Presented by

ANTONIUS HANDOKO (0606076955)

EMA FARIKHATIN ()
LINDI ANGGRAINI ()
NINA PURWANTI ()
BACKGROUND OF THE
PROBLEM
 The prime needs have changed to be more complex, not only foods, clothes, and
place to lived, but also health and education.
 Nowdays it will be very difficult to get a better job if we just get a low education level.
 High education can be achieve in the College and all College in Indonesia always
compete each other to get new students and usually the biggest part of new students
which will enrolled a high education in College are the passed student high school
students.
 In order to make the passed senior high school students choose their College, the
Rector must know the attributes options that will make the passed senior high school
students want to enrolled their education in his or her College.
 In order to know which attribute of College that will effect the senior high school
students’ preference, we do this research using a proper statistical tool which is
conjoint analysis.
BRIEF STORY ABOUT
INDONESIA COLLEGE
 In 1870, Holland Colonial Government in Indonesia (Holland Hindia) made a
strategy that they call as Etische Politiek.
 The first high scholl which is built is STOVIA (School Tot Opleiding van
Inlandsche Artsen) in 1902.
 This medical high school changed his name and form in 1913 became NIAS
(Nerderlandsch Indische Artsen School) and GHS (Geneeskundige Hoge
School) as an embrio of medical faculty University of Indonesia.
 In 1922, there was Rechts School and became Rechthoogen School as an
embrio of Law Faculty University of Indonesia.
 In 1940, in Jakarta, the colonial government built Faculteit de Letterenen
Wijsbegeste which wecame as Cultural Science Faculty University of
Indonesia.
 In Bandung, in 1920, colonial government built Technische Hoge School (THS),
this scholl is the embrio of ITB (Bandung Institute of Technology).
 In Bogor, colonial government built Landsbouwkundige Faculteit in1941 which
became Bogor Agricultural University (IPB).
 Indonesia Republic Government in Yogyakarta cooperated with Yayasan Balai
Perguruan Tinggi Gajah Mada at 1949, 19th December, built Gajah Mada
University.
 For private college, Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta which built in
1948 was the first and the oldest private college in Indonesia.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research is to know senior
high school students’ preference about the
attributes which they consider when they
want to choose a College to enrolled their high
education, which are degree, College format,
teaching system, location, library system, and
teaching language.
SCOPE
METHODOLOGY
The Methodology of this research is using Conjoint Analysis
and we use primary data from the questionnaire.
This research we did with many stages, to be exact:
Defining the topics of the project
Defining the problems and the objectives of the projects
Collecting raw data using questionnaire
 Interpreting the raw data into technical terms
 Processing the data using SPSS 15
Analyzing the data
 Concluding the research
 Composing suggestions regarding the conclusion of the
research
Stage 5 : Interpreting
the results
Utility scores
Relative Importance
Coefficients
Correlations
Reversals
Utility scores
Utility scores (cont’d)
Utility scores (cont’d)
The first table shows the model description.
The second table shows the utility (part-worth) scores and
their standard errors for each factor level. Higher utility
values indicate greater preference.
There is a relation to ranks or scores between location
and utility, with farther location from Jabodetabek
corresponding to lower utility (larger negative values
mean lower utility). For all factor except location, there
isn’t a relation to ranks or scores between those factors
and utility.
Since the utilities are all expressed in a common unit,
they can be added together to give the total utility of any
combination.
Relative Importance
Relative Importance
(cont’d)
That table provides a measure of the relative
importance of each factor known as an
importance score or value.
The result show that college form has the most
influence on overall preference. This mean that
there is a large difference in preference between
each type of college form.
We can take another conclution that another
factors except college form have a average
influence on overall preference.
Coefficients
Coefficients (cont’d)
This table shows the linear regression
coefficients for those factors specified as
linear (for ideal and anti-ideal models, there
would also be a quadratic term). The utility for
a particular factor level is determined by
multiplying the level by the coefficient.
Correlations
Correlations (cont’d)
Correlations are useful to observer to know if
the preference which is estimated is has a
correlation with the preference which is
observed.
From Pearson’s R and Kendall’s Tau, we can
conclude that there is a correlation between
observed and estimated preference for α =
0,1 and 0,05, because the significant is 0
(below the α).
Reversals
Reversals (cont’d)
When specifying linear model for location, we chose an
expected direction (less or more) for the linear
relationship between the value of the variable and the
preference for that value.
The conjoint procedure keeps track of the number of
the subject whose preference showed the opposite of
the expected reelationship, for example, a greater
preference for outside Jabodetabek College location, or
the lower preference for inside Jabodetabek College
location. These cases are reffered to as reversals.
From the table, thirdteen subjects showed a reversal for
location. That is, they preferred college which has
location outside Jabodetabek.
Stage 6: Validation of the
results

The final step is to assess the internal and

external validity of the conjoint task. As noted
earlier, internal validity involves confirmation
of the selected composition rule (i.e.,additive
versus interactive).
The high levels of predictive accuracy for the
estimation stimuli across respondents confirm
the additive composition rule for this set of
respondents.