Abstract
Background: As the job market evolves, understanding factors influencing students’ major selection helps universities and policymakers design programmes aligned with industry needs and support career development.
Objectives: This study examines motivational factors shaping major selection among Bachelor of Commerce students in the Department of Business Administration (DBA) at the National University of Lesotho. By analysing three majors, it explores decision-making dynamics and their influence on academic choices and professional aspirations.
Methods: A descriptive quantitative survey was conducted with first year DBA students. Data were analysed using SPSS for factor extraction and correlation analysis to examine relationships among motivational factors across the three majors.
Results: Six factors, namely, academic convenience, accessibility, engagement, popularity, recommendations and financial prospects influenced students’ choices. However, these were statistically insignificant. Long-term career goals and professional development emerged as stronger determinants, aligning with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which highlights intrinsic motivation and belief in future success.
Conclusion: Decision making is driven by mesosystemic factors such as academic offerings, labour market demands and career advancement opportunities. Institutions must align programmes with industry expectations and strengthen career support systems.
Contribution: The study offers insights for aligning academic programmes with national development goals, improving graduate employability, and supporting students in making informed, aspiration-driven choices.
Keywords: major; selection; universities; motivation; Bachelor of Commerce; career development; policymakers.
Introduction
As part of their academic requirements, many universities require first-year students to select a major, which they will study throughout their time at the institution. This is important for allowing universities to allocate financial and non-financial resources for offering the students’ selected major (Glaessgen, 2018). Fernandes and Rawatlal (2024) argue that electing a university major is not only an institutional necessity but also a crucial step in shaping students’ career development. Career development encompasses the progression of skills, experiences and choices that prepare individuals for professional growth and adaptation within the labour market (Kurtuy, 2025).
Students might be motivated to select a specific major because of interest or because they find it intellectually stimulating (Renninger & Hidi, 2016) or because it is an institutional obligation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). The decision to select a major often influences the trajectory of students’ professional interests, career paths and long-term employability (Morgan et al., 2013). As such, a well-chosen major not only shapes a student’s academic experience but also serves as a foundation for future career opportunities, personal growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving labour market (Lee, 2024).
Ma et al. (2021) highlight that students primarily select majors based on individual motivation, an individual-level factor. Whitehead (2018) emphasises the role of microsystem influences, where advisers, professors, families and peers provide personalised guidance. Beyond individual support, Stock and Stock (2019) notice that universities facilitate advisory sessions led by course recruiters, representing mesosystemic factors, which reflect institutional structures shaping student choices within a broader systemic context. This distinction reinforces how both personal and systemic influences interact in major selection, as reflected in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Özdoğru, 2011).
Understanding the factors that motivate students’ selection of a major can assist universities in attracting more students, offering relevant majors needed by the market, managing admissions effectively and tailoring their programmes to better meet students’ needs and preferences for the future (Mwantimwa, 2021). Furthermore, by aligning academic offerings with students’ career development aspirations, higher learning institutions can empower students to make informed decisions that support their long-term professional goals, creating a more meaningful connection between education and their future career paths (Azhenov et al., 2023).
However, selecting the right university major is demanding on the part of students, especially the first-year students who may not be sure of the major to select and yet in the majority of cases, major selection is a university requirement (Malte et al., 2021). Students’ selection of a major is not only important for the universities and policymakers, but students also need to select majors that genuinely interest them, align with their career path and future goals and bring them achievement and opportunities (Soria & Stebleton, 2013). Esteban et al. (2018) argue that university majors are intertwined with various physical, pedagogical and social contexts and choosing a major is a complex task influenced by multiple factors that students must consider. This is the reason why universities and policymakers have recently shown interest in factors motivating students regarding the selection of academic majors (Soria & Stebleton, 2013).
Investigating the motivational factors that influence undergraduates’ choices of university majors is essential for students as it helps them to tailor their programmes, support services and career guidance to better align with their needs and aspirations (Morton & Hyderi, 2016). On the other hand, Gilmore (2018) confirmed that understanding these motivations can also assist educational institutions in identifying trends and gaps in students’ choices, allowing policymakers and educators to address issues such as skill shortages in specific fields. Ward et al. (2023) observed that understanding what motivates students can lead to more effective strategies for improving recruitment and admissions criteria for university majors. Ultimately, such studies can lead to more informed and effective educational strategies that boost student satisfaction and success with their choice of major.
It is therefore against this background that this study aims to explore whether Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) students at the National University of Lesotho (NUL) have different motivations when choosing a major within the Department of Business Administration (DBA), in the Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS). The study focused on identifying any key factors that influence B.Com students’ choices when selecting majors in the three areas of specialisation offered in the DBA, namely, Accounting and Finance, Marketing and Human Resources Management, with a particular emphasis on how these choices align with students’ career development aspirations. Thereafter, the study evaluated the similarities and differences in the factors that motivate students to choose a major. Finally, the study provided recommendations to higher learning institutions and policymakers, aiming to ensure that academic programmes effectively support students’ career goals.
National University of Lesotho: Focus on the Faculty of Social Sciences
The NUL is one of the oldest public universities located in Roma, approximately 34 km southeast of Maseru, the capital city of Lesotho (NUL, 2025–2026a). It currently consists of seven faculties: Education, Law, Humanities, Social Sciences, Science & Technology, Agriculture and Health Science. The FSS stands out as the largest faculty within the university. The FSS student population in the 2022/2023 academic year was approximately 2179, of which 59 were registered for postgraduate studies (NUL, 2025–2026b). Being one of the largest faculties, FSS is expected to guide learners in recognising the value of selected university majors and empower them to make significant contributions to their career paths (Børhaug, 2018). The FSS is made up of five academic departments, namely, Business Administration; Economics; Political & Administrative Studies; Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work and Statistics & Demography. The DBA offers B.Com degrees with three primary majors: Accounting and Finance, Marketing and Human Resources Management. Students are required to choose their major from these available specialisations during the first-year admission process.
Literature review
Motivation for selecting a major
While extensive research has explored the factors influencing university major selection globally, findings vary across different regions. Studies from Western and Asian countries (Ma et al., 2021; Matthews et al., 2024) emphasise intrinsic interest, academic accessibility and career relevance. However, within African contexts, additional systemic influences such as socio-economic conditions, institutional limitations and labour market demands shape students’ choices in distinctive ways (Nyamwange, 2016). For instance, research in Kenya and Nigeria highlights financial constraints and employment prospects as dominant motivators (Abe et al., 2021). South Africa, in particular, faces unique challenges related to historical inequalities and shifting economic policies, further affecting students’ academic decisions (McKenzie & Bennett, 2022). By contextualising these regional distinctions, this study enhances the understanding of major selection within the Southern African higher education landscape. Building on these regional distinctions, understanding the role of motivation in students’ academic decision-making becomes essential, as various intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to their selection of majors.
In the academic fraternity, motivation can be seen as students’ enthusiasm for participating in learning and their overall university experience (Larsen & Puck, 2020). According to Ishida and Sekiyama (2024), motivation shapes the direction, intensity and determination of students’ behaviour during their learning process. Matthews et al. (2024) found that personality congruence influences major selection among business students, highlighting an individual-level factor in career decision-making. Similarly, Marks et al. (2016) observed that women exhibit greater interest in career planning than men, reinforcing individual variations in career choices. These findings align with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, where the microsystem, consisting of personal traits and immediate social influences, shapes decisions (Cherry, 2023). In addition, Guy-Evans (2024) purports that mesosystemic interactions, such as institutional support and societal expectations, further refine career choices within broader systemic influences. Choosing a university major can be quite challenging for a student because of the numerous influencing factors and reasons in the environment that may affect their personal preference. As Nyamwange (2016) suggests, when choosing majors, students tend to prioritise the excitement of classes and the appeal of future careers over job prospects. Ma et al. (2021) contend that students place great importance on the course content and its relevance to their future careers.
Chhor et al. (2024) argued that students’ major selection is shaped by various factors, such as the potential to achieve higher grades, the popularity of professors and recommendations from peers. In addition, interpersonal-level influences such as mentorship from educators, encouragement from family and social interactions within academic environments play a crucial role in guiding their choices. Prospective career opportunities further reinforce the dynamic interplay between personal aspirations and external guidance, highlighting the interconnected nature of academic and career decision-making (Abe et al., 2021).
By understanding these factors, universities can create more efficient strategies for resource allocation and enhance their majors to meet students’ expectations, aligning with their motivations and preferences (Wang et al., 2024). A career, for instance, is a difficult, personal and vibrant activity in which students engage to make decisions about their future lives (McKenzie & Bennett, 2022). Patton and McMahon (2006) argue that career choices emerge from personal and systemic influences, shaped by evolving beliefs, behaviours, society and environment. This supports Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, where decisions are shaped by interactions within the microsystem (mentors, family, peers), mesosystem (institutional support and career guidance), exosystem (economic and policy factors) and macrosystem (cultural and societal expectations) (Guy-Evans, 2024). In addition, Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991) provides further insight into career selection, emphasising that an individual’s attitude towards a major, the perceived social expectations from family or society and their confidence in their ability to succeed in a chosen career path all contribute to their decision-making process. Thus, career selection is influenced not only by systemic forces but also by one’s belief in their capability to execute their chosen career path successfully.
Therefore, students enrol with the university already having a career interest informed by their previous experience (Nyamweya, 2025). This may influence students to take part in activities and enrol in majors that align with their prospective career. Liu et al. (2015) asserted that students are mainly motivated by their interest, desire to improve their current knowledge of the job and prepare for future job prospects.
Andersen and MoldStud Research Team (2024) are also of the same view that major selection is more of a function of relevance towards future careers and perceived interest in the major. However, Ma et al. (2021) maintained that students are motivated by a variety of factors to choose a major in university environments and students who enrol in the same major may have entirely different orientations, and those should be considered in major recommendations systems in physically based university environments to avoid selection of a wrong major. According to Zainuddin and Halili (2016), students who select the wrong major may experience social conflicts, such as negative labelling, being ignored and not being close to peers in the department, resulting in feeling inferior, belittled and facing conflicts with lecturers and parents. Choosing a university major is a complex and challenging decision-making process that requires careful consideration (Nyamweya, 2025).
A number of studies have reliably found that a range of motivators influence university students’ selection of a major (Ma et al., 2021). For example, some students enrol because of an intrinsic interest in the major, while others are motivated by external influences to choose a certain major. According to Alyamani and Morsi (2022), understanding the factors that influence students’ choice of a university major is crucial because it affects multiple aspects of a student’s life, shaping not only their satisfaction with future employment but also the extent to which they will progress and grow in their professional careers.
On the other hand, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2024) emphasises the importance of engaging parents, peers and advisors in students’ decision-making processes within universities. This involvement can help underscore the value of various majors and support students (Al Tamimi et al., 2023), particularly first-year students, in making informed choices. As a result, policymakers should create policies that encourage the active participation of parents, peers and the community in the decision-making process, as this can positively impact students’ selection of majors (Gülcan & Duran, 2018).
Research methods and design
Research design
This study adopts a descriptive quantitative survey design to systematically examine the motivations influencing students’ selection of majors within the DBA at the NUL. The descriptive approach ensures objectivity and reliability, providing a structured framework for comparing students’ decision-making patterns (Bryman, 2016; Field, 2018). The quantitative method enables a comparative analysis, identifying key similarities and differences that shape students’ choices, contributing to a deeper understanding of career development trajectories (Creswell, 2014).
Theoretical foundation and questionnaire selection
The study is anchored in educational choice theory, career development models, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour and social influence frameworks, which collectively provide insights into the factors shaping students’ academic decisions. To empirically explore these motivations, the study adopted a validated questionnaire from Ma et al. (2021), which systematically examines students’ motivations for selecting university majors. The decision to adopt this instrument is based on its comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors, including academic ease, career relevance, peer recommendations and institutional support, all of which have been recognised as key determinants in educational decision-making.
Reliability and validity
To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire, the adapted survey retained the core constructs validated in Ma et al. (2021), which demonstrated high internal consistency in previous applications. In addition, construct validity was strengthened by aligning survey items with established theories from Labib et al. (2021) and Soria and Stebleton (2013), reinforcing its empirical and conceptual rigour. The adaptation process ensured that the instrument effectively captured students’ motivations, providing accurate and meaningful insights into the selection of majors within the DBA.
Respondents and sampling
The study focused on undergraduate first-year B.Com students registered in the DBA programme at NUL during the 2024/25 academic year, as recorded in the university’s academic office database. A purposive sampling technique was employed to ensure participants had first-hand experience with major selection, maximising the relevance and depth of responses. By the time of data collection, students had completed their selection process, allowing for reflective and informed responses. From the total population of 127 eligible students, 97 completed the questionnaire, achieving a 76.4% response rate, enhancing the study’s generalisability and robustness.
Data collection
Data collection was conducted within the context of the Introductory Business Management course, ensuring equal representation of all first year DBA students. Before data collection, formal approvals were obtained from the NUL Registrar and the course lecturer. Ethical considerations were carefully upheld, with voluntary participation, anonymity and informed consent being central to the study. To minimise external influence, the questionnaire was administered at the end of a lecture, with the MGM 1302 lecturer absent, ensuring that students could participate freely without academic pressure.
The final survey comprised 40 items, structured into three sections:
- Demographic information
- Motivational factors for major selection (measured using a 5-point Likert scale)
- Open-ended qualitative responses.
While the questionnaire included an open-ended qualitative section, this study focuses exclusively on the quantitative analysis. The qualitative responses were not incorporated into the findings, as they fall outside the scope of this research.
To ensure data integrity, responses with less than 65% completion were excluded from analysis (De Leeuw et al., 2016), preventing data distortions and ensuring a robust interpretation of student motivations.
Data analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) programme was used to analyse the data using factor analysis with Principal Component Extraction and Correlation analysis to determine the relationship between the factors motivating students in DBA to select a major. To evaluate the internal consistency of the identified factors, a reliability test was also performed. To evaluate the internal consistency of the identified factors, a reliability test was also performed. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each factor to assess the internal consistency of the items within it. Factors with a high alpha value indicated strong reliability, whereas lower values suggested the need for further refinement.
Ethical considerations
The research involved a questionnaire that did not require students to provide personal information such as names or student numbers. Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the National University of Lesotho Faculty of Health Sciences Ethics Review Board (No. NUL/STA/2025/02). Participation was voluntary, with no rewards offered. The questionnaire detailed the research project, data handling procedures and confidentiality measures. Reporting used aggregated data to maintain the confidentiality of students’ identities. The authors adhered to the requirements set forth by the University of Lesotho Ethics Committee.
Results
Table 1 reflects the key demographic and academic characteristics of the respondents for the study.
| TABLE 1: Demographic and academic characteristics of the respondents. |
Table 1 reveals a mixed connection between the respondents’ gender, age and the chosen academic major. The demographic and academic profiles of the respondents show multiple relationships between respondents’ gender, age and selected major. The respondents are predominantly female, making up 61.9%, indicating higher female representation. Interestingly, this result highlights that the national population of Lesotho comprises more women (approximately 1.19 million) than men (1.13 million) (O’Neill, 2025). The majority of respondents fall within the age range of 18–23 years, constituting 75.3% of the sample. This age group is significantly greater than that of the 24-year-olds up to 29-year-olds, which represents a small fraction of the respondents. Of the three majors, Accounting and Finance is the most popular choice, attracting 76.3% of the respondents. Marketing and Human Resources (14.4%) comes second, while Marketing is the least selected major at 9.3%.
Factor analysis
Table 2 shows the items and their factor loadings following rotation. Loadings below 0.45% have been omitted, and only scores exceeding 0.45 are considered significant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). To analyse the arrangement of the 42 items and identify the factors motivating students’ enrolment in the B.Com degree, a Principal Factor Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed.
From the scree diagram analysis, six factors were identified. The first group, labelled academic convenience, comprises eight items, while the second group, academic accessibility, contains nine items. The third group, academic engagement, consists of four items, with the academic popularity, consisting of four items. In the fifth group, that is, academic recommendation, two items have been noticed, whereas the sixth and final group, financial prospects, consists of two items. Collectively, these six factors explain 51.7% of the variance, with the first factor accounting for 21%, the second for 8%, the third and fourth factors standing at 6% each and the sixth factor at 5%.
Reliability analysis
To evaluate the internal consistency of the six identified factors, a reliability test was performed. The Cronbach’s alpha values for each factor were calculated and presented in Table 3.
| TABLE 3: Reliability analysis for six factors motivating enrolment for a programme. |
According to Table 3, academic convenience, accessibility, recommendation and financial prospects showed an acceptable to strong reliability with Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.7, which indicates high reliability of the measuring scale (Cohen et al., 2017; Maree & Pietersen, 2016). Nevertheless, the reliability of factors academic engagement and academic popularity was comparatively lower (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.524 and 0.486, respectively), suggesting possible problems with internal consistency. This finding suggests that most motivational factors can inform academic programme designs, but engagement and popularity require re-examination because of lower reliability. To increase reliability, these characteristics might need to be further refined, for example, by changing or eliminating troublesome components.
Correlation results
A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationships between the six identified factors. Table 4 summarises the data, including correlation coefficients and significance levels.
| TABLE 4: Bivariate correlation of the six factors influencing choice of a programme. |
Table 4 shows that academic convenience and academic accessibility are positively correlated (r = 0.541, p < 0.01). As a result, we can gain confidence that there is a genuine relationship between them. Academic convenience is again positively correlated with academic engagement and academic recommendation with (r = 0.479, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.239, p < 0.05), respectively. Finally, academic engagement appears to be positively correlated with academic accessibility and academic recommendation with (r = 0.548, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.311, p < 0.01), respectively, suggesting a modest positive relationship between the two.
Correlations of the six factors controlled for accounting and finance, marketing and human resources management respondents
Table 5–Table 7 present the outcomes of the bivariate correlation analysis, highlighting the relationships between six components across three different respondent groups: Marketing, Human Resources Management and Accounting and Finance.
| TABLE 5: Bivariate correlations among six factors and accounting and finance. |
| TABLE 6: Bivariate correlations among six factors and marketing. |
| TABLE 7: Bivariate correlations among six factors and human resources management. |
The bivariate correlation analysis results reveal the relationships between six components within three respondent groups: Marketing, Human Resources Management and Accounting & Finance. The correlation analysis indicates varying degrees of correlation among the six criteria for different respondent groups. Academic convenience, accessibility and engagement exhibit moderate correlations for respondents in the Accounting & Finance major (Table 5). Among Marketing respondents, there are negative correlations with academic popularity and other factors, along with positive correlations between convenience and accessibility (Table 6). Human Resources Management respondents display substantial correlations among factors, academic convenience, academic accessibility, engagement and academic recommendation, showing negative correlations with other factors (Table 7). These findings suggest that the influence of diverse factors on the selection of a major differs across Accounting and Finance, Human Resources Management and Marketing majors.
Major differences
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is presented in Table 8 to determine how students studying the three majors (Marketing, Human Resources Management and Accounting and Finance) differ in six criteria that affect their choice of university major. At the 0.05 significance level, the ANOVA findings demonstrate no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the six factors.
| TABLE 8: Factors influencing university major choice. |
The findings in Table 8 reveal that DBA students vary in six criteria influencing their choice of university major. At the 0.05 significance level, the ANOVA findings demonstrate no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the six factors examined. Although the p-values for factors academic recommendation and financial prospects are nearly significant, there is still no convincing evidence of their differences.
The absence of significant differences indicates that the factors influencing university major selection are, overall, consistent across different majors, reflecting a level of uniformity in the decision-making processes of DBA students. This suggests that the motivational factors driving students’ major choices are more general across the sample, rather than being specific to individual majors. Consequently, universities should implement robust career development support systems to help students make well-informed decisions that align with their personal aspirations while equipping them to navigate evolving labour market demands across various fields (ILO, 2021).
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that B.Com students in the FSS in DBA are mainly motivated to select their majors based on six main influential factors: academic convenience, academic accessibility, academic engagement, academic popularity, academic recommendation and financial prospects. Academic convenience, accessibility and engagement reflect the extent to which a major is less challenging, achievable and practical. This suggests that DBA B.Com students, regardless of their specific major, are motivated to select a major that offers academic support, clear course outlines, approachable lecturers and flexible options such as part-time, full-time and online classes. These features make academic programmes more accessible to students with varying needs, providing a smoother path to progress successfully in their studies (Al Tamimi et al., 2023). These findings confirmed Obiosa’s (2020) observation that students’ decisions to select a major are positively influenced by the convenience of workload, module structure and course outlines, which ease their academic journey. Kundu (2017) further contends that the quality of education, including specific elements of a major, significantly influences students’ major selection.
Publicity and social influence have also been identified as key factors impacting major selection, as highlighted by Ramalu et al. (2013) and Gan et al. (2022). These are often addressed through marketing campaigns, such as inviting successful alumni or collaborating with prestigious organisations both locally and globally (Bharti & Purohit, 2015). However, Grigolienė and Tamoševičienė (2020) argued that while academic factors such as accessibility, convenience, engagement, popularity, recommendations and financial prospects remain relevant, personal motivation and aspirations increasingly play a pivotal role in students’ decisions. Brown and Lent (2020) also observed that career development goals often play a crucial role in students’ decision-making, as they tend to select a major that aligns with their long-term professional aspirations. The factors shaping major selection are diverse and influenced by personal, social and contextual elements (Grigolienė & Tamoševičienė, 2020).
Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) further supports this idea, arguing that students’ major selection is influenced by three psychological components: attitudes towards the major, subjective norms (external influences such as family and societal expectations) and perceived behavioural control (their confidence in succeeding in the chosen major and career). This suggests that students are not only influenced by academic and social factors but also by their own beliefs in their ability to pursue and excel in a given major or career path. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) also reinforces this perspective by illustrating how career decisions are shaped by interactions within multiple systems. The microsystem includes direct influences such as family and mentors, while the mesosystem involves institutional support, such as academic advising. Broader influences, such as economic policies (exosystem) and cultural expectations (macrosystem), further shape students’ choices.
For DBA students, the six key factors are influential but do not uniquely determine their choices, implying that other elements might carry greater importance. In addition, differences between majors appear to have a limited impact on this decision. Por (2024) further underscores that those motivations beyond these six factors, such as career aspirations and professional development opportunities, may significantly influence students’ selection of a university major. This highlights the importance of universities integrating comprehensive career development support within their academic programmes. Watts (2006) argued that such initiatives could better align students’ academic choices with their long-term career goals, equipping them with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate evolving labour market demands and achieve personal and professional success.
Limitations of the study
This study was conducted at a single institution within the FSS in the DBA. Consequently, the motivations of students across the three majors may not have shown significant variation because of the research’s limited scope, being confined to one institution, faculty and department. The study did not extensively explore how students’ career development aspirations influenced their motivations, which could have provided deeper insights into their academic and professional paths. For more reliable outcomes, it would have been important to extend the study to a wider geographical area and to conduct a longitudinal study, where data are gathered at multiple stages throughout the students’ years at NUL (Cohen et al., 2017). Nonetheless, the research conducted was statistically sufficient, and the results obtained should be replicable.
Conclusion
When students are making the decision to select a major in DBA, they are influenced by different factors depending on the specific major. For instance, a major may be more influenced by academic popularity, while another might be influenced by academic accessibility, indicating that the decision to select a major is purely personal and multifaceted. There is no single reason that can explain the choice influencing the selection of a major in the DBA. The findings of this study have several implications for higher learning institutions, students, the industry and policymakers, highlighting the need to consider how academic offerings support career pathways.
Higher learning institutions and students
Universities can enhance their existing programmes and majors to better align with the evolving needs and interests of both current and prospective students. One approach is introducing trend-driven programmes that emphasise hands-on learning through internships, consulting opportunities and practical projects. For example, fields such as Information Technology & AI, Sustainability & Environmental Science and Financial Technology reflect emerging market demands and provide students with real-world experience (Gunn & Stanley, 2018).
Students should be encouraged and guided to engage in self-reflection before selecting a major. This involves identifying personal strengths, passions and long-term career aspirations to ensure alignment with individual goals and job market demands. Universities can facilitate this by implementing structured career counselling services, where professional advisors help students assess their skills and interests through one-on-one sessions, aptitude tests and career assessments. This approach ensures a more informed and purposeful decision-making process (Andersen & MoldStud Research Team, 2024).
The role of industry and policymakers
Policymakers should actively support regular research to identify the skills demanded by the market. This will allow higher learning institutions to tailor their programmes based on evidence of market needs, ultimately fostering economic and social development in the country (ILO, 2021). Existing majors might undergo significant changes to incorporate new skills and knowledge areas that are deemed necessary for the current market. This would ensure that graduates are equipped with relevant and up-to-date expertise. By adopting these strategies, higher learning institutions can develop programmes that better address the evolving needs and preferences of students, increasing the likelihood of them selecting and thriving in their chosen majors.
Beyond policymakers, industry professionals must collaborate with universities to align education with market needs. This includes offering internships, mentorship and skill-based workshops, as well as contributing to curriculum development and research partnerships. According to Popli and Singh (2024), sharing insights on emerging trends enables industries to ensure that graduates acquire practical, up-to-date expertise, thereby enhancing their career readiness. This collaboration also helps universities continuously update their majors to remain relevant in an evolving job market.
Nonetheless, considering that B.Com students possess a wider range of motivations for major selection, beyond the six identified factors in this study, it is recommended that factors influencing students in major selection be explored further. Specifically, attention should be given to how career development aspirations shape their choices, as this could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing students’ major selection in higher learning institutions.
By fostering strategic collaborations between policymakers, industry professionals and higher learning institutions, academic programmes can be refined to better reflect the evolving job market, ensuring that students make informed major selections that align with their career aspirations and contribute to professional growth within Lesotho’s higher education sector and globally.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National University of Lesotho management, who granted permission to conduct the study, as well as the students who participated by responding to the survey questions.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
R.M.T. and M.C.M. contributed towards the conceptualisation, data collection and writing of the article. R.M.T. and M.J.M. contributed towards the methodology and formal analysis. M.J.M., L.N.S. and M.C.M. assisted with the investigation. R.M.T. and M.J.M. assisted with the writing of the original draft preparation. M.C.M., R.M.T. M.J.M and L.N.S assisted with writing, review, editing and the publication funds.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author, R.M.T. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that may compromise the privacy of research participants.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Abe, E., Chikoko, V., & Lubinga, S.N. (2021). The link between career outcomes expectancy and career decision-making self-efficacy of STEM students in a South African university. Perspectives in Education, 39(2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v39i2.4613
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Al Tamimi, N.N.M., Al Mashrafi, O.M.S., & Thottoli, M.M. (2023). Exploring the factors that influence university selection: Insights from college students. Journal of Business Management Review, 4(6), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.47153/jbmr46.7142023
Alyamani, K.A., & Morsi, S.A. (2022). The extent of orientation towards future majors for students of King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia and the factors affecting selection. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 6400–6411.
Andersen, G., & MoldStud Research Team. (2024). The role of career services in university: Preparing for life after graduation. MoldStud. Retrieved from https://moldstud.com/articles/p-the-role-of-career-services-in-university-preparing-for-life-after-graduation
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2024). Strengthening parent engagement to improve student outcomes. Parents Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.parentsvictoria.asn.au/issues/strengthening-parent-engagement-to-improve-student-outcomes/
Azhenov, A., Kudysheva, A., Fominykh, N., & Tulekova, G. (2023). Career decision-making readiness among students in the system of higher education: Career course intervention. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1097993. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1097993
Bharti, N., & Purohit, H. (2015). Higher education branding and its influence on students’ choice of selecting a university. SSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2682911
Børhaug, K. (2018). Students’ motivation for social studies: Existential exploration or critical engagement. JSSE – Journal of Social Science Education, 17(4), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-902
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, S.D., & Lent, R.W. (Eds.). (2020). Career development and counselling: Putting theory and research to work (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cherry, K. (2023, August 16). A comprehensive guide to the Bronfenbrenner ecological model. Verywell Mind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/bronfenbrenner-ecological-model-7643403
Chhor, C., Sek, V., Norng, R., Hoeurn, S., & Sam, R. (2024). Factors influencing students’ enrolment decisions in higher education institutions: A case study of the National University of Battambang. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 2(6), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(6).1
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., & Boevé, A. (2016). Handling do-not-know answers: Exploring new approaches in online and mixed-mode surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 34(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315573744
Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Esteban, A., Zafra, A., & Romero, C. (2018). A hybrid multi-criteria approach using a genetic algorithm for recommending courses to university students. International Educational Data Mining Society.
Fernandes, M.R., & Rawatlal, K.V. (2024). Exploring factors that influence students’ career decision making at a South African university. African Journal of Career Development, 6(1), a99. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v6i1.99
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). University of Sussex.
Gan, C., Senathirajah, A.R.B., Subramanian, P., Ranom, R., & Osman, Z. (2022). Factors influencing students’ choice of an institution of higher education. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 10015–10043. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361125877_Factors_Influencing_Students%27_Choice_Of_An_Institution_Of_Higher_Education
Gilmore, L. (2018). Understanding and supporting student motivation for learning. In S. Deb (Ed.), Positive schooling and child development (pp. 69–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0077-6_4
Glaessgen, T.A. (2018). First-generation students with undecided majors: A qualitative study of university reacculturation. NACADA Journal, 38(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-16-030
Grigolienė, R., & Tamoševičienė, R. (2020). Factors influencing student choice in higher education. Journal of Management, 1(36), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.38104/vadyba.2020.04
Gülcan, M.G., & Duran, A. (2018). A cross-national analysis of parent involvement in decision-making: Germany, France, and Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(11a), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i11a.3812
Gunn, G., & Stanley, M. (2018, June 14). Using financial technologies for a more sustainable planet. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/using-financial-technologies-more-sustainable-planet
Guy-Evans, O. (2024, August 29). Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem theory. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner-mesosystem.html
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). Career guidance and employment services: Lifelong learning [Research paper]. Author. Retrieved from https://www.skillsforemployment.org/knowledge-product-detail/5636
Ishida, A., & Sekiyama, T. (2024). Variables influencing students’ learning motivation: Critical literature review. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1445011. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1445011
Kundu, G.K. (2017). Quality in higher education from different perspectives: A literature review. International Journal for Quality Research, 11(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR11.01-02
Kurtuy, A. (2025, January 22). What is career development? [Full guide + tips for 2025]. Novorésumé Career Blog. Retrieved from https://novoresume.com/career-blog/what-is-career-development
Labib, W., Abdelsattar, A., Ibrahim, Y., & Abdelhadi, A. (2021). What motivates students to study engineering? A comparative study between males and females in Saudi Arabia. Education Sciences, 11(4), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040147
Larsen, D.M., & Puck, M.R. (2020). Developing a validated test to measure students’ progression in mathematical reasoning in primary school. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 2(1), 20–33.
Lee, H. (2024, April 19). The top 7 factors to consider when choosing the right college major. College Ready. Retrieved from https://collegereadyplan.com/the-top-7-factors-to-consider-when-choosing-the-right-college-major
Liu, M., Kang, J., & McKelroy, E. (2015). Examining learners’ perspectives of taking a MOOC: Reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International, 52(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1053289
Ma, B., Lu, M., Taniguchi, Y., & Konomi, S. (2021). Investigating course choice motivations in university environments. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00150-7
Malte, J., Becker, M., & Neumann, M. (2021). Dimensional comparison effects on (gendered) educational choices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(2), 330–350. Retrieved from https://psycnet-apa-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/fulltext/2020-40863-001.html
Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2016). The quantitative research process. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (2nd ed., pp. 162–173). Van Schaik Publishers.
Marks, M.B., Haug, J.C., & Huckabee, W.A. (2016). Understanding the factors that influence student satisfaction with the undergraduate business major. Journal of Education for Business, 91(5), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1188757
Matthews, K.N., Edmondson, D.R., & Matthews, L. (2024). Why students select their college major: An investigative study. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 13(1), 11. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/amj/vol13/iss1/11
McKenzie, S., & Bennett, D. (2022). Understanding the career interests of information technology (IT) students: A focus on choice of major and career aspirations. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 12839–12853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11141-1
Morgan, S.L., Gelbgiser, D., & Weeden, K.A. (2013). Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research, 42(4), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008
Morton, J.B., & Hyderi, A.A. (2016). Motivating factors influencing college students’ choice of academic major. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(9), 142.
Mwantimwa, K. (2021). What motivates students’ decisions on programmes to pursue at university level: The role of information and knowledge. Higher Education, 82, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00698-4
National University of Lesotho (NUL). (2025–2026a). Faculty of Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://nul.ls/faculty-of-social-sciences/
National University of Lesotho (NUL). (2025–2026b). NUL history. Retrieved from https://nul.ls/nul-history/
Nyamwange, J. (2016). Influence of student’s interest on career choice among first-year university students in public and private universities in Kisii County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(4), 96. Retrieved from https://www.iiste.org
Nyamweya, S. (2025). Research on the factors influencing student choice of their university majors. HubPages. Retrieved from https://discover.hubpages.com/education/research-on-the-factors-influencing-student-choice-of-their-university-majors
Obiosa, N. (2020). Effects of students’ motivation and engagement on students’ satisfaction in a lecture: Empirical analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13357a
O’Neill, A. (2025). Total population of Lesotho 2023, by gender. Lesotho Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/967856/total-population-of-lesotho-by-gender/
Özdoğru, A. (2011). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. In S. Goldstein & J.A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 300–301). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_940
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). The systems theory framework of career development and counselling: Connecting theory and practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 28(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-005-9010-1
Popli, N.K., & Singh, R.P. (2024). Enhancing academic outcomes through industry collaboration: Our experience with integrating real-world projects into engineering courses. Discovery Education, 3(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00300-w
Por, N. (2024). Factors influencing students’ decision in choosing universities: Build Bright University students. As-Salam, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.37249/assalam.v8i1.646
Ramalu, J.C.D., Abu Bakar, N., & Nijar, N.N. (2013). Factors that determine students’ preferences in selecting higher learning institutions. Infrastructure University Kuala Lumpur Research Journal, 1(1), 27–41.
Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S.E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Soria, K.M., & Stebleton, M. (2013). Major decisions: Motivations for selecting a major, satisfaction, and belonging. NACADA Journal, 33(2), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-018
Stock, P., & Stock, E. (2019). Factors that influence a college student’s choice of an academic major and minor. University of Mary Hardin-Baylor.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Wang, J., Zhang, W., Zhao, M., Lai, X.F., Chang, L., & Wang, Z. (2024). Efficiency of higher education financial resource allocation from the perspective of ‘double first-class’ construction: A three-stage global super slacks-based measure analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 12047–12075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12323-1
Ward, A.M., Brennan, N.M., & Wylie, J. (2023). Enrolment motivation of accounting doctoral students: Professionally qualified and non-professionally qualified accountants. Accounting Forum, 47(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2021.2001127
Watts, A.G. (2006). Career development learning and employability. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/esecttools/esectpubs/watts%20career.pdf
Whitehead, A. (2018). Examining the influence of close social groups on first-year college student STEM major selection. Journal of Mason Graduate Research, 5(2), 58–84.
Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S.H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 2274. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2274
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
