Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine, through a longitudinal study, undergraduate student perceptions of service expectations, priorities and quality of the higher education institution that they attend, using an importance-performance rating matrix. Design/methodology/approach: This research was carried out with students exposed to a new type of educational program that combines face-to-face encounters with distance learning experiences. Respondents belong to five graduate courses in management. Data collection was performed at five different time points, targeting all attending students as they continued their studies. Findings: The findings showed that the students' expectations of the set of factor-defined dimensions and attributes studied increased notably over time. Senior students tended to be more demanding than beginning students. Aside from the comfort levels of the classroom, the attributes rated as most important by the majority of students were directly linked to the professors, whether with respect to their practical experience, teaching methods, motivation or training received. This was the case at each stage of data collection. Practical implications: The importance × performance gaps matrix offers managers at higher education institutions with information to support decisions, especially with regard to setting priorities. The information obtained enables managers to align actions with emerging areas of need, and effectively direct resources to ensure student satisfaction, retention and loyalty. Using importance ratings taken at different stages of student interaction with the institution was found to be useful at the institution investigated. Institutions could attract new student customers by meeting expectations with such trend data. Originality/value: The current research captured students' changes in expectations of their undergraduate coursework that combined classroom and distance learning approaches. In addition, the study documented variations over time in students' perceptions on key service areas. The paper provides data on student-perceived priorities, quality gaps and criticality levels, seen both at a level of aggregate dimensions and at the level of individual service attributes.