英国的高等教育不再仅仅是一种公共产品，而是一种带有私人成本的公共产品。自2006年起，英国所有的大学生都要缴纳学费，而且学费逐年上涨(Wilkins, Shams， & Husiman 2013, p. 126)。到2012年,英国政府决定£9000学费上限在英格兰(业务创新与技能(BIS)2011)。随着最近全球经济的变化和失业率的上升，问题出现了:学生如何理解和应对学费上涨?这项研究考察了三种可能的学费上涨的结果:1)不进入高等教育;2)出国;3)在英国寻找更便宜的替代品(Wilkins, Shams， & Husiman, 2013, p. 129)。本研究的中心焦点是评估在学生选择申请高等教育机构(HEIs)时，经济因素是否优先考虑。一项调查被用来收集学生在他们的中学最后一年的数据，特别是在英国遵循普通教育证书高级课程(A- Level)的学生(威尔金斯，沙姆斯，&胡西曼，2013，第131页)。为了补充这项调查，我们进行了两次焦点小组讨论，每次持续一小时。根据这项研究，第一组“由五名12/13年级的学生组成，他们在一所学校的六年级学习a -levels课程，而第二组有四名来自进修学院的学生”(Wilkins, Shams， & Husiman, 2013, p. 131)。研究人员没有深入研究他们为什么选择这一有选择性的学生群体。这让人想到选择这些学生时可能存在的偏见，以及他们的看法是否与命题相匹配。这项研究仅与九名学生进行讨论，并不能充分反映学生群体中选择的多样性。
Higher Education in the UK is no longer just a public good, but a public good with a private cost. Since 2006, all university students in the UK have been charged a tuition fee and each following year tuition fees have increased (Wilkins, Shams, & Husiman 2013, p. 126). By 2012, the UK government decided on a £9000 tuition cap in England (Business Innovation & Skills [BIS] 2011). With the recent changes in the global economies and rising unemployment rates the question arises: how are students understanding and responding to increases in tuition fees? The study examines three scenarios as the possible outcomes of the increase in tuition fees: 1) not entering HE; 2) going abroad; and 3) looking for a cheaper alternative in the UK (Wilkins, Shams, & Husiman, 2013, p. 129).The central focus of the study is to evaluate whether financial factors take a first priority in students’ choice of applying to higher education institutions (HEIs). A survey was used to collect data amongst students in their final year of secondary school, specifically students who were following a General Certificate of Education Advanced Level programme (A-levels) in England (Wilkins, Shams, & Husiman, 2013, p. 131). To supplement the survey, two focus group discussions were conducted, each lasting one hour. According to the study, the first group “consisted of five year 12/13 students who were studying A-levels at a school sixth form, while the second group had four students from a further education college” (Wilkins, Shams, & Husiman, 2013, p. 131). The researchers do not go into depth as to why they choose this selective group of students. It makes one think of the potential biases of selecting these students and if their perceptions were tailored to match the propositions. By only conducting a discussion with nine students the study cannot fully capture the diversity of choice within the student body.