Basic information
The present study revealed that most of the students participated in the survey were from urban background (58%), nuclear families (87%) with below 5 members (89%). Majority of their families had family education score in the range of 2-4 and annual family income in the range of 2-4 lakh rupees. The result regarding background was in agreement with those of
Yadav and Kashyap (2017). The result of the present study with respect to family type coincided with that of
Shekhar et al., (2016); Jayasudha and Sheela (2021) and
Vijayalakshmi et al., (2022), while the results regarding family size and family education were similar to those of
Ramesh (2016). Regarding higher education, most of the students participated in the present study were inclined to pursue post-graduation courses (53%) and remaining were not pursuing higher education after UG due to various reasons such as desire to earn money by joining a job (27%), lack of financial support from family (13%), lack of acceptance of family (5%) and reason of believing that it is waste of time to pursue higher education as there are no suitable jobs (2%). These results conformed to those of
Chaudhary et al., (2023). Majority (58%) of the students’ families were not favourable to start a new enterprise which is contrary to the findings of
Ramesh (2016). Among the enterprises listed, most of the students were inclined towards establishing a nursery (20%). However,
Orabi et al., (2022) determined that post-harvest management was the most preferred enterprise among rural agricultural students. This disagreement might be due to the fact that prospective enterprises vary according to local conditions.
The correlation coefficients among some parameters related to basic information such as background, family type, family size, number of siblings, family education score, family income and planning for higher education were given in Table 1. The background had significant (P<0.01) positive association with family education score and family income which clearly indicates that students from urban background had significantly higher family education score and family income than those from rural background. The reason for the significant negative association of family type with family size and number of siblings might be that the nuclear families had lower number of members and siblings than the joint families. The increase of family size with siblings was the probable reason for the significant positive association of family size with number of siblings. Table 1 shows that the family income and planning for higher education had significant (P<0.01) positive association with family education score. It can be deduced from this result that educated families had more income and students from high income families had more chances of getting higher education.
Career preferences
The results obtained from the analysis of career preferences of the students participated in the present study were depicted in Table 2. The present study revealed that the Food Safety Officer followed by the Agricultural Officer were the most preferred careers among the students participated in the survey. Becoming entrepreneur or Marketing Development Officer in seed companies was the third most preferred career. The scientist under ICAR followed by Bank Manager in public sector or Marketing Development Officer in fertilizer companies were the fourth and fifth most sought career options by the students.
Chaudhary et al., (2023) supported these results. However,
Balan (2003) reported that the most preferred careers were administrative service and bank job for female agricultural graduates and
Akhila and Mankar (2021) determined that Assistant Professor was the most preferred career. The fact that the career planning is very dynamic process and is influenced by many factors might be the probable explanation for these discrepancies. It can be inferred from the Table 2 that there were no significant differences between the rural and urban students in terms of their career choices which indicates that background of a student had no influence on her career planning. Contrary to this,
Lakshmi et al., (2011) reported significant relationship between background and career preferences of agricultural students.
Factors responsible for career preferences
In general, various factors such as intrinsic interest in work, job security, salary, status of job, job satisfaction, work environment and work-life balance play a role in decision making towards career preferences. The ranking and analysis of the factors involved in deciding the career preferences was presented in Table 3. The present study revealed that job security followed by intrinsic interest in work and job satisfaction were the most deciding factors for career preferences among the female students participated in the survey. These results were in agreement with those of
Ramesh et al., (2019). Table 3 shows that the Weighted Mean Scores of intrinsic interest in work, job satisfaction and work environment for urban students were significantly higher than those for rural students which indicates that the students from urban background are more particular about good conditions of employment than the students from rural background.
Entrepreneurial orientation
The self-confidence and risk-taking ability are the two important attributes of entrepreneurial orientation from which an Entrepreneurial Behavioural Index (EBI) can be constructed. The mean scores of self-confidence, risk-taking ability and Entrepreneurial Behavioural Index (EBI) were 0.80±0.01, 0.69±0.01 and 0.73±0.01 respectively, which suggest that the students were high in self-confidence and medium in terms of risk-taking ability and entrepreneurial behavioural index. Many authors such as
Jayasudha and Sheela (2021) and
Yadav and Kashyap (2017) observed similar results.
The correlation coefficients between parameters of basic information and entrepreneurial orientation were presented in Table 4, a perusal of which tells that the self-confidence (P<0.01) and risk-taking ability of students improve with increase in number of family members. It is very interesting to note the finding of the present study that the self-confidence (P<0.01) and risk-taking ability had inverse relationship with the family education score. The present study revealed that the Entrepreneurial Behavioural Index (EBI) was significantly more in case of students from families of joint type, families with large number of members and low education scores. The results are indicating the reluctance of students from highly educated nuclear families to venture into entrepreneurship. The influence of demographic factors such as family background, size and type on students’ entrepreneurial behaviour was also found by
Behera and Raj (2024).
Based on significant correlations between EBI and basic parameters, the regression equation [EBI = 0.800 - 0.023 (Family type) + 0.011 (Family size) -0.024 (Family education score)] was evolved which is a statistically significant (P<0.05) model and can be used for prediction of EBI but with less accuracy (R
2 = 0.131) which is very common in social or behavioural sciences. The relationship between actual values of dependent variable (EBI) and its predicted values obtained through the regression model was depicted in Fig 1.
Constraints in pursuing a career in entrepreneurship
The results of analysis of constraints perceived by the students were presented in Table 5. The Garett’s ranking technique determined that the fear of loan followed by insecure income, excessively irregular working hours and lack of suitable attitude for entrepreneurship were the four major constraints perceived by the students in opting for a career in entrepreneurship. It is noteworthy that all the four major constraints were intrinsic and the same were the four major constraints for rural students too. The insecure income followed by fear of loan, excessively irregular working hours and tough competition were the four major constraints perceived by the students from urban background. The results suggest the need of a robust entrepreneurial education to promote entrepreneurship among the agricultural students. The results were almost similar to those of
Patel et al., (2020) and
Ramesh (2016). Conversely,
Srishailam et al., (2021) noted that lack of infrastructure was the major constraint among agricultural entrepreneurs. The lack of practical knowledge on entrepreneurship was reported as the major constraint among agriculture students by
Shaik and Khandave (2020). Therefore, it can be suggested that the management of agricultural colleges need to be focussed on imparting practical knowledge to their students.