development.

1. Introduction

The development of universities as hubs of attraction in the process of higher education development now seems a natural development trend, as most higher education institutions are not only an integral part of a region, but also a major economic and socio-cultural factor. It is questionable, however, whether students also see this role as important; indeed, do they realize that their university of choice can be more than just a place of education? Universities have long been moving in a direction of development to promote student mobility, both at home and abroad. This strategy is also a premise of their sustainability. Internationalization is now one of the best-known manifestations of this gradual process, which has been going on for decades, but we are increasingly hearing about the Third Mission, which is not only a strategic catalyst for universities as hubs of attraction, but also an intellectual one. However, the question is still not clearly answered: if higher education development policy in general is moving in this direction and the universities’ own efforts are also increasingly effective in this area, are students also part of this process? Is it not possible that, while the institutions do, the students do not want to be part of the university community in the long-term, but rather only for the duration of their bachelor’s or master’s degree? Can we even talk about motivations that encourage students to stay (settle) in university towns and cities, so that they themselves become part of the regions shaped by the universities that are becoming hubs of attraction? In my current research, I have attempted to find some leads in order to establish the basis for a study mapping students’ career preferences with the help of certain factors.

2. Literature Review—Institutional Approach

2.1. The Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions and the Role of Mobility in Development

The internationalization of higher education has created new potential markets for students (alongside opportunities to participate in research collaborations), opened universities to market competition, and made comparison with other countries a key factor. The growing importance of knowledge production and innovation in economic life has created new potential roles for universities and challenged the traditional social privileges and monopolies they had long enjoyed (Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). It is worth considering that between the second half of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century, we can speak of three distinct periods of development in terms of universities’ integration in globalization processes, most notably in terms of student recruitment and retention. There is a link between internationalization and attraction. Knight (2014) divides this process of mobilization into three main stages: the first generation is the student mobility stage (from the 1960s to the late 1980s); the second generation is the program and service mobility stage (from the 1990s to the first decade of the 2000s); and the most recent generation is the emergence of education centers.

The development of the functions of universities as a base for student settlement is already noticeable in the first stage of student mobility described by Knight (2014)—it is no coincidence that the number of students studying internationally in the 1960s, around 238,000, rose to 4.1 million in 50 years and to 7–8 million today (OECD, 2021). Bohm et al. (2002) predicted this with sufficient accuracy at the beginning of the new millennium. The number of students, types of mobility experiences, driving motivations, and destinations have changed dramatically. With the revolution in access to information, scientific and technological strengths were increasingly seen as a competitive factor in all areas of national development. As knowledge and information are inevitably vital, higher education has become a key international link. While some nations have chosen to develop their own resources and traditions, others have chosen to pursue the academic expertise and advanced learning of other countries through overseas study (McMahon, 1992). In the early 1990s, cross-border movement of programs and providers began to increase significantly, with implications for students who could participate in higher education programs and qualifications abroad without leaving home. Examples of cross-border program mobility included twinning and franchising programs, articulation agreements, joint and dual degrees, and mass open online courses (Knight, 2014). The role of university branches, embedded learning centers, and virtual universities also grew during this period.

Education centers are the third wave of cross-border education initiatives. Education hubs build on and can encompass first and second generation cross-border activities, but represent a broader and more strategic configuration of actors and activities (Knight, 2014). National and local government forces are now making concerted and planned efforts to develop a critical mass of local and international actors to strengthen the higher education sector, expand the talent pool, and contribute to the knowledge economy. According to Knight (2011), education hubs are created and operated by local and foreign actors—including students, educational institutions, companies, knowledge industries, science and technology centers—who engage in education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives through in-depth interaction and, in some cases, co-location. There are many factors driving countries to prepare and position themselves as centers of learning and education on the competitive map of knowledge transfer. These include revenue generation, soft power, the modernization of the domestic higher education sector, economic competitiveness, the need for a skilled workforce and, most importantly, the desire to move toward a knowledge or service-based economy (Knight, 2011). To this end, universities typically develop three different types of education centers: the student center, the talent center, and the knowledge/innovation center. The student center focuses on recruiting foreign education providers and international students for training and education. The talent center (or skilled labor center) also focuses on education and training, but differs from the student center in that it encourages foreign students to stay in the host country for employment. A knowledge or innovation center extends its mandate beyond education and training to the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation (Knight, 2012).

2.2. The Third Mission of Universities

Over the past decades, there has been increasing pressure on universities to shift away from focusing primarily on teaching and conducting research and to add an ambiguous Third Mission, called ‘contributing to society’ (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). A number of challenges, such as the knowledge economy, globalization, financial, and environmental crises, have contributed to the redefinition and expansion of the mission of universities (Rubens et al., 2017). As part of this, universities have become more open to external agencies and actors, more engaged with society, and have significantly increased their economic contribution (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010). However, direct pressures for participation and relevance have not been the only ones that have been put on universities: the legitimacy, governance, marketization, internationalization, and commodification of higher education have been both a challenge and a necessity for action (Jongbloed et al., 2007).

According to Ridder-Symoens (1992), implicit in the concept of the Third Mission was already a first and a second mission: education and research. Although it may seem that universities are in a dilemma of choice regarding this trinity, in fact, the dynamics of knowledge production have changed, as have society’s attitudes toward expectations and values (Bortagaray, 2009). An integrative higher education system, complemented by a Third Mission, plays a key and complex role in enriching society, going beyond the mere definition of performance indicators for the subject matter (Brown, 2016). In addition to teaching and research, universities now work organically with their stakeholders to foster innovation, contribute to the development of human capital, and contribute to the well-being of the local and international community (Mariani et al., 2018; Rolfo & Finardi, 2014), however, they draw attention to the significant gaps and external and internal obstacles to the governance of the Third Mission. Among others, they identify that the main obstacle to universities’ interactions with industry is the difficulty of finding suitable partners. While academic performance positively influences the use of technology transfer, the contribution of technology transfer to collaborations is generally marginal. And, according to Benneworth et al. (2017), another dilemma arising from practice is even greater: universities are under so much pressure to transform every aspect of their institutional existence that it raises questions about whether the Third Mission can ever be a strategic goal.

According to Jäger and Kopper (2014), the involvement of universities in Third Mission initiatives means that the generation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge is more focused on the surrounding environment (‘local embeddedness’). However, the physical presence of universities in a given region is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social, economic, and cultural development to occur (Pinheiro et al., 2012). In fact, the local context influences both the university’s adaptation to changing external demands and circumstances and its ability to negotiate solutions (Lebeau & Cochrane, 2015). The regional logic of action of universities and their discourses of local engagement cannot be separated from the high vertical inter-institutional differentiation that characterizes the sector; this is also true for the integration of European higher education affairs, which directly affects Hungary (Teixeira, 2013). At the root of this stratification is the competitive (and now quasi-market) nature of a system in which universities compete for resources and students while being subject to rather strong forms of central regulation (Brown & Carasso, 2013). The adaptive behavior of institutions in this configuration may be exacerbated by the squeeze on direct revenues from the state, the deregulation of the student body, and the scarcity of resources from third stream activities. In such circumstances, universities may be expected to minimize their involvement in local politics, following significant funding cuts and the restructuring of regional development programs and governance (Van Vught, 2008; Koryakina et al., 2015).

According to Zomer and Benneworth (2011), when we talk about the ‘Third Mission’ of universities, we are talking about universities making a conscious and strategic contribution to society, and it is clear that over the last quarter of a century, there has been an increasing emphasis on improving the performance of their ‘Third Mission’. This emphasis is clearly driven by the wider environmental changes that universities are experiencing. However, their proactive involvement in Third Mission activities has also contributed to changing stakeholder expectations of what universities can achieve. The strategies of HEIs can show how they have re-focused their activities around core functions and areas of strength, or in line with the policy inflections of their main funder. Local community engagement, for example, is usually a significant element in the overall strategic plans of universities and may remain so for some time, but externalities, budget constraints, or specific regional governance measures and aspirations may shift them toward other considerations and preferences.

2.3. The Emergence of University Hubs as a Possible Direction of Development

Higher education institutions have essentially served since the 1970s as anchor institutions in cities’ broader efforts to create new economic sectors, attract the creative class, and build facilities that encourage market-oriented redevelopment (Ferman et al., 2021). These activities have contributed to gentrification and the displacement of neighborhoods surrounding universities, setting the context for the interrelated struggles for the right to the city and the right to the university. Students, faculty, and other university actors often join organizations and movements in the surrounding communities to resist restructuring and relocation, demonstrating a kind of local patriotism. According to Ferman et al. (2021), universities play a critical role in social, political, and economic development by generating knowledge, culture, jobs, and innovation through their primary educational and scientific research functions. They support wider efforts to influence the economy, attract the creative class, and stimulate the development of neighborhoods, cities, and regions.

Academics themselves, university employees, have been and are still concerned with the contribution of universities to society in the development of Third Mission activities and new institutional positioning. This includes all of the social, entrepreneurial, and innovative activities that universities undertake alongside their teaching and research missions (Lange, 2021). As the number of students and staff has grown and universities have sought to develop sustainable development in cities and regions, they have begun to develop multi-campus systems of geographically dispersed units with a common organizational identity to support research and teaching activities, and in many cases, these have evolved into what are now called university hubs (Ağlargöz, 2016).

In terms of stakeholders, the university centers can be considered as hybrid due to their complex governance structure. They combine a top-down approach, where their establishment is heavily dependent on the will of private (i.e., foundations and associations, etc.) and public organizations (e.g., the university, the municipality, and other priority institutions), but also have a bottom-up approach, whereby several members can propose independently on their own initiative. The study by Migliore et al. (2024), for example, illustrates the functioning of this hybrid system through the Italian Milano Luiss Hub project, which is an innovation of the university itself, together with the municipality, a foundation, and an association. The authors conclude that university hubs have a business model independent of the main university, involving a separate board of directors and partnerships with other organizations, such as public and private institutions responsible for educational and social activities. Like campuses and independent new workspaces/accelerators/incubators, off-campus university centers are less open to informal members (except for public events). However, off-campus university centers also help to raise the reputation of the university and improve links with local communities. The opening of a university center also helps international competitiveness: it is one of many ways to attract more students from your country and is less challenging and costly than opening your own university abroad. According to Migliore et al. (2024), in parallel with the location strategies of large companies, universities seek to improve their image in attractive locations in order to ultimately gain an advantage in terms of reputation and hub of attraction. This objective is usually reflected even in architectural features such as visual openness. Campus hubs thus attract students, employees, research companies, and industries from other regions and countries beyond the main campus site.

3. Literature Review—Individual-Centered Approach

3.1. Factors Influencing Students’ Choices

It can be seen that the way the institution operates can have a strong influence on the students’ immediate ambitions. In turn, the career path of individuals and the operating principles of organizations are determinants in the development of a career management strategy, which includes both personal and institutional efforts to improve career sustainability. In this context, Canaj et al. (2021) examined the relationship between organizational and individual career management and their impact on career sustainability, including well-being, health, and effectiveness, which are vital for long-term career success. Individual career management includes personal efforts such as goal setting, planning, networking, and job search, activities critical to career progression (Turgut & Neuhaus, 2020). However, Canaj et al. (2021) found that while both organizational and individual efforts contribute to career sustainability, organizational initiatives tend to have a more significant impact. Moreover, educational institutions benefit from systematic career management.

The modern higher education environment increasingly reflects corporate management styles, and this is also a characteristic trend in Hungary. The role of universities is no longer limited to education and research, but also includes contributing to the social and economic integration of students and teachers. This shift requires institutions to adopt management strategies similar to those of companies, emphasizing efficiency, innovation, and stakeholder involvement (Németh et al., 2023). The balance between centralization and decentralization remains a critical issue. Centralized systems, where decision-making power is concentrated, are often politically motivated to centralize power or to redistribute power through decentralization. Administratively motivated reforms aim to rationalize bureaucracy for efficiency, but as Bray (1991) notes, reducing regional disparities is generally easier in centralized systems because they provide a single control over processes. At the same time, decentralized systems encourage creativity and this can have an impact on the individual career management of students through the design of educational programs (Amanchukwu et al., 2015). The modern higher education environment increasingly reflects corporate management styles, and this is a trend in Hungary. Universities are now not only responsible for teaching and research, but also for contributing to the socio-economic integration of students and academics: a role known as the Third Mission (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). This shift requires institutions to adopt governance strategies similar to those of companies, with an emphasis on efficiency, innovation, and stakeholder engagement. This approach raises important questions about how these corporate practices influence the career choices of university applicants and how students acquire the leadership skills in these institutions that will ultimately shape the future of higher education management.

Teeroovengadum et al. (2016) developed and tested a hierarchical model to measure the quality of higher education services. HESQUAL has become a conceptual model consisting of 53 service quality attributes and allows for the application of quantitative methods. The development eventually resulted in a set of five primary dimensions, such as administrative quality, quality of the physical environment, quality of the core educational quality, quality of support facilities, and transformational quality. The study by Al-Dajani and Alsamydai (2018) investigated the different elements affecting the attractiveness of higher education institutions. In addition to institutional characteristics, economic and geographical variables, reference groups, and marketing communication, the research highlights university reputation as a determinant. Echchabi et al. (2019), however, point out that while academic and financial benefits are primary factors in the attractiveness of a higher education institution, and more specifically of a course, the reputation and “quality” of universities are only secondary considerations for students. A study by Qazi et al. (2022) found that the university environment, student guidance, and university trust significantly influence university reputation, but university reputation does not directly influence student satisfaction levels. Meanwhile, student satisfaction was also found to have a significant impact on loyalty.

Moreover, the ranking of students is not always aligned with their actual choices: in Soares’ (2021) focus group research, for example, respondents identified and ranked several key areas, including student characteristics, various external factors, institutional factors and marketing efforts. They expressed opinions on the importance of academic performance, people who influence their lives, financial support, institutional reputation, quality of education, tuition fees, scholarships, and job opportunities after graduation. These then revealed that their choice of institution was often not based on the preferences described by their own reflections.

A study by Torres and Hernández (2021) investigated the relationship between consumer brand equity and students’ intention to persist in their educational institutions. The descriptive correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between internationalization processes and students’ intention to continue their studies at the institution, suggesting that factors related to the university’s global engagement may significantly influence students’ intention to settle. The basis for this has already been partially confirmed by Chen and Barnett’s (2000) research on the 1980s and 1990s, which aimed at describing international student flows from a macro perspective by analyzing 64 countries with the highest international student exchange. Their conclusions show that the United States and most Western industrialized countries have been and remain at the center of the international student exchange network, while Central and Eastern European and Asian countries are becoming more central, with African and Middle Eastern countries remaining on the periphery. The reason for this, they argue, is that academic hegemony is in line with global economic and political performance

There is also no doubt that international and regional university rankings have become more popular, and while there is still debate about their validity, reliability, and value, universities seem to use them to build priorities and state in their strategic plans that the measurable outcome of internationalization is to achieve a particular position in one or more global ranking systems. According to Knight (2012), some institutions interpret internationalization narrowly in terms of the number of international students and focus their efforts on recruiting international students in order to gain worldwide recognition and prestige. Palmer et al. (2016) investigated how the brand equity of a university is shaped by location, social context, cultural characteristics, and historical context. Their results show that universities offering exceptional academic experiences are more likely to develop a strong brand identity, which fosters brand loyalty and greater support among students. However, Wilkins and Huisman (2015) point to the importance of personal relationships in shaping students’ perceptions of the institution and found that recommendations and peer feedback were the most influential factors in shaping institutional image.

However, it is not only a challenge for universities to increase their attractiveness, but also to get rid of negative beliefs and stereotypes about them. Lowe and Cook (2003) demonstrated this phenomenon with examples of institutional and management-perception problems that manifest when the universities’ expectations do not match the students’ readiness. In addition, different motivations for attending university, including social status, running away from home, previous academic performance and avoiding the workplace, can further complicate students’ experiences. According to their results, more than a third of the students in their studies did not find the teaching staff helpful or friendly, and nearly half did not find them sympathetic. Lack of experience can also have a significant impact on students, particularly in terms of social withdrawal, which can be influenced by factors such as long-standing shyness, conflict avoidance, and anti-social behavior—particularly in the teenage years—and can also have a negative impact on their motivation, which in turn can affect their career choices (McVarnock & Closson, 2022).

3.2. Relevant Higher Education Research in Hungary

In Hungary, prior to the last decade, the higher education research most preferred by decision-making institutions focused on the earnings and employment effects of university programs, i.e., it had a significantly economic perspective (Varga, 2010; Veroszta, 2016). The best-known examples of this are programs such as the Young Graduates Career Survey (FIDÉV), which ran for several years, and the Graduate Career Tracking System (DPR), which is still active, as well as related research (Kiss & Barizsné Hadházi, 2018).

Research that is more relevant to our topic, i.e., student-centered research that examines the decisions of applicants to higher education using a variety of factors, is typically found in youth sociology studies. Good examples of this are the studies by Nyüsti (2012) and Hordósy and Szanyi (2020), which reveal the links between students’ willingness to apply and their social background. These factors primarily include the type of secondary school attended, the highest level of education attained by the mother and father, financial situation, the perceived value of a degree, and the influence of application rates among acquaintances. According to the researchers’ findings, attitudes toward obtaining a degree are strongly determined by the quality of one’s social background. Teperics and Dorogi (2014) highlighted the strong regional fragmentation of higher education in Hungary and the prominent role of Budapest, with young people increasingly choosing Budapest as their destination when choosing a career.

Sipos et al. (2023) examined the factors influencing students’ decisions when choosing university courses and found that once students had access to relevant information and had evaluated their options, they were able to make informed decisions about which institution best suited their needs. Key criteria for them included the quantity and quality of university programs, the balance between expenses and income (tuition fees, scholarships, grants), the facilities themselves, the processes, the teachers, and, of course, the university locations (in a geographical sense). According to Kovács et al. (2014), locality is one of the most important factors in students’ choices, and many prefer institutions close to home, regardless of the university’s domestic and international reputation. This is also confirmed by earlier research by Drewes and Michael (2006), who note that applicants can be influenced by generous scholarship programs, extensive non-academic student services, and changes in admission thresholds.

The study by Rámháp et al. (2017) focused on the career motivation of secondary school students in the North Transdanubia region of Hungary, which is one of the country’s most important industrial bases, with a particular focus on the Hungarian automotive industry. The empirical research, which also used cluster analysis, identified four main groups based on the students’ responses. For respondents in the first cluster, the quality of the institution’s academic training, the prestige of the teachers and the institution were of paramount importance, while factors such as the proximity of the institution and the services it offers were not important to them (they are referred to as the “quality-oriented students” group). The second cluster had the opposite preference. The most important factors for them were the institution’s sports and leisure facilities, dormitories, and international connections, while proximity, quality, company ratings, and prestige were not important to them (“individualists”) In the third cluster, all average values were very low compared to the other clusters (“uninterested students”): here, the availability and accessibility of education and belonging to the community dominated (“social/financial security seekers”). Since our research also indicates the presence of similarly defined groups, I consider the study by Rámháp et al. (2017) to be a benchmark study in this regard.

4. Materials and Methods

After reviewing a number of international studies, focusing on research on university attractiveness and student decision-making, I decided to examine the circumstances of higher education in Hungary and try to find correlations between institutional goals and student aspirations. The written survey used in the research aimed to reveal certain preferences of students that were only partially found in the reviewed literature or not found at all. I therefore considered it important to clarify that decisions regarding further education are often not made in accordance with the intentions of institutional decision-makers. One of my longer-term goals is to map out the extent to which the needs of students admitted to higher education in Hungary match the intentions behind the current services. I was interested in the dimension of locality and family influences, so I tried to find answers in this direction to the extent to which the aspirations of students enrolled in higher education in Hungary meet the intentions behind the current services. The online questionnaire using the Likert scale had 60 variables, and I was able to process 213 valid and completed questionnaires. The samples were collected in the 2023/2024 academic year among first-year BSc students at 27 higher education institutions, with a total of 12,663 responses. The statistical program used was IBM SPSS version 27.0, and during the evaluation, I used multiple tests ranging from frequency and variance tests to correlation analysis and Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests as I also had to examine the relationships between responses grouped into specific categories.

Respondents commented on the value of university education, the value of the degree as a product, job opportunities, the importance of university prestige, localism (not only as a factor influencing school choice preferences but also as a new life opportunity), and family expectations and university as a factor compatible or opposed to family perceptions (not as an institution but as a hub of attraction). In this study, I have highlighted some of the interesting statements of the research, with the aim of demonstrating them, which I have grouped into three smaller categories: the theme of institutional training and perceptions of the degree (8 questions highlighted); the theme of identity formation and the concept of locality (9 questions highlighted); and the exploration of the intention to return or leave family ties (12 questions highlighted). A number of other issues, such as talent and merit, motivation and self-awareness, the importance of internationality and the ambition to settle abroad, the intersection of childhood dreams and family and environmental influences, were not covered in the scope of this study.

When analyzing the institutional training question group, I examined the importance students attach to the reputation of the university and how advantageous they believe the degree they can obtain at the institution to be in the labor market. The question group examining the quality of education and locality focused on everyday teaching practices and experiences and sought to obtain some kind of assessment from students on this basis. This is where the importance of everyday (material) livelihood and a positive university atmosphere come into play, and I also looked for signs that the lifestyle developed over the years could be a determining factor in staying in the area in the future, that is, whether a high-quality university life could be a prospect for future local career planning (could the university be a hub of attraction here?). In the section on family relationships, I try to point out signs of processes that are the opposite of “separation”, that is, whether plans to return home appear regardless of the quality of university life. However, it is also very important here whether the decision to choose a career path at a given university could have been influenced by the family at all, or whether it was made as a result of a decision to distance oneself from the family, either partially or completely, for some reason. I intended to primarily consider the methodology of similar Hungarian studies when compiling and grouping the questions. The most relevant studies were thus the aforementioned empirical research by Sipos et al. (2023) exploring the factors influencing students’ university course selection decisions, Kovács et al. (2014) focusing on locality, and Rámháp et al. (2017) in applying career motivation cluster analysis.

5. Results

5.1. Does It Matter Where I Go to Study?—Perception of Institutional Training

The issue of institutional prestige has been the subject of numerous international studies, and I have also mentioned it in some empirical studies (Al-Dajani & Alsamydai, 2018; Echchabi et al., 2019; Kovács et al., 2014; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Soares, 2021; Wilkins & Huisman, 2015; Qazi et al., 2022). Compared to our own results, I found that the reputation of a university can play an important role in its attractiveness, i.e., it can be a good attractor for students, whether it is a product or service brand - 55% agree and only 21% disagree among respondents (Table 1). In general, I also confirm that the vast majority of students have positive opinions about both higher education in general (e.g., value of the degree, quality of training) and their own chosen university and training. However, we should not jump to conclusions and stop investigating here for two reasons. The first is that respondents tend to talk about their feelings in the moment, in which the liberating experience of being away from home and in a supported environment, for example, plays a major role. Therefore, we cannot expect to obtain professionally comprehensive statements with a thorough knowledge of the functioning of the institution, taking into account socio-cultural and economic factors, but rather a kind of “experience report”. Another reason to be cautious about this issue is that for students, prestige is an important factor in the evaluation of an institution, but is in fact far from being the most important factor: the international studies mentioned earlier also emphasized that students tend to focus on different values than those of the providers or economic operators (Kovács et al., 2014; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Soares, 2021). University services are indispensable: a support and scholarship system that can be seen as a social safety net; a life that can be planned alongside education, including both work and leisure activities. Good human relations, including both teacher–student and student–student relations, are equally important.

Table 1. Statements of the students surveyed regarding the given university undergraduate program.

Statement		The diploma provides me with good job opportunities.	Today, the degree does not matter.	It’s not what I study that matters, but what I’ll achieve with it.	The reputation and prestige of the university are important to me.
N	Valid	213	212	213	213
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		73%	40%	69%	55%
Mean		3.9437	3.1226	3.8263	3.3944
Median		4.0000	3.0000	4.0000	4.0000
Mode		4.00	3.00	4.00	4.00
Std. Deviation		0.90419	1.07715	1.09582	1.10929
Variance		0.818	1.160	1.201	1.231
Statement		With this Bachelor program, I might not have any problems making a living.	I’m worried about what will happen after university.	Studying at university is a good investment.	I think it’s a cool Bachelor program.
N	Valid	213	213	212	212
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		64%	46%	67%	62%
Mean		3.6244	3.1972	3.8632	3.8160
Median		4.0000	3.0000	4.0000	4.0000
Mode		4.00	5.00	4.00	5.00
Std. Deviation		1.00460	1.42372	0.99055	1.04819
Variance		1.009	2.027	0.981	1.099

However, there are also points that can be a common ground for both students and operators in the evaluation. This is basically the value of the degree, which students judge primarily in terms of its job potential (while, on the other hand, the most frequently mentioned aspect is the “usable knowledge”). In this respect, our survey also registered a largely positive response, with two-thirds to three-quarters of students rating the existence and activities of universities as “degree factories” as good or excellent. They were also very positive about their own job prospects after obtaining their degrees, i.e., they considered participation in university education as a project leading to results in terms of career development. However, there were also conflicting views. Although around 70% of respondents thought that university was a good investment and that it ensured that they would not have to worry about making a living, around 40% of students were of the opinion that a successful career was not about the degree. This common view was shared by many students who not only chose the university route for their career, but also showed a very positive attitude toward the purpose and meaning of further education.

5.2. Is Quality of Training or Locality More Important?

In evaluating the results, it was immediately apparent how many people had no expectations that the knowledge provided by university courses would be “usable” and would be directly applicable in the labor market. This is a significant development, because educational development (content development) usually aims to find as many points of contact with the labor market as possible and to provide knowledge that is ‘usable’, i.e., adaptive, skill-level, directly applicable, or easily transformable. This objective can be interpreted in various ways; it can also be argued that this does not mean meeting the needs of the labor market, but merely a harmonious functioning that essentially synchronizes education, scientific vision, and in-depth expertise with up-to-date, practical knowledge. At the same time, however, we can also see that the desire for wealth and social demand (in the socio-political sense) are putting pressure on training establishments and creating institutional arrangements that are somewhat similar to vocational training, closely following market movements, based on partnership agreements, taking into account the needs of future professionals from a market perspective, and not least, competing with each other, and thus capable of restructuring and rethinking for the sake of students’ choices. The three phases of student, program, and provider mobility discussed earlier (Knight, 2014) and the emergence of universities as hubs of attraction (Ferman et al., 2021), and even the proliferation of extended campuses (Ağlargöz, 2016), are precisely the evidence of this process. The results of our study suggest that if there is indeed such an intention, it is doubtful, or at least the confidence in it is not yet complete. In fact, the opinions of students who are currently enrolling may be strongly influenced by the assessment of students who have been enrolled or graduated in previous years.

As a side note, it is worth mentioning that while evaluating the sample of the questionnaire survey, I also launched an interview survey in which I interviewed young BA/BSc graduates who were willing to evaluate the work of their former universities (I will report on this in a forthcoming study). They were almost unanimous in stating that they could hardly name any specific subject or course that had provided them with directly useful knowledge in terms of content for their current job. However, two things should be noted here: firstly, many of them said that they had been forced to “leave their careers” because they felt insecure about their job prospects with their bachelor’s degree. On the other hand, most of them did not have a negative opinion of their former university but felt that it was important to point out that the knowledge they had acquired there and then was not—and probably would not be-of any use to them in the labor market.

For the time being, it seems certain that the emergence of universities as a hub of attraction cannot be identified as a determining factor in the longer-term perspective of career planning. This means that, although what the institution can offer as a service provider is of great importance to students, it is only seen as a demand for the university years, i.e., it does not really matter whether the university can play a role in promoting a career or settlement later on (Table 2). This does not mean, however, that in practice, some students do not make use of their university connections, especially when they are looking for a job as a young graduate, and indeed when they are looking for a job. It is precisely here that we find a contradiction in attitudes. The potential of both international contacts (from study trips to scholarships to access to research bases) and cooperation with market sector actors (from summer internships to traineeships to employment under bilateral contracts) is there in the interest of more informed students (Sipos et al., 2023; Drewes & Michael, 2006). However, their emergence is not massive: the majority of students see university life as important, but only lasting a few years, and more importantly, as a closed stage, i.e., they do not seriously expect more than a degree and some networking.

Table 2. Statements of the students surveyed in relation to locality and identity.

Statement		I can also earn money, in parallel with my university studies.	I am glad that I will not have to deal with the issue of livelihood for a few more years.	Unfortunately, I cannot support myself solely by being here at this university, so I have to work alongside my studies.	It is important that I study in a place where I want to live in the next few years.
N	Valid	213	212	213	210
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		66%	33%	54%	38%
Mean		3.7418	2.7123	3.3803	3.0095
Median		4.0000	3.0000	4.0000	3.0000
Mode		5.00	1.00	5.00	3.00
Std. Deviation		1.31536	1.38962	1.56041	1.27167
Variance		1.730	1.931	2.435	1.617
Statement		I think I will go home after university and live there.	My long-standing wish has come true by coming to this university.	I have finally come to where I think I belong.	For me, it is not just about studying: university life is what I really wanted.	I’m in the best place at this university.
N	Valid	211	212	209	210	210
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		22%	40%	56%	34%	59%
Mean		2.4218	3.0189	3.5933	2.8048	3.6667
Median		2.0000	3.0000	4.0000	3.0000	4.0000
Mode		1.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	4.00
Std. Deviation		1.35481	1.32408	1.07065	1.39890	1.09951
Variance		1.836	1.753	1.146	1.957	1.209

Of course, why would you expect a significantly different result? After all, the marketing communication of higher education institutions today still tends to emphasize that they are “places with a long tradition”, “excellent teaching staff”, and “state-of-the-art knowledge”. There has also been some shift toward an emphasis on ‘fun student life’, but there is generally little discussion of how the university as a market player and partner contributes to the dynamics of the locality or region. Making the latter message attractive could be a key factor in encouraging students to consider becoming involved in a local project, which would involve more active participation and settlement (identity formation).

We can also understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the Third Mission of universities. As Davey (2017) points out, policymakers are increasingly recognizing the importance of universities in the movement from industrial to knowledge-driven economies, and thus policymakers and academics are placing more emphasis on the role of the university. However, this also has the consequence that the focus is shifting from student-centered (service-centered) organization to institutional management (sustainable enterprise). The focus on the public good and the private good, the relationship between universities and business and entrepreneurship and the relationship with theory and the stakeholder perspective represented by frameworks, are becoming the key issues to be addressed. The main question will therefore be how the university can interact externally in order to turn the knowledge it possesses into value (‘marketability’) and to approach the Third Mission in a proactive way. This shift in emphasis or focus may explain why marketing communication for student recruitment has not changed as radically in recent years as the market-oriented way in which universities operate. Thus, their attractiveness and function (“a university is a place of education and nothing more”) has changed little spectacularly. To prove this, it is sufficient to look at the very stable institutional (admission) rankings of Hungarian higher education institutions, which have been on a predictable path for decades, i.e., the real ‘order of strength’ of universities is usually not influenced by students’ choice preferences for bachelor and master degrees, but by the economic decisions of management.

In order to gain a deeper insight, I specifically addressed this issue in the course of the study by proposing two different directions. On the one hand, I wanted to know whether the respondent would even want to be a university student in a place where he or she would like to live: at least half of the students showed such an intention. On the other hand, I also asked whether, if not, they intended to return to their parents’ home, i.e., go home and live where they came from: only one in five students said that they did. One could argue that the attractiveness of universities could be clearly demonstrated, but one should be careful in drawing conclusions, as the questions on this topic were obviously mainly relevant for respondents who did not choose a university in their place of origin, and the smaller the municipality of origin of the student, the more relevant these questions were. For example, it does not matter whether a young person returns to the capital or to a village to start their young adult life—for this reason, I used background variables to help delineate groups within the sample, for example, by municipality of origin. The degree of locality was found to be a very strong factor in our study: if the attractiveness of universities in the capital is ignored for the moment, it is clear that 80–90% of students either continued their education in the same county as their origin or chose to study in a neighboring county, i.e., the closest county. Budapest, of course, has an incomparably greater capacity for mobilization than any other Hungarian city, with a long history and prestigious institutions. Accordingly, in our study, one in five of the rural respondents chose to move to the capital to start their university life. In contrast, the proportion of students who went on to study in a rural higher education institution in Budapest was only 2%.

Universities as ‘islands’ are undoubtedly of great importance in terms of escaping from home and developing a new, independent way of life; however, we cannot say for sure that this function in itself fulfils all the conditions for what can be considered a hub of attraction. For example, the answers to this question do not state the contribution of the institution itself to the decision to stay or the intention to stay (perhaps the city, perhaps the social situation, or perhaps the family situation has a greater influence). However, the inclusion of the family effects theme may help us to get closer to the truth.

5.3. Return or Separation?—The Power of Family Ties

The willingness or refusal to return to the original place of residence (“parental home”) carries in itself another aspect of our investigation, the family’s capacity to retain. It should be noted that while the decisions of young people in their secondary school years are largely determined by socio-environmental influences closely linked to family circumstances, university life gives them a freedom that can reveal certain new forms of self-reliance (‘detachment’) that are characteristic of young adults, and which may previously have been completely suppressed by family life.

In our study, I first wanted to find out how students who had entered university reflected on their own (former, but not too distant) family relationships, especially their influence on their further studies. I also wanted to find out what attitudes students currently had toward a possible return home. It turned out that for the majority of respondents, parents’ direct involvement in their choice of university was not a feature of their behavior, so specific expectations that would indicate a particular direction for their career path were rarely found (Table 3). It was, however, evident that the family’s basic goal of obtaining a degree itself was definitely a factor in the decision. Roughly one in two students said that going to university was not only important for their parents, but that the successful admission had essentially put a tense situation at rest. This picture is reinforced by the fact that for about half of the respondents, it was also found that the expectation of a degree had been a long-standing family issue: parents must have put pressure on these students in some way during their secondary school years. It should be noted, however, that the other half of the students said that they had decided to continue their studies purely on their own initiative.

Table 3. Statements of the surveyed students about the influence of family.

Statement		My parents and I had already agreed on where I should continue my studies.	My parents are not thrilled that I chose this Bachelor’s degree.	There were/are people in my family who have a similar profession to the one I will study now.	My parents were not really interested in where I continued my studies.	I don’t owe anyone an account regarding my university studies.	With me being here, everyone in the family can finally calm down.
N	Valid	213	212	212	212	212	208
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		13%	7%	25%	26%	62%	31%
Mean		1.9014	1.6179	2.1368	2.4623	3.7689	2.8798
Median		1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	2.0000	4.0000	3.0000
Mode		1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	5.00	3.00
Std. Deviation		1.19931	0.99299	1.54096	1.39515	1.27252	1.36200
Variance		1.438	0.986	2.375	1.946	1.619	1.855
Statement		I was never pressured at home to go to university—I came solely of my own free will.	In fact, I am continuing the family legacy by studying here.	I think that getting a degree is more important to my family than to me.	It is very important to my family that I get a degree.	My parents were very happy that I was admitted to this university.	I can also thank the university a little bit that I finally got away from home.
N	Valid	212	211	212	210	207	207
The percentage of those who agree with the statement		54%	9%	23%	46%	54%	43%
Mean		3.3726	1.5024	2.0708	3.0381	3.5942	2.8937
Median		4.0000	1.0000	1.0000	3.0000	4.0000	3.0000
Mode		5.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	3.00	1.00
Std. Deviation		1.51698	1.02062	1.37675	1.57081	1.16150	1.58828
Variance		2.301	1.042	1.895	2.467	1.349	2.523

When it came to choosing the exact professional (university education) direction, the strength of family influence was far less decisive: taking the highest rates into account, at most one in four students can be said to have the same or similar profession or education as their parents’ own chosen university education. Even much smaller proportions, below 10%, showed cases where entry to university was essentially a continuation of a family legacy, or cases of the opposite sign, where the student was going against the parents’ intentions by not studying in the course they had previously envisaged.

At the same time, the intention to become autonomous (“break away”) is reflected in the research results. Almost half of the students said that their university of choice was one of the reasons why they finally left home. Although this statement should not be overestimated, it can be said that the institution plays an important role in the process of self-determination and indeed acts as an “island” for many students, almost regardless of where they come from (e.g., from which municipality) and from which background. This is somewhat reinforced by the fact that at least one third of the responses about university life indicate that it is more than just learning: it is ‘life’ itself, or a life ‘really wanted’.

6. Discussion

The results of our research, which focused primarily on obtaining answers about how important is locality (location and ‘island’ function); how long is university important (only during the academic years or later); and whether and in what ways did/do family matter in university choice? From this perspective, it seems that the attitudes of students are not uniform, but some interesting groups can definitely be identified in the population: among others, those for whom university has the traditional, popularly perceived functions, and those who see much more and want to benefit from the “extra services” as well as those who see it as an important stage in the struggle for independence and those who see it more as a springboard for career planning. Also, whatever the motivation behind it, the degree of mobility is significant only for those who are heading for the capital, while physical proximity is a priority for students from rural areas and those who have chosen a rural university.

In general, members of the group following the traditional model gave answers that gave the impression that the university is an educational institution where the teaching–learning process takes place and lasts up to the degree level. The second group, on the other hand, tended to see the university as a community space and explicitly claimed its benefits. There were also two groups of students who, according to their own assessment, considered their choice of university to be strongly or only very moderately influenced by their family.

There was, however, no clear correlation between the traditional and community-functioning views of the university model and the influencing and retaining power of the family. It cannot be concluded, therefore, that those who took advantage of their further education opportunities under stronger parental control focused on education and degree attainment as a compliance criterion. Nevertheless, there was a more pronounced, if not dominant, tendency for students ‘under stronger family control’ to express a desire to leave than the average; in other words, these students did not see university as a ‘rebellion’, but in radical cases as a way of ‘escaping’. What was somewhat surprising, however, was that students who opposed the traditional view of the university as largely a place of learning and who saw it primarily as a community space did not think much in the years after graduation about having any kind of attachment to the university or to the area directly affected by the institution. It could be said that they saw their bachelor’s and/or master’s degree and everything connected with it as a period of a few years, a period of life to be completed, essentially independent of their later career choices and life. It cannot be said, therefore, that the majority of students, or at least a significant proportion of them, had a close relationship with their university, which had a significant influence on the decisions they took in preparation for the next stage of their lives.

Of course, it is not possible to draw any longer-term conclusions about students’ attitudes, nor to identify trends, from a one-sample measurement. For example, we do not know whether time spent in higher education changes the current attitudes. It may change, for example, because of the closer relationship between the student and the university, whether through university life, career opportunities, the development of important relationships, new support systems, or the promotional power of a career built alongside learning. Attitudes may also change with age and with maturity: the overwhelming majority of students in the current study, aged 21–23, may already have different preferences, gained work experience, or at least partly tried their hand in the labor market, even locally, at the ages of 24–26 (two thirds of respondents are students actively working outside university!). As indicated earlier, in a forthcoming work, I will compare not only the age groups, but also those with secondary school status with students who already have some higher education experience.

At the moment, I am not even sure as to what extent students feel that the training they are currently receiving is meeting their needs to the maximum. If they do not, or largely do not, they are more likely to drop out later, and this may also affect their attachment to the university as a hub of attraction. Alternatives may be considered: changing careers, working abroad, the attractiveness of the capital city because of the presence of large companies that are more flexible in terms of qualifications, etc.; for example, our micro-research on the conditions for leaving the labor market, which is being run in parallel with this study, as above-mentioned, clearly supports our thesis on the conditions for leaving the labor market, which is why I consider this line of research to be important. With all of these limitations in mind, our next step will be at least twofold: on the one hand, I will continue to collect data in order to establish trends; on the other hand, I will also examine older age and experience groups (students preparing for high school graduation and university admissions, recent graduates, career starters). I will also focus more strongly on finding out what students consider important during their university years (needs and satisfaction survey), i.e., I will try to answer the question of what makes a university attractive for them in the long-term.

One research question that arose was whether students considered the university’s role as a hub of attraction to be important. Although this research does not provide a clear answer to this question, I have found evidence suggesting that “current quality of life”, i.e., time spent at university, is not necessarily correlated with any future aspirations. Of course, the career opportunities determined by the degree that can be obtained are decisive on a general level, but these fall into the category of socio-economic challenges and expectations, rather than the locally applicable advantages provided by the institution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the university cannot be a hub of attraction and thus a determining factor in staying in the area, but at the same time, this research certainly could not confirm that students see it as more than its “traditional” role (a place of education, a “degree factory”).

Another question was whether we can talk about motivations that encourage students to stay (settle) in university towns and become part of the regions shaped by universities that are becoming centers of attraction. In this research, I found evidence that suggests—in line with the findings of Sipos et al. (2023), Kovács et al. (2014), Rámháp et al. (2017)—that financial, security, and (career) self-perception factors definitely play a significant role in students’ decisions. At the same time, locality and family ties do not always point in the same direction as these ideas, so deeper research is particularly important here. Overall, although the role of universities as hubs of attraction cannot be ruled out, from a motivational point of view, it has not yet been proven that they play a clearly decisive role in students’ long-term thinking.

Universities cannot have an easy job if they want to persuade students to choose their institution, as it is also a challenge to ensure that higher education in general is perceived as more than just a training ground (“diploma factory”) for students. In Hungary, we see that there is still a lot of work to be done. In this process, the university as a hub of attraction seems to be a very promising development direction, as it can make a higher education institution not only an integral part of a region, but also a major factor in its development. Perhaps the most important question is: do the students themselves see this, or do they see the potential? because the attraction generated by universities should be directed first and foremost in their direction. And for this, not just localism, but even institutional prestige may not be enough. It is important to ensure that students think that they want to be part of the local community in the long-term, and not just for the duration of their studies. They must be motivated to stay and to become active economic and community shapers. However, this cannot be achieved through university services and support systems alone: it requires everyone to see the university as more than it is today.