The current stage of higher education development is featured by a complex and dynamic environment, new threats associated with the coronavirus pandemic. These challenges dictate the need for universities to maintain firm competitive positions. Taking into account the peculiarities of the higher education and the subjective assessment of a number of factors, it is necessary to adapt the models of assessing the competitiveness of educational organizations to the specifics of the market. The purpose of the article is to modernize and test Porter's model of Five Competitive Forces for the education market system. The object of the study is the educational services market of the Sverdlovsk region. The most significant attention in the proposed model is paid to identifying and describing the features and structure of the five forces of competition. The authors propose to consider the power of internal and external consumers of university educational services as the power of customers, and the threat of online education and the creation of corporate universities of large companies as a threat from substitutes. The main attention of the authors is paid to an empirical study of the competitiveness of brands of universities in the Sverdlovsk region using the results of a survey of 177 graduates of the 11th grade of Yekaterinburg, conducted in 2020. The analysis of the applicants' motivation showed that the most important motives in choosing a university are the possibility of free education and the qualification of the teaching staff, further material benefits, such as fair wages and favorable employment. The most popular sources of information for applicants are the official website of the high school, as well as relatives, friends and acquaintances. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that it is necessary to develop a marketing strategy to increase the competitive position, awareness and the level of public confidence of the university. The authors suggest universities to personalize relationships with students in order to increase loyalty to the university, use information technology to implement flexible programs of interaction with consumers of educational services.

1. Kapustina L.M., Zhadko E.A., Izakova N.B. University Brand Perception in the Context of the Brand Wheel Model. Manager. 2017. no. 5(69). pp. 50–57. (in Russian).

2. Mamonov E. Knowledge is a priority. Russian newspaper Special issue. 2021. no. 129(8480). Available at: https://rg.ru/2021/06/15/kolichestvo-rossiian-s-vysshim-obrazovaniem-prevysilo 31 procent.html (in Russian).

3. Teichler U. Consortium of Higher Education Researchers. Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions, 2017. no. 10. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1007/978–94–017–9553–1_204–1

4. Nabokov V.I., Mingalev V.D., Pustuyev A.L., Sharapova V.M. et al. Marketing information analysis on educational service quality in terms of innovative activity. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication. 2018. no. 8. pp. 31–38.

5. Aguilar S.J. Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity. Information and Learning Sciences. 2020. vol. 121. no. 5/6. pp. 285–299. doi:10.1108/ILS 04–2020–0084

6. Rajaeian M.M., Cater-Steel A. Lane M., Determinates of effective knowledge transfer from academic researchers to industry practitioners. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2018. no. 47. pp. 37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.12.003

7. Smoyer A.B., Brien K. O, Rodrigues-Keyes E. Lessons learned from COVID 19: Being known in online social work classrooms. Int. Social Work. 2020. no. 63 (5). pp. 651–654. doi: 10.1177/0020872820940021

8. Cao W., Fang Z., Hou G. et al. The psychological impact of the COVID 19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020. no. 287. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934

9. Korzhavina N.P., Leonhard V.A., Chikova O.A. Competitiveness of universities in the labor market: the relationship of components and indicators. Pedagogical education in Russia. 2016. no. 8. (in Russian).

10. Kolchina N.O., Leonenko E.A. Multidimensionality of the category "competitiveness of the university", approaches and methods of managing the competitiveness of the university. Problems of management. 2018. no. 4 (34). (in Russian).

11. Cheng B.L. et al. Service innovation: building a sustainable competitive advantage in higher education. International Journal of Services, Economics and Management. 2019. vol. 10. no. 4. pp. 289-309.

12. Garaev M.Sh., Khan-Khoiskaya I.V. Competition for the best education. International journal of social and human sciences. 2017. no. 3 (2). pp. 22–27. (in Russian).

13. Musselin C. New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review. 2018. vol. 16. no. 3. pp. 657-683. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwy033

14. Wilkins S. The positioning and competitive strategies of higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Management. 2020. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-05-2019-0168

15. Ovanesyan N.M., Lebedev V.A. Specificity of educational services of the university: marketing approach. Bulletin of the Bryansk State Technical University. 2016. no. 1 (49). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/spetsifika-obrazovatelnyh-uslug-vuza-marketingovyy-podhod (in Russian).

16. Palfreyman D., Tapper T. Reshaping the university: The rise of the regulated market in higher education. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

17. Farhan B.Y. Examining competition in Ontario’s higher education market. Interchange. 2017. vol. 48. no. 1. pp. 71-95. doi: 10.1007/s10780-016-9278-6

18. Pan S.Y. China's approach to the international market for higher education students: strategies and implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2013. vol. 35. no. 3. pp. 249-263. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.786860

19. Komljenovic J., Robertson S. L. The dynamics of ‘market-making’in higher education. Journal of Education Policy. 2016. vol. 31. no. 5. pp. 622-636. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2016.1157732

20. Gilpin G.A., Saunders J., Stoddard C. Why has for-profit colleges’ share of higher education expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor market changes. Economics of Education Review. 2015. vol. 45. pp. 53-63. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.11.004