Dropout and completion in higher education in Europe : main report.
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: Europe, access to education, dropout, education policy, higher education, report

Dropout and Completion in 
Higher Education in Europe 

Main Report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union.  

Freephone number (*): 

00 8006 7 89 10 11 

    (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN:  978-92-79-52352-6 
doi:  

10.2766/826962 

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

12-2015  2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contract no EAC-2014-0182 

Dropout and Completion in 
Higher Education in Europe 

A report prepared by: 

      Bjørn Stensaker 
      Elisabeth Hovdhaugen 
      Sabine Wollscheid 

     Hans Vossensteyn 
     Andrea Kottmann  
     Ben Jongbloed 
     Frans Kaiser 
     Leon Cremonini 

      In close collaboration with: 
     Liz Thomas (Edge Hill University, UK) 
     Martin Unger (IHS Vienna, Austria) 

Disclaimer 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official opinion  of the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not guarantee 
the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting 
on  the  Commission’s  behalf  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  use  which  may  be  made  of  the 
information contained therein. 

12-2015  3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12-2015  4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 
Executive Summary 

Key findings 
Recommendations 

1  Introduction 

1.1  Background and objective of this study 
1.2  The concept of study success 
1.3  Research questions 
1.4  Research approaches and methodologies 
1.5  Considerations on some limitations of the study 
1.6  Structure of the report 

2  Previous Knowledge on Study Success 

2.1  Findings from the literature review 

2.1.1  National system factors contributing to study success 
2.1.2  Factors impact on study success the level of the HE institution 
2.1.3  Individual level factors impacting on study success 

2.2  Conclusions, implications and recommendations 

3  Analytical Framework of this Study 

3.1  Defining the concept of study success 
3.2  Factors influencing study success 
3.3  Policy areas and analytical framework 
3.4  How policies are expected to improve study success 
3.5  Reflective questions 

4  Monitoring and Evaluating Study Success in Europe 

4.1  Existing study success indicators across the OECD and Europe 
4.2  An inventory of national study success indicators 
4.3  Conclusions and recommendations 

5  National Study Success Policies 

Importance of study success on national policy agendas 

5.1 
5.2  Prevailing national study success orientations 
5.3  Overview of typical study success policies 

5.3.1  Typical national financing policies for study success 
5.3.2  Typical explicit national ‘organisation’ policies for study success 
5.3.3  Typical national ‘information & support’ policies for study success 

5.4  Overview of national approaches 
5.5  Four good national approaches 

5.5.1  Denmark 
5.5.2  Norway 
5.5.3  The Netherlands 
5.5.4  England 
5.6  Conclusions 

6  In-Depth Case Studies 

6.1  Stakeholders’ orientations to study success 
6.2  Typical institutional policies aimed at improving study success 

6.2.1  Enhancing information about programmes 
6.2.2  Matching students with programmes 
6.2.3  Introducing selection mechanisms 
6.2.4  Monitoring student attendance and progression 
6.2.5  Facilitating social integration and commitment 

5 
7 
7 
11 
13 
13 
14 
15 
15 
16 
17 
18 
18 
18 
19 
21 
22 
24 
24 
25 
25 
27 
28 
30 
30 
32 
36 
38 
38 
39 
40 
40 
50 
58 
64 
66 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
72 
73 
74 
74 
74 
76 
76 
77 

12-2015  5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.6  Addressing increasingly diverse students populations 
6.2.7  Teaching and learning initiatives 
6.2.8  Comprehensive approaches 

6.3  Translated policies 
6.4  Reflection 

7  Study Success Profiles 

7.1  Study success/ Outcomes 
7.2  National policies and practices 
7.3  Higher education system characteristics 

8  Conclusions 
9  Recommendations 
Bibliography 

78 
79 
80 
82 
83 
85 
85 
86 
86 
89 
93 
95 

12-2015  6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

In the Europe 2020 strategy, one of the goals is to have at least 40% of 30-34–year-
olds complete higher  education. Reducing dropout and increasing completion rates in 
higher education is one of the key strategies for achieving this goal, which is regarded 
as crucial for creating the high-level skills that Europe’s knowledge-intensive economic 
sectors  need  as  well  as  for  Europe’s  capacity  to  innovate  and  foster  productivity  and 
social justice. Related to this challenge, this report addresses a comparative study on 
higher  education  dropout  and  completion  in  Europe  (HEDOCE).  It  is  based  on  an 
extensive  review  of  literature  and  policy  documents  on  study  success  in  higher 
education,  a  Europe-wide  survey  of  national  higher  education  experts  and  eight  in-
depth country case studies. The main aims of the study are 1) to make an inventory of 
policies  and  developments  in  study  success  in  35  European  countries;  and  2)  to 
explore  the  available  evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  policies  and  good  practices  in 
addressing study success on the country-level as well as the institutional level. 

Key findings 

Study success is an important issue on the European policy agenda 
The  HEDOCE  study  found  that  study  success  is  regarded  as  important  in  three 
quarters  of  the  35  European  countries  surveyed.  In  almost  half  of  the  countries  it  is 
high or very high on the policy agenda (see table below). 

Importance of study success 

Countries 

Very high or high on the 
agenda 

On the agenda 

No or little relevance 

Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), 
France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, 
Slovenia, Sweden 
Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, 
Luxembourg, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Spain, Switzerland 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovak 
Republic, Turkey 

Source: Reporting from national experts. 

The definition of study success varies across countries in Europe  
National  governments  and  higher  education  institutions  use  different  orientations  to 
guide their policy-making with respect to study success: 

  Completion: to have students successfully complete their study programme  with 

a degree. 

  Time-to-degree:  to  have  students  complete  their  study  programme  within  a 

reasonable time period. 

  Retention or dropout: the aim to have students re-enrol in a study programme 
until they complete their degree and to reduce the likelihood they drop out before 
completing their programme. 

12-2015  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To monitor the situation with respect to each of these orientations, various indicators 
are used at national and institutional levels. Depending on their orientation and policy 
focus,  governments  and  higher  education  institutions  employ  different  definitions  for 
each of these phenomena. For example, many countries regard completion within the 
nominal  (stipulated)  study  period  plus  one  extra  year  as  an  indication  of  study 
success.  Realising  that  the  transition  from  the  first  to  the  second  year  of  study  is  a 
crucial  step  in  students’  educational  pathway,  other  countries  focus  on  retention  (or 
dropout) during the first year in higher education. 

There  is  great  variety  in  the  funding,  information  and  organisational  measures 
facilitating study success in Europe 
There  is  great  variety  in  the  policy  instruments  countries  use  to  increase  study 
success.  Across  Europe,  over  170  national  and  institutional  policy  instruments  have 
been  identified  in  35  countries.  These  may  be  grouped  into  22  typical  policies  falling 
under three main policy headings: 

  Funding and financial incentives: Financial rewards or sanctions to change the 

behaviour of students and/or institutions towards study success. 

  Information  and  support  for  students:  The  provision  of  information  and  any 
other  kinds  of  (non-financial)  support  to  (prospective)  students  by  national 
organisations  or  higher  education  institutions  in  order  to  improve  their  decision-
making  and  study  behaviour.  Examples  include  counselling,  career  guidance 
related to study and future job opportunities, tutoring, etc. 

  Organisation  of  higher  education:  Putting  in  place  structures  and  procedures 
related  to  the  organisation  of  teaching  and  learning  in  order  to  improve  study 
success,  for  example  addressing  the  duration  of  study,  types  of  degrees  offered 
(short degrees, Bachelor, Master’s), quality assurance and accreditation, etc. 

There is a lack of systematic knowledge, data and indicators on study success in 
Europe 
Although there are many studies focusing on factors that may have an impact on the 
study  success  of  individual  students,  research  on  study  success  policies  and  their 
effectiveness  is  rare,  particularly  research  taking  an  international  comparative 
perspective.  In  addition,  the  data  that  is  available  across  Europe  on  study  success  is 
diverse in terms of availability, data collection methods, definitions, and usage. Cross-
country overviews of completion rates, let alone other indicators of study success such 
as retention, dropout and the average time to complete a degree, are barely available. 
Overviews, such as the ones presented by the OECD in Education at a Glance, have to 
be interpreted with care due to differences in underlying indicator definitions as well as 
differences in national contexts and institutional arrangements between countries. Our 
own inventory of existing national data collections demonstrates that only 12 out of 35 
European  countries  regularly  report  a  national  indicator  of  completion.  Even  fewer 
countries  report  on  retention  and  dropout  rates  and  time-to-degree.  A  recent  report 
on computing and collecting data on completion rates and average duration in higher 
education  concludes  that  the  monitoring  of  study  success  and  its  calculation  method 
need  to  be  harmonised  across  Europe  (ICON  and  QUANTOS,  2015).  Only  this  would 
allow meaningful comparisons to inform the various stakeholders interested in higher 
education. The same need for systematic knowledge, data and indicators is also felt in 
Australia and the U.S.A. 

12-2015  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A clear definition of study success is the first step towards a more effective policy 
design 
A  central  finding  of  the  current  study  is  that in  many  countries  study  success  is  only 
implicitly  defined,  making  the  objectives  and  relevance  of  the  related  policy 
instruments unclear. However, countries that place study success high on their policy 
agenda  and  have  a  clear  vision  on  what  they  want  to  achieve  seem  to  have  a  more 
effective  combination  of  policies  in  place  than  countries  that  do  not  show  this 
engagement. The effectiveness of the policies is heavily dependent on the policy mix – 
some  policies  explicitly  addressing  study  success  need  supportive  policies  to  become 
effective.  For  example,  policies  aimed  at  improving  the  match  between  (prospective) 
students’  demands  and  the  programmes  offered  by  higher  education  institutions  are 
more  effective  when  institutions  are  also  required  to  improve  their  counselling  and 
service structures. 

Though  many  countries  and  higher  education  institutions  are  actively  stimulating 
study  success  by  means  of  one  or  more  policy  instruments,  the  general  impression 
from the current study is that policies are likely to be more effective if  there is a mix 
of policy instruments each addressing different aspects of study success. A policy mix 
that includes strengthening students’ choices, promoting their social integration in the 
programme,  monitoring  and  counselling,  and  rewarding  successful  completion  –  is 
more  likely  to  be  successful.  In  addition,  countries  and  institutions  need  to  be 
consistent,  both  in  terms  of  policy  instruments  and  over  time,  with  respect  to  their 
overall  study  success  objectives  and  incentives.  For  example,  if  governments  reward 
institutions  for  successful  degree  completions,  the  student  financial  support  system 
should include similar incentives for students. 

Increased institutional responsibility is seen as a requirement for study success, 
but funding is not a miracle cure 
The  use  of  study  success  related  indicators  in  funding  formulas  and  performance 
agreements is becoming more widespread. This form of performance-based funding is 
generally directed at changing institutional behaviour and shifts more responsibility for 
the success of students towards the institutions as they are rewarded for the number 
of  graduates,  their  students’  credits  or  for  student  retention.  Many  countries  make 
additional  funding  available  to  encourage  their  institutions  focusing  more  on  study 
success.  An  example  is  the  ‘Student  Opportunity  Allocation’  in  England  that 
encourages  institutions  to  improve  study  success.  In  Germany,  the  ‘Quality  Pact  for 
Teaching’  helped  improve  student-staff  ratios  and  stimulated  innovations  in  teaching 
and learning and improved the qualifications and training of teachers. The French ‘Plan 
to Successfully Obtain a Bachelor Degree’ prompted institutions to develop innovations 
in  teaching  and  learning.  In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  additional 
funds  were  invested  in  upgrading  educational  resources  and  infrastructure  such  as 
scientific books, manuals and teaching laboratories, to encourage students to succeed. 

Performance-based  funding  mechanisms,  however,  require  a  careful  design.  If  the 
mechanism  is  complex  and  incorporates  numerous  indicators,  it  may  not  be  fully 
aligned to various policies, such as in Denmark and Austria. If it involves open-ended 
funding  with  possible  unintended  side-effects  as  in  Norway,  or  if  the budget  involved 
determines only a small proportion of total funding, then its impact is less significant. 
In  the  Netherlands,  between  1993  and  2011,  50  per  cent  of  the  teaching  funds  was 
distributed  along  the  relative  number  of  graduates  per  institution.  This  incentivised 
institutions to implement measures to reduce the average duration of study. 

Some  countries  also  include  performance  related  incentives  in  the  student  financial 
support schemes to encourage students to spend more time on their study and thus to 

12-2015  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
achieve  sufficient  progress.  Examples  are  imposing  a  limited  period  for  grant 
availability;  providing  scholarships  to  high  achieving  students;  or  rewarding 
completion,  for  example  by  turning  loans  into  grants.  Such  incentives  may  be  less 
effective  in  reducing  time-to-degree  if  the  total  support  received  by  students  is 
relatively small and students have to supplement their monthly income with significant 
amounts of paid work. In the U.S.A., current policy debates focus on the high tuition 
fees  and  the  high  debts  these  may  incur.  Not  all  graduates  are  expected  to  get  jobs 
that enable them to repay their debt. Government therefore initiates policies such as 
employment  guarantees,  saving  schemes  for  tuition  fees,  tax  reductions  and  free 
community  college  education.  In  Australia,  the  income-contingent  loan  scheme  for 
students  is  seen  as  an  important  feature  underlying  study  success,  because  the  high 
financial investments stimulate students to engage with their study. 

Monitoring students creates a foundation for institutional action 
Students’ individual and social characteristics have a strong impact on their probability 
of success in higher education. In this light, some institutions have initiated systematic 
monitoring  of  students’  attendance  and  their  individual  study  progress  to  identify 
students  at  risk  and  facilitate  institutional  follow-up  actions  through  personal 
counselling, coaching and mentoring. Some institutions have developed this into more 
general mandatory systems for personal tutoring and peer-mentoring among students 
to  stimulate  the  relationship  between  students  and  their  programme  by  creating  a 
community  and  a  sense  of  belonging  and  engagement  among  students.  A  key  idea 
behind  several  of  these  initiatives  is  the  closer  alignment  of  programme  objectives, 
teaching  and  learning  activities,  and  examination  and  assessment  of  students. 
Australian  higher  education  institutions  very  actively  monitor,  consult  and  advise 
students,  particularly  in  the  first  study  year.  This  is  found  to  be  the  key  institutional 
activity to improve study success for a diversified student population. 

Matching and social integration create a solid basis for study success 
While matching students with the most suitable study programmes is less of an issue 
in selective systems of higher education, some institutions in less selective, relatively 
open  systems  have  launched  initiatives  to  familiarize  students  with  their  programme 
of  choice  before  they  are  admitted  to  the  institution  (interviews,  trial  lectures  in  the 
institution,  online  self-assessment  tests,  informing  student  choice,  etc.).  To  facilitate 
social  integration  and  student  engagement,  many  higher  education  institutions 
throughout Europe have established special welcome programmes for students. 

Social  integration  of  students  into  higher  education  is  an  ongoing  responsibility  for 
institutions  and  in  mass  higher  education  systems  there  is  a  need  for  more  tailored 
and individualised follow-up of students to provide them with a sense of belonging and 
increase  their  engagement  with  their  studies.  For  example,  in  France,  more 
personalised  support  and  career  services  for  students  have  been  introduced  by 
institutions,  providing  students  with  a  ‘one-stop  service’  where  both  academic  and 
social challenges can be considered and addressed. 

Various  countries  have  integrated  new  types  of  programmes,  or  new  alternatives 
within  existing  degree  structures,  to  better  accommodate  diverse  target  groups  of 
students.  Short  degree  programmes  in  Portugal  and  the  Netherlands  offer  students 
short  routes  towards  a  profession  with  the  option  to  continue  to  a  Bachelor  degree. 
Other  countries  or  institutions  offer  students  an  introductory  orientation  phase  or  a 
less-specialised  Bachelor  programme  with  a  broader  range  of  subjects,  as  in  Austria, 
France,  Norway  and  some  German  universities.  This  allows  students  to  make  their 
final  choice  of  specialisation  later  and  more  carefully,  thus  preventing  them  from 
making a switch of programme or institution early on in their education career. 

12-2015  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Integrating  study  success  outcome  data  in  publicly  available  platforms,  e.g.  on 
quality  assurance  and  student  choice,  helps  institutions  and  (prospective) 
students to make the right choices 
To allow students and institutions to learn from examples elsewhere, several countries 
have  set  up  platforms  to  facilitate  the  sharing  of  experiences.  England,  Finland, 
Germany  and  Montenegro  have  set  up  organisations  (such  as  the  Higher  Education 
Academy in England) and structures in which good practice examples of study success 
are  shared  through  discussion  papers  (Finland)  or  dissemination  projects  (Nexus  in 
Germany). The Netherlands recently highlighted several good practice examples in its 
2015  Strategic  Agenda  for  Higher  Education  and  Research.  Some  countries  have  set 
up  student  choice  databases  and  information  systems,  including  the  Key  Information 
System in England, Studiekeuze123 in the Netherlands, the ‘Zeit Ranking’ in Germany 
and the Bulgarian University Ranking. In the US, a national College Ranking of about 
5,000 higher education institutions includes study success performance indicators next 
to  other  information.  Such  systems  stimulate  study  success  if  reliable  information  on 
dropout,  retention,  completion,  time-to-degree,  or  even  student  satisfaction  about 
lecturers, the quality of programmes, etc. is included. Informing prospective students 
as such will make institutions programmes pay attention to the impact of their study 
success record on their reputation. 

As  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  systems  emerge  and  develop,  they  are 
gradually becoming a platform for more sophisticated policy making. Study success is 
increasingly  becoming  part  and  parcel  of  quality  assurance  through  integrating 
completion,  retention  and  dropout  rates  in  self-evaluation  reporting  structures. 
Croatia,  Flanders,  France,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Montenegro  are  recent 
examples  of  this.  Study  success  rates  are  important  for  reaccreditation,  but  in  many 
cases are also published on national websites. This serves benchmarking purposes and 
thus pushes institutions to care about study success. 

Recommendations 
Based on the outcomes of this study we identify some generic recommendations that 
provide  a  broad  menu  for  informing  future  policy-making  to  increase  study  success. 
These  recommendations  highlight  possible  actions  to  be  taken  at  European,  national 
and institutional levels. 

The need for an increased European effort to facilitate study success 
The  current  study  has  clearly  shown  that  while  study  success  is  high  on  the  policy 
agenda in Europe, systematic knowledge of various national policy initiatives and their 
impact  is  limited.  In  general,  there  is  a  need  for  more  coordinated  action  across 
national borders to acquire a more solid knowledge base on what works. 

  There  is  a  need  to  create  a  Europe-wide  arena  for  discussing  issues  related  to 
study success. Given the diverse understandings of study success, one of the aims 
of  such  an  arena  could  be  to  generate  agreement  on  key  definitions  and  explicit 
indicators for study success. 

  As there is currently limited knowledge on the impact of policies specifically aimed 
at  study  success,  there  is  a  need  for  more  systematic  and  comparative  empirical 
research on the effectiveness of these policies. 

  There  is  also  a  need  to  link  the  (inter)national  study  success  agenda  to  related 
policy  areas  such  as  modernising  higher  education institutions,  quality  assurance, 
graduate  employability,  etc.  One  could  start  systematic  monitoring  of  study 
success  indicators  using  specific  benchmarking  instruments  (such  as  U-Multirank) 
and create a European platform for national and institutional good practices. 

12-2015  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The need for conscious national policy designs to boost study success 
As many countries currently define their study success aims in an implicit way, there 
is a need for more conscious national policy designs meeting the following criteria: 

  National  governments  can  be  clearer  and  explicit  on  the  specific  study  success 
orientations that they regard as important and the reasons for these priorities. 

  National  governments  can  develop  policy  designs  based  on  an  underlying 
behavioural  model  that  specifies  the  links  between  a  specific  study  success 
orientation,  the  policy  instruments  used,  the  roles  of  stakeholders  and  the 
expected impacts. 

  European countries can think of systematic efforts to collect and monitor indicators 
of  completion,  dropout  and  average  time-to-degree  at  agreed-upon  levels  and 
based on shared definitions. Such indicators are more useful when they reflect the 
diversity of institutions and study programmes. 

  The public availability of performance information can help to boost public interest 
in  study  success,  to  hold  higher  education  providers  accountable  for  promoting 
themselves in a responsible way, and to facilitate student choice. 

  Governments can consider developing national policy designs that reflect a mix of 
financial,  informational  and  organisational  policy  instruments  and  address  both 
students and higher education institutions. The policy instruments need to support 
each  other,  for  example  more  flexible  educational  pathways  need  clear  rules  for 
the recognition of previous learning and study achievements. 

 

It is suggested to enable institutions to monitor pathways of individual students to 
identify  students  at  risk  of  dropout.  This  also  helps  them  understand  specific 
patterns underlying dropout and completion and will inform future policy-making. 

The need for comprehensive institutional strategies to boost study success 
Because the  European higher education landscape is diverse and includes institutions 
with very different profiles and characteristics, study success priorities differ between 
types  of  institutions  and  study  programmes.  Furthermore,  as  institutions  increasingly 
have to strategically position themselves in a more competitive sector, they gain more 
responsibility  for  their  students’  success.  This  calls  for  comprehensive  institutional 
strategies to boost study success, based on the following recommendations: 

  Higher  education  institutions’  strategic  plans  could  specify  how  issues  of  study 
success  relate  to  their  profile  and  what  actions  will  be  taken  on  areas  such  as 
internal quality assurance. 

  With growing institutional responsibility for study success, institutions and students 
will benefit from student monitoring, counselling and mentoring systems as well as 
from structures to socially and academically integrate students. 

 

 

 

Institutions can consider publishing key institutional indicators on study success on 
their webpages to assist future students in making the right study choices as well 
as to raise and sustain institutional awareness of study success. 

Institutional  responsibility  for  study  success  can  also  include  measures  and 
facilities to assist students in their learning process. 

Institutions  will  benefit  from  institutional  research  on  the  specific  patterns 
underlying  dropout  and  completion.  This  will  enable  them  to  formulate  adequate 
measures to address study success within their own context. 

12-2015  12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction 

1.1  Background and objective of this study 
This is a large scale comparative study on dropout and completion in higher education 
in  Europe  that  provides  insight  into  the  policies  that  European  countries  and  higher 
education  institutions  employ  to  explicitly  address  study  success,  how  these  policies 
are  being  monitored  and  whether  they  are  effective.  Pulling  together  evidence  from 
existing research, surveying national and institutional experts and stakeholders across 
35  European  countries  as  well  as  exploring  national  definitions  and  data  on  various 
aspects of study success makes this ground breaking research. 

In  the  perspective  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy,  including  the  ambition  to  have  at 
least  40%  of  the  30-34  year  olds  holding  a  tertiary  education  qualification  by  2020, 
the  issue  of  increasing  educational  attainment  is  gaining  importance  in  the  national 
and  international  debates  on  higher  education.  Reducing  dropout  and  increasing 
completion  are  regarded  prime  strategies  to  achieve  higher  attainment  levels.  A  key 
concern  is  that  too  many  students  in  Europe  drop  out  before  obtaining  a  higher 
education  diploma  or  degree.  This  is  a  problem  across  the  EU,  as  success  in  higher 
education is vital for jobs, social justice and economic growth. Particularly in times of 
economic  austerity,  the  pressure  for  effective  and  efficient  use  of  resources  is 
necessary, from governmental, institutional as well as student perspectives. The 2011 
Modernisation Agenda rightfully states that it takes a joint effort of all Member States, 
higher  education  institutions  and  the  European  Commission  to  take  a  pro-active 
approach  in  working  towards  the  objectives  and  increasing  participation  and 
attainment in higher education. 

Widening  access  and  improving  completion  rates  accordingly  have  been  on  the 
Bologna Process agenda since the  Prague Communiqué (2001) and became a priority 
for  2012-2015  (cf.  Bucharest  Communiqué,  2012)  as  well  as  the  Yerevan 
Communiqué (2015-2018). In Yerevan communiqué the EHEA objectives put an even 
greater  emphasis  on  the  quality  and  relevance  of  learning  and  teaching  and  making 
higher  education  more  inclusive  to  widen  opportunities  for  access  and  completion 
(European  Commission,  2015).  A  number  of  governments  have  taken  initiatives  to 
increase  the  attractiveness,  quality,  efficiency  and  diversity  of  higher  education.  For 
example,  various  countries  –  such  as  Denmark,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and 
Scotland  –  have implemented  profiling  and  performance  orientation policies  to  better 
align  higher  education  institutions  and  programmes  with  the  demands  and  needs  of 
students and the labour market (De Boer et al., 2015; Vossensteyn et al., 2011). 

Obviously,  there  is  tension  between  the  policy  aims  of  increasing  participation  rates 
and  maintaining  high  completion  or  low  dropout  rates:  higher  education  has  to 
accommodate  larger  enrolments  and  more  diversity  among  learners,  yet  keep  more 
students in the system and assure they can achieve the learning outcomes needed for 
completing  a  degree.  This  calls  for  a  stronger  knowledgebase  on  what  countries  and 
higher  education  institutions  can  do  in  order  to  effectively  achieve  the  objectives  of 
reducing  dropout  and  increasing  completion.  However,  the  current  understanding  of 
study success, its determining factors and policies that can effectively reduce dropout 
and increase completion is limited, due to various reasons: 

  The  aims  to  increase  access  may  be  at  odds  with  increasing  quality  and  study 

success 

12-2015  13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Selectivity  and  flexibility  of  access  to  higher  education  differs  across  countries  in 
terms  of  study  places  available  and  selection  processes  before  or  in  higher 
education 

  Study  success  –  including  dropout  and  completion  –  is  not  a  top  priority  in  all 

countries or can be avoided politically 

  Cultural  values  and  believes  on  studying,  dropout,  completion  and  transitions 

between study and work differ 

  There  can  be  various  reasons  that  can  refrain  students  from  making  the  right 

study choices 

  The  extent  of  research  into  factors  that  drive  study  success  and  into  the 

effectiveness of study success policies is limited in many countries 

As  such,  this  study  explicitly  aims  at  providing  an  analysis  of  available  national  and 
institutional  policies  –  and  their  effectiveness  –  to  stimulate  study  success  in  higher 
education in Europe. The value added of this study is threefold: 

1.  To  provide  an  up-to-date  literature  review  including  international,  national  and 
institutional research and policy-oriented documents addressing the wider concept 
of study success 

2.  To provide both an overview of and structure to the many policies that are put in 
place for addressing the issue of study success in higher education in Europe, how 
these  are  monitored  and  whether  these  are  effective  in  reducing  dropout  and 
stimulating  completion.  Also  good  practice  examples  in  stimulating  study  success 
are identified. 

3.  To  suggest  indicators  to  monitor  and  internationally  compare  different  aspects 

related to study success resulting in national study success profiles. 

1.2  The concept of study success 
Study  success  is  a  multidimensional  phenomenon  that  can  be  viewed  upon  from 
various  angles  and  perspectives.  When  referring  to  the  phenomena  of  dropout  and 
completion, in this study we use the term study success in order to address the full 
complexity  of  dropout  and  completion  and  all  factors  that  may  have  an impact  on it. 
Not  only is  study  success  a  multidimensional  concept  —  including  dropout,  retention, 
study progress, study duration, completion and transition into the next-level study or 
the labour market — it also is influenced by a wide variety of factors at various levels, 
such  as  education  structures  and  pathways  to  higher  education,  national  policies, 
financial  and  other  incentives,  institutional  structures,  teaching  and  learning 
approaches,  curriculum  design  and  student  background  characteristics  and  the 
interrelations between all of these. 

Study success, however, means something different in various national or institutional 
contexts or from various stakeholder perspectives. Some governments give priority to 
efficiency  and  time-to-degree,  others  to  reducing  dropout  or  the  transition  into  the 
labour  market.  Students  may  be  particularly  interested  in  high  grades,  while  rector’s 
conferences  may  be  interested  in  completion  rates.  Though  we  recognise  all  this 
diversity,  an  international  comparative  study  like  this  requires  a  clear  working 
definition  of  the  phenomenon  studies.  To  limit  the  focus  of  this  study  the  working 
definition  puts  primary  focus  on  a  few  elements  of  study  success.  It  only  includes 
elements  that  directly  relate  to  the  student  life  cycle  from  when  they  started  studies 
till they leave higher education, either or not with a degree. The study further focuses 
on  national  and  institutional  policies  to  stimulate  study  success.  Based  on  these 
notions we define study success as follows: 

12-2015  14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study  success  comprises  all  major  achievements  of  students  in  the  higher  education 
system, including dropout/persistence, completion of a degree and time-to-degree. 

One  has  to  acknowledge  that  study  success  as  defined  can  be  influenced  by  many 
factors  and  policies,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  To  further  limit  the  focus  of  this 
research  we  will  only  include  national  and  institutional  policies  that  are  meant  to 
explicitly and directly influence study success. 

1.3  Research questions 
This  study  analyses  the  range  of  policies  that  governments  and  higher  education 
institutions explicitly use to address study success in terms of dropout and completion 
in  higher  education  and  whether  these  policies  are  monitored  and  effective.  In 
addition,  it  explores  the  (inter)national  statistics  and  databases  regarding  the 
alternative approaches used to measure various types of study success outcomes.  To 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the  study  and  to  clarify  the  relationships  between  policies 
and  study  success,  the  following  research  questions  guide  the  various  parts  of  the 
study: 

1.  How do governments, institutions and other stakeholders define study success? To 
what extent are these definitions shared within and between countries in Europe? 

2.  What factors are regarded important for achieving study success? 

3.  What  kind  of  policies  do  countries  and  higher  education  institutions  develop  to 
reduce  dropout  and  improve  study  success?  Can  these  policies  be  clustered  in 
groups  of  policies  and  what  are  the  commonalities  and  differences  in  the  policy 
mixes used to stimulate study success across European countries and institutions? 

4.  Which  policy  approaches  and  instruments  appear  to  be  effective  in  reducing 

dropout and improving completion? 

5.  What  alternative  data  and  indicators  are  used  at  national  level  to  measure  study 
success outcomes that are interesting in an international comparative perspective? 

1.4  Research approaches and methodologies 
To  answer  the  above  mentioned  research  questions  the  study  has  been  divided  into 
five  main  work  packages  applying  a  mixed  methods  research  strategy  using  desk 
research,  surveys  among  national  experts  and  interviews  with  key  stakeholders  in 
various countries and higher education institutions. 

The Literature Review, providing an up-to-date overview of the knowledge on study 
success,  particularly  concerned  desk  research  exploring  national  and  international 
academic  and  policy  oriented  documents  like  articles,  reports,  policy  papers,  etc. 
published  in  the  last  decade.  The  search  for  European  scientific  literature  on  study 
success  and  dropout  in  undergraduate  education  explored  a  number  of  well-
established  bibliographic  data  banks  by  using  combinations  of  keywords  associated 
with  study  success.  European  literature  was  supplemented  with  study  success 
literature  from  the  USA.  We  have  augmented  the  scientific  literature  with  grey 
literature identified and summarised by our national experts in their survey responses. 

The  National  Study  Success  Policies  to  a  large  extent  draw  on  three  rounds  of 
surveys  among  selected  national  experts  using  an  open  approach  that  was  likely  to 
give  the  most  accurate  picture  of  policies  that  were  explicitly  designed  for  improving 
study  success  from  2005  onwards.  For  each  country,  one  expert  –  sometimes 
supported  by  additional  experts  –  has  identified  the  relative  importance  of  study 
success  in  the  national  policy  agenda  and  the  dominant  study  success  orientations 
used  by  various  stakeholders.  They  further  indicated  the  national  policies  that  have 
been  explicitly  designed  to  address  study  success  (since  2005),  whether  and  how 
these  are  monitored,  and  what  evidence  is  available  on  the  effectiveness  of  these 

12-2015  15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
policies.  Their  information  provision  was  validated  against  other  data  sources  and 
(inter)national  policy  reports  such  as  the  NESET  report  (Quinn  2013),  reports  from 
Eurydice (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2014; 2011), OECD reports and with 
national  policy  makers  from  our  networks.  Based  on  the  responses  from  all  national 
experts, the national experts were re-asked – in a sort of Delphi-method1 – to indicate 
whether  no  policies  explicitly  designed  for  study  success  were  missing  for  their 
country.  This  has  resulted  in  a  relatively  complete  overview  of  explicit  study  success 
policies for the period 2005-2014 in 35 European countries. Two national experts from 
Australia  and  the  USA  provided  similar-type  of  information  leading  to  two  policy 
briefings on these two countries. 

The third research approach consist of the eight In-depth Case Studies on the Czech 
Republic, England, France,  Germany,  Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland. The 
selected  national  experts  were  intensively  supported  and  supervised  by  a  strict  case 
study  protocol  and  each  by  a  core  research  team  member  in  order  to  guarantee  as 
much  comparability  of  the  data  collection  across  the  eight  case  studies.  In  the  case 
studies  various  important  stakeholders  at  national  level  were  interviewed.  Also  two 
interesting  and  representative  higher  education  institutions  were  selected  to  explore 
institutional  approaches  in  translated  or  self-initiated  study  success  policies.  At  the 
case-study institutions, interviews were conducted with institutional leaders, academic 
and support staff as well as students. 

The  fourth  research  approach  is  formed  by  Monitoring  Study  Success  and  the 
national Study Success Profiles. These have been  partially  composed based on the 
data  collected  from  (inter)national  databases  concerning  some  key  statistics  on  the 
higher  education  system  level.  These  were  added  with  information  from  the  surveys 
among  the  national  experts,  particularly  addressing  the  use  and  definitions  of  the 
most  common  study  success  indicators  per  country.  In  successive  rounds,  either  the 
national experts or the core research team collected the national data. 

1.5  Considerations on some limitations of the study 
Regardless  of  the  thorough  and  intense  research  approach,  the  core  research  team 
also  encountered  some  research  limitations.  To  generate  a  full  overview  of  all  study 
success  policies  and  the  evidence  for  policy  effectiveness  is  complex  and  time 
consuming.  First  of  all,  the  research  has  focused  only  on  policies  that  have  been 
explicitly  designed  for  improving  study  success.  Though  we  acknowledge  that  almost 
all  countries  do  have  a  quality  assurance  system  that  may  have  an  impact  on  study 
success, in some countries it has been explicitly designed to stimulate study success, 
while  in  other  countries  accreditation  systems  may  have  been  set  up  to  comply  with 
minimum quality criteria. For the first group of countries, quality assurance is included 
in  the  policy  overviews  while  this  is  not  done  for  the  latter  group  of  countries,  even 
though accreditation might have had an indirect effect on study success. 

A  second  limitation  is  that  the  research  only  focuses  on  policies  that were  developed 
between  2005  and  2014.  This  implies  that  policies  developed  before  2005  or  since 
2015 are not included in the overviews. 

A third limitation of the study is that – within the scope of this study in terms of time 
and resources – we could intensively collaborate with only one national expert for each 
of  the  35  countries.  Regardless  of  the  efforts  to  validate  all information  as  explained 
above, this bears the risk of not taking on board all relevant policies and information. 
However,  in  the  eight  in-depth  case  studies  we  have  for  each  integrated  the 
perspectives,  expertise  and  oversight  of  up  to  ten  national  stakeholders  and  two 
higher education institutions. 

1 http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/976864/1/OkoliPawlowski2004DelphiPostprint.pdf. 

12-2015  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
A final limitation of the study concerns the wide variety in perceptions, understanding 
and expectations concerning study success priorities that are rooted in the traditions, 
culture and beliefs across different countries. 

Based on these limitations, the research team acknowledges that the policy overviews 
presented in this report may miss some study success policies that should have been 
mentioned.  The  research  team  did  its  utmost  best  to  limit  this  risk.  In  some  cases, 
national  experts  consulted  other  national  experts,  in  other  cases  the  research  team 
used  its  policy  networks  to  validate  the  information.  Despite  a  few  minor  omissions, 
the research team hopes that the evidence presented spurs the debate on dropout and 
completion in higher education in Europe. 

1.6  Structure of the report 
This  report  is  primarily  structured  along  the  main  elements  of  the  entire  study. 
Chapter 2 addresses the literature review providing a state-of-the-art overview of the 
research  evidence  on  study  success.  Next  to  the  world-wide  research  results  publicly 
available  it  presents  the  main  findings  from  the  grey  literature  in  national  languages 
and from individual institutions collected through the network of experts used for this 
study.  Chapter  3  presents  the  analytical  framework  of  the  study,  which  provides 
direction  to  the  empirical  research  and  analyses  conducted  in  the  framework  of  this 
study.  In  Chapter  4  the  analysis  of  databases,  definitions  and  statistics  available  on 
study success outcomes at national and international level is presented.  In Chapter 5 
we  present  the  national  study  success  policies  providing  an  overview  of  national 
policies  that  explicitly  address  study  success,  how  these  are  monitored  or  evaluated 
and  the  evidence  available  on  their  effectiveness.  Some  good  practice  examples  are 
provided in the texts. Chapter 6 summarises the main findings from the eight in-depth 
case  studies  as  well  as  the  policy  briefings  for  Australia  and  the  USA.  Some  good 
practice examples are integrated in text boxes. In Chapter 7 we present two examples 
of a multi-indicator based national study success profile. Chapter 8 presents the main 
overall  conclusions  that  can  be  drawn  on  the  basis  of  the  results  from  the  different 
parts  of  the  study.  Based  on  the  conclusions,  in  Chapter  9  we  formulate  the 
recommendations for the stakeholders at European, national and institutional levels. 

12-2015  17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  Previous Knowledge on Study Success 

This  chapter  presents  the  main  outcomes  of  the  literature  review.  The  full  review  is 
presented in Annex 1 to this report. The aim of the literature review is to identify the 
factors that contribute to study success (and dropout), and to categorize the types of 
national policies and practices that are found to contribute to improving study success 
in  countries  across  Europe.  Though  the  review  primarily  explores  existing  scientific 
literature,  policy  reports  and  data  bases  in  European,  this  has  been  augmented  with 
literature  from  the  USA.  The  majority  of  published  studies  deal  with  reasons  for 
dropout,  especially  in  relation  to  individual  student  characteristics.  Studies  dealing 
with  the  impact  of  national  policies  and  practices  regarding  study  success  are  less 
common  (see  also  Larsen  et  al.,  2013).The  summary  provides  key  information  in 
relation  to:  the  factors  affecting  study  success  and  dropout  at  system,  institutional 
and  individual  levels,  interpretations  and  definitions  of  study  success  across  Europe, 
and conclusions about the categorization of policies to improving study success. 

2.1  Findings from the literature review 

This section of the summary literature review considers the factors that influence, on 
the one hand study success, and on the other, dropout. The review considers evidence 
at three levels: national, institutional and individual levels. 

2.1.1  National system factors contributing to study success 

Variations  across  the  European  higher  education  systems  contribute  to  promoting 
study  success  for  students,  including  selectivity,  flexibility  and  student  fees  and 
support. 

Selectivity of the higher education system 
Selectivity  (i.e.  who  has  access  to  HE)  varies  significantly  across  Europe.  Selectivity 
shapes  the  academic  attainment  of  the  student  cohort  that  in  enrols,  which,  as  is 
discussed  below,  has  a  direct  effect  on  retention  and  withdrawal.  Increasing  student 
diversity  through  widening  access  policies  may  reduce  study  success,  e.g.  as  a 
consequence of lack of study skills or preparation for higher education (Heublein et al., 
2003).  There  are  also  differences  between  countries  in  how  many  entry  routes  there 
are to higher education – which can contribute to study diversity. In Italy, Greece and 
many of the Central and Eastern  European  countries there is only one entry  route to 
higher  education, while many  countries in Western  Europe have alternative routes to 
higher  education,  other  than  completion  of  upper  secondary  school  (European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2014: 22). Alternative routes increase opportunities  for 
more  non-traditional  students  to  enter  higher  education,  but  these  students  may  not 
be  as  well  prepared  for  higher  education  and  this  can  have  a  negative  impact  on 
retention and completion (Helland, 2005; Heublein et al., 2003).  

Flexibility of the higher education system 
Flexibility, which can be defined as the opportunity to move between programmes and 
institutions  and  to  transfer  credits,  can  influence  retention  and  completion  (Houston, 
McCune  and  Osborne,  2011)  either  positively  or  negatively.  In  several  of  the 
Scandinavian  countries,  credit  transfers  are  widely  accepted,  which  means  that 

12-2015  18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
students can start one degree and then switch to another. In the UK, credit transfer is 
not widely accepted, and students who leave higher education often do so because of 
an incorrect choice of programme (Yorke and Longden, 2004), and this is more often 
than  in  Norway  (Hovdhaugen  and  Aamodt,  2009).  Flexibility  can  cause  study  delays 
and  a  higher  average  duration  to  complete  a  degree,  e.g.  in  Norway  (Hovdhaugen, 
2012) and Denmark (Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2013). 

Student financial support and tuition fees 
There  is  considerable  variation  between  European  countries  in  when  tuition  fees  are 
applied, the level of tuition fees, and student financial support systems (OECD, 2011). 
However, there is no direct link between the level of tuition fees and completion rates 
(OECD,  2008).  On  the  one  hand,  students  that  pay  for  their  education  may  be  more 
committed to completing their education, on the other hand, paying tuition fees may 
slow  completion  as  students  need  to  engage  in  paid  work,  or  they  may  leave  higher 
education being unable to meet the direct and indirect costs (Orr  et al., 2014). There 
is little research suggesting that tuition fees force students to leave higher education, 
although  there  is  evidence  that  without  some  appropriate  student  financial  support, 
tuition fees hinders access to higher education for some student groups (Fitzsimons et 
al.,  2015).  The  evidence  about  the  impact  of  fees  and  student  finance  on 
dropout/retention  and  completion  is  ambiguous.  However,  engaging  in  employment 
has a negative impact on study success (Vossensteyn et al., 2013) although studies in 
Estonia  and  Norway  indicate  that  only  students  working  more  than  20-25  hours  per 
week  during  term-time  have  a  higher  risk  of  dropout  (Beerkens  et  al.,  2011; 
Hovdhaugen, 2014). 

2.1.2  Factors impact on study success the level of the HE institution 

Much of the  research  on improving student completion and success,  especially in the 
USA, points to the role of the HE institution, for both procedural and structural issues. 

Procedural aspects of higher education institutions 

Institutional commitment and strategy 

Evidence from the UK (Yorke and Longden, 2004; Thomas, 2012), Germany (Ulriksen, 
Madsen and Holmegaard, 2010) and Netherlands (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2009) 
identifies  institutional  commitment  to  improving  study  success  to  be  vital.  This 
includes the priority given to study success and the associated expenditure; the choice 
and  organisation  of  academic  programmes;  a  strong  culture  of  student-centred 
learning  and  teacher  professionalization  (e.g.  support,  development,  reward  and 
recognition);  and  the  provision  of  additional  support;  and  is  associated  with  higher 
levels of internal monitoring.  

Academic integration, learning, teaching and assessment 

Evidence from across Europe (Germany and UK in particular) points to the importance 
of  learning,  teaching  and  assessment  within  academic  programmes  and  an 
institutional culture that values teaching (Georg, 2009; Thomas, 2012). This promotes 
student engagement and academic integration (Thomas 2012 and Hovdhaugen et al., 
2013). 

Social integration and student support services 

Research  from  the  UK,  Germany  and  Norway  finds  that  students’  social  integration 
contributes  to  student  retention  (Thomas,  2012;  Georg,  2009;  Frølich  et  al.,  2013). 

12-2015  19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Student  support  services  (including  pre-entry  preparation,  study  skills  development, 
pastoral support, counselling, financial planning and budgeting skills, health services, 
disability  support,  career  guidance  and  much  more)  similarly  have  an  impact  on 
improving  student  completion  and  success  (e.g.  Sellers  and  Van  der  Velden,  2003; 
Cahalan,  2013).  Evidence  suggests  it  should  be  integrated  into  the  curriculum 
(Powney,  2002;  Warren,  2003;  Thomas,  2012)  to  maximise  the  impact  on  those 
student  who  do  not  voluntarily  use  support  services  (Woodfield  and  Thomas,  2012; 
Duty 2011). 

Matching expectations of students and programmes about study programme 

The congruence between expectations about the study programme, the capabilities of 
the student, and the realities and requirements of the study programme have a crucial 
impact  on  study  success  and  dropout.  Research  from  Austria  (Unger  et  al.,  2009), 
Flanders  (Goovaerts,  2012),  Germany  (Heublein  et  al.,  2008),  the  Netherlands 
(Meeuwisse  et  al.,  2009),  Switzerland  (Wolter  et  al.,  2013)  and  UK  (Lowis  and 
Castley, 2008) point to the need to improve the process of decision making and study 
choices to reduce the number of incorrect or inappropriate choices and to improve the 
match between student and their study programme. 

Tracking and monitoring of students and study success 

Tracking and monitoring of students aims to reduce the number of students who drift 
away,  especially  in  their  first  year  (Quinn,  2013).  Data  itself  will  not  improve  study 
success, but enables targeted interventions (Heublein et al., 2008; Thomas, 2012). In 
the  UK  context,  Buglear  (2009)  finds  that  poor  data  often  underpins  the  institutions’ 
inabilities  to  intervene  adequately  to  improve  retention,  and  improved  tracking  is 
recommended by Larsen et al. (2013).  

Structural aspects of higher education institutions 
In  the  US  context  Chen  (2012)  distinguishes  three  structural  aspects  of  higher 
education  institutions  that  influence  study  success.  Although  there  is  little  European 
research, these factors may be relevant here. 

Composition of the student population 

Certain student characteristics (discussed below) are associated with differential study 
success, and thus, the composition of the student population within an institution will 
have  an  impact  too.  Different  combinations  of  students  can  make  a  difference  too, 
with  positive  effects  being  associated  with  balanced,  heterogeneous  populations 
(Meeuwisse  et  al.,  2010,  Severiens  and  Dam,  2012).  However,  selective  institutions 
have  higher  rates  of  persistence  (Titus,  2004).  While  small  institutions  have  more 
capacity  to  engage  with  students  (Berger,  2002),  promoting  academic  and  social 
integration. 

Institutional expenditures 

In  the  US  context  Chen  (2012)  found  that  institutional  spending  on  student  services 
has  a  positive  effect,  while  expenditure  on  instruction  and  academic  support  are  less 
important. 

Study organisation (teaching infrastructure and resources) 

Poor  study  conditions  may  contribute  to  early  departure  in  the  German  context 
(Heublein et al. 2003). And UK part-time students have lower rates of completion. 

12-2015  20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.3  Individual level factors impacting on study success 

Much of the research examines the impact of student characteristics on study success, 
and  their  intersectionality.  It  is  often  not  these  factors  per  se  that  affect  study 
success,  but  their  correlation  with  other  factors,  such  as  lack  of  access  to  other 
resources (structural disadvantage). 

Socio-economic (family) background 

Students  from  lower  socio-economic  status  (SES)  backgrounds  are  less  likely  to 
complete  their  study  programs  and  achieve  other  study  outcomes  (Department  for 
Business, Innovation and Skills, 2014a; HEFCE, 2013). SES is related to the economic, 
cultural, social and previous academic resources students can draw on (Georg, 2009). 

Gender 

In  many  countries,  female  students  outnumber  and  outperform  male  students  in 
general,  and  where  one  gender  group  is  a  minority  in  the  study  programme  (e.g. 
females  in  male-dominated  fields  of  study/study  programmes  or  males  in  female-
dominated  fields  of  study/study  programmes)  dropout  or  course  switching  is  more 
frequent among the minority students (Severiens and Dam, 2012).  

Ethnic Origin 

Ethnic origin strongly interacts with other individual student characteristics, especially 
with students’ socio-economic background and gender (Reisel and Brekke, 2010). For 
example, in Bulgaria the lower rates of study success of Roma students is associated 
as  much  with  their  social  class  origins  as  their  ethnic  origin  (Tilkidijev  et  al.,  2011). 
There  are  similar  findings  in  the  Netherlands  and  Germany  with  respect  to  students 
from ethnic minorities (Meeuwisse et al., 2009; Heublein, 2010). 

Cognitive competencies and motivational disposition of student 

The preparedness of the student for higher education and their competence are seen 
as  major  determinants  for  study  success,  using  different  predictors,  such  as  final 
school  grade/examinations  or  competences  like  diligence,  motivation  and  capacity  to 
concentrate. Studies in Germany, UK, and Spain demonstrate that students who were 
low achievers in high school are more likely to drop out of higher education (Lassibille 
and Gomez, 2008; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2014a; Heublein et 
al.,  2003).  Student  motivation,  self-efficacy  and  related  indicators  have  also  been 
shown  to  impact  on  the  probability  successful  completion.  In  Finland  for  example,  it 
was found that students who were committed to the content of the study programme, 
its academic culture, the more instrumental aspects of their study programme and/or 
their  career  interests,  were  more  likely  to  complete  their  study  programme  than 
students  who  only  had  low  commitment  to  the  programme  or  career  interests 
(Mäkinen  et  al.,  2004).  This  implies  the  value  of  good  information  and  the 
development  of  realistic  expectations:  unmet  expectations  lead  to  attrition  (see  for 
example  Heublein  et  al.,  2003;  Department  for  Business,  Innovation  and  Skills, 
2014a).  

Student’s educational pathway 

Students  with  straightforward  educational  trajectories  are  more  successful  in  higher 
education  than  those  following  less  direct  or  interrupted  pathways.  The  effect  of 
undertaking  vocational  training  before  entering  higher  education  on  study  success  is 
ambiguous:  in  Germany  there  is  no  negative  effect  (Heublein  et  al.,  2003),  while  a 
Spanish study found a negative impact (Lassibille and Gomez, 2009). 

12-2015  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2  Conclusions, implications and recommendations 

Conclusions 
This literature review has shown that study success and dropout are studied in some 
European  countries  in  particular.  The  literature  has  tended  to  focus  on  the  individual 
student  characteristics  associated  with  lower  rates  of  study  success,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  institutional  approaches  that  ameliorate  these  negative  effects.  In  summary, 
the main findings are as follows:  

in  study  success.  In  addition, 

  At  the  individual  level  it  is  clear  that  the  socio-economic  and  demographic 
background  (age  and  gender)  of  students  and  their  academic  capabilities  play  a 
crucial  role 
these  students’  background 
characteristics  are  strongly  related  to  each  other  and  often  interdependent. 
Research  on  the  cognitive  competencies  and  motivational  dispositions  of  students 
has  shown  that  study  success  is  highest  when  there  is  congruence  between  the 
students’  expectations  and  their  self-estimation  of  their  own  capabilities,  the 
reality of the study programme and its requirements and student effort.  

  At the institutional level, the creation of a culture of commitment among students 
as well as teachers and management is crucial for study success. Commitment can 
be  achieved  through  different  instruments:  teaching  and  learning  policies  and 
support  services  to  the  student  are  important  here.  The  institutional  context  also 
counts:  the  composition  of  the  student  body,  the  size  and  selectivity  of  the 
institution as well as its resource allocation policies all impact on study success.  

  At  the  level  of  the  higher  education  system  different  aspects  of  the  system  are 
influential,  including  access  and  selectivity;  flexibility  and  opportunities  for 
movement within the system; and alternative  models of funding higher  education 
and financial support. 

Implications for this study 
Across  Europe  there  is  very  little  research  or  systematic  evaluation  of  policies  and 
practices to improve study success. However, drawing on the evidence that does exist, 
the following types of approach to improving study success can be identified: 

  Funding  and  resources  within  the  higher  education  sector  can  be  directed  to 
institutions and/or students. Within institutions, funding allows greater spending on 
learning and teaching, and associated activities  – including the professionalization 
of teaching - that contribute to the quality of the student experience. Alternatively, 
funding  can  be  directed  to  students  to  reduce  the  potentially  negative 
consequences of a lack of economic capital, and to reduce the need for reliance on 
paid  employment.  (NB  nothing  in  the  literature  mentions  using  student  funding 
incentives to reduce time to completion). 

  Policies  and  approaches  that  provide  information  and  support  enable  students  to 
gain a good knowledge about the realities and requirements of study programmes 
and  a  fit  between  the  students’  capabilities  and  the  requirements  of  the 
programme  contribute  positively  to  completing  the  study  programme.  This 
approach  can  be  formalised  to  improve  the  match  of  students  with  study 
programmes. 

  Much of the evidence about improving study success is on institutions, in particular 
identifying  institutional  commitment  to  the  student  experience  and  study  success 
as  a  common  denominator.  Policies  include  improving  teaching  and  learning  to 
encourage  academic  engagement  and  integration,  professionalization  of  teaching 
staff, provision of support services, and better facilities for the social integration of 

12-2015  22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
students. The tracking and monitoring of the study progress of individual students 
is an important instrument to help identify students that are at risk to drop out.  

Recommendations to improve study success 
The following recommendations can be drawn from the literature: 

  There is a relatively limited body of European research about student dropout and 
study  success,  from  a  small  number  of  countries.  Further  research  about  study 
success  is  needed  in  different  European  higher  education  contexts  to  inform  the 
development of a national strategy and policies. 

  The  majority  of  the  literature  focuses  on  the  causes  of  withdrawal  and  non-
completion,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  individual  level  characteristics  (which 
cannot  be  changed).  There  is  very  little  research  about  effective  policies  and 
interventions.  More  research  is  needed  at  European,  national  and  institutional 
levels to evaluate interventions and develop understanding of effective practice. 

  Evidence  is  required  about  whether  different  policy  types  are  more  effective  than 

others, or whether they all need to be implemented and aligned. 

  More  national  data  about  who  enters  higher  education  and  their  outcomes  is 

required to further develop this area of policy analysis.  

12-2015  23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  Analytical Framework of this Study 

This  study  analyses  the  range  of  policies  that  governments  and  higher  education 
institutions use to address study success in terms of dropout and completion in higher 
education  and  whether  these  policies  are  effective.  The  analytical  framework  clarifies 
the  relationships  between  policies  and  study  success  and  provides  a  structured 
analytical approach to conduct the empirical research for answering the main research 
questions of this study: 

1.  How do governments and institutions define study success? 
2.  What  kind  of  policies  and  policy  mixes  do  countries  and  higher  education 

institutions develop to improve study success? 

3.  Which policy approaches are effective in improving study success? 

The  analytical  framework  builds  on  the  results  of  the  literature  review  and  identifies 
various  study  success  orientations  applied  by  governments,  factors  influencing  study 
success  and  policy  dimensions  reflecting  potential  patterns  in  study  success  policies. 
The  analytical  framework  results  in  three  “reflective  questions”  that  connect 
characteristics  of  policy  mixes  to  the  study  success  objectives.  These  serve  to 
interpret  and  structure  the  outcomes  of  the  empirical  research  conducted  in  the 
National Study Success Policies, the in-depth case studies and study success profiles. 

3.1  Defining the concept of study success 
The  dependent  variable  in  this  research  project  is  study  success.  As  discussed  in  the 
literature  review,  study  success  is  a  concept  that  includes  many  aspects,  such  as 
persistence/dropout,  completion,  time-to-degree  and  transfer  to  the  labour  market. 
This study puts primary focus on a few elements of study success: 

  The  first  focus  is  to  include  only  elements  that  directly  relate  to  the  student  life 
cycle: from when students have started till they drop out or successfully complete 
a degree. This implies that we will not analyse policies that address entrance into 
higher education (like access and selection instruments) or policies addressing the 
transition into the labour market and employability of graduates, e.g. if graduates 
find jobs that match their qualifications. 

  The  study  further  focuses  on  national  and  institutional  policies  to  stimulate  study 
success.  Acknowledging  that  study  success  outcomes  measured  at  the  level  of 
programmes, institutions and countries are the result of the collective behaviour of 
individual students, we leave aside the level of individual students in the analyses. 

Regardless  of  these  limitations,  our  definition  of  study  success  still  includes  a  wide 
spectrum of study success orientations. First of all, we address study success in terms 
of dropout from higher education or from a study programme. Persistence is the flip-
side  of  dropout  and  reflects  re-enrolment  in  the  next  year  or  level  of  study.  The 
second  study  success  orientation  used  in  this  study  is  graduation  or  completion  of  a 
degree. The third and final study success orientation used is time-to-degree, being the 
average  period  students  use  after  first  enrolment  to  obtain  their  degree.  Based  on 
these study success orientations we define study success as follows: 

STUDY SUCCESS COMPRISES ALL MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS OF STUDENTS IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION 
SYSTEM, INCLUDING DROPOUT/RETENTION, COMPLETION OF A DEGREE AND TIME-TO-DEGREE. 

12-2015  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Factors influencing study success 
As  an  intermediate  step  we  briefly  summarise  the  main  factors  that  are  generally 
regarded  important  with  regard  to  study  success  and  are  often  used  in  policies  that 
explicitly address study success. The study success literature (see Chapter 2) reveals 
many  factors  that  influence  study  success  in  a  positive  or  negative  way.  These 
different  factors  are  clustered  in  four  main  groups  of  factors:  ‘personal  background’, 
‘effort and ability’, ‘belonging’ and ‘expectations’. 

  Personal background: Personal background characteristics like gender, ethnicity, 
parental education and family wealth are often related to different forms of capital 
(cultural, social and economic capital) that help construct students’ perceptions of 
the  value  of  education  and  as  such  influences  their  study  behaviour.  Sociological 
approaches  stress  the  influence  of  socio-economic  family  background  on  the 
motivation,  aspirations  and  expectations  with  relation  to  education.  Economic 
approaches show that access to sufficient financial resources to pay for the costs of 
higher education – such as tuition fees and living costs – can positively affect the 
decision to enrol, continue and complete studies. In addition, economic psychology 
tells  us  that  –  compared  to  students  from  a  higher  socio-economic  background  – 
students  from  lower  socio-economic  backgrounds  perceive  education  costs  to  be 
too high, benefits too low and their chances to complete a higher education degree 
too low. Therefore they are less likely to complete a degree. 

  Effort and ability: ‘Effort and ability’ includes factors like academic preparedness, 
cognitive  abilities,  difficulty  of  study  programmes  and  the  number  of  hours 
students invest in studying. Academic preparedness refers to the qualifications and 
grades students obtained before, while cognitive abilities indicate students’ talents, 
intelligence  and  skills.  ‘Better  prepared  students’  generally  achieve  higher  study 
success,  although  abilities  of  students  should  match  with  what  is  required  in  a 
particular  study  programme.  For  example,  language  skills  are  not  the  prime 
competencies to succeed in an engineering programme. In addition, students who 
put  more  effort  in  their  studies  are  generally  more  likely  to  persist,  complete  or 
complete a degree faster. 

  Belonging:  Belonging  relates  to  the  extent  students  identify  with  their 
programme.  This  can  either  be  done  through  motivation,  academic  integration, 
social integration  or  the  homogeneity  of  their  “class  group”.  The  literature  review 
revealed that academic and social integration are crucial in preventing dropout and 
stimulating progress and completion. 

  Expectations: It is important what expectations students have about the content 
and the structure of the programme, the level of difficulty, the types of instruction 
used  as  well  as  future  employment  opportunities.  The  better  the  match  between 
the  programme  characteristics  and  the  students’  expectations,  the  bigger  is  the 
chance to achieve study success. Therefore, it is important for students to receive 
and  acquire  accurate  and  reliable  information  about  the  content  and  structure  of 
the  programme.  Students  that  do  not  have  sufficient  information  or  realistic 
expectations are more likely to drop out from their study. 

3.3  Policy areas and analytical framework 
In this section we define the types of policies we aim to analyse in this research. The 
literature  review  as  well  as  the  surveys  among  national  experts  revealed  a  great 
variety of study success policies. To organise and structure the analysis of this variety 
of policies we distinguish policies by level and by policy area. 

Firstly,  study  success  policies  can  be  defined  in  various  policy  arenas  at  institutional, 
national  and  supranational  levels.  This  study  predominantly  focuses  on  the  national 

12-2015  25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  institutional level  policies2  which  results  in three  types  of  study  success  policies: 
national  policies  (generally  initiated  by  ministries),  own  policies  of  higher  education 
institutions  and  national  policies  that  are  translated  by  the  institutions.  The  National 
Study Success Policies (Chapter 4) will predominantly focus on national policies, while 
the eight in-depth country case studies also include the institutional level. 

Secondly,  we  identify  “policy  areas”  that  refer  to  the  kinds  of  study  success  policies 
being  employed.  Based  on  the  range  of  study  success  policies  identified  by  the 
national experts, one can discern three main areas of study success policies: ‘funding 
and  financial  incentives’,  ‘organisation  of  higher  education’  and  ‘information  and 
support for students’. 

  Funding  and  financial  incentives:  Financial  policy  instruments  often  include 
incentives to stimulate desired behaviour of students and institutions, or to prevent 
undesired  behaviour.  National  funding  policies  and  incentives  can  directly  target 
students,  e.g.  by  tuition  fees,  grants,  scholarships  or  loans.  National  funding 
policies  and  financial  incentives  that  target  institutions  mostly  work  indirectly  as 
they  stimulate  the institutions  to  formulate  and implement  their  own policies  that 
improve study success. One example is performance based funding which rewards 
higher  education  institutions  for  the  number  of  degrees  awarded  or  credits 
completed. Consequently, higher education institutions are expected to implement 
their  own  instruments  that  stimulate  students  to  be  successful.  Thus,  national 
funding  incentives  are  often  translated  into  institutional  study  success  policies. 
Institutional  funding  and  incentives  often  follow  the  same  logic  as  the  national 
incentives.  They  can  also  provide  scholarships,  e.g.  for  excellent  students.  Their 
internal  allocation  models  can  try  to  influence  study  success  by  rewarding  sub-
units  for  completed  degrees  or  credits.  These  units  then  are  expected  to 
implement instruments to support students in being successful. 

  Organisation  of  higher  education:  This  policy  area  refers  to  structures  and 
procedures  related  to  the  organisation  of  teaching  and  learning.  Organisational 
policies  and  instruments  at  the  national level  are  often  related  to  regulate  access 
to  higher  education  (e.g.  selection),  pathways  to  higher  education  and  within 
higher  education  (e.g.  rules  for  transition  between  institutions  and  programmes). 
It  also  includes  structural  characteristics  such  as  the  duration  of  studies  or  the 
types  of  degrees  offered  (short  degrees,  bachelors,  masters).  Furthermore, 
organisational  regulations  concern  the  quality  and  accreditation  of  teaching  and 
learning.  Some  national  organisational  policies  only  define  broad  objectives  and 
leave  the  exact  policy  design  to  the  institutions.  One  example  is  that  since  2012 
Dutch  institutions  must  provide  a  ‘binding  study  advice’  to  students  who  want  to 
transfer  from  year  1  to  year  2,  but  the  institutions  can  define  the  criteria  when 
students have to leave  the programme because  of poor study  results.  In addition 
to  national  regulations,  institutions  often  can  and  do  develop  their  own  teaching 
and learning policies to stimulate study success. One can think of student-teacher 
ratios,  class  size,  the  number  of  contact  hours,  assessment  regulations,  the 
professionalization  of  teachers,  regulations  for  transfer  and  switch  between  study 
programmes,  pathways  towards  a  degree  or  “soft  selection  mechanisms”  such  as 
intake interviews. 

2  We  know  that  there  is  a  wide  variety  of  stakeholders  that  directly  or  indirectly  influence 
study  success  outcomes.  Student  unions,  rector’s  conferences,  employers,  political  parties 
and  many  others  influence  the  behaviour  and  outcomes  of  policymakers  and  students.  The 
relevance of the various stakeholders will differ between countries. For reasons of clarity and 
simplicity,  we  will  only  use  the  role  of  these  other  stakeholders  for  explaining  why  certain 
policies are more effective than others and/or in what context. 

12-2015  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Information and support for students: This area refers to policies that include 
information for (prospective) students and any kind of support for students that is 
beyond  financial  assistance  and  not  related  to  the  organisation  of  teaching  and 
learning. Information and support policies relate to different stages in the student 
life-cycle. Information addresses prospective students, students switching between 
programmes  or  those  transferring  from  a  bachelor  to  a  master.  It  also  includes 
career  guidance  related  to  study  and  future  job  opportunities.  Information 
provision  helps  students  to  form  realistic  expectations  about  study  opportunities, 
programmes  and  later  careers,  and  as  such  puts  high  emphasis  on  good  decision 
making  by  students.  National  instruments  can  include  information  tools  like 
campaigns  and  easily  accessible  student  choice  and  employment  databases 
through  websites.  Institutions  develop  support  instruments  that  can  address 
students’  academic  development  and  success  (e.g.  tutoring,  academic  support, 
exception rules for students with disabilities), personal well-being (e.g. counselling, 
healthcare,  mental  support,  etc.)  or  professional  development  (e.g.  selection  of 
modules, career guidance, work experience, internships, etc.).  

Figure  3.1  presents  the  basic  model  that  will  guide  the  further  analyses  to  identify 
national and institutional policies that stimulate study success and their effectiveness. 

Figure 3.1: Relationships between policies and study success orientations 

3.4  How policies are expected to improve study success 
Study  success  policies  comprise  a  number  of  underlying  concepts,  rationales  and 
relationships  that  are  expected  to  improve  study  success  among  students.  Below  we 
discuss  how  policies  in  the  different  policy  areas  address  the  factors  that  influence 
study success (as presented in Section 3.3). 

  Funding  and  financial  incentives:  Funding  instruments  that  directly  address 
study  success  include  particularly  student  financing  issues.  Providing  financial 
support  to  students  with  a  lack  of  economic  capital  enables  them  to  spend  more 
time on their studies which is expected to make them more successful in persisting 
and  completing  their  studies.  In  addition,  financial  support  may  also  help  change 
the  cost-benefit  analysis  of  students.  Tuition  fees  may  be  used  to  make  students 
more  sensitive  about  the  costs  of  (delaying)  studies  and  thus  to  choose  more 
carefully  and  to  study  efficiently.  Public  funding  to  higher  education  institutions 
often  includes  incentives  to  make  institutions  pay  attention  to  study  success,  for 

12-2015  27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
example  through  performance-based  funding  that  rewards  successfully  passed 
credits or completed degrees. In addition, specific funds can be made available to 
types  of  programmes,  selection 
introduce  new  organisational  structures, 
mechanisms or quality instruments that help enhance the study experience. 

  Organisation  of  education:  Through  policies  in  the  area  of  the  organisation  of 
education,  governments  and  institutions  influence  study  success  by  impacting  on 
the group composition and homogeneity of the student population, for example by 
selection,  “matching  instruments”,  didactical  approaches  and  flexible  pathways 
that  allow  students  to  reorient  and  to  also  adjust  their  education  career.  More 
homogeneous groups show less dropout. Selection is also meant to create a better 
fit  between  the  level  and  disciplinary  content  of  programmes  and  (cognitive) 
abilities  and  interests  of  students.  More  diverse  programme  levels  –  e.g.  short 
degrees  –  offer  a  greater  variety  to  students  in  terms  of  flexibility  to  switch,  to 
“academically  socialise”,  to  qualify  for  a  next  level  or  to  manage  expectations  of 
students  and  labour  market  needs.  One  could  offer  broad  programmes  (‘liberal 
arts’) for students who are uncertain about what they like as well as very specific 
programmes  for  students  already  determined  about  their  study  or  future 
profession. 

  Information  and  support  policies:  Through  information  and  support,  such  as 
counselling,  institutions  try  to  increase  the  identification  and  match  of  students 
with  their  study  programme  and  institution  as  it  also  manages  students’ 
expectations  with  regard  to  their  studies  and  future  employment  careers.  This 
includes national information services, like student choice portals, league tables or 
institutional matching instruments, capability- and interest tests. Some institutions 
offer  extra-curricular  courses  to  enhance  skills,  competencies  and  academic 
preparedness  of  students,  e.g.  in  reading,  writing  and  language  skills.  Many 
countries  and  institutions  also  have  special  support  provisions  for  students  with a 
physical  or  learning  disability.  The  main  rationale  underlying  such  policy 
instruments is that a better match between students and programmes as well as a 
growth in competencies are regarded as prerequisites for successful study. 

3.5  Reflective questions 
The best way to analyse policy effectiveness would be to relate policies to measurable 
study success outcomes such as dropout rates, completion rates and average time-to-
degree.  However,  reliable  international  comparative  data  is  too  limited  to  test 
hypotheses  on  the  effectiveness  of  study  success  policies  in  various  countries. 
Therefore  we  have  formulated  a  few  “reflective  questions”  that  guide  the  further 
analyses  of  the  effectiveness  of  policy  mixes  in  stimulating  study  success  in  the 
empirical  parts  of  this  study.  Based  on  the  analytical  framework,  the  complex 
relationships  between  policies  and  study  success  outcomes  can  be  analysed  by  three 
key  characteristics:  the  match  between  policies  and  the  study  success  orientations; 
the  number  of  policies  and  relative  spread  over  policy  areas;  and  the  consistency 
between various policies in a country. 

Match between policies and study success orientations 
As  explained  previously,  countries  use  different  approaches  and  definitions  of  study 
success  in  terms  of  retention/dropout,  time-to-degree  and  completion.  It  is  expected 
that  national  and  institutional  policy  instruments  that  match  with  the  study  success 
orientations  defined  in  a  country  or  institution  are  more  effective.  For  example,  if  a 
country  has  an  overall  objective  to  increase  the  number  of  completed  degrees,  but 
most policies are designed to reduce time-to-degree, one can expect that the policies 
are less successful. This leads to the following reflective question: 

12-2015  28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RQ1:  To what extent do the explicit study success policies address the study success 

orientations defined as important in a country (or institution)? 

Variety in policy instruments 
The variety of policy instruments used to  explicitly address study success of students 
is determined by the number of policies and the number of policy areas being covered. 
It  is  expected  that  countries  or  institutions  taking  a  more  holistic  policy  approach 
towards study success will have better study success outcomes. In addition, it is also 
expected that the intensity of the policies (e.g. in volume of resources invested or the 
number of institutions or students addressed) as well as the number of study success 
factors being addressed (outreach) positively impacts on study success outcomes. This 
results in the following reflective question: 

RQ2:  To  what  extent  do  countries/institutions  differ  in  the  variety,  intensity  and 

outreach of the explicit study success policies? 

Consistency between policy instruments 
The third important characteristic of policy mixes concerns is the consistency between 
various policy instruments applied. In other words: do they lead to a combined impact 
on study success or work in opposite directions? It is expected that policy instruments 
setting incentives in the same direction are more effective than policy instruments that 
contradict  each  other.  For  example,  if  universities  are  financially  rewarded  for 
graduates  that  complete  their  degree  within  the  nominal  duration  of  studies  but 
students  receive  student  financial  support  without  any  time  constraints,  one  can 
imagine  study  success  ambitions  may  not  be  achieved.  This  leads  to  the  following 
reflective question. 

RQ3:  To  what  extent  do  policies  designed  for  study  success  appear  to  be  aligned  or 

contradictory? 

These  three  reflective  questions  addressing  the  expected  relationships  between  the 
characteristics  of  policy  mixes  and  their  effectiveness  in  terms  of  study  success 
outcomes will be used to inspire the further analyses of this study. 

12-2015  29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4  Monitoring and Evaluating Study Success in Europe 

In  this  chapter  we  present  an  overview  of  the  empirical  material  that  exists  in  35 
European countries about three indicators of study success:  

  Completion:  The  completion  rate  relates  the  number  of  students  who  have 
successfully completed a study programme at a higher education institution to the 
number  of  students  who  started  the  study  programme  at  the  higher  education 
institution. 

  Time-to-degree:  This  indicator  refers  to  the  average  number  of  years  taken  to 

complete a degree programme.  

  Retention: The retention rate refers to the number of students who after entering 
and  starting  the  study  programme,  re-enrol  in  subsequent  years  of  the  study 
programme. The retention rate is the flipside of the drop-out rate that refers to the 
number of students who leave the study programme/higher education system.  

In the next section we  discuss some  earlier attempts to measure  and compare  study 
success  indicators  across  different  countries.  This  is  followed  by  a  description  of  the 
outcomes  of  a  survey  completed  by  the  national  experts  involved  in  our  HEDOCE 
project. The survey provides an inventory of indicator definitions and the most recent 
data  (if  any)  for  each  of  the  three  indicators.  In  the  final  section  we  present  some 
conclusions  on  the  state  of  the  art  with  respect  to  data  gathering  on  study  success 
outcomes across Europe and on how to improve data gathering on this issue.  

4.1  Existing study success indicators across the OECD and Europe 
There  are  very  few  examples  of  cross-country  overviews  of  completion  and  dropout 
rates. Quoting a recent Eurydice report that covers 34 countries (European Commission/ 
EACEA/ Eurydice, 2014): 

…a significant number of countries (13) do not systematically calculate completion and/or drop-out 
rates. This includes countries that have policies addressing retention and completion, but clearly lack 
basic data to analyse their impact. Even when completion rate data is collected, it is hardly ever 
differentiated by specific student profiles or characteristics.  (EC/EACEA/Eurydice, 2014, p. 10)  

An  earlier  Eurydice  report  on  the  Bologna  Process  Implementation  progress  (EACEA; 
Eurydice;  Eurostat;  Eurostudent,  2012)  includes  data  on  completion  rates.  Its  data 
was  used  in  the  NESET  report  on  dropout  and  completion  in  higher  education  in 
Europe  (Quinn,  2013).  Currently,  the  only  regular  overview  of  data  for  several 
countries  on  the  issue  is  included  in  the  OECD  publication  Education  at  a  Glance 
(EAG),  based  on  the  UOE-Database,  the  UNESCO,  OECD,  EU  data  collection  on 
education systems. However, the OECD does not collect data on completion rates on a 
yearly  basis.  Its  most  recent  data  on  completion  rates  is  found  in  Education  at  a 
Glance  2013  and  relates  to  the  year  2011.3  This  OECD  overview  covers  only  14 
countries  out  of  the  35  in  our  HEDOCE  study  (see  table  4.1).  The  completion  rates 
reported range from 53% to 83%. However, these numbers should be interpreted with 
caution.  Firstly,  two  very  different  methods  are  used  to  calculate  completion  rates. 
Secondly,  the  national  context  needs  to  be  taken  into  account  when  comparing 
indicators and countries. 

3   See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848495. 

12-2015  30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 4.1 OECD data on completion rates 

Education at a Glance 2008 

Education at a Glance 2013 

Completion 
rates 2005 

Method 

Method 

Austria 

Cross-section 

Belgium (Fl.)  Cross-section 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

m 

m 

m 

Cross-section 

5A 
Year for 
new 
entrants 
2000-03 
1998-
2001 
m 

m 

m 

m 

5B 
Year for 
new 
entrants 
m 

2003-04 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Denmark 

True cohort 

1995-96 

1995-96 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Cross-section 

True cohort 

True cohort 

2003 

1995 
1996-
2003 

2003 

1995 
1996-
2003 

Germany 

Cross-section 

2001-02 

2003-04 

Greece 

m 

m 

m 

Hungary 

Cross-section 

2001-04 

2004-05 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Macedonia 

Malta 

Montenegro 

True cohort 

1996-97 

1996-97 

m 

m 

m 

True cohort 

1998-99 

1998-99 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Netherlands 

True cohort 

1997-98 

1997-98 

Norway 

True cohort 

1994-95 

1994-95 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Serbia 
Slovak 
Republic 
Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Turkey 
United 
Kingdom 

Cross-section 

2001-04 

2003-04 

Cross-section 

2001-06 

2004 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Cross-section 

2000-03 

2003-04 

Cross-section 

2001-02 

2001-02 

m 

m 

m 

True cohort 

m 

1995-96 
1996-
2001 
m 

1995-96 
1996-
2001 
m 

Cross-section 

2003-04 

2003-04 

Switzerland 

True cohort 

5A 
Year for 
new 
entrants 
2006-08 

Year for 
new 
entrants 

m 

Cross-section 

True cohort 

2007-08 

2007-08 

m 

m 

m 
True cohort 
(ISCED 5A), 
cross-section 
(ISCED 5B) 
True cohort 

m 

True cohort 
Longitudinal 
survey 
True cohort 
(ISCED 5A), 
cross-section 
(ISCED 5B) 
m 

Cross-section 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

2001 

2001 

2000-01 

2000-01 

m 

2000 

m 

a 

2002-09 

2002-09 

1999-
2002 

m 
2006-07 / 
2009-10 
m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

2008-09 

m 

2009-10 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

True cohort 

True cohort 

Cross-section 

2003-04 
1999-
2000 
2006-09 

a 
1999-
2000 
2008-09 

Cross-section 

2006-10 

2009 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Cross-section 

2006-09 

2008-10 

m 

m 

m 

cross-section 

2008-09 

2007-10 

True cohort 

2002-03 

2002-03 

m 

m 

m 

Cross-section 

2007-08 

2009-10 

Cross-section 

2007-08 

2007-08 

Completion 
rates 2011 

m 

73 

m 

m 

m 

72 

81 

m 

76 

80 

m 

m 

53 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

72 

59 

62 

67 

m 

m 

71 

m 

m 

53 

m 

75 

72 

M 

82 

M 

M 

M 

M 

85 

63 

72 

79 

77 

M 

55 

70 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

71 

65 

64 

69 

M 

M 

70 

65 

M 

69 

M 

M 

64 

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2008, Education at a Glance 2013. 

Indicator A4.1, amendments by CHEPS-NIFU, m=missing data. 

The completion rates shown in Table 4.1 are based on two calculation methods, which 
makes it difficult to compare data. The cross-section method refers to the  number of 
graduates  in  a  particular  year  divided  by  the  number  of  new  entrants  into  these 
programmes in the year of entrance, that is: a few years before. The method can take 

12-2015  31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
into  account  different  programme  durations.  The  true-cohort  method  calculates 
completion rates longitudinally by tracking the students who begin a programme. The 
method  is  based  on  panel  data  that  –  as  a  natural  consequence  of  the  method  –  is 
usually quite old, as it takes time for  students to complete. Policy developments that 
took place during the last five to ten years will therefore not have been picked up by 
the data. 

The  latter  points  at  the  policy  context  surrounding  study  success  data.  For  both 
methods it makes a difference what time span is used in calculating completion, as in 
some countries students use (much) more time to obtain a degree than the normative 
period. In addition, one needs to acknowledge that not all countries have the intention 
of  retaining  all  students  in  higher  education  until  degree  completion.  As  illustrated  in 
the country  case studies (chapter 6), this is particularly an issue in countries that do 
not operate rigorous selection processes when admitting students to higher education. 
Rather  than  pre-entry  selection  some  countries  operate  a  system  of  post-entry 
sorting,  e.g.  through  academic  failure  and  involuntary  withdrawal.  Several  German-
speaking countries have a higher education system that is rather open to all qualified 
applicants. The first year in higher education serves as a selection mechanism, as only 
those who do well in the first year may continue to the second. Thus selectivity (upon 
entrance or in the first year) affects completion, drop-out and other measures of study 
success.  Other  contextual  issues  that  prevent  a  straightforward  use  of  study  success 
data  relate  to  the  degree  of  flexibility  in  a  country’s  higher  education  system  and  its 
opportunities for a smooth transfer from one institution/programme to another. 

4.2  An inventory of national study success indicators  
Our  HEDOCE  national  experts  were  asked  to  complete  a  questionnaire  on  study 
success monitoring activities in their country and to provide (links to) any recent data 
that is publicly available on our three indicators of study success, i.e. completion rate, 
retention  rate  and  time-to-degree.  The  results  of  the  questionnaire  are  shown  in  the 
tables  below  and  highlight  the  indicators  that  are  monitored  and  publicly  available. 
When an indicator is published (table 4.2), experts were asked to provide a definition 
and check for the types of institutions and groups of students covered by the indicator 
(tables 4.3-4.5). They were also requested to provide the value of the indicator for the 
most recent year; when time series data is available this was indicated in addition. 

While  12  countries  publish  an  indicator  for  completion,  23  do  not,  even  though  for 
some  of  them  in  principle  the  data  to  calculate  such  a  completion  rate  are  available. 
Only  six  countries  reported  that  some  kind  of  retention  rate  is  publically  available  in 
their  country,  although  for  one  of  them  (Denmark)  the  indicator  actually  refers  to 
dropout, the flip-side of retention. For only a quarter of the countries we did manage 
to find information on time-to-degree. 

Table 4.2: Overview of available indicators on study success 

Indicator 

Completion rate 

Retention rate 

Time-to-degree 

Indicator available/used on national level 
Austria, Denmark, Germany, Flanders, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, The 
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK (England, Northern Ireland, 
Scotland, Wales) 
Austria, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, UK and Denmark (drop-out rates) 
Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders, Germany, The Netherlands, 
Spain, Switzerland 

Source: Reporting from national experts (2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

12-2015  32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comparing  table  4.2  to  table  4.1  we  conclude  that  actually  more  countries  report 
study  success  indicators  to  the  UOE-database  than  there  are  countries  that  publish 
and  use  these  indicators  on  the  national  level  for  the  monitoring  of  their  higher 
education system. It seems that either study success is not a prominent issue in many 
countries or that national discussions are based on different information or indicators, 
such  as  the  absolute  number  of  graduates.  However,  the  2014  Eurydice  study 
(EC/EACEA/Eurydice, 2014) reports that most  countries measure completion rates as 
part  of  their  external  quality  assurance  processes  –  even  while  they  do  this  rather 
sporadically and do not report an overall national picture of this measure. 

Another aspect is that among the countries reporting nationally on completion, hardly 
two  countries  use  the  same  definition  or  base  their  indicator  on  the  same  group  of 
institutions,  types  of  (degree)  students,  or  the  same  observation  time  span  (table 
4.3). France reports its completion rate four years after the students’ first enrolment, 
other  countries  after  five  or  even  ten  years.  Iceland  reports  the  completion  rate  for 
every year up-to ten years. The Netherlands bases its calculation only on students re-
enrolled after the first year of entry. Because of all these variations, some countries do 
not publish an overall completion rate but provide very detailed ratios on programme 
level  and  for  certain  groups  of  students  (for  example  Denmark).  Most  countries  in 
Table 4.3 have measured completion rates more often. We do not present those time 
series as definitions often change between years, measurement is infrequent and thus 
difficult to compare. 

A  recent  report  commissioned  by  Eurostat  (ICON/QUANTOS,  2015)  reveals  that  22 
countries have been monitoring completion rates for the 2012 OECD/Eurostat survey. 
Here it has to be noted that our questionnaire used a different approach; it asked for 
indicators that are monitored and used for national policy making. 

Table 4.3: Completion rates 

Country 

AT 

Comple-
tion rate 
85,6% 

CS 

Method 

Time span 

AT 

52.1% 

O 

DK 

79% (BA) 
85% (MA) 

TC/O 

Graduates of 2012/13 
compared to beginner 
cohort X years ago, 
where X is the average 
duration of a study 
Beginner cohort 
2003/2004 surveyed 
every year, data refer to 
completion after 10 year 
Beginner cohort 2008 

Type of 
degree 
BA, Dipl 

First 
degree 

BA or MA 

DE 

75,9% 

TC/O 

Graduation until 2012 of 
beginner cohort 
2004/05 

All first 
degrees 

BE (FL) 

64,5% 

TC 

Beginner cohort 
2006/07, graduated 
within 5 years 

FR 

39,4% 

TC 

Beginners of 2008-09 
receiving their first 

BA 

BA 

Definition 

Only public universities. Only first 
degree (not necessarily the 
programme the student started in). 
Including national and foreign 
graduates. 
Completing at least one academic 
degree 10 years after first enrolment 

Time 
series ? 
Yes 

Yes 

Students who entered higher 
education in a given year and who 
complete a degree measured against 
all students who entered higher 
education in that year (data is based 
on a combination of actual figures 
and prognosis). Interruptions of up-to 
15 months are neglected. 
First degree students at Universities 
and Universities of Applied Sciences. 
Only students with a German school 
leaving certificate. Estimations for 
those still studying. 
Percentage of students graduating as 
a bachelor (not necessarily the 
programme the student started in), in 
relation to the number of first-time 
entrants five years ago. 
Share of beginners receiving a 
Bachelor within 4 years (not 

Yes 

Yes 

12-2015  33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Comple-
tion rate 

Method 

Time span 

Type of 
degree 

Definition 

degree within 4 years 
(2012) 

IS 

54,7%  
 after 5 yrs 

TC 

Beginner cohort of 2002, 
tracked till 2012 

All first 
degrees 

LUX 

NL 

69,1%  
 after 10 
yrs 

49,6% (BA 
180 ECTS) 
92,4% (BA 
240 ECTS) 
81,5% (MA 
60 and 120 
ECTS) 
70,9% 
(univ.) 
65,2% 
(UAS) 

TC/O 

Beginner cohort 
2008/09, share who 
finished till 2014 

BA or MA 

TC 

Beginner cohort 2010, 
after 4 years 

BA 

NO 

71,5% (BA) 
67,0% (MA) 

TC 

SE 

TC 

41% - 91% 
depending 
on 
programme 
(average: 
68%) 

CH 

TC 

University 
- BA: 66% 
- MA: 93% 

UAS:  
- BA 83% 
- MA 83% 

PH:  
- BA 87% 
- MA 73% 
85,6% 
expected 

UK 

BA: Beginner cohort 
2008, after 5 years; MA: 
beginner cohort of 2009 
after 4 years 

BA or MA 

Beginners of 2001/02-
2007/08 (depending on 
program duration), 
graduation till 2011/12 

Short 
courses, 
BA, Dipl 

BA 

Data refer to completion 
in 2012 
Beginner cohorts: 
University 
- Bachelor 2005 
- Master 2006  
UAS and PH: 
- Bachelor 2008 
- Master 2009 

Time 
series ? 

yes  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

necessarily the programme the 
student started in). Excluding 
preparatory classes for Grandes 
Écoles. Only national students. 
Students who entered tertiary 
education for the first time are 
tracked for 10 years, and their first 
graduation at the tertiary level in the 
Statistics Iceland Register of 
Graduations is recorded. Including 
national and foreign graduates. 
Completion rate indicates the 
percentage of a certain beginner 
cohort who have completed till 2014. 
Different rates are provided by 
duration of programme and type of 
programme. 

The number of national students who 
get a bachelor degree C years after 
re-enrolment after the first year of 
entry, where C is the standard period 
of study (UAS: 4 years, university: 3 
years).  
Share of graduates in 3-Year, full-time 
BA programmes, five years after 
beginning in 2008 (rates after 3 and 4 
years are also available). Beginner 
cohort 2009 of 2-Year, full-time MA 
programmes after four years. 
Number of graduating national 
students from a programme 
compared to number of admitted 
students (new program entrants). 
From 2011 the graduation rate is 
calculated by using information about 
when students started in a 
programme and the number of 
qualifications awarded at the end of 
the programme’s nominal length + 3 
years.  
Starting from an entry cohort, the 
proportion of BA-students is 
measured which acquire a degree on 
the observed level of study.  
Only students with a Swiss 
authorization ID. At UAS: Only full-
time students. 

O 

Beginner cohort 
2011/12 

All first 
degrees 

yes 

The sector averages for the UK and its 
constituent countries are obtained by 
taking a (weighted) average of all the 
relevant institutional values. UK 
domiciled full-time students starting 
first degree courses 2011/12 

Methods: CS – cross section, TC – true cohort, O – other. 
Source: Reporting from national experts (3rd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

12-2015  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The retention rate indicates the proportion of a cohort of beginners that continue their 
studies. This is usually measured per semester or year. Sometimes the retention rate 
is seen as the complement of the drop-out rate (e.g. Denmark). The UK and Sweden 
publish  their  retention  rates  only  for  students  still  registered  after  the  first  semester 
(Sweden)  or year (UK). Table 4.4 shows some information for the few countries that 
pay attention to the issue of retention. Only very few countries use the time-to-degree 
indicator to monitor study success in their higher  education systems (see Table 4.5). 
An  important  issue  here  is  which  groups  of  students  and  degree  programmes  are 
covered in the indicator and how students that switch between programmes are taken 
into account. 

Time series 
available 
yes 

Table 4.4: Retention rates 

Country 

Retention rate 

Method 

Time span 

Definition 

AT 

DK 

IRL 

NO 

SE 

UK 

Yearly rates: 
87,8% (after 1st year), 73,1%, 
68,1%, 60,1%, 50,6%, 38,4%, 
27,8%, 20,4%, 14,7%, 10,3% 
(after 10 y) 
52,1% graduated after 10 
years 

also dropout rates after 3 
semesters 
Bachelor U: 40.8% 
Dipl. 33.5% 
Bachelor UAS: 18.1% 
Retention rate only available 
indirectly, because 
cumulative yearly dropout 
rates by type of degree are 
reported 

Higher Education Authority 
reports on Non-Progression 
rates  
16% 

TC 

O 

O 

O 

41,1% (after 3y), 23,2% (after 
4y), 14,8% (after 5y) 

TC 

Beginner 
cohort 
2003/04, 
yearly data 
on retention 
(till 2012/13), 
drop-out and 
graduation 
Beginner 
cohort 
2011/2012 

Beginner 
cohort 2006-
2010 

Beginner 
cohort 
2010/2011 in 
undergraduat
e studies at 
universities 
and IoT 
Beginner 
cohort 2008 

71% 

93% (90,9% continue or 
qualify at same institution 
and 2,1% do so at another 
institution) 

TC 

TC 

2011/12 

2012/13 

Retention, graduation and drop-out refer 
to the whole university system, i.e. 
switches of programmes or universities 
are neglected. 
Only universities, only students enrolled 
for first time. Bachelor (3y) and Diploma 
programmes (4-5y) 

Students that are not studying their 
original subject three semester after first 
enrolment 

yes 

The students who entered a higher 
education programme in a given year and 
who continue as students in the 
programme, measured against all 
students who entered the programme in 
that year. Monitoring focuses on the 
drop-out rate, which is largely 
complementary to the retention rate. 
Students who are not registered for a 
second year of study (includes students 
who transfer to a different institution).  

Proportion of HE entrants to 3-Year, full-
time BA programmes who are still 
enrolled after 3, 4 and 5 years (also 
available for MA). 
Proportion of HE entrants who are still 
registered in higher education after their 
first semester. 
Continuation following year of entry: UK 
domiciled full-time first degree entrants. 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Methods: CS – cross section, TC – true cohort, O – other 
Source: Reporting from national experts (3rd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

12-2015  35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.5: Time-to-degree 

Country 

Time-to-
degree 

unit 

Degree 

Year 

Definition 

AT 

7,9 

Sem. 

BA 

Completion 
in 2011/12 

CH 

CZ 

DK 

BE(FL) 

DE 

FI 

NL 

SP 

Years 

BA  

Completion 
in 2012 

3,9 (Univ)  
3,5 (UAS) 
3,2 (Teacher 
Training) 

days 

net days used 
to complete a 
first degree:  

Time until 
first 
graduation 

Published 
2014 

1166 

gross days 
used to 
complete a 
first degree: 
1675 
3,5 (BA) 
6 (BA+MA) 
3,15 

Years 

BA, BA+MA 

Years 

University 
BA 

Completion 
in 2011 
BA starting 
2006/07 

7,0 

5,8 

5,1 (UAS) 
5,3 (Uni) 
4,66 

Semes-
ters 

BA 

Completion 
in 2012 

Years 

Years 

Years 

All degrees 
(excl. PhD) 
UAS: 1st BA 
Uni: 1st MA 
University 

2009 

Beginners 
of 2013 
2010 

Median of study duration (from enrolment 
until graduation) of all ordinary students in 
semesters. Students who graduated 25% 
quicker than the minimum legal study 
duration are excluded. 
Public universities only. 
Average number of years between enrolment 
and degree (for a specific entry year – in this 
case 2006). Also available for MA. Only refers 
to students that completed secondary 
education in Switzerland and who did not 
switch courses.  
Time spent on a publicly funded study place, 
corrected for interruption of studies (i.e. net 
time) for first graduation. Numbers refer to 
the average/median of days used by students 
completing a degree in 2014 

The average number of years that students 
take to complete degree programmes.  
Mean time it takes a student from entrance 
into higher education to graduating as a 
bachelor (any bachelor degree, not necessarily 
the programme the student started in). Only 
students who graduated within 6 years. 
The total time (median) till completion of a BA 
degree. Also available for other degrees and 
particular subjects (without switches). 
Mean duration of studies (all universities and 
programmes): average across institutions 
Expected time-to-degree.  

Average duration of higher education 

Source: Reporting from national experts (3rd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

Time 
series 
available 
yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

4.3  Conclusions and recommendations 

Data on study success are diverse in terms of data collection, definition, presentation 
and  general  use.  Cross-country  overviews  of  completion  rates,  let  alone  other 
indicators of study  success such  as  retention, drop-out and time-to-degree, are rare. 
These overviews, such as the one produced by the OECD in its Education at a Glance, 
have to be interpreted  with care due to differences in underlying indicator definitions 
and differences in context and institutional arrangements across the countries’ higher 
education  systems.  From  our  own  (HEDOCE)  inventory  of  existing  national  data  and 
definitions  of  study  success  indicators  it  became  apparent  that  only  twelve  out  of  35 
European  countries  regularly  report  an  indicator  related  to  completion.  Even  fewer 
countries report on retention rates, drop-out and time-to-degree. This illustrates that 
the  monitoring  of  study  success  is  not  yet  a  prominent  issue  in  most  countries  –  at 
least not on the national level. 

12-2015  36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yet  international  comparisons  can  play  a  useful  role  in  starting  a  debate  on  study 
success  and  its  constituent  sub-dimensions.  Such  comparisons  will  highlight  the 
differences between countries in perceptions about the multi-faceted concept of study 
success. They allow for learning about definitions and – as a next step – agreeing on a 
common definition that will help in making useful comparisons of indicator scores. But 
preceding  all  this  is  to  start  measuring  the  progress  of  students  –  tracking  the 
educational  careers  of  different  groups  (cohorts)  of  students  –  and  constructing  a 
database holding publicly accessible data on completion, drop-out, retention and study 
duration. Data and uniformity of underlying definitions across countries is essential for 
those  stakeholders  wishing  to  tackle  study  success.  A  recent  study  commissioned  by 
Eurostat to advise on “methodological developments for computing and collecting data 
on completion rates and average duration in higher education” reviewed the different 
approaches for calculating completion rates and time-to-degree. Based on the findings 
that  the  approaches  differ  enormously  between  European  countries,  the  report 
recommends  to  harmonise  the  monitoring  activities,  data  collection  and  indicator 
calculations across Europe (ICON/QUANTOS, 2015, p. 38ff). 

Since improving study success will become an important issue in the years to come as 
national  higher  education  systems  mature  and  reach  a  post-massification  phase, 
coordinated efforts should be undertaken by European countries to collect and monitor 
completion,  drop-out  and  time-to-degree.  These  indicators  are  useful  for  informing 
policy-making,  benchmarking  higher  education  institutions  and  informing  student 
choice.  It  makes  sense  to  calculate  indicators  based  on  data  that  refers  to  one 
particular  type  (i.e.  level)  of  degree  (say,  bachelor,  master,  professional),  because 
publishing an overall rate for the system as a whole is a rather heroic exercise, given 
the  diversity  in  programmes,  institutions  and  students.  The  more  disaggregated  the 
study success indicators are, the more useful they will  be for informing policymaking, 
benchmarking and informing (prospective) students. 

12-2015  37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  National Study Success Policies 

This  chapter  provides  an  overview  of  frequently  used  as  well  as  noteworthy  national 
study  success  policies.  In  addition,  it  reports  on  the  importance  of  study  success  in 
national higher education policy agendas and the prevailing study success orientations 
in European countries.  The aim of this overview is to provide a consolidated and  - to 
the  extent  possible  -  an  up-to-date  overview  of  national  policies  and  measures  that 
explicitly aim at reducing dropout and improving completion rates in higher education 
in  Europe.  Further,  it  aims  to  provide  insights  in  the  effectiveness  of  policies  and 
measures, based on the experience of the countries included in the study. The chapter 
draws on various data sources: two surveys among national experts from 35 European 
countries4 and complementing information from the in-depth country case studies (see 
chapter 6). The findings were verified and consolidated with desk research. This report 
provides  a  snapshot  of  national  policy  instruments  that  were  implemented  between 
2005  and  2014.  It  focuses  on  national  policies  that  were  explicitly  and  originally 
designed to address study success. As the data was mainly collected in surveys among 
national  experts  there  is  the  risk  that  for  some  countries  an  explicit  and  original 
national study success policy is missing in the overviews. We also refer to the fact that 
some  national  policies  that  (indirectly)  contribute  to  improving  study  success  are  not 
included  in  our  overviews  because  they  were  originally  not  designed  to  explicitly 
address study success but served other purposes in higher education. 

The  chapter  starts  with  an  investigation  of  the  importance  of  study  success  (section 
5.1)  and  the  study  success  orientations  prevailing in  the  European  countries  (section 
5.2). In section 5.3 we present an overview of explicit national study success policies. 
As  such,  we  clustered  more  than  170  national  policies  into  22  typical  national  study 
success  policies  divided  over  the  three  policy  areas:  funding,  organisation  and 
information policies. Besides these overviews we describe in the text many interesting 
study success policies using their main rationales, ways of implementation and where 
possible  their  effectiveness.  In  section  5.4  we  present  an  overall  overview  of  the 
explicit  national  study  success  policies  for  each  of  the  35  European  countries.  In 
section 5.5 we discuss four good examples of how national policies are combined and 
support  each  other  in  addressing  study  success.  In  section  5.6  some  overall 
conclusions are formulated, addressing the following reflective research questions: 

  Which policies address study success effectively? 

 

Is there a match between policies and study success orientations? 

  Do countries use a variety of policy instruments and are these consistent? 

5.1  Importance of study success on national policy agendas 
Based  on  the  surveys  among  national  experts  we  conclude  that  study  success  is  an 
important issue  across  Europe.  In 75 per cent of the  countries  experts indicated that 
study  success  is  important,  and  in  45  per  cent  of  the  countries  the  experts  reported 
that  study  success  is  high  or  very  high  on  the  higher  education  policy  agenda.  For 
Greece,  England  and  France  experts  reported  study  success  being  very  high  on  the 
agenda. In 25 per cent of the countries the experts indicated that study success is less 
relevant on the policy agenda (see table 5.1 below). 

4   Liechtenstein was not included in the survey. 

12-2015  38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 5.1: Importance of study success on national higher education policy agendas 

Importance of study success 

Countries 

Very high or high on the agenda 

On the agenda 

No or little relevance on the agenda 

Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Flanders 
(Belgium), France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, 
Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden 
Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Slovak Republic, Turkey 

Source: Reporting from national experts (1st HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

5.2  Prevailing national study success orientations 
The  analysis  reveals  that  ‘time-to-degree’  is  the  most  frequently  used  study  success 
orientation  underlying  national  policy  making.  In  19  countries  experts  considered  it 
the  most  important  study  success  orientation.5  ‘Completion’  is  the  most  important 
study  success  orientation  in  11  of  the  reviewed  countries,  while  Ireland  focuses  on 
‘retention’  only.  The  remaining  countries  combine  study  success  orientations.  In 
France  and  Italy  for  example,  both  persistence  and  time-to-degree  are  equally 
important  for  gauging  study  success.  Malta’s  study  success  orientation  cannot  be 
assigned to one of the definitions used in this study as the expert reported that study 
success is focused around acquiring relevant competences for the labour market. 

Table 5.2: Study success orientation of countries 

Study success orientation 

Prevailing in country: 

Time-to-degree 

Completion 

Retention 

Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, 
Flanders, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, 
Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland 
Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey 

Ireland 

Mix type of study success 
orientation 
Study success orientation 
beyond typology 
Source: Reporting from national experts (1st and 2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

France (completion, time-to-degree and retention) 
Italy (completion and retention) 

Malta (strong focus on labour market relevant competences) 

5  The  analysis  does  not  include  those  statements  of  experts  addressing  the  transition  of 
graduates  to  the  labour  market.  In  particular,  countries  with  high  unemployment  rates 
among young people (under 25-30 years) and/or among HE graduates report employability 
as  an  important  study  success  orientation.  These  countries,  such  as  Italy  and  France,  also 
have study success policies that address different aspects of employability. 

12-2015  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
5.3  Overview of typical study success policies  
The  two  surveys  among  national  experts  and  the  further  desk  research  identified  a 
variety  of  national  policies  that  explicitly  address  study  success  in  Europe.  This  data 
collection  among  experts  and  relevant  policy  oriented  literature  employed  an  open 
approach  in  order  to  provide  the  most  accurate  picture  of  national  policies  that  are 
explicitly  and  originally  addressing  study  success  from  2005  onwards.  The  survey 
results  were  double-checked  against  other  data  sources  such  as  the  NESET  report 
(Quinn  2013),  reports  from  Eurydice  (European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  2014; 
2011), OECD reports and sources that have already been used in the literature review. 
In  total  more  than  170  policies  that  explicitly  and  originally  address  study  success 
have been identified. These policies have been clustered into 22 ‘typical policies’ that 
are  most  noteworthy  and  frequently  used  in  the  35  countries  studied.  Noteworthy 
policies are those policies that are not widespread yet (for example only implemented 
in  one  or  two  countries)  but  that  represent  an  interesting  approach.  Frequently  used 
policies  are  those  that  are  implemented  in  more  countries  and  that  are  based  on 
similar  rationales  across  these  countries.  In  the  following  we  will  present  the  ‘typical 
policies’ for  each of the three policy areas identified in the analytical framework. The 
presentation  will  also  address  the  study  success  orientation  mainly  served  by  the 
policies; this includes that the policy will also address other study success orientations. 

5.3.1  Typical national financing policies for study success 

Study  success  policies  in  the  funding  and  financial  incentives  area  can  work  in 
different  ways.  Obviously,  governmental  funding  of  institutions  differs  from  student 
funding.  Secondly,  funding  may  have  positive  or  negative  incentives  –  for  example 
rewarding  certain  forms  of  activity  or  penalising  others.  Finally,  funding  can  be 
provided as additional money to stimulate new focal areas of institutional activity and 
behaviour, such as the quality of teaching and learning. 

is  usually  associated  with  enhancing  access 

Within the financing area we clustered the reported policies into eight typical funding 
instruments.  Most  of  the  funding  instruments  are  already  in  use  for  some  time  and 
serve,  besides  study  success,  other  objectives  (for  example  widening  access).  In 
particular, ‘financial support for students in general’ has to be mentioned here because 
this 
for 
underrepresented groups. But it can also address study success as it intends to enable 
students  to  spend  more  time  on  their  studies  and  thus  increases  their  probability  to 
complete their studies. The table below lists and briefly describes the typical financing 
policies,  indicating  their  expected  effects,  which  study  success  orientation  they 
address and in which countries these are implemented. 

to  higher  education 

12-2015  40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3: Typical explicit national study success policies in the area of financing (2005-2014) 

Policy 

Description of policy 

Expected effect 

Additional 
funds for 
specific 
students 
enrolled 

Additional 
funds for 
teaching 

Financial 
support for 
students in 
general 

These additional funds provide higher 
education institutions money for 
enrolling specific groups of students. 
These can be non-traditional 
backgrounds students or special needs 
students. With these additional funds 
HEIs can improve the study conditions 
and develop appropriate instruments 
and measures. 
Additional funds for teaching are 
provided to institutions to improve the 
quality of teaching. From the quality 
improvement it is expected that it will 
contribute to study success. In this 
respect additional funds for teaching 
are provided for different purposes: 
teaching staff, educational 
infrastructure & resources and 
development of services.  
Provision of public scholarships, grants 
and loans for students on a need or 
merit base. Also paying tuition fees or 
registration fees for students from low-
income families can be included.  

Main study 
success 
orientation 
Retention 

Countries 
implemented 

Czech Republic, 
England, 
Flanders  

Better institutional support for 
students at risk of early withdrawal. 
Improved access, retention, 
completion, attainment and 
progression of students from lower 
SES groups (and other institutional 
target groups). 

The improvement of study conditions 
will increase the quality of teaching 
and learning – this is expected to 
have a positive impact on study 
success/completion rates. 

Completion 

Completion 

Students will better concentrate on 
their studies, do not need to spend 
too much time on paid employment. 
It is expected that students will 
better concentrate on their studies 
and that this will reduce their 
likelihood for drop-out because of 
bad performance or they cannot 
afford higher education. 

Czech Republic, 
Flanders, 
France, 
Germany, the 
former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 

Austria, 
Bulgaria,  
Czech Republic,  
England, 
Estonia, 
Germany, 
Ireland, Italy,  
Norway, 
Romania, the 
former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia, 
Serbia, Turkey 

Additional 
student 
financial 
support 
budget 
Funding 
model 
rewarding 
quality, study 
progress and 
(timely) 
completion 

Increase the budget for scholarships to 
subsidise students’ living costs and 
accommodation 

Enhance access of students from 
non-traditional backgrounds. Reduce 
the risk of dropout for students from 
lower socio-economic backgrounds 

Completion 

France 

Stimulating higher education 
institutions to take greater 
responsibility for developing 
instruments to better address the 
study success of their students 

time-to-
degree 

These funding instruments mostly 
comprise performance-based funding 
or performance agreements. Such 
funding formulas include indicators for 
the number of graduates (completing in 
the nominal study period), the number 
of re-enrolments and achieved credit 
points. This policy type also includes 
funding instruments that penalize 
dropouts. Performance agreements 
often include a wider set of indicators 
or areas where institutions seek 
improvements in order to strengthen 
education quality and study success. 
This includes also teaching 
qualifications, innovative teaching 
methods as well as dropout, retention 
and completion rates. 

Austria, Croatia,  
Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland,  
Flanders, 
France, 
Germany 
(majority of the 
states), Greece,  
Iceland, 
Netherlands,  
Norway, 
Slovenia, Spain,  
Switzerland 

12-2015  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Student financial support rewarding study progress and (timely) completion 

Progress 
dependent 
financial 
support for 
students 

Turning loans 
into grants 

These kind of funding policies for 
students make the financial support 
dependent on the progress or 
achievements of the student. This is 
mostly done continuously, i.e. students 
have to prove that they have achieved 
the required number of credit points 
after every semester/study year. These 
policies reward extra funds or bonuses 
for completion in the nominal study 
period or even earlier. 
Student funding is used to reward 
desired behaviour or to penalize 
undesired behaviour of students. 
Rewarding means that loans are turned 
into grants when a student meets pre-
set requirements (for example 
completing a degree within a certain 
period of time or passing a given 
proportion of credits per year).  

Faster study progress and reduced 
time-to-degree 

time-to-
degree 

Croatia, Denmark,  
Finland, Hungary,  
Iceland,  Lithuania, 
Montenegro, 
Netherlands, 
Sweden, Spain,  

Faster study progress; more 
students that complete; more 
students that complete within the 
nominal duration of studies and 
high/outstanding grades. 

time-to-
degree 

Netherlands  (1996 
- 2015),  
Norway 
2003) 

(since 

Waiving or 
charging 
differential 
fees to 
reward study 
success 

Students who achieve a set of targets 
(for example completing their degree 
on time, completing with outstanding 
grades) will have to pay no or less 
tuition fees than students who do not 
achieve the targets 

More students to complete their 
studies in time. Fewer 
transfers/switches between 
different study programmes. 
Better reflected study choices. 

time-to-
degree 

Source: Reporting from national experts (2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

Croatia, Estonia,  
Hungary, 
Lithuania, Poland,  
Serbia, Slovakia,  
Slovenia, Spain,  
Turkey 

Financial policies mainly addressing retention 

Additional funds for specific groups of students 

Currently, England provides additional funds to institutions for enrolling specific groups 
of  students  with  the 
‘Student  Opportunity  Allocation’  (previously:  Widening 
Participation  Premium).  This  noteworthy  policy  aims  at  increasing  retention  among 
students with a higher risk of dropout. The policy draws on studies in 2002 2004 that 
showed  that  retaining  some  students  is  more  expensive  than  retaining  others.  These 
additional  funds  are  provided  in  two  ways:  First,  a  formula  is  used  that  accounts  for 
higher  dropout  rates  among  identifiable  groups  of  students  based  on  age  and  entry 
qualifications). Second, through performance agreements higher education institutions 
can apply for additional funds for specific study success initiatives. 

Bowes  et  al.  (2013)  found  that  this  funding  made  an  important  contribution  to  the 
efforts of institutions to improve retention and success. There, however, is no proof for 
causal  relationships  between  this  investment  and  student  outcomes.  Nevertheless, 
non-continuation  rates  have  declined  from  9.1%  in  2003/4  to  5.7%  in  2012/13,  and 
retention/completion rates have improved. 

In  addition,  English  higher  education  institutions  are  required  to  submit  an  Access 
Agreement  to  the  Office  for  Fair  Access  (OFFA)  which  specifies  how  a  proportion  of 
additional  fee  income  is  to  be  spent  to  ensure  the  access  and  success  of 
disadvantaged  student  groups.  This  must  include  outreach  work,  financial  aid  and 
spending  to  improve  retention  and  success  among  students  at  risk  (including 
progression  beyond  higher  education).  Access  Agreements  must  be  approved  by  the 
Director  of  OFFA,  although  in  reality  approval  is  not  withheld  and  changes  to  the 
agreements occur through informal discussions. 

12-2015  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Czech Republic provides specific funds to higher education institutions  to support 
special needs students, for example students with a handicap ir order to allow them to 
devote  sufficient  time  to  studying  and  to  complete  (Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and 
Sports (2015). 

In  Flanders  an  ‘encouragement  fund’  ("Aanmoedigingsfonds")  was  established  in 
2008.  This  provided  earmarked  funding  (€3  million  yearly)  for  each  institution  to  set 
up measures regarding the participation and performance of underrepresented groups 
(low socio-economic backgrounds, disabled students and second chance-students. Due 
to  budget  cuts  throughout  all  public  policy  domains,  this  encouragement  fund  was 
abolished  by  the  Flemish  Government  at  the  end  of  2014.  However,  the  general 
funding  formula  still  awards  (proportionally)  additional  funding  to  institutions  with  a 
higher percentage of students from underrepresented groups. These funds are meant 
to cover the costs of more intensive counselling activities as well as to develop specific 
access and retention activities. 

Financial policies mainly addressing completion 

Additional funds for teaching 

Additional  funds  for  teaching  intend  to  improve  teaching  quality  and,  concomitantly, 
study success. Such funds can be provided for different purposes as for example hiring 
additional teaching and support staff, developing student support services, developing 
educational  innovations  or  improving  educational  infrastructures.  Mostly  national 
governments provide the funds based on explicitly formulated needs and spending of 
higher  education  institutions,  or  in  competitive  settings  where  the  best  proposals  to 
improve  the  quality  of  teaching  and  learning  become  funded.  These  funds  thus 
stimulate higher education institutions to take more responsibility for improving study 
success. Though such additional funds can serve a variety of measures at institutional 
level,  they  appear  to  be  most  often  used  to  achieve  improved  completion  rates. 
France,  Germany  and  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  provide  such 
additional  funds  for  higher  education  institutions  to  innovate  and  improve  their 
teaching and learning.  

France, implemented in 2007 the “plan pour la réussite en licence” (plan for success in 
obtaining a bachelor degree). This multi annual funding scheme included a number of 
measures  for  the  2008-2012  period.  For  example,  the  ministry  published  different 
calls  inviting  higher  education  institutions  to  propose  innovations  in  teaching  and 
learning  and  developing  instruments  to  increase  the  success  rate  of  their  bachelor 
the 
students.  Positively  reviewed  proposals  became 
effectiveness  of  the  ‘plan’  state  that  the  additional  funds  have  motivated  universities 
to  better  adapt  to  the  needs  of  their  students  and  to  invest  in  supporting  them.  No 
proof  was  found  that  this  contributed  to  an  increase  in  the  completion  rates  of 
university bachelor students (Cour des comptes, 2012, p. 658). Though the ‘plan’ was 
not prolonged, in France additional funds for teaching are still provided to universities. 
With  the  implementation  of  the  new  higher  education  law  in  July  2013  the  ministry 
supported  its  teaching  quality  objectives  with  extra  budget  for  additional  academic 
staff  positions  at  universities.  France  plans  to  hire  5,000  additional  support  staff  and 
professors  between  2013  and  2017.  In  2013,  1,000  additional  staff  were  already 
hired, about 45% were support staff and 55% were teaching staff (MESR 2013c, p. 8). 
There  is  no  evidence  yet  of  the  effect  of  the  additional  staff  on  bachelor  completion 
rates. 

funded.  Evaluations  of 

Germany  has  implemented  the  “Quality  Pact  for  Teaching”  (Qualitätspakt  Lehre)  for 
the  period  2011-2020.  “The  overall  goals  of  the  programme  are  to  achieve  a  better 
student-staff  ratio  in  HEIs,  to  support  the  qualifications  and  training  of  staff  and  to 

12-2015  43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ensure  a  further  development  of  the  quality  of  teaching  at  HEIs”  (BMBF  2011).  With 
the Quality Pact the federal government and the federal states jointly invest €2 billion 
in 186 selected higher education institutions. These funds are awarded on the basis of 
a  competitive  selection  of  proposals  for  planned  innovations  in  teaching  and  learning 
as  well  as  the  needs  for  additional  teaching  staff.  An  expert  committee  reviewed  the 
plans  and  selected  the  most  promising  ones.  Higher  education  institutions  developed 
different  projects  that  meet  their  own  special  needs.  Amongst  others,  they  included 
support  in  writing  for  students,  training  professors  and  new  forms  of  teaching. 
Currently, the funded projects are  subject to a midterm self-evaluation. Projects that 
get  their  self-evaluation  accepted  will  be  funded  until  2020.  In  addition,  an  overall 
evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Quality  Pact  is  being  conducted  and  in  2015 
an  impact  assessment  of  the  programme  beyond  its  goals  started  (Begleitforschung 
zum  Qualitätspakt  Lehre).  As  the  evaluations  are  ongoing  there  is  no  evidence 
available  yet,  but  in  the  German  case  study  most  stakeholders  report  increased 
institutional awareness of the need to improve and maintain teaching quality.6 

The  “Higher  Education  Pact”  (Hochschulpakt)  is  another  German  initiative  to  provide 
additional funds for teaching to higher education institutions. The federal government 
and  the  States  cooperatively  financially  support  all  higher  education  institutions  for 
enrolling extra students beyond the regular numbers and quota. This funding scheme 
started in 2007. The first and second funding periods (2007-2010/2011-2015) aimed 
to ‘expand’ higher education by hiring additional (teaching) staff to train the increasing 
student numbers. From 2016, the third funding period will use part of the funds (10%) 
for improving study success through relating funds to study progress and retention of 
students.  It  is  expected  that  this  new  logic  will  strongly  stimulate  institutions  to 
develop instruments addressing study success. 

In  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  additional  funds  aim  to  improve 
educational  resources  and  infrastructure.  The  money  was  for  example  used  to 
translate  professional  scientific  books  and  manuals  in  various  academic  disciplines 
(e.g. pharmacy, dentistry, and IT) in order to give students access to the most recent 
academic knowledge. Up-to-date equipment was also procured to improve teaching in 
science  and  technology.  The  underlying  rationale  is  to  improve  study  success  by 
enhancing the teaching and learning environment. 

In  general,  providing  additional  funds  to  stimulate  institutions  to  develop  new 
approaches  in  teaching  and  learning,  to  increase  the  number  of  teaching  staff  or  to 
enhance  learning  infrastructures  is  a  rather  new  development  across  Europe.  Hence, 
evaluations  of  the  impact  of  these  measures  on  study  success  are  not  available  yet. 
One  can  notice  that  such  additional  funds  result  in  a  huge  variety  of  individual 
institutional  instruments.  Though  they  may  not  all  be  equally  effective,  they  may 
enable institutions to respond to their specific problems. Nonetheless, the provision of 
additional  money  for  teaching  and  learning  has  effectively  increased  institutions’ 
attention  to  the  quality  of  teaching  and  learning,  and  thus  for  study  success.  The 
temporary  nature  of  the  additional  funds,  however,  often  are  criticised  for  being  too 
short to achieve significant and sustainable changes in teaching and learning. 

Financial support for students in general 

Providing  financial  support  to  students  is  a  widely  used  policy  in  Europe.  This  policy 
includes  various  kinds  of  financial  support  for  students  as  for  instance  universal 
grants, scholarships, loans or the introduction, increase or abolition of tuition fees by 
the state. Financial support is generally provided for a limited period of time and often 
dependent on (parental) income or merit (student’s achievements). 

6   The case study includes an analysis of two institutional projects funded by the Quality Pact 

(see Chapter 6). 

12-2015  44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The  most  important  forms  of  financial  support  consists  of  loans  and  scholarships  or 
grants.  In  Bulgaria,  England  and  the  Netherlands  for  example,  financial  support  is 
mainly  provided  as  a loan  of  which  the interest  rate  is  often  subsidised  by  the  state. 
Other  countries  concentrate  on  the  provision  of  scholarships  which  are  given  directly 
to  students,  such  as  in  Belgium,  Austria  and  Germany.  In  other  countries  such  as 
Latvia,  Romania  and  the  Czech  Republic  scholarships  are  awarded  by  institutions 
which themselves assess student eligibility. 

Besides widening access to higher education, financial support nowadays is more often 
used  to  promote  study  progress  and  completion  of  studies.  While  it  definitely  has 
contributed  to  widening  access,  the  effectiveness  of  financial  support  for  study 
success, in particular completion, is more ambiguous. In Germany research has shown 
that  a  lack  of  financial  means  is  not  an  important  factor  for  students  to  drop  out  of 
higher  education.  Dropout  is  more  strongly  related  to  organisational  issues  such  as 
curriculum design or academic readiness (Heublein et al., 2008). Slovenia also reports 
only  a  weak  impact  of  financial  support  as  the  grants  provided  do  not  cover  a 
significant amount of living costs. Students then work part-time besides studying. 

However, other research has shown that student financial support can have an impact 
on dropout and completion depending on the conditions under which it is provided to 
students. One recurrent theme in the literature is that the amount of funding needs to 
be  sufficient  to  prevent  students  from  spending  too  much  time  on  working.  Evidence 
from Norway (Hovdhaugen, 2014; Opheim, 2011) and the Netherlands (Vossensteyn, 
2013) shows that students who exceed a certain threshold of working hours per week 
are  more  likely  to  dropout  from  higher  education  or  to  extend  the  duration  of  their 
studies. The effect of student financial support also becomes stronger when the money 
is  provided  with  some  legal  restraints  for  the  student.  Some  countries  stimulate 
completion  by  regulating  that  scholarships,  grants  or  study  allowances  need  to  be 
repaid  when  the  student  does  not  complete  his  or  her  degree.  Further,  providing 
support  as  loans  might  lead  to  more  conscious  study  choices,  therefore  less  dropout 
and more frequent degree completions as it increases the opportunity costs related to 
dropout or switching study programmes. 

Additional student financial support budget 

‘Additional  student  financial  support’  refers  to  increasing  the  public  student  financing 
budget. Such additional funds might be intended to increase the number of supported 
students  or  to  increase  the  average  amount  provided  per  student.  As  such,  financial 
support can be used to widen access to higher education or to help students to devote 
sufficient  time  to  study  instead  of  working  part-time.  Consequently,  financial  support 
aims  to  increase  the  number  of  disadvantaged  students  and  tries  to  prevent  dropout 
due to a lack of financial resources. 

In  France,  the  2013  law  that  aims  to  improve  quality  in  higher  education  also 
regulated  a  strong  increase  in  the  student  financing  budget,  including  an  increase  of 
the  budget  for  grants,  students  housing,  a  new  provision  for  selected  groups  of 
students to get accommodation deposits as well as the establishment of 30 university 
health centres (MESR, 2013). No evidence of effects on study success is available. 

Financial policies mainly addressing time-to-degree 

Institutional funding rewarding quality and study success 

Performance based funding of higher education institutions has become widespread in 
Europe. A few countries use study success related indicators in their funding formulas 
or  performance  agreements.  How  study  success  indicators  are  incorporated  into 
funding  varies  but  usually  institutions  are  rewarded  for  the  number  of  graduates, 

12-2015  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
credits  passed  and/or  retention  of  students.  Penalties  for  failure  to  meet  retention 
targets are less frequently used. For all of these measures the underlying rationale is 
that  higher  education  institutions  are  encouraged  to  take  more  responsibility  for  the 
success of their students.  

The impact of performance based funding on the change of institutional behaviour has 
hardly  been  evaluated  regarding  study  success  issues.  There  are  also  no  evaluations 
of  the  impact  of  performance  based  funding  on  study  success  outcomes.  In  Austria, 
for  example,  an  evaluation  of  the  performance  based  funding  model  revealed  the 
model did not achieve its goals. The main reason was that the funding model was too 
complex and it did not reward the achievements of higher education institutions (see 
the country report in Annex 2). The evaluation also revealed that a performance based 
funding  model  is  not  enough  to  make  higher  education  institutions  introduce  student 
monitoring and other study success instruments. Such efforts were often triggered by 
other  influences  as  for  example  the  increase  in  student  numbers  or  the  growing 
importance  of  the  quality  of  teaching  (Unger,  2013).  The  extent  to  which  study 
success  indicators  stimulate  higher  education  institutions  also  depends  on  the 
proportion of the funding formula that is related to study success and other indicators 
used in the formula. If only a small percentage of funding depends on study success it 
may  not  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  extent  to  which  institutions  take 
responsibility  in  this  area.  This  will  be  even  more  so  if  institutions  can  easily 
compensate  poor  study  success  performance  with  high  achievements  on  other 
indicators such as research output. 

Hovdhaugen  et  al.  (2013,  p.  166)  state  that  in  Norway  the  implementation  of 
performance  based  funding  –  among  other  factors  –  has  increased  institutional 
attention to completion and dropout as funding became dependent on the number of 
graduates.  An  evaluation  of  the  Norwegian  funding  model  (rewarding  study  progress 
and the number of graduates) has shown the impact is moderate because of the open-
ended  nature  of  the  funding.  Students  –  stimulated  by  the  institutions  –  took  more 
publicly  funded  credits  without  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  graduates 
(Aamodt and Hovdhaugen, 2011). 

In the Netherlands the  number  of successfully completed degrees between 1998 and 
2011  determined  50%  of  teaching  funds.  This,  together  with  various  other  policy 
instruments  to  improve  education  quality  and  study  success,  has  led  to  a  slight 
increase in completion rates as well as a notable decrease in time-to-degree from 6.5 
to  5.8  years  on  average  for  a  5-years  bachelor-master  trajectory.  Since  2012,  5  per 
cent  of  the  governmental  teaching  budget  relates  to  performance  agreements  about 
promised  (and  after  2016  realised)  improvements  in  study  success  and  teaching 
quality.  The  performance  of  higher  education  institutions  is  monitored  annually  by  a 
“review  committee”  that  liaises  closely  with  the  institutions  (discussing  the  current 
state of study success). A final evaluation of the performance contracts will take place 
in 2016. A 2014 interim review has shown that institutions have become increasingly 
active in addressing study success (Reviewcommissie, 2014). 

Thus,  there  is  only  little  evidence  on  the  potential  impact  of  performance  based 
funding on study success. Nonetheless, some lessons can be drawn about changes in 
institutional behaviour. In their analysis of performance based funding models, In der 
Smitten and Jaeger (2012, p. 85ff) find that governments should set goals preferably 
in  areas  where  institutions  are  not  strongly  engaged  yet.  Goals  that  are  clear, 
reachable  but  challenging  and  belong  to  the  institution’s  area  of  influence  are  most 
promising.  Furthermore,  there  should  be  clear  indicators  to  measure  whether 
institutions  have  realized  their  objectives.  Potential  and  significant  sanctions  for  not 
realizing  goals  should  be  included.  Also,  to  the  extent  possible,  governments  should 
reward  the  successful  realisation  of  goals.  De  Boer  et  al.  (2015,  p.  23)  give  further 

12-2015  46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recommendations  for  successful  performance  agreements  and  performance  funding. 
The most important recommendations read as follows: 

  The government needs to have a strategic agenda for the higher education system 

(vision) 

 

Institutions  must  be  involved  throughout  the  process  and  have  to  be  committed 
(otherwise efforts must be made to increase commitment) 

  Both government and institutions need technical and operational expertise as well 

as sufficient resources. 

These  principles  might  also  be  important  for  changing  institutional  behaviour  in 
addressing study success. 

Student financial support rewarding study progress and (timely) completion 

Various  instruments  can  be  categorized  as  student  financial  support  rewarding  study 
progress  and  (timely)  completion.  In  the  following  we  distinguish  between  ‘progress-
related 
into  grants’  and 
‘waiving/charging differential fees to reward study success’. 

financial  support 

for  students’, 

‘turning 

loans 

Progress-related financial support for students 

Besides  supporting  students  to  complete  their  studies,  financial  support  can  also 
stimulate  students  to  demonstrate  sufficient  progress  and  complete  faster.  Across 
Europe  there  are  different  student  financing  models  that  help  students  with  paying 
(part of) their tuition fees and/or to cover living costs. Indeed, the NESET report notes 
that there is a remarkable diversity of fee and financial support systems ranging from 
countries  where  students  pay  no  fees  and  most  receive  financial  support,  to  those 
where all pay fees and only a few receive financial support (Quinn, 2013, p. 81). Our 
survey revealed that in Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Montenegro, the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Serbia  and  Spain  financial  support  to  students  (loans,  grants  or 
fellowships) depends on academic achievements. As such, students have to meet set 
targets  to  receive  funding,  e.g.  passing  sufficient  numbers  of  credits  per  year  or 
completing a degree in a limited period of time. 

In  Croatia  a  student  has  to  have  accumulated  a  minimum  of  45  ECTS  points  in  the 
previous academic year to be eligible for a scholarship.  In Denmark financial support 
stops when students fall more than six months behind their study plan. In Montenegro 
the  ministry  issues  cash  prizes  and  awards  as  incentives  to  students  who  have 
achieved  certain  results.  In  Spain  students  from  low  socio-economic  backgrounds 
receive  a  full  grant  if  they  perform  at  the  top  level.  A  new  funding  model  recently 
introduced  in  Finland  allows  students  to  obtain  an  additional  loan  to  avoid  having  to 
take paid employment. Those who complete on time receive a reduction in the amount 
they have to repay. 

In  order  to  reduce  time-to-degree  and  to  increase  completion  rates,  Denmark 
introduced  the  ‘Study  Progress  Reform’  in  2014/15.  Students  have  to  demonstrate 
sufficient  study  progress  to  stay  eligible  for  student  funding.  All  Danes  older  than  18 
years  in  youth  or  higher  education  programmes  are  eligible  for  funding  for  the 
prescribed duration of their chosen study plus 12 months (maximum 70 months). Two 
thirds  of  the  support  is  provided  as  grants,  one  third  as  a  loan.  However,  students 
have to continuously report on their study activities. Higher education institutions are 
allowed  to  control  students’  activities  and  can  specify  some  of  the  study  progress 
reform’s  regulations  according  to  their  own  needs.  A  main  element  of  the  reform  is 
that  students  have  to  enrol  for  a  minimum  of  30  new  ECTS  each  semester.  If  they 
enrol  for  fewer  ECTS  the  university  places  the  student  in  suitable  courses  till  s/he 
accumulates  30  ECTS.  Students  have  to  take  the  exams  for  the  courses  they  are 

12-2015  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enrolled  in.  They  can  only  withdraw  from  examinations  for  strict  and  limited  reasons 
such as serious illness of top-sport obligations. All students have to pass a mandatory 
examination at the end of the 1st year to be entitled to continue their studies. As this 
reform is only recent there is no evidence whether it has achieved the objectives. 

Turning loans into grants 

The  Netherlands  and  Norway  use  ‘turning  loans  into  grants’  policies  to  reward  study 
progress  and  timely  completion  among  students.  Both  countries  turn  loans  into  non-
repayable  grants  if  students  are  successful,  if  not  the  students  will  have  to  repay  all 
support.  This  intends  to  reward  successful  study  and  to  penalise  failure.  In  Norway, 
depending on the number of completed credits, part of the student loan is turned into 
non-repayable  grants,  which  can  be  worth  up  to  €4,800  a  year.  Besides  this 
performance  condition,  a  student’s  income  should  also  not  exceed  a  certain  limit  to 
remain  eligible  for  grants.  Even  though  the  incentive  is  substantial, it did not  have  a 
significant impact on study delays in Norway. The time-to-degree has even increased 
after  the  2005  implementation  of  the  performance-related  students  support  regime 
(Aamodt  et  al.,  2009;  Opheim,  2011).  Opheim  (2011)  found  that  students  from  the 
2005  cohort  were  less  frequently  concerned  (29%)  about  accumulating  high  debts 
than  students  from  the  1998  cohort  (39%).  She  also  found  that  students  from  the 
2005 cohort spent more hours on working than the 1998 students (see also Aamodt et 
al.,  2009).  This  latter  development  can  be  the  result  of  the  fact  that  since  the  2005 
reform  students  were  allowed  to  earn  more  before  they  would  lose  their  grants.  The 
researchers  conclude  that  the  combination  of  incentives  for  students  to  study  faster 
was  not  well  chosen:  “This  seeming  paradox  (=  delays  in  study  despite  progress-
dependent funding) could be related to the other aspect of the study support reform, 
increasing  the  limit  for  how  much  students  are  allowed  to  earn  before  they  lose 
grants. The immediate gain from the earnings from a part-time job may overrule the 
risk  that  time  spent  on  work  may  cause  problems  for  the  study  progression.  Also, 
students may be less worried about their loan and debt due to the improvement in the 
macro-economic  conditions  from  1998  to  2005….”  (Aamodt  et  al.,  2009,  p.  231).  A 
further argument on the small impact of progress-dependent student funding was that 
the amount of funding did not sufficiently cover the living expenses of students which 
implied they had to work anyhow (Opheim, 2011, p. 54). 

In the Netherlands, the introduction of the performance-related grant in 1996 implied 
that all basic grants given to full-time students were initially provided as loans. These 
would  be  turned  into  non-repayable  grants  if  students  obtained  a  degree  within  10 
years  after  first  enrolment.  Among  other  policies,  this  has  helped  students  to  reduce 
time-to-degree from 6.5 years in the 1990’s to about 5.8 years nowadays.  It did not 
increase  completion  rates.  From  autumn  2015  onwards,  all  basic  grants  are  replaced 
by loans without the opportunity of being turned into grants anymore. 

College affordability is also an important issue in the U.S.A. because  graduates  often 
accumulate  very  high  debts  for  paying  tuition  fees  while  they  cannot  find  adequate 
employment after graduation to repay their debt. A number of policies to reduce debts 
have been implemented such as “tax credits”, the “gainful employment” campaign and 
“free  community  colleges”.  These  initiatives  promote  access  to  higher  education  but 
also aim to reduce dropout due to financial difficulties. 

The American Opportunity Tax Credit provides a credit of up to $2,500 per student per 
year  for  “qualified  tuition  and  related  expenses”  that  can  be  deducted  from  an 
individual’s  tax  liability.7  Up  to  40  percent  of  the  credit  is  refundable,  meaning  that 
even if the taxpayer had no tax liability, they would receive that amount of money in 
the  form  of  a  cheque.  The  credit  does  phase  out  for  individuals  with  incomes  above 

7  http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/tax.phtml. 

12-2015  48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
$60,000  or  $120,000  for  those  filing  jointly.  A  “Lifetime  Learning  Credit”  provided  in 
the  legislation  allows  for  a  20  percent  credit  on  the  first  $10,000  of  “qualified  tuition 
and expenses” to be deducted from a taxpayers tax liability. Such tax credits primarily 
aim  at  middle-income  families  who  have  tax  liability.  The  Gainful  Employment 
initiative  targets  at  for-profit  institutions  that  have  many  students  accumulating 
federal Pell Grants and student loan to help them pay very high tuition fees while the 
degrees  of  these  institutions  do  not  offer  good  employment  prospects.  In  2011  the 
government set limits to the ‘income-debt ratio’ for graduates. Since 2014 institutions 
must  ensure  that  graduates  can  maximally  pay  20  percent  of  their  discretionary 
income  on  student  debt  repayments  and  that  no  more  than  30  percent  of  graduates 
would default on their loan repayments. If institutions or programs fail to meet these 
requirements, their students cannot use federal grants and loans at those institutions. 
Finally,  Free  Community  Colleges  are  an  initiative  of  the  Obama  administration  to 
make two-year public community colleges free to students. It is expected that over 9 
million  students  could  benefit  and  save  an  average  of  $3,800  in  tuition  and  fee 
charges per year. Also pre-savings of tuition fees are supported by the state. 

In  Australia  there  are  positive  experiences  with  the  implementation  of  the  income 
contingent loan scheme that accompanied the increase of tuition fees. Though higher 
tuition  costs  are  feared  to  deter  disadvantaged  students,  at  the  same  time  they  are 
expected  to  stimulate  students  to  be  more  motivated  and  engaged  in  the  study 
programme as they have to invest more individually. It was also found that Australia’s 
income-contingent  student  loans  scheme  is  a  buffer  between  tuition  fees  and  debt 
allowing  students  to  have  successful  access  to,  progress  in  and  departure  from  the 
higher education system without major financial concerns. 

Waiving or charging differential fees to reward study success 

Charging  differential  fees  is  used  in  some  countries.  It  rewards  students  financially 
who  have  achieved  specific  targets,  such  as  completing  a  study  programme  within  a 
given  time.  Such  policies  –  that  can  also  penalise  students  who  do  not  meet  the 
targets  –  aim  at  students  to  complete,  to  do  so  within  a  limited  time  period,  to 
minimise programme transfer and to make more careful study choices. 

This instrument was mentioned as explicit study success policy for Croatia, Lithuania, 
Poland,  Serbia,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  and  Turkey.  The  policies  are  practised  in 
different  ways.  In  Slovakia,  students  who  do  not  complete  their  degree  within  the 
nominal  study  period  (3  years  for  bachelor  programmes,  2  years  for  Master’s,  and  3 
years  for  full-time  PhD’s)  have  to  pay  an  annual  tuition  fee  of  around  1,000  Euros. 
Students  who  enrol  in  two  study  programmes  at  the  same  time  have  to  pay  tuition 
fees  for  the  second  programme.  In  Serbia  students  exceeding  the  nominal  study 
period also have to pay tuition fees. Polish students have to pay fees after they enrol 
for the 11th semester (nominal duration of study for Bachelor and Master’s Level + 1 
semester). In Croatia students have to pay tuition for those study years in which they 
did  not  complete  at  least  55  ECTS.  This  may  affect  students  from  disadvantaged 
backgrounds as they are in a less favourable position to acquire the required 55 ECTS. 
So far, in the countries mentioned there was no evaluation of the policies’ impact yet.  

Effectiveness of student financing rewarding study progress and time-to-degree 

Overall,  the  few  evaluations  available  have  shown  that  these  kinds  of  funding 
instruments  have  only  little  impact  on  study  progress  and  timely  completion.  To 
become effective the rewards for timely completion need to be significant and must be 
accompanied  with  study  conditions  that  enable  students  to  complete  their  studies 
within  the  nominal  study  period.  Nonetheless,  financial  support  for  students  is  not  a 
key  factor  for  improving  retention  and  completion.  Though  students  find  financial 
support  important  for  retention  and  completion,  dropout  is  often  related  to  other 

12-2015  49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
factors than lack of financial resources. In an interim evaluation report on the English 
National  Scholarship  Programme  (NSP)  Bowes  et  al.  (2014,  p.8)  state  that:  “The 
majority  of  NSP  award  recipients  confirm  that  they  would  have  found  it  difficult  to 
remain on their course without financial help and that they are more likely to complete 
as a result of receiving it. Our cohort survey confirms that those who received an NSP 
award in their first year only are finding it more difficult to meet the costs of HE and 
more  likely  to  undertake  part-time  work  than  those  who  continue  to  receive  some 
form of support either through the NSP or another source. However, a lack of financial 
aid  is  not  necessarily  the  main  reason  why  students  leave  HE;  factors  relating  to 
family circumstances, the course and/or the institution can also play a key role in the 
decision.” In a recent literature review (funded by OFFA) on the impact of institutional 
financial  support  on  access  and  study  successes  a  similar  result  was  found  (Nursaw 
Associates,  2015,  p.  4):  “Students  receiving  financial  support  have  comparable  non-
continuation rates with students who do not receive financial support. Yet institutional 
findings  show  that  students  in  receipt  of  financial  support  report  that  it  has  enabled 
them to stay on course and that they consider withdrawing less than their peers. This 
may mean that there is a difference between attitude and behaviour.” The report also 
states  that  the  strength  of  impact  is  related  to  the  way  financial  support  schemes 
operate  in  terms  of  the  variety  of  financial  support,  the  timing  and  availability  of 
information, and whether outreach activities are coordinated. 

5.3.2  Typical explicit national ‘organisation’ policies for study success 

Policies  in  the  ‘organisation  of  higher  education’  area  mostly  have  a  direct  impact  on 
the  study  experience,  for  example  by  selecting  specific  groups  of  students  or  setting 
minimum  entrance 
requirements.  National  organisation-related  policies  and 
instruments  often  regulate  access  to  higher  education.  Such  policies  aim  to  limit 
access  to  higher  education  or  to  achieve  a  good  match  between  students  and  study 
programmes.  Organisation  policies  also  include  the  creation  and  organisation  of 
(flexible) pathways to and within higher education. It also can address the duration of 
study,  the  implementation  of  the  BA/MA  structure  or  the  implementation  of  short 
degrees. Table 5.4 provides an overview of policies that have been designed explicitly 
for  improving  study  success  in  the  2005-2014  period.  One  has  to  realise  that 
particular policies are not assigned to countries if the national experts did not indicate 
the policy as ‘explicitly and originally designed for improving study success’ in the past 
decade.  This  does  not  mean  a  particular  country  does  not  have  such  a  policy.  It 
indicates that such policies were aimed at other objectives initially or were developed 
before 2005. Even though they may have an (indirect) impact on study success they 
have not been included in this study. 

12-2015  50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.4: Typical explicit national study success policies in the area of ‘organisation of HE’ 

Policy 

Description of policy 

Expected effect 

Central 
organisation 
of admission 

Measures to nationally organize the 
admission process to higher 
education/study programmes. 

A better distribution of students across 
the higher education system. 
More informed study choices 

Integration of 
study success 
in quality 
assurance 
system 

In national quality assurance 
procedures the accreditation of 
study programmes or institutions, 
dropout/retention and completion 
are considered. 

More flexible 
educational 
pathways 

Allow 
institutions 
to restrict 
access to 
higher 
education 
Access - 
matching 
students and 
study 
programmes 
Changes in 
degree 
structure 

Measures to implement flexible 
regimes for study programmes and 
to enable the previous educational 
achievements of students to be more 
widely recognized within the higher 
education system. This allows 
students to transfer more easily 
between institutions and study 
programmes as prior achievements 
can be utilised.  
Policies that allow higher education 
institutions to select the best/most 
suitable students for their study 
programmes, mostly based on their 
prior academic achievements.   

Measures to achieve the best fit of 
the student’s competences, 
motivations and expectations and 
the requirements of the study 
programme 
Changes in the degree structure to 
address different demands of 
students: e.g. more professionally 
and vocationally oriented courses; 
provides students extra time to 
specialise or to even build their own 
study programme. 

Curriculum 
design 

Changes in the academic curriculum 
to better address the needs and 
requirements of students 

Limiting 
study periods 

Mandatory 
study plans 

Limiting the maximum time of 
enrolment for students. Those who 
exceed this maximum cannot enrol in 
higher education any longer. 
Full-time students must enrol for 60 
credits per year, and if necessary will 
be done automatically. Students 
cannot withdraw from examinations. 

To increase institutional attention for 
completion and dropout as important 
performance indicators in higher 
education. To stimulate institutions to 
have more measures/instruments to 
address study success. 
To avoid the waste of resources 
through double learning, to allow a 
deliberate choice of study programmes 
and institutions.  
To better value prior learning 
experiences. 
To facilitate pathways in higher 
education. 

To stimulate more deliberate study 
choices among students. To select 
students with adequate cognitive and 
motivational competences to complete 
the programme. To increase students’ 
costs to switch between programmes.  
Achieve a better match of students’ 
competences and requirements of the 
study programme. Stimulate reflected 
study choices. Stimulating early 
dropouts. Shorten time-to-degree 
Shorten time-to-degree.  Avoid dropout 
and increase completion by better 
meeting the demands of students, 
including more vocationally relevant 
offers. Allow students to specify their 
study choice while studying. Avoid 
dropouts caused by overspecialisation, 
and allow easier recognition of diploma 
by future employers. 
Continuous assessment supports 
students to develop self-awareness of 
their competences. To force early 
dropouts/switches rather than late 
ones. Special design of the early phase 
of study in HE to help students develop 
academic competences, to integrate in 
the program and to inform their choices 

Decreasing time-to-degree. 
Decreasing the number of non-active 
students 

Faster completion 

Main study 
success 
orientation 
addressed 
Retention 

Completion 

Completion 

Completion 

Time-to-
degree 

Time-to-
degree 

Time-to-
degree 

Time-to-
degree 

Time-to-
degree 

Source: Reporting from national experts (2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

Countries 
implemented 

France 
(Norway since 
longer) 

Croatia, 
Flanders, 
France, 
Hungary, 
Ireland, Italy, 
Montenegro 
Bulgaria, 
Denmark, 
Flanders,  
Germany,  
Hungary,  
Italy, Lithuania,  
Switzerland, 
former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 
Austria,  
Netherlands,  
Sweden 
(England/Ireland 
have this 
tradition longer) 
Netherlands 

France,  
Netherlands, 
Norway, 
Portugal,  
Serbia 

Austria,  
Estonia,  
France, 
Germany,  
Netherlands, 
Romania,  
Serbia,  
Sweden 

Greece 

Denmark 

12-2015  51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisational policies mainly addressing retention 

Central organisation of admission to higher education 

In  Europe  a  number  of  countries,  for  example  Norway  or  Hungary,  have  a  centrally 
organized  admission  to  higher  education.  From  these  countries  only  for  France  the 
central  organization  of  the  admission  procedures  is  mentioned  an  explicit  study 
success  policy  by  the  national  expert.  In  France,  students  have  to  apply  to  higher 
education  via  a  central  national  online  admission  system  (ABP  -  www.admission-
postbac.fr).  By  centrally  registering  students’  applications  it  aims  to  distribute 
students equally across the system and to avoid a strong concentration of students at 
the  most  popular  institutions  and  programmes,  in  particular  at  the  grandes  écoles. 
ABP  also  offers  online  consultancy  services  to  better  inform  student  choice  and,  as 
such,  to  improve  retention.  The  website  ABP  has  recently  been  evaluated  for  its 
functionality (Opinion Way, 2013). This revealed that the website is positively received 
by  students  and  parents  for  its  support  in  the  application  process.  However, 
perceptions  are  less  positive  about  the  consultancy  function  and  the  information 
provided  on  study  programmes.  Students  and  parents  would  like  more  personalized 
consultation.  No  evidence  on  the  impact  of  ABP  on  retention  is  available.  Based  on 
these  results  the  website  has  been  changed  in  2014-2015  and  now  includes  new 
services such as a free phone number of the official academic information service and 
guidance  (S.A.I.O.).  APB  will  also  extend  the  number  of  institutions  covered  beyond 
the main institutions. 

Organisational policies mainly addressing completion 

Integration of study success in quality assurance system 

Study success can be  integrated in various ways in quality assurance. Some systems 
require reports on indicators such as recent dropout and completion rates, others also 
require a description of measures that have been implemented to address dropout and 
completion at the institutional level. It is expected that such regulations stimulate the 
institutional responsibility for increasing the quality of teaching and thus to positively 
contribute  to  study  success.  They  also  stimulate  institutions  to  develop  more  study 
success oriented initiatives by making reaccreditation dependent on this. Such policies 
were found in Croatia, Flanders, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Montenegro. 

Croatian  higher  education  institutions  have  to  complete  a  self-evaluation  report 
including  information  on  their  completion  rates  and  teacher-student  ratio  for  the 
institutional  reaccreditation.  It  is  expected  that  this  will  lead  to  increased  completion 
rates.  As  2015  marks  the  end  of  the  first  round  of  institutional  reaccreditations  in 
Croatia, there are no results on the realized effects available yet.  

In  Italy  dropout  and  completion  are  integrated  in  the  legal  regulations  for  quality 
assurance since 2013, both for system- and programme accreditation. In this new AVA 
system,  institutions  have  to  report  on  selected  indicators,  including  dropout  and 
completion.  However,  the  system  is  already  criticized  for  this  focus  on  performance 
indicators.  Because  graduate  employability  is  currently  of  high  national  importance, 
indicators for learning outcomes are regarded more important.  

In  Montenegro,  the  Law  on  Higher  Education  implemented  in  October  2014  requires 
higher  education  institutions  to  annually  conduct  self-evaluations  of  the  quality  of 
study  programmes,  including  completion  rates  in  accordance  with  the statutes  of  the 
institution.  These  reports  are  submitted  to  the  Ministry  and  the  National  Higher 
Education  Council  who  then  calculate  national  completion  rates.  In  the  coming  years 
based  on  the  results,  the  National  Higher  Education  Council  will  rank  the  institutions 
and  publish  the  results  on  a  central  website  to  inform  study  choices  of  prospective 

12-2015  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
students.  It  also  aims  to  stimulate  higher  institutions  to  develop  instruments 
improving  study  success.  As  this  is  a  rather  new  development,  evidence  on  its 
effectiveness is not available yet.  

Ireland also uses completion and/or dropout rates as a criterion for quality assurance 
at  the  institutional  level  as  part  of  an  overall  performance  evaluation  framework. 
Integrating  study  success  indicators  and  measures  in  quality  assurance  and 
accreditation  are  expected  to  have  strong  effects  on  the  institutions.  These  will  have 
to monitor students’ achievements and to reflect what factors or measures contribute 
to  successful  completion  of  a  programme.  Publishing  these  indicators  on  websites 
managed  by  central  authorities  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  institutional 
activities  to  address  study  success.  This  may  help  them  to  profile  themselves  as 
excellent  in  teaching  and  learning.  It  might  also  have  an  impact  on  study  choices. 
Currently,  no  hard  data  are  available  on  the  regulations’  impact  on  study  success 
performance. 

More flexible educational pathways 

Policies  to  organise  flexible  pathways  to  and  within  higher  education  are  meant  to 
facilitate  access,  retention  and  completion  of  students  acknowledging  their  various 
backgrounds,  interests  and  capacities.  Flexible  pathways  can  enable  students  to  use 
their  prior  learning  qualifications  and,  as  such,  to  avoid  duplications  in  their  learning 
experiences.  Implementing  a  National  Qualifications  Framework  is  an  important 
measure  in  this  area.  In  particular,  Italy  uses  a  Qualifications  Framework  as  an 
important study success instrument.  

Other  policies  aim  to  achieve  more  flexible  study  plans  and  schedules  which  allow 
students  to  better  adjust  schedules  to  their  needs.  It  is  expected  that  more  flexible 
study plans avoid delays and inefficient use of time and resources due to unnecessary 
‘double’  learning.  Reducing  the  workload  for  students  that  switch  programmes  or 
institutions is regarded important to stimulate completion. 

(Departement  Onderwijs 

Of  the  countries  where  national  experts  explicitly  noted  the  importance  of  flexible 
pathways  for  study  success,  Flanders  is  interesting  as  their  2004  ‘decree  flexibilité’ 
introduced  several  instruments  that  allow  students  to  freely  choose  the  courses  they 
want to follow. This regulation empowered students to take courses at different higher 
education  institutions  without  dropping  out  or  discontinuing  at  their  main  institution. 
The decree also regulated recognition of informal and formal prior learning to facilitate 
entry into higher education. Regardless of the fact that the decree facilitates access to 
higher  education,  it  has  slightly  negative  effects  on  study  success.  The  effects  of  the 
‘decree  flexibilité’  have  been  examined  in  some  evaluations  in  terms  of  the  cost  of 
en  Vorming,  2013;  Werkgroep 
implementation 
‘Studievoortgangsbewaking’, 2014), the flexibility realised (Departement Onderwijs en 
Vorming,  2013),  and  its  impact  on  widening  access,  completion  and  time-to-degree 
(Werkgroep  Studievoortgangsbewaking,  2014).  The  evaluations  concluded  that  the 
implementation of flexible pathways has led to an increase in administrative costs and 
in  the  work  load  of  teachers.  Such  costs  particularly  relate  to  the  increase  in 
communication  and  information  provision  about  pathways  and  recognition  of 
previously obtained qualifications. The second evaluation reports a positive impact on 
widening  access  and  the  growth  of  the  overall  number  of  graduates,  as  well  as  an 
increased  number  of  switches  between  professional  and  academic  programmes. 
However,  increased  flexibility  also  leads  to  an  increase  in  time-to-degree  and  in 
dropout due to the complexity and the lack of transparency in the regulations for  the 
accumulation  and  recognition  of  study  achievements.  In  addition,  the  flexibility 
regulations  hinder  institutions  in  taking  actions  in  case  they  identify  problems  with 
study  progress.  Therefore  it  is  recommended  to  simplify  recognition  rules  and  to 

12-2015  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enable  institutions  to  better  monitor  and  inform  students  on  progress  (Werkgroep 
Studievoortgangsbewaking, 2014, p. 84ff). 

The Danish implementation of the ‘study progress reforms’ included measures to allow 
students to transfer between programmes and institutions by making it easier to have 
credits obtained recognised and transferred elsewhere. The reforms also envisage the 
opportunity to start in the spring semester. 

U.S.A.  policies  attempt  to  improve  the  integration  of  educational  levels,  such  as 
through  ‘Common  Core  State  Standards’.  These  standards  define  college  and  work 
readiness of students across the U.S.A and should provide more transparency in what 
students  need  to  know  and  have  achieved  by  high  school  graduation,  ensuring  that 
they are prepared for future education and workforce options. 

Restricting access to selected higher education programmes  

Countries or institutions often aim to limit access to higher education through selection 
procedures  that  select  students  for  certain  study  programmes  based  on  their  prior 
achievements (and other factors). Selection procedures traditionally were used to limit 
the  massive  increase  of  student  demand  for  some  study  programmes  or  to  control 
access  to  certain  professions  (for  example  in  medicine).  The  rationales  for  limiting 
access  to  achieve  better  study  success  outcomes  are  on  the  one  hand  to  select  the 
best  students  for  a  study  programme  that  have  a  higher  probability  to  complete  the 
programme. On the other hand, restricting access also aims at students making their 
study choices more carefully resulting in less students switching to other programmes. 
Experiences  have  shown  that  completion  rates  in  selective  programmes  are  higher 
than in non-selective programmes (see Chapter 2). 

At  national  level,  selection  processes  generally  allocate  students  to  a  limited  number 
of  study  places  based  on  their  prior  learning  achievements.  At  the  institutional  level, 
prior  educational  attainment  may  be  supplemented  by  aptitude  or  motivation  tests, 
particularly in artistic disciplines. Selection or  restriction policies are not per se study 
success  policies.  For  example,  in  Austria8  selection  and  restriction  policies  primarily 
had the goal to harmonize student numbers and capacities. However, it is also hoped 
that the number of dropouts reduces and that the number of graduates will stabilize or 
even  increase  when  study  programmes  are  not  overcrowded.  Since  2005,  Austrian 
universities  are  allowed  to  set  their  own  admission  rules.  A  growing  number  of 
programmes  apply  selection  procedures  which  sometimes  limits  the  number  of  first-
year students/new enrolments in the programmes. The effects of institutional selection 
procedures are currently evaluated. 

For  the  Netherlands  a  change  in  the  selection  procedures  is  planned  for  2017. 
Currently  10  per  cent  of  the  programmes  are  ‘numerus  fixus’  programmes  for  which 
there  is  a  central  weighted  ballot  system  giving  GPA  ≥  8.0  giving  a  100  per  cent 
acceptance  guarantee  (centrale  loting  numerusfixusopleidingen).  In  2017  this  will  be 
substituted by a decentralized selection mechanisms giving institutions more freedom 
to  select  students  applying  for  programmes  with  limited  enrolment  capacity.  This 
should  increase  completion  rate  because  students  will  then  be  selected  based  on 
school  results  (like  before),  their  motivation  and  personality  traits  as  well  as  criteria 
that fit the purposes and goals of the institutions or programmes. 

8   In general access to higher education is open in Austria, nonetheless universities are allowed 

to restrict access in some selected programmes. 

12-2015  54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Organisational policies mainly addressing time-to-degree 

Access - matching students to programmes 

The rationale of this policy is to achieve the best match between the study programme 
and  the  student  for  her  or  his  competences,  motivations  and  expectations.  Matching 
procedures  can be understood as a mild or soft form of  selection that can take place 
before enrolling in higher education and during the first year of higher education. The 
main difference between the selection and matching is that selection is predominantly 
applied  when  only  a  limited  number  of  study  places  is  available  and  the  programme 
wants  to  get  the  “best”  students  in.  Matching  policies  try  to  achieve  the  best  fit  of 
student  and  study  programme  and  focus  on  whether  the  students  are  well-prepared 
for a study programme and able to complete it. Matching also aims to stimulate more 
reflective  study  choices  as  students  have  to  consider  their  competences,  and  higher 
education  institutions  have  to  provide  clear  and  honest  information  about  courses. 
Matching  procedures  are  often  based  on  previous  experiences  of  institutions  with 
‘similar’ students. Once enrolled, student’s achievements and experiences will provide 
a good indication whether s/he will be able to complete the degree. 

Currently  matching  procedures  are  used  in  the  Netherlands  only,  and  since  2008 
various  institutions  apply  matching  mechanisms  before  enrolment.  Since  2014,  when 
it  became  obligatory  that  students  have  to  enrol  in  their  preferred  study  programme 
before the 1st of May, students have the right to assess whether they make the right 
study choice. Therefore all higher education institutions have to offer a procedure that 
helps them evaluate their study choice. Institutions and study programmes are free to 
choose  how  they  would  like  to  advise  students,  for  example  with  a  digital  aptitude 
test,  intake-interviews  or  offering  a  “one  day  student  experience”.  Most  institutions 
offer intake interviews. After enrolment a second matching activity takes place in the 
form  of  the  also  obligatory  individual  ‘binding  study  advice’  at  the  end  of  the  first 
study year. “In the Netherlands, the legal instrument to dismiss non-performing first-
year  students  is  the  binding  study  advice  (BSA).  It  has  been  introduced  gradually  in 
many  –  but  not  all  –  bachelor  programs  at  Dutch  research  universities  following  the 
Bologna-induced introduction of the bachelor/master structure in 2002. … According to 
Dutch  law,  a  student  receiving  a  negative  BSA  is  not  allowed  to  reregister  for  the 
program  in  which  he  or  she  is  currently  enrolled  in  the  next  three  academic  years. 
Students  are,  however,  allowed  to  switch  to  other  programs  offered  in  Dutch  higher 
education. The law leaves it to the institutions to set the performance threshold below 
which students will receive a negative BSA.” (Arnold, 2015, p. 1070). During the first 
study  year  of  a  bachelor  programme  students  are  monitored  for  their  achievements 
based on which the study advisor provides the binding study advice. 

Matching  procedures  before  enrolment  have  not  been  subject  to  evaluation  yet,  at 
least not in terms of their impact on study success. However, the binding study advice 
has  been  evaluated  (Arnold,  2015).  Results  show  that  the  binding  study  advice  has 
different  impacts  depending  on  the  size  of  study  programmes.  In  large  study 
programmes the effects on time-to-degree is stronger than in study programmes with 
a low number of students. The results also demonstrate the binding study advice does 
not necessarily achieve a better fit between student and study programme but makes 
effectively  a  distinction  between  stronger  and  less  strong  students.  Students  with  a 
negative advice who switch to other study programmes fail more often than students 
who  voluntarily  transferred  to  another  study  programmes.  Due  to  the  binding  study 
advice dropout now takes place in earlier study phases. 

12-2015  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Changes in the degree structure 

‘Changes  in  the  degree  structure’  refers  to  those  policies  that intend to  better  match 
the diploma and degree structures in a higher education system with the demands and 
needs  among  an  increasingly  diverse  student  population.  This  can  comprise  a  total 
overhaul  of  the  traditional  degree  structure  as  was  done  with  the  introduction  of  the 
BA/MA system as part of the Bologna process in most European countries since 1999.9 
Such policies, however, can also be the introduction of new types of degrees, such as 
short degree programmes and ‘student-designed programmes’ enabling students with 
a clear study objective to collect adequate programme elements. Changing the degree 
structure  is  expected  to  reduce  dropout  of  students  that  do  not  fit  traditional  degree 
programmes. 

In  Portugal,  technical  short  cycle  degrees  called  TESPs  -  Cursos  Técnicos  Superiores 
Profissionais,  ISCED  level  5  –  have  been  implemented  from  the  academic  year 
2014/2015  onwards.  These  are  two-year  higher  education  courses  specialising  in 
areas  of  skills  shortages  (OECD  2015:9).  The  courses  intend  to  produce  graduates 
with skills that are needed in society and the economy, and to improve completion as 
the  degree  programme  is  explicitly  linked  to  employment.  In  the  Netherlands,  the 
implementation  of  the  ‘Associate  degrees’  programmes  in  2006  enabled  graduates 
from  vocational  upper  secondary  education  to  enter  UAS  for  two-year  practice-
oriented programmes to get a higher education experience and to easier transfer into 
and complete a bachelor degree afterwards (De Graaf en Van den Berg, 2011). 

Norway introduced more structured programmes through the ‘quality reform’. Instead 
of  accepting  students  at  a  faculty/school  and  let  them  combine  subjects  themselves, 
universities  now  offer  programmes  that  are  designed  on  the  basis  of  certain  subject 
combinations.  This  intends  to  increase  completion  rates  and  to  reduce  dropout  and 
time-to-degree.  In  a  study  on  the  effects  of  structured  study  programmes 
Hovdhaugen (2011) found that completion rates in such programmes were not higher 
than  in  other  ones.  However,  the  number  of  students  switching  to  other  institutions 
has  decreased.  Hovdhaugen  explains  the  effects  as  follows:  “the  changes  in 
programme  structure  made  them  more  attractive  to  students,  presenting  them  with 
interesting  combinations  of  courses  and  appealing  degrees.  In  addition,  higher 
education  institutions  have  made  explicit  potential  employability  options  for  students 
completing such programmes. The overall consequence of these structural changes is 
that  fewer  students  transfer  to  a  different  institution,  and  there  is  a  reduction  in 
overall  student  departure  from  institutions,  due  to  the  reduction  in  transfer  rates.” 
(Hovdhaugen, 2011, p. 249). 

Curriculum design 

This  policy  type  includes  instruments  and  regulations  that  allow  higher  education 
institutions to better meet students’ demands and needs through innovative curricula. 
The range of measures include changes in the assessment and grading procedures as 
well  as  introducing  compulsory  extra  study  courses  or  a  (additional)  semester  or 
bridging  year  (with  a  special  study  plan)  that  needs  to  be  successfully  completed 
before  the  student  can  really  start  in  the  first  year  of  study.  These  add-ons  aim  to 
better  prepare  students  for  academic  study  and  to  ensure  a  better  understanding  of 
the requirements of the programme. This also makes students aware if their capacities 
and  achievements  are  in  line  with  the  demands  of  their  chosen  study  programme. 
Such  curricula  design  instruments  not  only  inform  and  improve  study  choices,  they 

9   In Italy for example the introduction of the BA/MA Structure was seen as an opportunity to 
reduce time-to-degree. The change in study programmes would better allow addressing the 
needs of students (shorter programmes, more specialized programmes). 

12-2015  56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
also support students to integrate better in their programme or to drop out early. We 
found interesting measures in curriculum design in Austria and France.  

In  2009,  all  Austrian  university  study  programmes  had  to  implement  a  compulsory 
introductory  study  phase  (Studieneingangs-  und  Orientierungsphase).  During  this 
phase  the  student  has  to  attend  introductory  courses  that  provide  insight  into  study 
and research methods and the contents of their study programme. The courses equal 
15  to  30  ECTS.  Students  cannot  continue  with  their  study  programme  unless  they 
have  successfully  completed  these  courses.  The  aim  of  this  introductory  phase  is  to 
prepare  students  for  their  studies  and  to  make  them  reflect  on  their  study  choice.  A 
recent  evaluation  of  the  ‘introductory  phase’  has  shown  that  it  does  not  lead  to  a 
reduction of dropouts. Rather it helps dropouts to make better decisions of what to do 
afterwards.  When  it  comes  to  reducing  the  number  of  dropouts  itself,  the  study 
recommends to apply more effective counselling of students before they enter higher 
education (Österreichischer Wissenschaftsrat, 2014, p. 21ff). 

In  France  the  recent  introduction  of  broad  bachelor  programmes  addresses  students 
who  are  uncertain  about  their  study  choice  (Measure  2  of  the  2013  law  on  higher 
education).  Broad  bachelor  programmes  offer  the  opportunity  to  study  a  broader 
discipline in the first study year and to specialize in a subject in the second year and 
after.  Universities  are  autonomous  to  decide  about  the  organisation  of  such  broad 
bachelor programmes. This instrument will be explained in more detail in Chapter 6. 

Finally,  some  countries,  such  as  Germany,  indicated  that  the  continuous  assessment 
and grading integrated in the new curricula implemented due to the Bologna-reforms 
contribute to study success. Before the Bologna reforms students were only assessed 
in the middle and at the end of their studies. This made it difficult to assess whether 
students were ‘on track’ within their programme. Continuous assessment allows them 
to better know and understand their academic progress, and whether they are likely to 
complete  their  degree.  This  encourages  early  switch  of  study  programmes  as  well  as 
early  dropout  rather  than  later  in  the  programme.  The  Dutch  implementation  of  the 
Binding Study Advice at the end of the first year of studies generates a similar result. 

Limiting study periods 

Restricting  study  periods  is  a  noteworthy  instrument  introduced  in  Greece  in  June 
2014. This regulation stipulated that students who enrolled in higher education for the 
first time in 2006 and had not yet completed a degree must discontinue their studies. 
Since 2014, Greek full time students have to complete their study within a maximum 
time period of the nominal duration (ranging between 8 and 12 semesters depending 
on type of programme and discipline) plus four semesters. Part-time students cannot 
take  longer  than  double  the  nominal  duration  of  a  programme.  The  expected  effects 
are  a  reduction  in  the  high  number  of  non-active  students  and  average  time-to-
degree. At the time of this research, the regulation was not yet introduced. 

Mandatory study plans 

Mandatory  study  plans  were  already  mentioned  when  discussing  the  Danish  study 
progress reform related to national funding instruments. Mandatory study plans are an 
interesting policy option as it obliges students to enrol for courses equalling 60 credit 
points  each  study  year.  It  they  do  not  sign  up  for  sufficient  numbers  of  credits,  they 
are  assigned  to  courses  automatically  and  cannot  withdraw  from  the  exams.  Non-
passed courses will not account for the mandatory study plans of the next year. Each 
year  students  have  to  choose  60  new  ECTS.  This  regulation  should  increase  study 
progress and completion. So far, effects of the regulations have not been evaluated. 

12-2015  57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.3  Typical national ‘information & support’ policies for study success 

The policies discussed in this section focus on the provision of information and support 
to students – both prior to and after enrolment. They also include non-financial forms 
of support to students that are not related to teaching and learning. 

The  first  category  of  policy  instruments  concerns  the  provision  of  information  that 
helps  students  make  well-informed  study  choices  with  respect  to  what  students  can 
expect  in  terms  of  the  content  of  study  programmes,  the  organisation  and 
requirements, planning, future career prospects and whether this all matches with the 
student’s  interests  and  capacities.  This  can  include  brochures,  marketing  activities, 
early information campaigns and public student choice websites.  

When  students  are  enrolled,  support  policies  in  particular  become  relevant.  These 
include instruments to prepare prospective students for study at the higher level such 
as  summer  courses.  Further,  support  policies  include  processes  that  help  students  to 
socialise  in  university  life,  for  example  introduction  camps,  academic  integration 
courses,  tutoring,  mentoring  etc.  Finally  it  is  about  helping  students  when  they 
encounter problems and need help with overcoming disadvantages of a handicap (e.g. 
dyslexia),  or  if  they  need  advice  and  counselling  services  or  even  mental  and 
psychological  support.  Governments  often  make  such  services  obligatory  and  the 
higher education institutions have to implement them. Table 5.5 provides an overview 
of the typical policies on information and support for students. 

Table 5.5: Explicit national study success policies on ‘information and support for students’ 

Policy 

Description of policy 

Expected effect 

- More deliberate study choices - 
Encouraging higher education 
institutions to take responsibility 
for study success, quality of 
teaching (via competition) 

Main study 
success 
orientation 
Retention 

Countries 
implemented 

Bulgaria, England,  
Flanders, Germany, 
Hungary, Ireland, 
Netherlands, 
Norway, Portugal 

Comparative 
data and 
information 

Student 
monitoring 

Student 
support 
services 

Comparative data provide students with 
information on the quality of study 
programmes and/or institutions, 
including variables such as: completion 
rates, satisfaction of students, graduate 
employment rates, etc. In some cases 
the information is used to rank 
institutions on a national basis. The 
measure has a twofold aim: 1) it intends 
to inform students and contribute to 
their study choice; 2) it intends to 
stimulate competition between HEIs 
and/or courses (‘marketise’ HE). 
Policies addressing study success are 
more successful if they can be based on 
reliable data that helps to explore the 
main reasons for dropping out of higher 
education or transferring to other study 
programmes. Regulating and collecting 
data on students’ achievements, 
educational pathways and later careers. 
Provide support for students - at 
national or institutional level - beyond 
study choice information, but rather 
includinf psychological and health 
support as well as career counselling. 

Retention 

Better identify students at risk 
for dropping out 
Design more adequate measures 
to address study success 
Adjust study programmes more 
to the labour market 

Finland, Flanders,  
Hungary, Ireland,  
Netherlands, 
Norway, Portugal,  
Sweden 

Retention 

Better integration of students in 
higher education institutions  
Support for students in health, 
mental problems, housing, etc.  
Preventing students to dropout 
because of better knowledge of 
job opportunities through career 
counselling 

Flanders, France,  
Germany, Greece,  
Hungary, Iceland,  
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, 
Montenegro, 
Netherlands, 
Norway, Poland,  
Romania, Serbia, the 
former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 

12-2015  58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support for 
study choices 

Providing clear information about study 
programmes to (prospective) students 
to inform study choices, i.e. inform 
students about requirements of the 
study programme and adjust 
expectations about the study 
programme. 

Stimulate more deliberate study 
choices 

Retention 

Support 
institutions 
to 
disseminate 
good practice 
Source: Reporting from national experts (2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

The dissemination of good practices is 
intended to encourage and enable 
higher education institutions to develop 
policies and practices to improve study 
success. 

Support institutions in 
developing innovations for 
teaching and learning by 
disseminating knowledge/good 
practices. 

Completion 

Austria, Cyprus,  
Czech Republic,  
Denmark, England,  
Estonia, Flanders,  
France, Germany,  
Greece, Ireland,  
Italy, Lithuania,  
Netherlands, 
Portugal, Romania 
the former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia,  
England, Finland,  
Germany, Ireland 

Information policies mainly addressing retention 

Comparative data and information 

Comparative  information  and  data  differs  from  institutional  information  about 
programmes because the former tends to provide more objective information than the 
marketing  information  through  institutional  websites  and  prospectuses.  It  intends  to 
enable potential entrants and parents to objectively judge relative performance across 
prescribed  indicators  (for  example  on  level,  duration,  practice  periods,  study  abroad, 
retention and completion rates, employability, etc.).  

As such comparative information often leads to a sort of league table and push higher 
education  institutions  to  perform  well.  The  content  of  such  information  sites  (and 
league tables) differs substantially between countries. In England the Higher Education 
Statistics  Agency  (HESA)  collects  data  about  non-continuation  and  completion  from 
the  institutions  and  makes  it  publically  available  annually.  HESA  calculates  a 
‘benchmark’  for  every  institution  (taking  into  account  their  subject  portfolio,  entry 
qualifications and student diversity). This is published alongside actual performance of 
the  whole  institutional  student  population  and  sub-sections  of  that.  National 
newspapers  use  this  data  to  produce  league  tables  about  retention  and  the 
information also feeds into wider league tables about the ‘quality’ of individual higher 
education  providers  in  England  and  the  UK.  An  evaluation  found  that  this  approach 
helped  to  reduce  retention  rates  (Longden  2012).  In  addition,  England  also  has 
introduced  the  Key  Information  System  (KIS)  for  students.  KIS  provides  comparable 
sets  of  information  about  all  full  and  part-time  undergraduate  courses  on  items  that 
prospective  students have identified as most important to inform their decisions. The 
information  is  published  on  Unistats  website.  The  KIS  includes  information  from 
various data sources, among them are: 

 
 

student satisfaction from the National Student Survey 
student  destinations  on  finishing  their  course  from  the  Destinations  of  Leavers 
from Higher Education survey 

  how the course is taught and study patterns 
  how the course is assessed 
 
 

course accreditation 
course costs (such as tuition fees and accommodation). 

In  the  Netherlands  “Studiekeuze  123”  provides  prospective  students  with  relevant 
course information through an extended national web portal. Studiekeuze 123 is based 

12-2015  59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
inter  alia  on  the  National  Student  [satisfaction]  Survey  (NSE)  and  allows  students  to 
compare student satisfaction scores for selected programmes. The portal also links to 
the  websites  of  the  programmes  at  their  institutions,  and  provides  information  on 
open days and similar events, links to online tests, etc. 

In Germany the “Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung” (CHE) and the weekly published 
journal “die Zeit” have developed the “Zeit-Ranking” for students choosing their study 
programme.  The  ranking  identifies  different  fields  of  study  and  HEIs  are  assigned  to 
groups that are categorised by their performance. 

Bulgaria  has  introduced  the  Bulgarian  University  Ranking  helping  school  leavers  to 
choose HEIs by specialisation for example. The ranking uses more than 60 indicators, 
each selectable so that a user specific ranking can be made. 

In  Ireland  data  on  drop-out  and  completion  rates  that  have  been  gathered  in  quality 
assurance  and  accreditation  processes  feed  into  a  detailed  profile  of  each  HE 
institution  that  is  published  by  the  Higher  Education  Authority.  This  is  part  of  the 
development  of  a  broader  evaluation  framework  to  support  strategic  planning  at 
institutional  and  system  levels  and  to  provide  on-going  monitoring  of  the  profile  of 
students  and  their  progression  rates.  In  2014  the  Higher  Education  Authority 
published  a  report  on  “progression  in  Irish  Higher  Education  institutions  in 
2010/2011”.10  This  report  does  not  rank  higher  education  institutions  with  regard  to 
their  achievements  in  study  success  but  allows  higher  education  institutions  to 
benchmark  their  non-progression  rates  against  other  institutions.  These  publications 
do  not  mainly  inform  student  choices  but  function  as  a  lever  to  stimulate  higher 
education institutions to take more responsibility for teaching and learning. 

The  need  for  detailed  data  on  performance  of  institutions  and  study  programmes  is 
also  reported  for  Australia  and  the  U.S.A.  In  Australia  there  is  a  need  for  greater 
information to prospective students and other stakeholders about how to engage and 
succeed  in  higher  education.  In  2014  it  was  announced  by  the  U.S.  Department  of 
Education  that  it  would  create  a  college-rating  system  for  approximately  5,000 
colleges  and  universities.  The  purpose  of  that  system  is  to  provide  systematic  and 
transparent details on postsecondary institutions for consumers. The college rating will 
include  information  on  graduation  and  retention  rates,  student  loan  debt,  enrolment 
and graduation of low-income and first-generation students. The ambition is that the 
system  will  encourage  colleges  and  universities  to  improve  their  equity,  affordability 
and quality records. The first draft of the rating is expected in late summer 2015.  

Student monitoring 

Statistical  data  is  often  used  to  inform  policy  and  interventions  that  address  study 
success.  There  are  two  ways  to  monitor  students’  progress.  First  there  are  monitors 
using aggregated data: study success and progress are investigated for various levels 
such  as  discipline,  sex,  age,  or  cohort.  Second,  there  are  ways  to  monitor  individual 
students, i.e. taking stock of the achievements and educational pathway of individual 
students. This individual monitoring helps to identify students who are at risk to drop 
out, who switch to other programmes or who show too little progress. Collecting data 
on  individual  students’  achievements  is  used  in  some  countries,  however,  in  other 
countries  this  is  not  possible  due  to  concerns  around  privacy.  In  the  latter  group  of 
countries  it  will  be  difficult  to  collect  data  on  vulnerable  groups  and  to  take 
individualised action. In the in-depth country case studies in countries with very strict 
privacy  regulations  (for  example  Germany)  respondents  claim  that  an  opportunity  to 

10  It  was  found  that  across  all  sectors  and  levels  16  per  cent  of  new  entrants  (1st  year 
students)  in  higher  education  in  2010  did  not  progress  one  year  after  entrance  to  higher 
education. Compared to the study year 2007/2008 the non-progression rate was stable, then 
15 per cent did not progress to the second year. 

12-2015  60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
monitor  individual  students  would  be  very  helpful  to  better  understand  dropout  and 
completion and to design more adequate policy instruments to address study success. 

International practice shows that monitoring information is used for various purposes. 
In  Norway  and  Sweden  the  tracking  of  students  is used  to  identify inactive  students. 
Norwegian institutions contact low achieving students and ask for explanations. Such 
students  in  some  institutions  and  programmes  risk  losing  their  place  in  the 
programme. In Ireland the data is used for publishing detailed profiles of each higher 
education institution, including  the  dropout  rate.  The  data  is  also  used  for  evaluation 
purposes  and  strategic  decision  making.  In  Finland  students’  achievements  are 
continuously monitored to identify students at risk of dropout and to take early actions 
to prevent it. Each university is obliged to sort out the students at risk of dropout by 
means  of  statistics  and  reporting  with  the  intention  of  achieving  lower  dropout  rates 
and  quicker  completion.  The  data  is  also  used  to  inform  the  funding  of  students  and 
institutions.  In  addition,  Finnish  HEIs  also  introduced  a  monitoring  tool  through  a 
personal  study  plan  (PSP)  that  helps  to  better  manage  completion  of  the  degree  as 
students  plan  and  schedule  their  courses  for  the  entire  study  period.  The  plan  is 
reviewed and updated annually together with a coordinator or mentor. 

Student support services 

Student  support  services  are  mostly  established  at  the  institutional  level.  These 
services  can  range  from  (career)  counselling  as  well  as  improving  the  academic 
preparedness  of  students,  and  health  and  welfare.  Countries  such  as  France  and 
Denmark  have  support  services  implemented  at  the  national  level.  A  number  of 
countries, as for example France, the Netherlands and Hungary have policies requiring 
HEIs  to  implement  student  support  services  which  should  address  certain  topics. 
However,  the  details  of  such  services  have  to  be  organised  by  the  institutions 
according  their  own  ideas  and  wishes.  A  new  trend  is  that  HEIs  establish  career 
centres  to  provide  information,  advice  and  guidance  to  students  about  study  and 
employment careers. 

Student support services are expected to improve the social and academic integration 
of students in higher education, in line with Tinto’s argument that positive integration 
of  students  contributes  to  study  success.  In  addition,  it  is  expected  that  the  career 
services  help  students  to  make  more  informed  and  appropriate  choices  about  their 
study plans, which become aligned with labour market opportunities. 

The  French  implementation  of  the  “plan  pour  la  réussite  en  licence”  foresaw  the 
introduction  of  personalised  support  and  career  services  for  students.  Institutions 
received  ‘seed  funding’  to  establish  or  reform  careers  services.  Many  French 
universities accordingly reorganised existing units or established new ones to organise 
personalised services such as career advice, accommodation and other administrative 
support in a more coherent way. Besides institutional services, the Centre régional des 
œuvres  universitaires  et  scolaires  (CROUS)  delivers  several  student  support  services 
at the regional level such as administration of bursaries, housing, student restaurants 
and cultural activities. The 2013 law on higher education stipulated a strengthening of 
student  support  services,  building  30  health  centres  at  universities  and  establishing 
cultural and meeting centres at higher education institutions (MESR, 2013, p. 23ff). 

In the Netherlands the introduction of the binding study advice was supported by the 
mandatory  improvement  of  academic  counselling  and  service  structures  at  higher 
education institutions, particularly focusing on the needs of first year students. 

In  Hungary,  since  2005,  higher  education  institutions  are  obliged  to  have  student 
support services in place. Italy organises the provision of (additional) student support 
services at the national level. The Azienda ESU di Padova (ESU) is a legally supported 
company offering integrated services to support students with their studies. 

12-2015  61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Germany  student  support  services  are  organized  via 
the  “Deutsches 
Studentenwerk”.  Its  services  are  available  at  every  German  higher  education 
institution  and  it  helps  students  with  housing,  financial  support,  student  catering, 
study advice, consultation and psychological consultancy. 

Irish higher education institutions offer a broad range of services: students can access 
orientation programmes, remedial courses if needed, receive help with study skills and 
exam  preparation,  one-to-one  meetings  with  student  advisors,  social  gatherings, 
mentoring,  advise  about  grants,  scholarships  and  bursaries  when  available.  These 
services  are  organised  voluntarily  by  the  higher  education  institutions.  This  approach 
is very similar to England. 

In general, student support services are evaluated in terms of student satisfaction but 
not in terms of impact on study success. However, countries that recently introduced 
student support services report that study success has improved (e.g. in Hungary). 

Support for study choices 

Reliable information on study programmes and higher education is crucial for students 
who  make  a  choice  of  what  and  where  to  study.  Research  has  shown  that  a  lack  of 
clear information is a  major  cause  of dropout from higher education. The majority of 
countries  have  introduced  national instruments  to  improve  the  provision  of  clear  and 
objective study choice information. The support of study choice is the most frequently 
used national study success policy across Europe. The establishment of websites that 
list study programmes and information about the study programmes is most frequent 
among  the  instruments  implemented.  Also  the  provision  of  printed  material  is 
frequently  used.  However,  in  France  and  Denmark  study  choice  has  been  integrated 
into  the  curricula  of  upper  secondary  schools.  Other  countries  have  established 
regional centres counselling on pathways in the education and training system. 

In  England information  is  provided  for  prospective  students  by  KIS  as  already  stated 
above.  Similarly,  the  Portuguese  website  of  the  application  system  offers  students 
information  on  the  performance  of  study  programmes  in  terms  of  completion  rates 
and labour market outcomes of graduates. 

In  North  Rhine-Westphalia  (Germany)  the  government  has  established  the  website 
“studifinder.de”  to  support  study  choices.  The  website  addresses  two  information 
needs of students. Firstly it offers a number of online competences- and interest-tests. 
Based  on  test  results  the  site  recommends  disciplines  and  study  programmes. 
Secondly, the site provides information on the contents of study programmes  – often 
by transferring the student to the official website of the programme. 

In  France,  the  “plan  pour  la  réussite  en  licence”  and  the  2013  higher  education  law 
included  the  “Bac-3/bac+3”  initiative  providing  study  choice  consultation  services  in 
the  curriculum  of  upper  secondary  education.  Students  continuously  receive 
information  during  the  study  choice  process:  the  first  advice  about  study/career 
choices starts three years before completion of the upper secondary school certificate. 
This consultation is done collaboratively by universities and upper secondary schools. 
It  is  expected  that  this  early  counselling  will  result  in  more  informed  and  deliberate 
study choices, better matches between students and study programmes, and a better 
distribution of students between institutions. In Romania higher education institutions 
are required to provide counselling and career orientation to students by law.  

Most  of  the  information  provision  is  evaluated  in  terms  of  student  satisfaction  rather 
than  for  its  impact  on  study  success.  Evaluations  investigate  if  the  information 
provided  is  clear  and  answers  the  questions  of  students,  is  up-to-date  and  easily 
accessible. 

12-2015  62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information policies mainly addressing completion 

Support for institutions 

England, Finland, Germany and Montenegro are among the countries that disseminate 
good  practice  information  to  encourage  and  enable  higher  education  institutions  to 
improve study success. This is often done by rector’s conferences or other associations 
of higher education institutions. In the UK, the Higher Education Academy (HEA) was 
established  by  Universities  UK  (representing  all  universities)  and  the  four  UK  funding 
bodies to improve the quality of learning and teaching. While improving retention and 
study  success  was  not  an  outspoken  part  of  HEA’s  remit,  the  National  Strategy  for 
Access and Student Success (BIS 2014) identifies learning and teaching as a primary 
approach to improve retention and success. As such, the National Strategy references 
various  HEA  publications  and  the  HEA’s  impact  on  influencing  national  policy  and 
institutional practice (Brooks et al., 2014). 

In  Finland  the  Ministry  of  Education  in  2007  issued  a  discussion  paper  presenting 
reasons for dropout and different approaches to reduce dropout at all education levels. 
The paper suggested the following measures to be taken: 

  Better counselling at all education levels to prevent wrong educational choices 
  Better  information  on  studies  and  future  career  perspectives  to  prevent  wrong 
expectations that often result in dropout, study delays and motivational problems 
Implementation of study counselling and psychological services 

 
  Personal study plan tools 
  Continuous tracking of study progress and a register to store the data.  

The  discussion  paper  stimulated  Finnish  higher  education  institutions  to  implement 
most of the suggested instruments, as stated by a recent report of the Finnish Ministry 
(2015).  A  survey  among  universities  showed  that  increasing  the  graduation  rate  is 
currently  the  most  important  strategy  area  for  Finnish  universities  and  UAS  (Finnish 
Ministry, 2015, p.45, p.59). Regardless of the importance put on improving completion 
rates,  an  international  committee  reviewing  the  Finnish  higher  education  system 
questioned  the  strong  focus  on  output  indicators.  The  committee  recommended 
putting  less  emphasis  on  graduate  numbers  and  student  satisfaction  as  central 
(funding)  indicators  and  to  pay  more  attention  to  learning  outcomes.  They  also 
recommended  to  strengthen  attention  for  life-long  learning,  system  flexibility  and 
requirements of the labour market when implementing education innovations (Finnish 
Ministry, 2015, p. 88ff). 

Finally higher education stakeholders actively identify and disseminate knowledge and 
good  practices  to  address  study  success.  The  German  rectors’  conference  (HRK)  is 
actively identifying good practices for teaching and learning. The HRK ‘nexus’ project – 
funded  by  the  German  Federal  Ministry  for  Research  and  Education  –  identifies  good 
practices  to  improve  study  success  throughout  the  student  life-cycle.  The  German 
Stifterverband  has  awarded  prizes  to  stimulate  the  development  of  innovations  and 
good  practices  in  teaching  and  learning.  These  innovations  have  led  to  publications 
such  as  a  ‘charter  for  good  teaching’  (Jorzik,  2013)  and  ‘Handbook  Study  Success’ 
(Berthold,  Jorzik  and  Meyer-Guckel,  2015).  Also  the  VDMA  funded  similar  projects, 
(see Chapter 6 for a detailed description of the VDMA-Project ‘Maschinenhaus’). There 
has not been an evaluation of the effectiveness of the dissemination of good practices 
yet,  but  stakeholders  indicate  that  exchange  and  collaboration  among  higher 
education institutions within such projects as well as the prestige of becoming one of 
the  laureates  in  such  competitions  strongly  stimulates  a  greater  attention  of 
institutional leadership for the quality of teaching and learning. 

12-2015  63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4  Overview of national approaches 
Based  on  the  previous  presentation  of  national  policy  instruments  to  stimulate  study 
success, Table 5.6 presents the overall overview of all national study success policies 
by  policy  area  as  identified  in  the  HEDOCE  study.  The  table  includes  all  policies  that 
were reported by national experts as national policies that were designed explicitly to 
address  study  success  in  the  last  decade.  Though  one  might  expect  some  policies  to 
be  also  included  for  countries  where  they  are  not  reported  for  in  Table  5.6,  this  is 
generally due to the fact that such policies were not originally meant to improve study 
success. For example, not all funding mechanisms or quality assurance systems have 
been designed to reduce dropout or improve completion rates. 

Table 5.6: Overview of all explicit national study success policies by policy area and country 

Country 

Funding and financial incentives 

Austria  

Bulgaria  

Croatia  

  Financial support for students in general 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Financial support for students in general 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 

  Financial support for students in general 
  Additional funds for specific students 

enrolled 

  Additional funds for teaching 
  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Financial support for students in general 
  Additional funds for specific students 

enrolled 

Cyprus   
Czech Republic  

Denmark 

England  

Estonia  

Organisation of higher 
education  
  Restricting access to 
higher education 
  Curriculum design 
  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 

Information and support for 
students 
  Support for study choices 

  Comparative data and 

information 

  Support for study choices 
  Support for study choices 

  Mandatory study plans 
  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Support for study choices 

  Support for institutions 
  Comparative data and 

information 

  Support for study choices 
  Support for study choices 

  Financial support for students in general 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
(2016 onwards) 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Curriculum design 

Finland 

  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 

  Student monitoring 
  Support for institutions 

  More flexible educational 

  Comparative data and 

Flanders  

  Additional funds for teaching 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 

  Additional funds for specific students 

enrolled 

France 

  Additional student financial support 

budget 

  Additional funds for teaching 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 

study progress and (timely) 
completion(majority of the countries) 
  Financial support for students in general 
  Additional funds for teaching 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

pathways 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 
  Curriculum design 
  Changes in degree 

structure 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 

  Central organisation of 

admission 

pathways 

  Curriculum design 

  Limiting study periods 

  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 

information 

  Student monitoring 
  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 
  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 

information 

  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 
  Support for Institutions 
  Support for study choices 
  Student support services 
  Comparative data and 

information 

  Student monitoring 
  Student support services 

  More flexible educational 

  Comparative data and 

12-2015  64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Iceland  

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

Ireland  

  Financial support for students in general 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 

Italy  

  Financial support for students in general 

  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 

  Student support services 

  Student monitoring 
  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 
  Support for institutions 
  Comparative data and 

information 

  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 

  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 

reward study success 

  Additional funds for teaching 
  Financial support for students in general 

  More flexible educational 

pathways 

  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 

Latvia  
Lithuania 

Luxembourg 
the former 
Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 
Malta 
Montenegro 

  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

Netherlands 

  Turning loans into grants  
  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 

  Turning loans into grants  
  Financial support for students in general 
  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

Norway 

Poland  

Portugal  

  Integration of study 
success in quality 
assurance system 
  Restricting access to 
higher education 
  Access - matching 
students and study 
programmes 

  Changes in degree 

structure 

  Student support services 

  Comparative data and 

information 

  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 

  Comparative data and 

information 

  Student monitoring 
  Student support services 
  Student support services 

  Changes in degree 

  Comparative data and 

Romania 

  Financial support for students in general 

  Curriculum design 

structure 

information 

  Student monitoring 
  Support for study choices 
  Student support services 
  Support for study choices 
  Student support services 

  Changes in degree 

structure 

  Curriculum design 

Serbia 

Slovakia  

Slovenia  

Spain  

Sweden 

  Financial support for students in general 
  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 
study progress and (timely) completion 
  Progress dependent financial support for 

students 

  Curriculum design 
  Restricting access to 
higher education 

  Student monitoring 

Switzerland 

  Institutional funding rewarding quality, 

  More flexible educational 

Turkey 

study progress & completion 

  Financial support for students in general 
  Waiving or charging differential fees to 

reward study success 

pathways 

Source: Reporting from national experts (2nd HEDOCE questionnaire, 2014). 

12-2015  65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5  Four good national approaches 
The  analytical  framework  presented  three  reflective  questions  on  the  expected 
effectiveness  of  national  policy  approaches  to  study  success:  a  good  match  between 
policies  and  study  success  orientations,  a  variety  of  instruments  from  three  policy 
areas  and  consistency  between  the  policy  instruments  are  expected  to  contribute  to 
positive study success outcomes. However, because of the limited and relatively weak 
international  comparative  data  available  on  study  success  outcomes  as  discussed  in 
chapter 4 we cannot classify countries as being more or less successful in addressing 
study success. Nevertheless, based on the policy analyses four countries stand out as 
good  practice  examples  in  terms  of  having  a  relatively  rich  range  of  study  success 
instruments.  These  countries  also  provide  some  evidence  of  policy  effectiveness: 
Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Norway.11 

5.5.1  Denmark  

In  Denmark,  study  success  is  high  on  the  policy  agenda  and  is  interpreted  as 
completion  in  time.  Denmark  is  among  the  top-performers  in  Europe  with  regard  to 
completion rates – 81 per cent in 2011 according to the OECD data. 

In  2013  the  Danish  government  introduced  the  Progress-Reform  which  changed  the 
Student  Grants  and  Loan  Scheme  as  well  as  the  ways  in  which  institutions  have  to 
monitor their students. These initiatives promote study completion, especially time-to-
degree. This reform that was implemented in the summer of 2014 demands students 
and  institutions  to  better  document  study  progress  (Danish  Ministry  of  Higher 
Education  and  Science,  2013b).  The  reform  includes  a  comprehensive  set  of 
instruments that are relevant for study success: 

Funding: 
  Progress dependent student financial support 
 

Institutional funding rewarding quality, study progress and (timely) completion 

Information and support for students:  
  Support for study choice 
  More flexible educational pathways 

Organisation of higher education:  
  Restricting access to higher education 
  Mandatory study plans 

The  funding  of  students  and  institutions  has  been  made  dependent  on  students’ 
achievements. Therefore measures that allow and force students to study faster have 
been  integrated  in  the  student  financing  regulations.  As  such,  institutions  have  to 
ensure  more  flexible  pathways  for  students.  The  introduction  of  mandatory  study 
plans  is  a  further  instruments.  It  implies  that  full-time  students  are  obliged  to  select 
course  packages  of  at  least  60  ECTS  per  year  (or  30  ECTS  per  semester).  Students 
can no longer withdraw from the exams related to these courses and have to enrol for 
new  courses  every  year.  Even  though  the  mandatory  study  plans  are  debated  in 
Denmark, it is expected to reveal a strong impact on students to complete within the 
nominal study duration. 

Because  of the  recent implementation of these reforms, there is no evidence  of their 
effectiveness  yet.  Nonetheless,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Denmark  implemented  a 

11  For all countries included in the study there are short country reports available in Annex  2. 
Additionally  for  the  Czech  Republic,  England,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands, 
Norway  and  Poland  country  case  studies  are  provided  in  Annex  3.  There  are  also  policy 
briefings for the U.S.A. and Australia included in Annex 3. 

12-2015  66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
combination  of  consistent  instruments  that  appears  a  promising  approach  to  reduce 
average time-to-degree and completion. 

5.5.2  Norway 

In Norway study success is also high on the policy agenda. Completion rates are 71.5 
per cent at the bachelor level and 67 per cent at the master level. Student completion 
is  structurally  monitored  by  a  data  register,  both  at  national  and  institutional  level. 
The  Quality  Reform  of  the  early  2000s  included  the  objective  of  improving  study 
success,  i.e.  decreasing  dropout  and  shortening  time-to-degree.  A  number  of  policy 
instruments have been implemented to address the study success objectives: 

Funding 
  Financial support for students in general 
  Turning loans into grants 
 

Institutional funding rewarding timely completion and study progress 

Information and support for students 
  Comparative data and information 
  Student Monitoring 
  Student Support Services 
  Support for institutions 

Organisation of higher education 
  Changes in degree structure 

The white paper underlying the Quality Reform in the early 2000s stated as one of the 
key  objectives  that  “the  student  should  succeed”.  Dropout  and  long  time-to-degree 
were regarded as major problems. The  reforms implemented used a  variety of policy 
instruments  from  different  policy  areas.  The  policy  mix  can  also  be  said  to  be 
harmonized and consistent but nevertheless did not entirely bring about the expected 
outcomes.  More  than  a  decade  later,  dropout  and  long  study  periods  are  still  a 
problem. OECD data show that the completion rate has even gone down from 65 to 59 
percent between 2005 and 2011. 

The Norwegian policy mix provides a good example for a promising policy even though 
it  did  not  unfold  expected  effects.  Two  major  reasons  have  been  identified  in  this 
respect.  First,  the  open-ended  performance-based  funding  mechanism  awarding 
successfully  completed  credits  and  diplomas  appears  to  have  some  side  effects  on 
completion  as  it  allows  students  to  take  extra  courses  rather  than  completing  a 
degree. The open-ended performance-based funding mechanism furthermore made it 
possible  for  institutions  to  develop  additional  “attractive”  courses  to  attract  students 
rather than designing well-integrated study programmes that promote study success. 
A  clearer  stimulus  on  completing  degrees  could  have  been  more  effective.  A  second 
reason  was  found  in  the  fact  that  study  choice  information  provided  to  students  was 
very much appreciated but could include more relevant information to be really useful 
for students to make the right study decisions. 

Unfolding  success  was  also  hindered  by  the  positive  general  economic  situation  and 
well-functioning  labour  market.  In  some  disciplines  private  companies  have  recruited 
many employees among students before they formally graduated. The well-functioning 
labour-market also reduced the urgency to finish education as there was a surplus off 
jobs  available.  Finally,  the  well-functioning  labour-market  lured  many  students  into 
part-time  jobs  to  cover  the  costs  studying,  resulting  in  delayed  study  progress, 
dropout and more indirect study pathways. 

Though  different  factors  blocked  the  success  of  the  Norwegian  study  success  policy 
mix,  it is  selected  as  a  good  national  approach.  The  mix  of  selected  instruments  can 

12-2015  67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
be  said  to  serve  the  study  success  orientations,  there  was  also  a  variety  of 
instruments from different areas and there was consistency between the instruments. 
Nonetheless  the  Norwegian  example  shows  that  having  various  instruments  to 
improve  study  success  sometimes  even  is  not  enough.  Setting  the  right  policy 
incentives and dealing with a specific context appear to be very important. 

5.5.3  The Netherlands 

In the Netherlands study success is high on the agenda of national authorities such as 
the  ministry  of  education,  culture  and  science  and  higher  education  institutions.  The 
most  recent  data  (for  2013)  report  a  completion  rate  of  76  per  cent  for  university 
bachelor programmes and 69 per cent in the UAS sector (MinOCW, 2014). Following a 
long  tradition  of  study  success  oriented  policies,  since  2011  a  special  set  of  policies 
addresses  dropout  in  the  first  year  of  study  and  time-to-degree.  A  central  idea 
repeatedly  communicated  is  to  achieve  a  good  match  between  the  student  and  the 
study programme: “Putting every student in the right study place”, which is regarded 
as  crucial  for  study  success.  In  line  with  that  the  following  instruments  have  been 
implemented: 

Funding 
  Progress dependent student financial support 
 

Institutional funding rewarding quality, study progress and (timely) completion 

Information and support for students 
  Quality information mechanism 
  Student Support Services 
  Support for study choice 
  Support for institutions 

Organization of higher education 
  Access - Matching students and study programmes 
  Limiting access to higher education 

Already in 1993 the government related study progress requirements to the system of 
student  financial  support  provided  to  all  students.  If  students  passed  less  than  30 
ECTS per year their grants would be turned into loans. In 1996 this arrangement was 
changed  into  the  performance-related  grant:  since  then  all  “basic  grants”  were  loans 
initially.  Provided  a  student  completes  a  degree  within  10  years  the  loan  was  turned 
into  a  non-repayable  grant.  In  1998,  the  funding  for  HEIs  become  strongly 
performance-based. Until 2011, about 50 per cent of university funds for teaching was 
related  to  successfully  completed  degrees.  Since  2011,  this  component  has  been 
reduced  to  about  25  per  cent.  Though  no  hard  proof  is  available,  both  funding 
arrangements are said to have contributed to a gradual decrease in the average time-
to-degree  from  6,5  to  5,8  years  for  four-year  bachelor-master  trajectories  in 
universities.  In  addition,  the  completion  rate  for  bachelor  students  four  years  after 
their first enrolment increased from 51 per cent for the 2005 cohort to 62 per cent for 
the cohort starting in 2008 (VSNU data). 

Because  a  national  commission  (Committee  Veerman,  2010)  concluded  that  the 
quality and efficiency of Dutch higher education should further increase to support the 
knowledge  economy,  the  ministry  initiated  performance  agreements  with  individual 
HEIs  for  the  period  2012-2015.  In  these  contracts  the  HEIs  bid  on  obligatory 
indicators for  reducing overall drop-out and study switch, increasing graduation rates 
for  students  starting  the  second  year,  drop-out/switch  in  the  first  year,  and  student 
satisfaction or other measures such as excellence of study programmes. 7 per cent of 
the total governmental teaching budget is redistributed based on the extent to which 

12-2015  68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HEIs  achieve  their  ambitions  on  these  indicators  by  2016.  In  the  performance 
contracts HEIs also described their instruments to improve study success. 

Related to this policy approach, the government has supported the development of an 
elaborate online student information system (Studiekeuze123), also including national 
student satisfaction surveys, and implemented a “Binding Study Advice” by which HEIs 
had to decide how many credits a student needs to have completed at the end of the 
first year in order to be admitted to the second year of studies. The evaluation of this 
latter  instrument  revealed  that  it  contributed  to  faster  completion,  particularly  in 
programmes  with  a  high  number  of  students.  Here  the  combination  of  the  Binding 
Study Advice with extended counselling for students is effective. 

5.5.4  England 

In  England  study  success  is  high  on  the  policy  agenda.  Study  success  is  widely 
understood as the completion of a degree in time. In recent years the completion rate 
has strongly increased in England. According to OECD data, completion in the UK has 
increased  from  74  percent  in  2005  to  82  percent  in  2011.  In  England  the  following 
types of study success policies are introduced: 

Funding 
  Financial support for students in general 
  Additional funds for specific students enrolled 
 

Institutional funding institutions based on tuition fees of enrolled students 

Information and support for students 
  Comparative data and information 
  Support of study choices 
  Support for institutions 

One  key  policy  addressing  study  success  was  the  implementation  of  a  new  funding 
approach in which students were put in the driver’s seat. Though students have to pay 
tuition  fees  since  1998  and  substantially  more  since  2006,  since  2012  most  of  the 
institutional funding for education comes from privately paid tuition fees up to £9,000 
per  annum.  This  change  of  regime  aimed  at  improving  institutions’  retention  and 
completion  rates  as  they  become  dependent  on  students  and  study  success  for  their 
funding. Further reasons for this reform were to improve the sustainability of funding 
for  higher  education  and  relate  it  more  strongly  to  the  engagement  of  those  who 
mostly  benefit  from  higher  education,  the  graduates  (Department  for  Business, 
Innovation  and  Skills,  2010).  Thus  higher  education  institutions  were  strongly 
stimulated  to  develop  instruments  improving  study  success.  Students  on  the  other 
hand  now  receive  more  relevant  information  to  make  deliberate  choices  about  their 
study programme –  or  in other words where to spend their money. The performance 
of  higher  education  institutions  in  teaching is  published  publically  and  helps  students 
in making these decisions. This quality information  mechanism also stimulates higher 
education institutions to become active in improving study success.  

Another  key  factor  is  that  in  England  equity  in  access  to  higher  education  does  not 
only play a strong role in attracting students to higher education but also in retaining 
students.  Institutions  receive  additional  funds  with  regard  to  the  profile  of  their 
student population. These additional funds have to be spent on special instruments for 
improving study success among the more ‘risky’ population. HEIs charging fees above 
£6,000 have to indicate in an access agreement how they spend this additional money 
for  instruments  to  ensure  access  and  success  of  students  from  lower  socio-economic 
family  backgrounds.  While  presenting  detailed  data  on  the  development  of  access 
rates of students from disadvantaged backgrounds is beyond the scope of this study, 
it  has  to  be  stated  that  recent  research  indicated  a  positive  development  of  these 

12-2015  69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rates  also  after  the  implementation  of  the  new  funding  strategy  for  higher  education 
(Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2014b). 

The  Higher  Education  Academy  serves  as  an  important  agency  that  supports  higher 
education  institutions  in  enhancing  their  teaching  and  learning  strategies  and  study 
success. Looking at the combination of policies that have been introduced we find that 
these address study success from different angles and that instruments support each 
other.  Strengthening  the  position  of  students  by  letting  them  –  to  a  large  extent  – 
decide  where  they  would  like  to  enrol  is  a  strong  leverage  to  stimulate  higher 
education institutions to care about study success. 

Evidence shows that central to the high success rate in England is firstly a fairly tight 
admissions system (institutional autonomy has been retained and is not regulated for 
example  by  OFFA).  Secondly  a  widespread  and  embedded  expectation  is  that 
completion is possible in three years except for exceptional circumstances. Institutions 
and  students  are  not  funded  for  more  than  three  plus  one  years  (except  for  longer 
courses),  and  students  and  their  families  do  not  expect  to  study  for  longer  than  the 
normal time period. This provides a good basis for retention and completion. National 
policy,  guidance  and  funding  have  been  directed  to  maintaining  and  improving  the 
retention  of  students  in  the  context  of  expansion  and  increased  diversity,  and 
improving employability, and more recently the attainment outcomes of students. The 
importance  of  performance  indicators  and  league  tables  should  not  be  under-
estimated.  The  Higher  Education  Statistics  Agency  provides  a  ‘benchmark’  for  every 
institution calculated with respect to subject portfolio, entry qualifications and student 
diversity.  This  is  published  alongside  actual  performance  with  regards  to  the  total 
institutional  student  population  and  sub-sections  of  the  student  population.  National 
newspapers  use  this  data  to  produce  league  tables  about  retention,  and  the 
information is fed into wider league tables about the ‘quality’ of individual HE providers 
in England and the UK. 

5.6  Conclusions 
This  overview  of  national  study  success  policies  shows  that  European  countries  are 
addressing  study  success.  To  date,  there  is  only  little  research  on  the  impact  and 
effectiveness  of  these  study  success  policies.  This  is  also  due  to  the  complexity  of 
dropout,  completion  and  time-to-degree  and  the  lack  of  adequate  data  to  measure 
study success. 

Nonetheless  we  found  some  evidence  on  the  effectiveness  of  selected  policies. 
Financial  incentives  can  be  important  policy  levers  for  study  success  but  do  not 
necessarily  lead  to  the  intended  effect.  Student  financial  support  for  example  has  to 
consider  what  amount  of  funding  could  help  to  prevent  students  from  spending  too 
much  time  on  part-time  work.  Secondly,  also  the  risk  perception  of  students  is 
important when it comes to student loans. Some students may be reluctant to take up 
a  high  loan  because  they  perceive  having  high  debts  after  graduation  as  too  risky. 
Further  it  should  be  considered  that  student  behaviour  is  not  primarily  influenced  by 
financial  incentives  or  characteristics  of  the  organisation  of  higher  education.  Often 
issues  beyond  the  scope  of  national  policies  –  for  example  students’  personal 
situations  –  account  for  dropout.  Also,  financial  incentives  to  change  institutional 
behaviour have to meet certain conditions. Performance-based funding becomes more 
effective  when  goals  are  clear  and  feasible,  the  amount  related  to  study  success  is 
significant and performance is measureable. Additional funding stimulates institutions 
strongly  in  developing  study  success-related  measures,  in  particular  when  the 
institutions are free to design instruments that serve their needs best. 

When it comes to information policies, this study finds that only providing information 
on  study  programmes  is  too  little  to  let  students  make  deliberate  study  choices. 

12-2015  70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Providing data on the performance of institutions and later careers of graduates enrich 
the  information  and  give  students  more  decision  criteria.  Testing  interests  and 
competences  help  students  to  better  orient  themselves.  Nonetheless,  information 
provided  should  be  clear  and  give  clear  guidance  as  the  higher  education  landscape 
has  become  increasingly  complex  and  might  be  difficult  to  decipher  for  prospective 
students. 

Organisational  policies  can  help  to  address  students’  needs.  Short  programmes  may 
be  a  chance  for  students  who  are  interested  in  a  more  vocationally  oriented  higher 
education  without  being  “locked  in”  too  long.  Broad  entry  years  may  help  students 
who  were  uncertain  about  the  exact  direction  of  their  study  choice.  Flexible 
educational  pathways  give  students  the  possibility  to  gear  their  study  programme 
according to their interests. Matching students and study programmes before entering 
higher education is an effective ‘soft selection’ mechanism to get students at the ‘right 
study  place’.  Matching  instruments  however  need  to  be  able  to  find  the  best  match 
between  programme  and  student  rather  than  the  best  student.  Continuous 
assessment  allows  students  to  assess  their  competences  and  probability  to  complete 
their degree successfully. 

While all policies reported could be understood as self-standing, countries mostly mix 
policies from the three policy areas. The study revealed that some policy mixes might 
lead  to  better  outcomes  than  others.  What  is  important  is  to  combine  policies  that 
support  each  other  adequately.  In  the  Netherlands  the  Binding  Study  Advice  has 
become  an  important  policy  because  it  has  been  combined  with  the  requirement  for 
institutions  to  counsel  students  adequately  about  their  programmes  and  study 
progress.  In  England  students  are  provided  with  comprehensive  information  systems 
to  support  their  study  choices.  This  allows  them  to  make  deliberate  choices  where 
they would like to ‘invest’ in their education. 

12-2015  71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6  In-Depth Case Studies 

In-depth  case  studies  about  dropout  and  study  success  were  carried  out  by  country 
experts  in  the  following  eight  countries:  the  Czech  Republic,  England,  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Norway  and  Poland.  Interviews  were  held  with 
policy-makers  and  national  stakeholders,  institutional  leaders,  academic  and  support 
staff  as  well  as  students.  As  part  of  this,  the  HEDOCE  researchers  also  included  per 
country  a  few  higher  education  institutions  (HEIs).  This  helped  us  get  a  better 
understanding  of  what  the  various  stakeholders  perceive  to  be  the  main  issues  with 
regard  to  study  success  and  what  their  study  success  orientations  are.  The  focus  in 
this chapter is on the institutional level, since the national level was already covered in 
the previous chapter 5. 

Rather  than  presenting  the  case  studies  as  such,  this  chapter  contains  some  cross-
cutting  themes  and  tries  to  extract  some  findings  and  lessons  that  go  beyond  the 
individual countries.12 In doing so, we will first (section 6.1) present some findings on 
the study success orientations of different stakeholders: where do they converge, and 
what does this imply for the policies adopted?  In  section 6.2 we discuss  some  of the 
policies implemented by institutions in the various countries to address study success: 
what are some of the typical policies we encounter? A typical policy is in this case an 
initiative  (intervention;  policy)  that  was  found  at  more  than  one  institution  and  in 
more  than  one  country.  Hence,  we  are  focusing  on  policies  that  are  similar  across 
institutions  and  countries.  As  some  of  these  policies  were  encountered  in  very 
different national settings, they may be considered for adoption by institutions in other 
countries.  From  the  country  case  studies  we  derived  seven  typical  study  success 
policies used by higher education institutions – some focussing on the organisation of 
teaching  &  learning,  others  on  funding  and  financial  incentives,  and  others  on 
information  and  support  to  students.  This  is  in  line  with  the  three  main  policy  areas 
also  distinguished  in  chapters  3  and  5.  In  addition,  we  identified  a  more 
comprehensive  type  of  policy  that  integrates  several  policy  areas.  Throughout  the 
text, text boxes include examples of ‘good practice policies’. 

A discussion of the national policies that support institutional interventions is included 
in section 6.3. Where some policies are initiated by institutions, others originate from 
the  national  authorities,  while  others  are  shaped  in  the  interaction  between  the  two 
levels. Conclusions, reflections and recommendations may be found in section 6.4. The 
reflections concern the match between policies and study success orientations and the 
mix  of  policy  instruments  in  use.  This  final  section  also  suggests  some  policies  for 
supporting  institutions  in  their  endeavour  to  enhance  study  success.  The  conclusions 
will answer the following research questions:  

  What do institutions do to address study success effectively? 
  What are successful combinations of policies at the institutional level? 
  What  further  policies  support/enable  institutions  to  address  study  success  in  an 

effective manner? 

12  The full case study reports can be found in the Annex 3 to this report. 

12-2015  72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
6.1  Stakeholders’ orientations to study success 
As  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  countries  may  vary  both  in  their  orientations 
towards study  success in general and in the importance attached to  study success in 
policymaking.  This  becomes  evident  when  comparing  the  orientation  towards  study 
success among different stakeholders across and within countries.  

From  the  eight  case  studies  we  conducted,  England  is  the  only  country  with  an 
explicit,  agreed  upon  definition  of  what  constitutes  study  success  -  a  definition  all 
stakeholders adhere to. The two measures ‘completion rate’ and ‘continuation rate’ are 
defined  ,  understood,  endorsed  and  utilised  in  the  same  way  by  national  policy 
makers,  institutions  and  stakeholders  across  the  higher  education  sector.  These  two 
indicators are also measured and published on a regular basis (see next chapter). 

In  Germany,  stakeholders  have  some  degree  of  consensus  on  what  they  regard  as 
study  success  -  all  of  them  seeing  it  as  ‘the  successful  completion  of  an  academic 
degree’,  but  this  so  far  did  not  result  in  a  broadly  agreed  definition  as  at  the  same 
time  there  is  also  a  shared  and  strong  critique  with  regard  to  the  indicators  used  to 
measure  study  success.  This  contrasts  to  the  case  of  England.  In  both  countries 
however  there  is  agreement  that  improving  the  quality  of  teaching  is  the  key  to 
improving study success.  

In  all  other  countries,  there  are  variations  in  the  definition  of  study  success  among 
stakeholders;  several  understandings  of  the  concept  exist  side  by  side,  and 
stakeholders choose to use the type of definition that they find suitable. In addition, in 
these countries stakeholders also do not share a common approach on how to address 
study success. For example, in France finding employment after degree completion is 
mentioned as an orientation of study success by some stakeholders, and it is used as 
the  definition  of  success  in  a  national  survey  of  graduates.  In  Italy,  several 
stakeholders also see finding employment as study success, but completion and timely 
completion are seen as important as well, probably because Italy has low completion 
rates  and  low  tertiary  attainment  rates  compared  to  other  European  countries.  In 
other  countries  the  government  is  focusing  on  timely  completion  as  the  most 
important  study  success  factor.  This  is  the  case  in  Norway  and  the  Netherlands. 
However, in Norway institutions do not share this view, as they regard completion as 
such to be more important than completion within a limited time. 

Neither  Poland  nor  the  Czech  Republic  have  a  nationally  agreed  upon  definition  of 
study  success.  The  Czech  Higher  Education  Act  indirectly  connects  it  to  dropout  and 
refers  to  it  in  the  context  of  student  fees  at  public  institutions.  It  considers  students 
that are switching from one programme to another as dropout, and governing bodies 
as  well  as  university  management  and  academic  staff  use  measures  of  dropout  in 
discussing  study  success.  In  contrast,  academic  staff  and  students  tend  to  interpret 
study success as being similar to programme completion or gaining employment upon 
degree completion.  

The policy briefing on Australia highlights that currently there is no clear definition or 
narrative  of  study  success.  Rather,  the  concept  relates  to  a  number  of  facets  that 
include equity in access as well as professional outcomes. A formally defined concept 
as  well  as  clear  indicators  of  study  success  are  regarded  as  fruitful  for  of  the 
information of stakeholders and persons who are not familiar with higher education.  

These  examples  illustrate  the  divergence  of  interpretations  of  study  success  and  its 
definitions  across  higher  education  systems.  When  we  compare  the  different 
stakeholder  views  in  countries  there  is  no  commonly  agreed  upon  view  of  what 
constitutes  study  success.  This  in  turn  then  makes  it  hard  to  identify  or  suggest 
policies that are directed towards a certain type of study success. 

12-2015  73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2  Typical institutional policies aimed at improving study success 
From  the  institutional  case  studies  carried  out  in  eight  countries,  we  identified  seven 
typical  study  success  policies  that  have  been  used  by  several  higher  education 
institutions. These may be categorised under the headings of funding, information and 
support and organisation of teaching & learning. The seven policy approaches will be 
discussed below. These will be illustrated with 4 good practice examples presented in 
separate  text  boxes.  Most  institutional  policies  belong  to  the  policy  area  of 
‘organisation of higher education’. These institutional policies address both prospective 
students and students that are enrolled at the institution. 

6.2.1  Enhancing information about programmes 

Several institutions that we studied state that they work on enhancing the information 
available  on  their  programmes  in  order  to  facilitate  student  choice.  This  is  a  very 
commom  policy  that  addresses  all  prospective  students  and  provides  them  with 
reliable  information  about  the  various  degree  programmes  available  to  students  who 
are  applying  for  a  study  place.  From  British  research  it  is  known  that  quite  a  few 
students leave their programme before degree completion because they had not made 
the  right  choice  of  programme  (Yorke  &  Longden,  2004:106ff).  Therefore,  good  and 
adequate  information  about  programme  offerings  will  help  students  make  accurate 
expectations  about  what  is  in  store  for  them.  Institutions  are  generally  aware  of  the 
need  to  provide  accurate  information  to  help  students  choose  a  programme  that 
matches  with  their  ambitions  and  capabilities.  Several  institutions  have  implemented 
policies  in  this  area.  In  countries  such  as  the  Netherlands  and  Norway  this  is  also  a 
policy  found  at  the  national  level,  as  there  are  online  public  information  services. 
These national public information services are geared at providing students with good 
and  accurate  information  about  higher  education  studies  in  general  (see  chapter  5: 
National Study Success Policies).   

At the institutional level, examples of initiatives to provide information to students are 
found  in  France  and  Italy.  In  France,  as  a  result  of  the  law  on  higher  education 
(introduced  in  2013)  that  promotes  early  orientation  by  students,  the  University  of 
Nantes has created an information centre for potential students. The main goal of the 
centre is to give information and advice on study choice to students completing upper 
secondary  education  (lycée).  The  centre  also  offers  training  for  teachers  and  staff 
working in upper secondary education. Similar initiatives are found in Italy, where the 
University  of  Milano  Bicocca  and  Sapienza  University  made  substantial  efforts  in 
addressing  orienting  students  from  secondary  school,  both  through  an  outreach 
programme  and  through  university-based  initiatives.  At  the  university  this  is  done 
through  open  days  and  offering  study  guidance  in  general,  while  the  outreach 
programme  includes  visits  to  secondary  schools,  where  seminars  and  workshops  are 
conducted  to  inform  prospective  students.  The  University  of  Milano  Bicocca  and 
Sapienza University regard student orientation, both prior to university entry and after 
entry, as a key factor in reducing dropout and improving study success.  

6.2.2  Matching students with programmes 

In line with the previously discussed policy we encountered another typical policy that 
seeks to prevent flawed decision-making about study choice. Matching policies aim to 
improve  the  match  between  students  and  their  degree  programme,  helping  them  in 
making conscious and deliberate study choices. Through organising matching activities 
students  get  the  opportunity  to  “try  out”  their  programme  before  they  embark  on  it. 
This may lead to a better fit between student and institution/programme.  

Matching initiatives at institutional level were found in the Netherlands and Germany. 
Matching  procedures  can  take  different  forms  and  be  employed  at  different  times 

12-2015  74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
during  the  study  course.  The  programme 
introduced  at  Utrecht  University 
(Netherlands) involves holding interviews with students and having them take part in 
a one-day programme of activities that gives a taste of a particular degree programme 
(see the box below). The programme Mintgrün at the Technische Universität Berlin is 
a  full  one-year  programme,  aimed  at  giving  students  interested  in  STEM  subjects  a 
general introduction to various disciplines. This helps students already enrolled in the 
university to choose the field of study that suits them. The one-year programme also 
offers remedial courses to students who are interested in STEM subjects but who need 
to  improve  their  academic  preparedness.  Students  who  start  their  higher  education 
studies  with  this  one-year  programme  and  then  continue  within  the  STEM  fields  may 
transfer  the  credits  taken  into  their  new  programme.  The  difference  between  the 
Dutch  and  German  matching  initiatives  is  that  the  first  is  aimed  at  prospective 
students while the second addresses  students  that already have chosen a broad field 
of study (i.e. STEM-subjects) but did not yet decide on any specialization.  

Good practice example 1: Utrecht University - Mandatory Matching 

Utrecht  University  was  the  first  university  in  the  Netherlands  to  implemented  matching.  The  initiative  was 
designed to ensure that prospective students (with a Dutch pre-university qualification) who register for a non-
selective  Bachelor  degree  programme  choose  a  degree  programme  that  reflects  their  abilities  and  interests. 
The aims are threefold: (1) to reduce dropout during the first year; (2) to support students in making a good 
and well-informed study choice, and (3) to establish a connection with prospective students from the very start 
of their relationships with Utrecht University. 
Matching begins during the registration phase and takes place after the orientation phase (for example after 
the university’s open days) and typically includes the following components:  

a)  Applicants  must  fill  out  a  questionnaire,  providing  information  about  their  previous  experiences  with  the 
subject of study, grades from earlier levels of education, as well as motivation and expectations of the study. 
They  are  asked  to  do  some  study  activities  at  home  and  at  the  university.  For  the  latter,  applicants  have  to 
participate  in  a  real-life  class  or  practical,  linked  to  the  programme  they  have  applied  for.  This  means  they 
receive preparatory work to do at home, an assignment or a test. The assignment or test is then evaluated and 
discussed with a tutor in the next step.  

b)  An  interview  (either  individual  or  group  interview)  is  conducted  with  prospective  students  addressing the 
assignment results, further experiences during study activities,  motivation. This leads to a non-binding advice 
to the applicant about her/his study choice. In principle, students are allowed  to enrol in any programme (if 
they  have  the  right  pre-university  diploma),  even  if  they  are  advised  to  rethink  their  choice  of  programme. 
However,  prospective  students  who  do  not  participate  in  all  the  matching  activities  organised  by  their 
preferred study programme are not eligible to enrol in that programme.  

c) The “matching trajectory”, however, does not end with the enrolment decision, but continues throughout 
the first year of the programme, until it is clear whether the student has managed to accumulate a sufficient 
number of credits. The latter - the BSA (Binding Study Advice - see Chapter 4: National Study Success Policies) – 
is an important advice given at the end of the first year. During their first year, students have tutors, who play 
an  important  role  in  the  matching process.  Tutors  receive specific  training to  this  end.  Especially,  during the 
first ten weeks, students who appear not to perform very well receive additional tutoring.  

Results from survey data hint at a positive impact of the matching activity. On the one hand, students believe 
that  matching  helps  them  to  make  a  better-informed  study  choice.  On  the  other  hand,  students  do  not 
necessarily change their choice as a consequence of the results of the matching activity. Matching is rather a 
way to better acquaint students with university study in a particular programme and to make them aware of 
the programme’s expectations.  

In  2014,  Utrecht  University  implemented  some  improvements  in  the  matching  process  in  terms  of  more 
exacting tests, more feedback and stricter deadlines to steer students’ registration behaviour. A good matching 
process, for example including a full week of study prior to commencement of the programme, is believed to 
provide both students and the programme with a realistic understanding of success.  

12-2015  75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.3  Introducing selection mechanisms  

In countries that do not have strong entrance selection for study places, and where all 
or  most  students  with  a  completed  upper  secondary  education  are  allowed  to  enter 
university,  some  institutions  are  introducing  their  own  selection  mechanisms  as  a 
means  to  improve  study  success.  If  countries  have  an  open  access  system  this  may 
result  in  large  numbers  of  students  entering  higher  education  and  dropping  out, 
especially during the first semester or first year of the programme. These high rates of 
withdrawal are not viewed as a systemic problem, but rather as a natural feature of an 
effective higher education system that leaves it to the institutions to send away those 
students  that  are  not  well-enough  prepared  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
programme. By introducing a selection policy, institutions try to identify students who 
are  not  suited  for  the  programme  already  and  before  these  students  start  their 
university  career.  This  ensures  that  they  accept  only  those  students  who  fulfil 
particular  entry  requirements  that  are  linked  to  the  likelihood  of  a  successful 
programme completion.  

Examples  of typical selection policies are found in Italy and in Poland; countries  with 
an  open  access  system.  In  Italy,  “guidance  tests”  have  been  implemented  to  assess 
whether students have the minimum level of knowledge required for the completion of 
a  particular  programme.  This  policy  is  in  place  at  Sapienza  University.  The  selection 
tests in the case of Italy are designed and carried out by the institutions themselves. 
However, the tests are  not decisive; students  can still enter, but if they do not meet 
the minimum requirements they have to take additional training to make up for that.  

In Poland, the School of Humanities and Journalism in Poznan University introduced a 
local entrance exam to test students whether they have the basic knowledge and skills 
required  to  complete  the  programme.  Students  who  do  not  manage  to  pass  the  test 
are not eligible to enter the programme.  

6.2.4  Monitoring student attendance and progression 

In  several  countries,  the  monitoring  of  students  with  respect  to  their  attendance  in 
class  and/or  their  study  progress  is  used  as  a  policy  to  enhance  study  success. 
Monitoring can be done at the programme level, which is done in Germany, or at the 
student  level,  which  takes  place  in  England  and  Norway.  The  intention  of  this  typical 
policy  is  to  monitor  how  different  programmes  are  doing  in  terms  of  completion, 
retention  and  dropout.  In  the  cases  where  this  is  done  at  the  student  level,  the 
information  collected  may  be  used  to  flag  or  approach  students  who  are  at  risk  of 
dropping out or lagging behind in their studies. 

In  England,  Coventry  University  monitors  student  attendance  in  class,  by  registering 
participants  either  manually  (for  example  by  taking  a  register)  or  electronically  (for 
example  through  ‘swiping  in’).  The  information  collected  can  then  be  used  to  give 
institutions an early indication of students who may be at risk of withdrawal, and allow 
them to put in place a suitable follow up for intervention. For example, the university’s 
central information system can produce a listing of students who have missed classes 
for  two  consecutive  weeks.  These  students  are  then  flagged  up  by  the  system. 
Coventry University monitors withdrawals and non-completions on a two-weekly basis. 
The  data  is  submitted  to  the  Deputy  Vice  Chancellor  for  Student  Experience  and  the 
Associate  Deans,  and  is  discussed  to  identify  problems  and  solutions.  Twice  a  year 
academic  teams  responsible  for  a  course  receive  detailed  information  about  the 
performance of their programmes and students (which includes completion), and then 
course  teams  sit  together  to  review  their  course  and  agree  on  how  to  address  poor 
performance.  

The  Fachhochschule  Dortmund  (Germany)  has  a  similar  system.  It  has  implemented 
the  indicator  system  AREX,  a  monitoring  system  that  includes  indicators  on  the 

12-2015  76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
number  of  re-enrolments,  the  number  of  students  who  complete  in  the  nominal 
duration  of  the  programme  (plus  two  semesters  of  grace  time)  and  the  number  who 
actively  deregister.  This  information  is  used  to  highlight  the  performance  in  degree 
programmes  in  terms  of  retention  and  completion  by  using  traffic-light-symbols.  The 
performance  indicators  derived  from  the  AREX  system  are  used  in  the  yearly 
performance  talks  between  the  university  leadership  and  the  deans.  Due  to  privacy 
protection  regulation  it  is  not  allowed  to  track  individual  students  in  Germany;  the 
monitoring  is  done  at  the  programme  level,  not  at  the  individual  level.  The  system 
does not inform about the reasons for discontinuation of those students who passively 
deregister;  also  information  on  their  further  educational  pathways  (for  example 
transfer to another programme or institution) is not available.  

In  Norway,  both  Hedmark  University  College  and  NTNU  (the  Norwegian  University  of 
Science  and  Technology  in  Trondheim)  use  an  administrative  system  to  monitor 
students  to  see  whether  students  sign  up  for  a  full  course  load  in  their  programme, 
and  whether  they  complete  and  pass  their  courses.  The  administrative  systems  are 
designed  in  a  way  that  makes  it  possible  to  track  the  individual  student,  but  data  is 
also  extracted  at  the  programme  level  to  monitor  performance  in  general.  However, 
NTNU  has  added  an  extra  dimension  to  this,  by  coupling  administrative  monitoring 
with the offer of extra support to those students who are struggling with their studies. 
This is taking monitoring to the next level (see good practice example 2 below).  

Good practice example 2: NTNU (Trondheim, Norway) - Monitoring Based Counselling 

NTNU offers a broad set of counselling services, both directed at all students and at certain groups of students. 
As  most  other  institutions  in  Norway,  it  monitors  student  progress  during  the  first  semesters.  In  addition  to 
giving formal notice to students who are not meeting the standards set that they may lose their place in the 
degree  programme,  NTNU  also  uses  the  information  to  offer dedicated  support  to  students who  are  making 
insufficient  progress  in  their  studies.  Through  this  programme  it  offers  counselling  and  other  forms  of 
assistance to students to help them master their studies. Based on the progress monitoring, students may be 
invited  for  an  appointment  with  a  study  counsellor,  who  helps  students  to  better  understand  their  situation 
and  who  may  refer  them  to  other  offices  and  professionals  in  the  university,  based  on  the  problems 
experienced. Not all students who are offered help will accept it, but a reasonable share do so. Thanks to this 
system, many students who encountered problems in the early phases of their studies have received help.  

At  Melbourne  University  a  comprehensive  Academic  Performance  Policy  and  Progress 
Review Procedures has been implemented. The Academic Performance Policy provides 
a  definition  for  the  identification  of  students  ‘at  risk’  and  students  making 
‘unsatisfactory academic progress’ under the university’s statues and regulations. The 
Policy  also  defines  academic  disadvantage  as  ‘defined,  ongoing,  unpreventable 
circumstances that hamper a student’s ability to participate in academic activities and 
demonstrate their academic merit’. The policy governs the application of the Academic 
Progress  Review  Procedure  and  sets  out  the  operational  practices  for  faculties  to 
notify,  warn  and  provide  support  for  relevant  students  primarily  through  an  initial 
meeting  with  student  advisors;  and  to  identify  the  rights  and  obligations  of  both  the 
student and the university. 

6.2.5  Facilitating social integration and commitment 

As became clear from the literature review (chapter 2) and the analytical framework of 
our study (chapter 3), a high degree of social and academic integration of students is 
seen  as  important  for  student  persistence  and  the  students’  chance  of  completing  a 
degree  (for  example,  Tinto,  1993).  Many  institutions  visited  during  our  case  study 
research  are  aware  of  this.  They  often  will  have  various  programmes  in  place  to 

12-2015  77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
strengthen  the  social  integration  among  their  students.  Another  intention  of  these 
programmes  is  to instil  in  students  a  sense  of  belonging to  their institution  and  their 
programme.  This,  in  turn,  will  enhance  student  commitment  and  study  success.  A 
typical  policy  implemented  by  institutions  is  the  organisation  of  introductory 
days/weeks  around  the  time  that  students  start  their  studies,  or  arranging  ‘buddy 
groups’ and different forms of activities where students get to know each other. These 
actions are important to create a sense of community and belonging among students. 
These  initiatives  are  quite  common  among  institutions  in  Europe,  and  in  some  cases 
already existed for quite a long time.  

Introductory  weeks  and  buddy  programmes  were  mentioned  explicitly as  a  means  to 
reduce dropout and enhance completion at the two Norwegian institutions (NTNU and 
Hedmark  University  College),  at  Rotterdam  University  of  Applied  Sciences  in  the 
Netherlands, and the University of Nantes in France. 

Another  initiative  that  seeks  to  enhance  social  and  academic  integration  is  tutoring. 
Tutoring strengthens the students’ sense of belonging to the institution and improves 
their  chances  of  completion.  In  England,  both Coventry  University  and  the  University 
of Leeds have in place a personal tutoring system which provides each student with an 
individual member of staff to deliver academic and/or personal support and guidance 
in  relation  to  the  academic  experience  in  university.  This  policy  is  common  at  many 
other  institutions  in  the  UK,  but  not  yet  in  place  in  many  other  European  countries. 
However, several institutions provide peer tutoring or peer coaching, which is not just 
aimed  at  creating  social  integration  at  the  start  of  an  academic  study,  but  also  to 
inspire  stronger  academic  integration  during  the  programme.  Examples  of  this  are 
found  at  the  University  of  Nantes,  at  Rotterdam  UAS  and  the  Fachhochschule 
Dortmund.  A  peer  coach  is  a  senior  student  who  helps  other  students  in  their  study, 
both  on  the  content  and  in  learning  skills  and  planning.  He  or  she  is  a  “role  model”, 
especially  (but  not  exclusively)  for  first  year  students.  At  Rotterdam  UAS,  students 
strongly appreciate this initiative. Its peer coaches are trained and paid and there are 
also  peer  coaches  targeted  at  specific  groups  (for  example,  for  mature  students  or 
students  of  non-western  ethnic  background).  Peer  tutoring  and  coaching  frequently 
may  continue  for  a  longer  time  period  than  the  general  introductory  phase  of 
academic programmes. 

In  Australia  it  has  turned  out  that  individualised  forms  of  student  support  by 
institutions  are  likely  to  play  a  key  role  in  enhancing  study  success.  At  the  Charles 
Sturt University for example, a Student Success Team has been established. It aims to 
reduce  attrition  in  first  year,  domestic,  undergraduate  students  from  low  SES 
backgrounds through a range of actions including phoning the student during the first 
weeks,  and  exit  interviews  for  students  who  drop-out.  The  university’s  Office  of 
Students  is  comprised  of  teams  with  oversight  for  academic  success  (including  pre-
entry  preparedness);  engagement  (including  orientation  and  academic  support); 
inclusion (support for students with specific needs); and finance. 

6.2.6  Addressing increasingly diverse students populations 

Due  to  the  massification  of  higher  education,  student  populations  are  getting  much 
more diverse. This leads to new needs among  students.  In systems where admission 
to  higher  education  is  open  or  at  institutions  where  most  students  are  accepted, 
initiatives  to  support  students  who  are  not  well  enough  prepared  academically  have 
been put in place by institutions. Typical examples of policies in this area are found in 
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Poland, Hedmark University College in Norway, and, 
in  a  slightly  different  form,  Rotterdam  UAS  (Netherlands)  and  the  Fachhochschule 
Dortmund  in  Germany.  At  Nicolaus  Copernicus  University,  remedial  courses  were 
introduced  in  the  Math  and  Chemistry  Departments,  aimed  at  students  who  realised 
that their academic preparation was not sufficient to keep up with the requirements of 

12-2015  78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  university.  At  Hedmark  University  College,  remedial  courses  are  offered  to 
students who have weak skills in some subjects, for instance in mathematics. The aim 
of remedial courses is to make the transition to higher education easier and to prepare 
students  for  meeting  the  challenges  of  higher  education.  This  policy  may  also  be 
targeted at mature students or at students who have been out of education for a while 
and  may  need  additional  courses  to  brush  up  their  knowledge.  Getting  students  to 
sign  up  for  remedial  courses  can  also  be  a  result  of  the  institution  reaching  out  to 
students  who  are  lagging  behind  in  their  studies,  or  who  appear  to  have  trouble 
academically in their first semester. The reason for implementing this policy is that not 
all institutions (or programmes) have the luxury of selecting the best students only, as 
they have to generally accept all candidates applying to the institution.  

One  approach  is  to  offer  programmes  after  students  have  been  enrolled  for  a  while. 
Rotterdam  UAS  offers  remedial  summer  school  courses  for  first  and  second  year 
students who did not pass all exams in their first year. The Fachhochschule Dortmund 
takes a similar approach. It offers “refresher courses” to students who have failed an 
exam. These courses are offered to students before they take the resit for the exam. 
In both cases the remedial courses are not directed at students with deficiencies upon 
entry but rather at those lagging behind in their studies during the first two years of 
the  programme.  For  Rotterdam  UAS  remedial  courses  are  part  of  a  larger, 
comprehensive programme to increase study success (see Good practice example 3).  

In  the  U.S.A.  remediation  or  developmental  course  work  is  a  widespread  measure  to 
address study success. Higher education institutions aim to improve and innovate their 
remediate courses. This is supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures 
that  intends  to  implement  strategies  at  the  K12  level  to  better  prepare  students  for 
higher  education.  The  Charles  Sturt  University  in  Australia  has  implemented  STAR 
(Student  Transition  and  Retention),  a  course  that  is  implemented  across  faculties  to 
prepare students for higher education. The course includes orientation, communication 
and the identification of students of risk for attrition. 

6.2.7  Teaching and learning initiatives 

At higher education institutions, a range of teaching and learning initiatives are aimed, 
at  least  in  part,  at  enhancing  completion  and  reducing  dropout.  Thomas  (2012) 
showed  in  the  final  report  of  the  research  project  ‘What  Works?’  that,  in  England, 
teaching  and  learning  is  key  to  creating  engagement  among  students,  as  it  fosters 
belonging  and  commitment  among  students.  There  are  many  different  types  of 
teaching  and  learning  initiatives  at  institutions,  many  of  them  dependent  on  an 
institution’s  specificities  or  national  context.  In  Germany,  enhancing  the  quality  of 
teaching  and learning has  been  made  a  national  priority  through  the  Quality  Pact  for 
Teaching (see chapter 4: National Study Success Policies). This national progamme led 
to a range of locally initiated projects at institutions.  

Another  strategy  several  institutions  employ  is  curriculum  redesign:  rethinking  the 
way courses are built up and combined, or how much choice students have along the 
way to degree completion. At Coventry University, the number of options and modules 
offered within programmes was reduced, in favour of a more comprehensive planning 
of  courses/programmes.  The  same  approach  was  the  basis  for  the  higher  education 
reform  in  Norway  in  2003:  reducing  the  number  of  choices  students  have  to  make 
when  taking  a  general  bachelor’s  degree  (Hovdhaugen,  2012).  This  is  visible  at  both 
NTNU  and  Hedmark  University  College.  Curriculum  design  seems  to  be  an  ongoing 
process, although obviously not all programmes can be altered at the same time.  

Institutions  in  several  countries  have  implemented  measures  that  are  aimed  at 
challenging  students  to  be  active  and  work  hard.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  institutions 
have re-introduced obligatory presence at seminars and courses, mainly for freshmen 

12-2015  79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
students.  Coventry  University  went  even  further,  changing  regulations  to  force 
students  to  submit  their  work  on  time.  Students  who  do  not  submit  on  time  will 
receive  a  zero  and  are  no  longer  allowed  to  re-sit  an  exam.  However,  there  are  also 
examples  of  applying  the  carrot  rather  than  the  stick:  institutions  in  the  Czech 
Republic and Norway offer online educational resources to reduce barriers for learning 
and to encourage students to repeat the material they have been through in class. For 
example,  if  lectures  are  pod-casted,  students  can  revisit  and  review  them  as  many 
times as they like. Many of these initiatives were also listed in two recent reports for 
the European Commission (European Commission, 2013; 2014).  

Another  typical  policy  encountered  in  many  countries  is  to  provide  academic  staff  at 
universities  with  options  to  further  enhance  their  teaching  skills.  At  the  University  of 
Nantes,  professors  can  request  any  type  of  professional  training  (from  one  hour  to 
several  weeks),  in  groups  or  individually,  from  their  university’s  pedagogical  and 
didactic  centre.  In  Norway,  at  both  NTNU  and  Hedmark  University  College,  all 
academic staff in permanent positions have to take a class on university pedagogy. At 
Utrecht University, which is an institution that already for many years has given a high 
priority  to  the  teaching  qualifications  of  its  academic  staff,  mandatory  courses  in 
university  pedagogy  are  provided  to  members  of  academic  staff.  The  success  of  this 
initiative  inspired  a  national  policy  towards  the  implementation  of  qualifications  for 
teaching  staff  in  the  Netherlands  (the  BKO,  mentioned  in  chapter  4:  National  Study 
Success Policies). Today, in many different higher education systems there is a focus 
on the teaching skills of academic staff as a means to enhance study success. 

6.2.8  Comprehensive approaches 

institutions  have 

in  England,  the  Netherlands  and 

Some  higher  education 
implemented  more  comprehensive 
approaches for targeting dropout and completion. In our case studies we came across 
examples  of  this  approach 
in  Germany. 
Comprehensive  approaches  may  take  many  different  forms,  but  what  they  have  in 
common is that several measures are combined into a broad programme package, and 
that  these  measures  are  designed  to  work  together  and  build  upon  each  other.  The 
descriptions of comprehensive approaches we  have come across were initiated either 
by institutions themselves (Coventry University in England and Rotterdam UAS in the 
Netherlands),  while  a  German  initiative  came  from  a  professional  organisation  (see 
Good practice example 4).  

When comparing the comprehensive approaches employed by Coventry University and 
Rotterdam  UAS,  we  find  that  they  differ  slightly.  The  one  in  Coventry  University 
targets  the  phase  after  the  student  has  entered  the  higher  education  institution.  The 
activities  implemented  consist  of  structuring  of  studies  through  timetabling,  working 
on  planning  and  delivering  courses  with  good  outcomes  for  students,  creating  social 
learning  spaces  where  students  can  learn  together  collaboratively,  but  also  changing 
regulations  to  force  students  to  stick  to  the  pace  of  the  programme  and  not  lag 
behind.  Therefore,  this  programme  combines  “sticks  and  carrots”  to  facilitate  timely 
completion.  At  Rotterdam  UAS,  the  approach  covers  both  the  phase  before  the 
students  start  studying,  and  the  phase  while  studying.  The  approach,  including  a 
range of activities, is described below (Good practice example 3).  

12-2015  80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Good practice example 3: Rotterdam UAS – Study Success Programme  

Against the backdrop of a relatively high dropout rate in the first year of a programme (14 per cent within six 
months)  and  a  low  overall completion  rate  (of  about  50  per  cent  after  eight  years),  Rotterdam  University  of 
Applied Sciences (UAS) implemented its Study Success Programme to improve the academic achievement of its 
students, in particular targeting students with a non-Western ethnic minority background (of which Rotterdam 
has  a  large  share).  The  Study  Success  Programme  focuses  on  five  key  areas:  (1)  study  choice,  (2)  social 
integration, (3) academic integration, (4) study motivation and academic self-confidence, and (5) an inclusive 
education climate.  
The Study Success Programme consists of a suite of interventions that are meant to ensure that students are 
completing  their  studies  within  a  reasonable  time  period.  The  programme  includes  Mandatory  Matching  (a 
mandatory intake interview with each candidate, a digital questionnaire that all prospective students have to 
complete), a teacher acting as Study Career Coach (mentoring students throughout the programme), and Peer 
Coaching (a system where senior students help other students during their studies, both on the content and in 
learning skills and planning). The last part of the package consists of Summer Schools (both voluntary summer 
schools that target prospective students, and remedial summer schools for first year and second year students 
who did not pass all exams in their first year).  
The  Study  Success  Programme  consists  of  consecutive  interventions  to  improve  student  integration  in  their 
higher  education  institution  and  to  help  them  complete  their  studies  within  a  certain  time  period.  In  the 
following, a brief description of each single intervention of the programme is provided: 

a) Mandatory Matching consists of two parts: First, a mandatory intake interview conducted by a Study Career 
Coach with candidates prior to May 1st (in line with the national registration regulation), and second, a digital 
questionnaire. The outcome of this phase is a non-binding study advice. If the student has missed the deadline 
of  the  1stof  May,  she  or  he  might  still  be  eligible  to  attend  a  study  programme  but  the  study  advice  can  be 
binding.  

b)  Study  Career  Coaches  are  teachers  who  are  mentoring  students  during  their  studies.  Each  student  has 
regular meetings with her or his Study Career Coach, at least four times a year. At the beginning, the mentor’s 
mandate was primarily guidance in academic matters; today, however, Study Career Coaches are expected to 
discuss broader issues, for example issues regarding internships and employment after studies. UAS teachers 
are not obliged to become mentors, but, as an institutional policy, it is encouraged and there is provision for 
teacher-to-teacher peer-training.  

c) Peer Coaches are senior students who support other students, in particular first-year students, in organizing 
and planning their studies with respect to content matters and academic skills. Peer coaches are trained (there 
are  eight  meetings  and  students  receive  ECs)  and  paid.  There  are  about  three  hundred  peer  coaches  at 
Rotterdam  UAS  and  over  2,000  students  followed  the  peer  coaching  training.  Students  are  not  obligated  to 
have a peer coach, however the system appears to be strongly appreciated. 

d)  There  are  two  forms  of  Summer  Schools.  First,  the  “regular  summer  school”  takes  place  prior  to 
commencement; it targets prospective students and is voluntary (it may be recommended as part of the advice 
resulting from  the  Study  Check).  Second,  the  “Summer  School-Propaedeutic”  targets  students  who  have  not 
yet  achieved  their  propaedeutic  certificates.  It  consists  of  one  week  of  intensive  lectures  focussing  on  the 
courses  for  which  the  students  have  not  yet  passed  (or  sat)  their  exams  and  it  ends  with  an  examination 
approved by the examination committee. If successfully passed, this examination allows students to complete 
their  first  year.  According  to  the  Rotterdam  UAS  Annual  Report,  a  third  of  all  participating  students  receive 
their propaedeutic in this way.  

However,  it  is  not  only  the  higher  education  institutions  that  provide  comprehensive 
programmes. In Germany, the German Engineering Association has launched a project 
that involves  several  actions  for  institutions  that  want  to improve  the  quality  of  their 
teaching in engineering programmes (see Good practice example 4). This project only 
consists  of  carrots  (i.e.  no  sticks),  as  it  provides  suggestions  as  to  what  institutions 
can do in order to improve the quality of teaching. The initiatives were developed also 
with  an  eye  upon  making  more  students  succeed  in  the  field  of  study  that  the 
Engineering Association represents. 

12-2015  81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Good practice example 4: The VDMA-project “Maschinenhaus” 

This  project  is  initiated  by  the  German  Engineering  Association  (Verband  Deutscher  Maschinen  und 
Anlagenbau, VDMA). The aim of the project is to improve the quality of teaching in engineering programmes 
and to help students succeed. The project builds on a study of the main reasons for dropout from engineering 
programmes, and as a result of this work a set of actions and targets was provided, in the form of a toolbox or 
a  catalogue  of  measures.  The  toolbox  also  provides  a  checklist  for  adaptation  of  the  measures  to  different 
institutional contexts. 
The  project  builds  on  the  idea  that  different  measures  are  relevant  in  different  phases  of  a  student’s 
educational  life  cycle,  and  the  toolbox  includes  dedicated  actions  and  targets  for  each  of  the  phases.  The 
following phases are distinguished:  

a) Pre-study phase (1-2 years before entering higher education/the engineering programme): 
Giving prospective students clear and accurate information about the programme, so they are able to establish 
realistic  expectations  about  the  programme.  The  project  provides  a  manual,  aimed  at  higher  education 
institutions, on how to provide realistic information about their programmes. 

b) Study entrance phase (first year in higher education): 
Most  important  here  is  the  integration  of  the  student  in  the  programme  and  at  the  higher  education 
institution,  both  academically  and  socially.  Higher  education  institutions  are  challenged  to  establish  a 
“Willkommenskultur” (welcoming culture). This phase also focuses on learning competences, how to improve 
or teach how to learn to new students.  

c) The study phase: 
Monitoring whether the study course runs smoothly and whether students make their expected progress. 

d) Transfer/international mobility: 
Supporting students in finding internships and studying abroad. 

e) Transition to the labour market:  
Support students in finding adequate employment after degree completion.  

Based on the project so far, it is not possible to state the best or most efficient part of the package, as this may 
vary with context. However, the study entrance phase is seen as the most important phase for improving study 
success. 

6.3  Translated policies 
In  our  Analytical  Framework,  we  assumed  that  we  would  find  a  range  of  national 
policies  that  would  be  translated  at  the  institutional  level,  as  a  form  of  institutional 
adaptation  to  instructions  from  the  national  level.  This  indeed  was  found  to  be  the 
case  in  some  countries,  such  as  Norway  and  France.  However,  in  addition  to  finding 
translated policies at the institutional level, we have also found that in the Netherlands 
the  government  has  taken  policies  originating  at  one  institution,  implementing  them 
nationally  when  these  institutional  policies  seem  to  be  successful.  Thus,  the  policy  is 
then aimed at all institutions. An example of this is the matching of students and the 
binding study advice to students.  

The  translated  policies  found  are  the  French  policy  favouring  of  early  orientation  to 
students  who  are  considering  to  enter  university.  Due  to  this  policy,  which  was 
enacted  in  law,  all  institutions  now  provide  information  services  and  some  have 
outreach programmes. This was described earlier under ‘Enhancing information about 
programmes’ (section 6.2.1).  

A translated policy in Norway is the introduction of written, published higher education 
learning  outcome  descriptions  (HELOs),  which was  introduced  as  part  of  the  National 
Qualification Framework (NQF). HELOs are descriptions of what students should learn 
and know after completing a course or programme, and the Ministry of Education and 
Research  made  it  mandatory  for  institutions  to  implement  HELOs.  Even  though  this 
was  a  policy  introduced  top-down,  institutions  embraced  the  implementation  as  the 
learning  outcome  descriptions  were  seen  as  a  way  for  institutions  to  rethink, 

12-2015  82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
reorganise  and  improve  programmes.  Although  it  is  still  too  early  to  detect  solid 
evidence,  there  are  indications  that  institutions  and  students  have  become  more 
aware  of  what  the  outcome  of  a  programme  should  be,  and  thus  what  is  needed  for 
success. Therefore, what at first may come across as a formality imposed from above 
to write up descriptions of learning outcomes, actually did improve awareness of what 
may  be  demanded,  both  from  institutions  and  from  students,  in  order  to  facilitate 
study success. 

For  the  U.S.A.  an  increasing push  towards  competency-based  education  programmes 
is  reported.  These  require  that  all  components  of  a  programme  need  to  be  broken 
down into clearly defined learning outcomes that are measureable and demonstrable. 
This allows for example employers to evaluate how well a student can do in practice. 
The idea of stackable programmes or credentials has also been discussed. The idea of 
stackable credentials allows students to build up their expertise. For some, the idea of 
a  full  two-  or  four-years  toward  a  degree  is  either  implausible,  unaffordable,  or  just 
too  unmanageable.  Stackable  credentials  allows  short-term  goals  to  be  met  that, 
when put together, build a longer-term, more manageable approach to an education. 
Another  advantage  of  a  stackable  credential  is  that  the  various  credentials, 
themselves, can evolve and change quickly with a volatile economy and technological 
change.  Whereas  it  is  unlike  a  four-year  bachelor’s  program  to  change  much  during 
the course  of study, it is more likely, especially in both technological and health care 
fields, that changes will definitively change within a few years. A more fluid, evolving, 
and  flexible  approach  through  stackable  credentials  may  provide  more  opportunities 
for people and also reward industry and society with quicker evolution in parallel with 
societal needs. 

6.4  Reflection 
When  investigating  similarities  in  policy  approaches  across  institutions  in  different 
countries we do see some similarities, but also differences. All types of approaches or 
measures that we have come across are  specific for that specific educational setting; 
the  context  that  policies  are  implemented  in  is  important.  The  analysis  of  the  three 
types of approaches or policies related to the phase before students start studying can 
work  as  an  example.  While  enhancing  information  to  prospective  students  is  a 
measure  that  can  work  in  all  types  of  settings,  the  introduction  of  selection 
mechanisms  is  only  relevant  in  particular  contexts.  Hence,  this  type  of  policy  is  only 
relevant where almost all students with a completed upper secondary education have 
access to higher education. 

Matching  of  students  to  programmes  is  a  relatively  new  policy,  and  even  though  the 
different  measures  aim  at  the  same  outcome  (i.e.  to  get  a  good  match  between 
student  and  programme),  the  approach  chosen  may  be  different.  In  the  Dutch 
example,  the  institution  is  the  one  making  the  decision  on  the  match,  while  the 
German  example  is  more  geared  at  students  making  the  decision,  based  on 
experiences  of  what  that  study  is  all  about.  Therefore,  when  implementing  such  a 
policy, policymakers have to be aware of whose choice is regarded as most important. 
Furthermore,  policy  makers  need  to  be  aware  that  matching  procedures  require 
significant resources from the institution, they may prove to be an expensive way for 
institutions to select students. Furthermore, some institutions may not be at liberty to 
turn  down  students  who  have  chosen  that  institution,  since  they  need  sufficient 
numbers  of  students  with  the  attached  funding  to  run  their  institution.  If  this  is  the 
case, it becomes unlikely that the institution will give prospective students a negative 
advice. On the  one hand, depending on how matching is done, matching can also be 
an opportunity for institutions that are seen as less attractive to promote themselves 
to students who are considering going to that institution. Matching is a relatively new 

12-2015  83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
policy, and seems to be promising, but there is limited evidence of its effectiveness so 
far. 

A  second  measure  that  appears  to  be  effective  is  the  monitoring  of  study  success. 
There  are  several  positive  effects  found  in  cases  where  institutions  monitor  their 
students study activity and their progress. First, in order to be able to measure study 
success  the  stakeholders  at  the  institution  have  to  agree  on  what  constitutes  study 
success.  Ideally  there  would  be  an  agreed  national  measure,  so  all  institutions  can 
monitor study success in the same way. Nevertheless, regardless of whether there is a 
national agreed upon definition, the institution has to define study success in order to 
measure  it,  and  this  will  in  turn  create  data  that  can  be  used  to  further  analyse  the 
situation  in  specific  programmes.  However,  there  is  a  challenged  because  of  the  fact 
that  not  all  countries  allow  individual  monitoring.  Nevertheless,  monitoring  at 
programme  level  will  also  generate  useful  information.  Secondly,  agreement  on  a 
measure and the monitoring of that measure will generate information on the situation 
regarding  study  success  in  the  country.  Currently,  several  countries  do  not  regularly 
monitor study success (see next chapter), but doing so will provide more information 
for  all involved  parties.  However,  it is  important  not  to  be  too  focused  on  comparing 
across  programmes,  as  differences  in  many  cases  can  be  explained  by  differences 
between  programmes,  both  in  structure  and  in  what  kind  of  students  start  in  a 
programme.  It  is  also  possible  that  these  differences  among  programmes  vary 
between countries, which then makes policy transfer from one country to another less 
obvious.  Where  this  is  the  case  is  not  clear  at  present,  partly  due  to  a  lack  of  data. 
Nevertheless, in all cases will monitoring at the institutional level generate more data. 
This, in turn, can contribute to enhancing awareness on the issue of study success. 

Improving  teaching  and  learning  effectiveness  is  a  third  area  that  is  important  for 
promoting  study  success  at  the  institutional  level.  The  organisation  of  teaching  and 
learning often is the key to student engagement, and it often appears to be important 
to  further  develop  a  student-centred  and  active  learning  approach.  Most  of  these 
approaches are developed locally, at institutions, addressing the specific needs of that 
institution  or  programme.  However,  curriculum  re-design,  both  with  regard  to  the 
structure  of  the  programme  and  the  type  of  learning  activities  practised,  can  also  be 
an important factor in improving study success.  

As most policies described at the institutional level are developed locally and adapted 
to its particular situation, there is reason to believe that the policies employed at the 
institutional level  are  addressing  the  issue  that  the  particular  institution  regards  as  a 
problem. This is also the case for problems with regard to study success. The type of 
policies in place in an institution or a higher education system also will be dependent 
on the specific context they are part of, and they may not in all cases be transferable. 
Nevertheless the fact that we were able to identify a set of typical institutional policies 
found  in  different  national  systems  and  institutional  contexts  leads  us  to  believe  that 
they are relevant for various contexts and – with some adaption to the local context – 
can meaningfully be considered for implementation elsewhere. 

12-2015  84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Study Success Profiles 

One  of the goals of the HEDOCE project is to  bring together the  key  elements in the 
empirical material collected for the 35 countries in order to highlight the situation with 
respect  to  study  success  and  its  drivers  in  the  various  national  European  contexts. 
This information will be presented in a set of national Study Success Profiles (SSPs)  - 
one for each country’s higher education system. This SSP is a visual representation of 
key empirical information on study success in a condensed, graphical way. It presents 
a  selection  of  study  success  indicators  based  on  the  data  collected  for  each  of  the 
individual countries, as well as a mapping of the national policies and practices as far 
as  these  are  related  to  study  success  and  relevant  higher  education  system 
characteristics.  The  actual  profiles  of  all  35  countries  are  included  in  Annex  4  to  this 
report.  As  such,  the  SSPs  may  act  as  an  information  tool  that  can  be  used  for 
comparing  countries,  showing  –  in  a  nutshell  –  the  key  facts  on  countries’  study 
success indicators and  the various policies/factors/enablers that affect study success. 
The SSPs thus may be helpful for informing policy-making. 

The next sections provide a description of the contents of the study success profile for 
a country. 

7.1  Study success/ Outcomes 

There are four indicators of study success: time-to-degree, completion rate, retention 
rate and drop-out rate. Information on these items is found in the upper left corner of 
a country’s Study Success Profile (SSP – see example below). Since the information on 
retention rates turned out to be very limited (see chapter 4) we have decided to also 
include  information  on  its  counterpart,  which  is  dropout.  In  addition,  the  graduation 
rate  (according  to  the  UNESCO  database)  is  shown,  as  it  can  serve  as  a  crude 
approximation of the completion rate. 

The  data  on  the  study  success  indicators  is  drawn  from  a  number  of  sources.  The 
scope of these sources varies in terms of countries covered and definitions used. The 
SSP  therefore  provides  information  on  the  scope  of  the  data  presented  in  a  separate 
box in the upper-right hand corner. 

The  data  on  the  indicators  is  based  either  on  our  HEDOCE  survey  among  national 
experts or can be found in international databases and projects (see Table 7.1).  

Table 7.1: Outcome indicators used in Study Success Profiles 

Indicator 
Time-to-degree 

Completion rates 

Sources 
HEDOCE survey among national experts 
OECD, Education at a Glance 2013 
HEDOCE survey among national experts 
UNESCO, statistical database 

Retention rate 

Dropout rate 

HEDOCE survey among national experts 
OECD (2010) 
Schnepf (2014) 

Remarks 

Two methods (true cohort (tc) 
versus cross section (cs))  
Gross tertiary education 
graduation rate 

12-2015  85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2  National policies and practices  

The second building block of the SSPs provides a picture of what the country looks like 
in  terms  of  the  list  of  most  commonly  used  national  policies  and  practices  related  to 
study success. The policies considered are based on the list of 22 typical policies that 
were  identified  using  our  HEDOCE  country  surveys  (see  chapter  5  -  in  particular 
section 5.3). These policies may be grouped into three categories:  

  Funding and financial incentives (we identified eight policy approaches) 

  Organisation of teaching and learning process (nine policy approaches) 

 

Information and support to students (five policy approaches) 

For  each  of  these  categories,  the  SSP  shows  the  list  of  policies,  with  ticks  (√) 
highlighting which of the policies are in place for a particular country. In Figure 7.1 an 
illustration is given for a country (X) that places a particular focus on the Support for 
students  (3  policies),  has  two  dedicated  policies  on  the  area  of  Organisation,  and  is 
emphasising the provision of Information and support to students (3 policies). 

7.3  Higher education system characteristics 

This  part  of  the  study  success  country  profile  describes  some  relevant  characteristics 
of  the  national  higher  education  system  and  the  pathways  toward  higher  education 
(HE). Table 7.2 describes these elements and their underlying rationales. 

12-2015  86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7.2: Overview of higher education system characteristics 

Characteristic 

Rationale 

Pathways toward higher education 

Structure of primary/secondary education.  
The way primary and secondary education in a country is 
organised: whether this is in terms of differentiated 
streams, with a common core curriculum, or as a single 
structure 

Educational attainment (secondary education) 

Tracks in the pre-tertiary phase (say, segregated 
pathways) may create obstacles to full use of 
talents/access to higher education but can also 
facilitate entry routes into higher education. 

This indicator illustrates the potential for higher 
education participation. If the percentage of people 
with upper secondary education is high, potential 
participation is high. 

Structure of higher education 

Providers: legal status  

Providers: structural diversity (subsectors in HE, such as 
research universities, universities of applied sciences, 
other types of providers) 

Access: This characteristic refers to the degree of 
selectivity (as opposed to openness) of the system 

Resourcing of (higher) education: percentage of GDP 
spent on education and on higher education. 

This indicates the presence of a private HE sector. In 
countries where there are many private providers, 
the design and impact of public policies may need to 
be different than in a country with public providers 
only. 
The presence of subsectors in the HE system – in 
other words: structural diversity – can create 
obstacles to full use of talents/access to HE. If rigidly 
demarcated these could limit mobility and 
transferability. 
In situations where there is high/excess demand for 
HE and a limited number of study places, access for 
all students may not be guaranteed (or not be 
guaranteed for all fields). In that case, selection is 
often based on the students’ academic 
preparedness. More selectivity may lead to higher 
study success. 
It is assumed that an effective and efficient higher 
education system needs to be adequately resourced. 

Student body characteristics 

  % low SES 
  % female students 
  % mature students (older than 25 years) 
  % part-time students 
  % of students with parents holding tertiary degrees 

Study success is partly determined or linked to 
background characteristics of students. Our literature 
review indicates that low SES students score less well 
in terms of study success than students whose 
parents have a higher education background. 
Women perform better than men and young 
students perform better than mature students. Part-
time student are often performing slightly worse 
than full time students. 

12-2015  87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7.1: Example of a Study Success Profile (“Country X”) 

12-2015  88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8  Conclusions 

Higher  education  provides  valuable  public  and  private  benefits  for  Europe  and  study 
success is undoubtedly one of the most important aims of higher education, both at a 
system level and from an individual perspective. The current study is a comprehensive 
analysis  of  study  success  in  higher  education  in  35  European  countries  covering 
available statistical data, a thorough literature review, the mapping of national policies 
and  in-depth  case  studies  of  eight  selected  countries  (the  Czech  Republic,  England, 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  Norway,  the  Netherlands  and  Poland)  and  a  small  sample  of 
institutions within these countries. The study as such addresses how  governments  and 
institutions  define  study  success;  the  factors  that  are  regarded  as  important  for 
achieving  study  success;  the  patterns  in  policy  levers  used  to  reduce  dropout  and 
improve study success; and the extent to which policy is (expected to be) effective in 
reducing dropout and improving study success. 

The concept and importance of study success 
A  fist  conclusion  is  that  study  success  is  a  broad  and  multi-faceted  concept  and  that 
definitions  of  study  success  and  dropout  differ  widely  across  countries.  This  makes 
international comparisons complex. Part of this complexity stems from the diversity in 
the European higher education landscape in terms of national contexts, structures and 
traditions  which  lead  to  a  great  variety  in  attitudes  towards  or  definitions  of  study 
success. Hence, we reduced complexity by distinguishing  three major understandings 
of study success: a) study success understood as an increase in the overall completion 
rate; b) study success as reducing time-to-degree; and c) study success as a decrease 
in dropout rates. Reducing time-to-degree is the dominant understanding in a majority 
of European countries. 

Regardless  of  the  different  understandings  of  study  success  across  Europe,  study 
success  is  plays  an  important  role  in  higher  education  policy-making  in  many 
countries. It is an issue that is very high on the policy agenda in some countries (such 
as  England  and  France),  while  less  visible  in  other  countries  (such  as  the  Czech 
Republic, Italy and Poland). 

All elements of this study have shown that study success is influenced by a multitude 
of factors at the individual, institutional and national levels. At the national level, the 
selectivity  and  flexibility  of  the  higher  education  system  are  the  most  important 
factors  that  impact  on  study  success.  At  the  institutional  level,  creating  student 
engagement; the matching of students and study programmes; teaching and learning 
initiatives  to  develop  more  student-centred  and  active 
learning  approaches; 
systematic  tracking  and  monitoring  of  students’  success;  and  the  organisational 
context  surrounding  study  programmes  (full-time  versus  part-time  study,  rules  and 
regulations  concerning  admission  and  progression)  are  considered  most  important. 
Research  has  further  demonstrated  that  study  success  is  also  related  to  a  range  of 
individual  factors.  For  example,  the  knowledge  and  expectations  of  the  individual 
student  about  the  study  programme,  the  socio-economic  background  of  students  as 
well as the amount of paid work students do alongside studying are among the most 
crucial factors influencing study success. 

12-2015  89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A great variety of policies that explicitly address study success 
Throughout  Europe,  170  national  and  institutional  policy  instruments  have  been 
identified  that  were  explicitly  designed  to  improve  study  success.  These  instruments 
can  be  categorised  into  three  main  policy  areas:  funding  and  financial  incentives; 
information and support for students; and organisation of higher education.  Referring 
to  the  three  ‘reflective  questions’  of  our  analytical  framework,  we  analysed  the 
different  policy  mixes  of  countries  on  three  aspects:  1)  the  match  between  policies 
and study success orientations; 2) the variety in policy instruments used by countries; 
and 3) the consistency between policy instruments. 

Match between policies and study success orientations 

The  findings  suggest  that  some  countries  have  developed  study  success  policies  that 
address  specific  and  concrete  definitions  of  study  success.  This  appears  a  successful 
approach. England is an example of a country that has been able to develop alignment 
between  policy  ambitions,  policy instrumentation  and  institutional  action  in  the  study 
success  area.  In  England,  two  specific  measures  of  study  success  are  defined, 
understood,  endorsed  and  utilised  in  the  same  way  by  national  policy-makers, 
institutions and stakeholders across the higher education sector.  Other countries may 
be  clear  in  their  objectives,  but  the  policy  incentives  may  not  fully  support  the 
objective.  The  Norwegian  funding  system  is  an  example  where  the  financial  rewards 
for the number  of credits passed by students  does not fully match with the objective 
of higher completions rates within a limited time-to-degree. 

Variety in policy instruments 

The  study  has  shown  that  governments  and  institutions  that  use  multiple  facets  of 
study  success  and  various  policy levers  are  likely  to  be  more  successful in improving 
study  success.  Such  a  more  generic  approach  can  be  found  in  Germany,  where  the 
“Quality Pact for Teaching” provided competitive funding to institutions to improve the 
quality of their educational provision and secure stronger institutional responsibility for 
student  success  by  taking  various  initiatives.  The  Dutch  approach  combining  several 
financial,  organisational  and  information  and  support  policies  gradually  helped  to 
reduce  time-to-degree.  In  Denmark,  several  comprehensive  reforms  have  been 
implemented to boost quality and study progress. Also a new funding regime has been 
implemented  clearly  specifying  the  maximum  time  for  which  students  can  receive 
financial support for their studies and  giving the institutions a clear role as a  ‘control 
agent’ making sure students make progress in their studies. Thus, this specific funding 
reform  has  elements  that  are  meant  to  align  various  national  policy  objectives, 
institutional responsibilities and student behaviour. 

Consistency between policy instruments 

Finally, it can be concluded that there is also considerable variation between countries 
as  to  whether  the  policy  instruments  used  are  aligned  or  not.  Among  the  eight  in-
depth  case  study  countries  analysed,  England  again  stands  out  as  an  example  of 
coherent policy-making with regard to study success. Although empirical data does not 
allow for comparisons between countries with respect to the impact of specific policies 
for improving study success, it can be argued that successful policy-making is not so 
much  about  ‘doing  more’  as  it  is  about  developing  a  careful  policy  design  which 
includes the following elements: 

  A clear and precise definition of study success; 
  A careful selection of policy instruments pursuing study success; 
  Stimulation  of  institutional  responsibility  for  study  success,  not  least  through 

carefully designed funding systems; 

12-2015  90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Systematic  monitoring  and  analysis  of  institutional  accomplishments,  allowing  for 

benchmarking and exchange of good practice. 

Study success at institutional level 
Although  the  current  study  has  only looked  at  a limited  number  of  institutions  within 
the eight selected countries, the conscious selection of institutions in each country has 
disclosed  some  specific  practices  and  approaches  that  institutions  perceive  as 
promising in facilitating student success: 

  Matching  students  and  study  programmes.  While  matching  is  less  of  an  issue  in 
selective  systems  of  higher  education,  some  institutions  in  less  selective  systems 
have  launched  a  number  of  initiatives  to  provide  students  with  a  sense  of  the 
programme  before  admission  (interviews,  visits  to  the  institution  in  advance,  on-
line  self-assessment  tests,  informing  student  choice  etc.),  remedial  courses  after 
admission,  and  systematic  tutoring  of  students  throughout  the  first  year.  The 
Netherlands is a frontrunner in launching matching initiatives and has implemented 
a system in which students are invited to a ‘check’ prior to entry, to evaluate their 
study  choice,  with  a  follow  up  ‘check’  after  enrolling  so  that  they  can  receive 
‘binding study advice’ (BSA). This BSA is a tool for the individual institution in their 
planning  process  and  as  a  follow-up  of  students,  and  is  a  measure  that  identifies 
students  at  risk  of  dropping  out  early.  The  Key  Information  System  (KIS)  in 
England  is  another  example  of  providing  students  with  more  tailored  information 
about  their  possible  choices  of  study  by  displaying  information  about  student 
satisfaction, dropout and success rates for specific courses and programmes along 
with information about how study is organised, assessed, and accredited.    

  Monitoring  student  attendance  and  progression.  Research  has  shown  that  not  all 
students  have  the  same  risk  of  dropping-out  and  individual  and  social 
characteristics of the student play a role in study success. As a consequence, some 
institutions  have  initiated  systematic  monitoring  of  attendance  and  progression, 
allowing them to identify students that are at risk and facilitate institutional action 
and  follow  up.  In  countries  such  as  Norway,  Sweden,  Finland  and  Ireland  such 
monitoring  of  student  attendance  and  progress  is  used  systematically  to  track 
inactive  students,  and  in  Finland  a  recent  initiative  monitors  students  via  a 
personal  study  plan  (PSP)  –  allowing  for  a  more  individual  follow-up  of  each 
student.  Australian  higher  education  institutions  monitor  students  to  identify 
students at risk and to provide them with individualised counselling and advice. 

  Facilitating  social  integration  and  student  engagement.  While  many  higher 
education  institutions  throughout  Europe  have  established  special  welcome 
programmes  for  students,  some  institutions  have  taken  these  initiatives  one  step 
further  and  established  systems  for  personal  tutoring  and  peer-mentoring  among 
students,  to  stimulate  to  a  sense  of  belonging  and  create  engagement.  For 
example,  in  France  more  personalised  support  and  career  services  for  students 
have  been  introduced  by  institutions,  providing  students  with  a  one-stop  service 
where  both  academic  and  social  challenges  can  be  considered  and  addressed.  In 
Australia  higher  education  institutions  have  established  special  student  success 
teams that support students with various academic or personal problems. 

  Teaching  and  learning  initiatives.  Students  entering  higher  education  may  be 
unfamiliar  with  how  study  programmes  are  organised  and  how  the  curriculum  is 
designed.  To  assist  and  facilitate  student  learning,  some  institutions  have 
developed  new  curriculum  designs,  structuring  the  learning  process  through  the 
use  of  new  technology,  seminars  and  mandatory  activities.  A  key  idea  behind 
several  of  these  initiatives  is  the  closer  alignment  of  programme  objectives, 
teaching  and  learning  activities,  and  examination  and  assessment  of  students.  In 

12-2015  91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany,  a  number  of  research  and  development  projects  have  been  launched 
with the aim of identifying good teaching practises and facilitating student success; 
a number of publications on this issue have been produced and distributed within 
the  higher  education  sector.  In  the  U.S.A.  there  is  a  push  towards  competency-
based  education  programmes  that  break  down  study  programmes  into  clearly 
defined components and learning outcomes. Such information shows students and 
potential  employers  the  competencies  to  be  achieved  by  the  graduates.  In 
addition,  such  programmes  have  a  modular  system  in  which  students  can  collect 
separate  credentials  and  certificates  rather  than  full  degrees.  This  better  serves 
the needs of students interested in short higher education and employers who look 
for specialized competencies. 

The examples identified above are not mutually exclusive, which suggests that careful 
combinations  of  institutional  strategies  and  initiatives  can  work  quite  effectively,  and 
that comprehensive institutional approaches are likely to provide good results. 

Data and indicators on study success 
However,  systematic  monitoring  of  study  success  is  not  a  widespread  practice  within 
Europe. This demonstrates that tracking study success is not yet a prominent issue in 
most  countries  –  at  least  not  at  the  national  level.  Some  countries  leave  policy 
initiatives mainly to the higher education institutions. When looking at available data, 
the  current  study  has  found  that  cross-country  overviews  of  completion  rates,  let 
alone other orientations of study success, are rare and do not provide a solid basis for 
comparing  the  performance  of  countries  in  the  various  understandings  of  study 
success. Only 12 out of 35 European countries regularly report an indicator related to 
completion.  Fewer  countries  report  on  retention  rates,  dropout  and  time-to-degree. 
The  cross-country  comparative  statistics  available  –  such  as  those  provided  by  the 
OECD in Education at a Glance – have to be interpreted with care due to differences in 
underlying definitions and differences in context and institutional arrangements across 
the  higher  education  systems.  In  light  of  these  limitations  in  the  existing  data  and 
methods  for  calculating  study  success,  the  cross-section  method  of  calculating 
completion rates may produce a crude but nevertheless useful first insight into study 
success, though more sophisticated indicators and methods are needed. This need was 
also  stated  for  Australia  and  the  U.S.A.  where  it  is  expected  that  better  information 
and  clear  indicators  on  study  success  will  help  stakeholders  to  understand  higher 
education dynamics. 

12-2015  92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9  Recommendations 

The  diversity  of  the  European  landscape  of  higher  education  and  the  various  ways  in 
which  study  success  is  embedded  in  national  higher  education  contexts  suggest  the 
need  for  policy  recommendations  that  are  sensitive  to  different  national  and 
institutional priorities and practices. However, based on the conclusions of the current 
study,  it  is  still  possible  to  identify  a  number  of  generic  recommendations  that  can 
provide a solid basis and a broad menu for future policy-making in this area. 

Since  policy  development  for  study  success  is  clearly  dependent  on  the  close 
this  section  differentiates  between 
alignment  of  actions  and 
recommendations at the European level, the national level and the institutional level. 

instruments, 

The need for an increased European effort to facilitate study success 
The  current  study  has  clearly  shown  that  while  study  success  is  high  on  the  policy 
agenda in Europe, systematic indicator-based data on study success and knowledge of 
various  national  policy  initiatives  and  their  impact  is  limited.  In  general,  there  is  a 
need  for  more  coordinated  action  across  national  borders  to  acquire  a  more  solid 
knowledge base on what works. 

  There  is  a  need  to  create  a  Europe-wide  arena  for  discussing  issues  related  to 
study success. Given the diverse understandings of study success, one of the aims 
of  such  an  arena  could  be  to  generate  agreement  on  key  definitions  and  explicit 
indicators for study success. 

  As there is currently limited knowledge on the impact of policies specifically aimed 
at  study  success,  there  is  a  need  for  more  systematic  and  comparative  empirical 
research on the effectiveness of these policies. 

  There  is  also  a  need  to  link  the  (inter)national  study  success  agenda  to  related 
policy  areas  such  as  modernising  higher  education institutions,  quality  assurance, 
graduate  employability,  etc.  One  could  start  systematic  monitoring  of  study 
success  indicators  using  specific  benchmarking  instruments  (such  as  U-Multirank) 
and create a European platform for national and institutional good practices. 

The need for conscious national policy designs to boost study success 
As many countries currently define their study success aims in an implicit way, there 
is a need for more conscious national policy designs meeting the following criteria: 

  National  governments  can  be  clearer  and  more  explicit  in  defining  and 
communicating  the  specific  study  success  orientations  that  they  regard  as 
important and the reasons for these priorities. 

  National  governments  can  develop  policy  designs  based  on  an  underlying 
behavioural  model  that  specifies  the  links  between  a  specific  study  success 
orientation,  the  policy  instruments  used,  the  roles  of  stakeholders  and  the 
expected impacts. 

  European countries can think of systematic efforts to collect and monitor indicators 
of  completion,  dropout  and  average  time-to-degree  at  agreed-upon  levels  and 
based on shared definitions. Such indicators are more useful when they reflect the 
diversity of institutions and study programmes. 

12-2015  93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The public availability of performance information can help to boost public interest 
in  study  success,  to  hold  higher  education  providers  accountable  for  promoting 
themselves in a responsible way, and to facilitate student choice. 

  To  increase  evidence-based  policy  designs,  governments  can  stimulate  more 
systematic  research  on  what  factors  and  policy  instruments  (positively)  influence 
study success. Such research outcomes as well as good practice examples can be 
shared  on  national  platforms  such  as  online  open-access  platforms  and/or 
conferences and workshops. 

  Governments can consider developing national policy designs that reflect a mix of 
financial,  informational  and  organisational  policy  instruments  and  address  both 
students and higher education institutions. The policy instruments need to support 
each  other,  for  example  more  flexible  educational  pathways  need  clear  rules  for 
the recognition of previous learning and study achievements. 

 

It is suggested to enable institutions to monitor pathways of individual students to 
identify  students  at  risk  of  dropout.  This  also  helps  them  understand  specific 
patterns underlying dropout and completion and will inform future policy-making. 

The need for comprehensive institutional strategies to boost study success 
Because the  European higher education landscape is diverse and includes institutions 
with very different profiles and characteristics, study success priorities differ between 
types  of  institutions  and  study  programmes.  Furthermore,  as  institutions  increasingly 
have to strategically position themselves in a more competitive sector, they gain more 
responsibility  for  their  students’  success.  This  calls  for  comprehensive  institutional 
strategies to boost study success, based on the following recommendations: 

  Higher  education  institutions’  strategic  plans  could  specify  how  issues  of  study 
success  relate  to  their  profile  and  what  actions  will  be  taken  on  areas  such  as 
internal  quality  assurance.  This  can  facilitate  a  better  matching  between 
institutions, study programmes and the students they attract. 

  With growing institutional responsibility for study success, institutions and students 
will benefit from student monitoring, counselling and mentoring systems as well as 
from  structures  to  socially  and  academically  integrate  students.  This  allows  them 
to better identify students at risk of dropping out and to initiate follow-up actions. 

 

 

 

Institutions can consider publishing key institutional indicators on study success on 
their webpages to assist future students in making the right study choices as well 
as to raise and sustain institutional awareness of study success. 

Institutional  responsibility  for  study  success  can  also  include  measures  and 
facilities to assist students in their learning process through didactical approaches, 
assessment methods and feedback mechanisms. 

Institutions  can  benefit  from  institutional  research  on  the  specific  patterns 
underlying dropout and completion. This also enables them to formulate adequate 
measures  to  address  study  success  within  their  own  context,  such  as  staff 
development, administrative routines, support structures, and career services. 

Once  again,  it  should  be  underlined  that  the  recommendations  above  make  up  a 
varied  menu  of  possible  institutional,  national  and  European  actions  that  are  not 
mutually exclusive. We realise that not all of these recommendations may be followed 
up  in  all  countries,  depending  on  the  context.  However,  a  careful  composition  and 
combination  of  elements  is  likely  to  lead  to  more  successful  outcomes.  For  example, 
that  struggle  with  completion  may  consider  re-designing  study 
institutions 
programmes,  while  institutions  that  face  problems  of  high  dropout  may  consider  a 
more careful (soft) selection and social integration of students. 

12-2015  94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bibliography 

Aamodt, P. O., and E. Hovdhaugen. 2011. Frafall og gjennomføring i lavere grads studier før og 
etter Kvalitetsreformen. En sammenlikning mellom begynnerkullene fra 1999, 2003 og 2005. 
oversikt [Dropout and Completion in Undergraduate Degrees Before and After the Quality 
Reform]. NIFU rapport 38/2011. Oslo: NIFU. 

Aamodt, P.O., Hovdhaugen, E., Opheim, V. (2009): Effects of a national education reform on 

the academic progress of students. Journal of Adult & Continuing Education, 15 (2):220–234. 

Ahola, S. (2012): National Evaluation of Bologna Implementation in Finland: Procedures and 

outcomes, Tertiary Education and Management 18 (3): 237-252. 

Annala, J., Korhonen, V., Penttinen, L. (2012): Mapping guidance and counselling between 

policy and practise. Teoksessa, S., Ahola, S., Hoffman, D. (Eds.): Higher education research 
in Finland. Emerging Structures and Contemporary Issues. Finnish Institute for Educational 
Research, University of Jyväskylä, 313-336. 

Arce, Maria Elena; Crespo, Barbara; Miguez-Alvarez, Carla (2015): Higher Education Dropout in 
Spain - Particular Case of Universities in Galicia, in: International Education Studies, Vol. 8, 
No. 5, p. 217-264, available online at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060793.pdf 
Arnold, Ivo J.M. (2015), The effectiveness of academic dismissal policies in Dutch university 

education: an empirical investigation, Studies in Higher Education, 40:6, 1068-1084, DOI: 
10.1080/03075079.2013.858684 

Becker, S. O. (2001): Why don't Italians finish University? Explaining enrolment behavior in 

Italy and Germany. Available online at http://www.sobecker.de/dropout.pdf.  
Beerkens, M., Mägi, E., Lill, L. (2011): University studies as a side job: causes and 

consequences of massive student employment in Estonia. Higher Education 61 (6):679-691. 

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) The „digital natives‟ debate: A critical review of the 

evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39 (5), pp. 775-786. 

Berger, J.B. (2002): The Influence of the Organizational Structures of Colleges and Universities 

on College Student Learning. In: Peabody Journal of Education. 77:40–59. 

Berthold, Christian; Jorzik, Bettina; Meyer-Guckel, Volker (2015) (eds.): Handbuch 

Studienerfolg: Wie Hochschulen Studierende erfolgreich zum Abschluss führen. Essen: 
Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Wissenschaftspflege: 
http://www.stifterverband.de/pdf/handbuch_studienerfolg.pdf. 

Blüthmann, Ia; Lepa, Steffen; Thiel, Felicitas (2008): Studienabbruch und -wechsel in den 

neuen Bachelorstudiengängen. In ZfE 11 (3), pp. 406–429. 

Bowes, L., Thomas, L., Peck, L., Nathwani, T. (2013): International Research on the 

Effectiveness of Widening Participation. Bristol: HEFCE and OFFA.  

Bowes, L. et al. (2014): Evaluation of the National Scholarship Programme – Year 3 Report to 

HEFCE by CFE Research and Edge Hill University. Leicester: CFE/HEFCE: 
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2014/NSP,year,3,evaluation/nspevaly3.pdf.  
Broadbridge, A., Swanson, V. (2005): Earning and learning: how term-time employment 
impacts on students’ adjustment to university life. Journal of Education and Work, 18 
(2):235-249. 

Brooks, L., Baird, H. and Shenstone, A. (2014) Independent Review of the Higher Education 
Academy. A report to HEFCE by Capita Consulting. Bristol: HEFCE, available online at:  
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2014/heareview/Title,92165,en.html 

Buglear, J. (2009): Logging in and dropping out: exploring student non‐completion in higher 

education using electronic footprint analysis. In Journal of Further and Higher Education 33 
(4): 381–393. 

Cahalan, M. (2013): Widening participation to higher education in the United States of America. 

Report submitted to HEFCE and OFFA. Bristol: HEFCE, Available online at 
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2013/wpeffectiveness/. 

Callender, C. (2008) The Impact of Term-time Employment on Higher Education Students’ 
Academic Attainment and Achievement Journal of Education Policy 23:4 ,pp. 359–377 

Chalmers, D. (2008): Indicators of University Teaching and Learning Quality. Australian 

Learning and Teaching Council. Available online at 
http://www.weboffice.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1891663/Indicators_of_Univ
ersity_Teaching_and_Learning_Quality.pdf. 

12-2015  95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Charlton, J. P., Barrow, C., Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2006): Attempting to predict withdrawal from 

higher education using demographic, psychological and educational measures. In Research in 
Post-Compulsory Education 11 (1), pp. 31–47. Available online at 
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rpce/2006/00000011/00000001/art00003. 
Chen, R. (2012): Institutional Characteristics and College Student Dropout Risks: A Multilevel 

Event History Analysis. Research in Higher Education. 53:487–505. 

Cour de Comptes (2012): Rapport public annuel 2012, Tome 1, Les observations, Paris. 

Available online at: https://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Recherche-
avancee/(SearchText)/La%20réussite%20en%20licence/(exact)/1/(du)/1/(From)/01-01-
2012/(To)/31-12-2012/(limit)/10/(sort)/attr_date_filter_dt;desc.  

Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2013): Frafald på videregående uddannelser 

[Dropout in higher education]. Short report, February 2013. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of 
Higher Education and Science. 

Darmody, M. & E. Smythe (2008): Full-time students? Term-time employment among higher 

education students in Ireland. Journal of Education and Work, 21 (4):349-362.  

De Boer, Harry, et.al. (2015): Performance-based funding and performance agreements in 

fourteen higher education systems. Report for the Ministry of education, culture and science. 
Enschede: CHEPS. Available online at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-
publicaties/rapporten/2015/03/01/performance-based-funding-and-performance-agreements-in-
fourteen-higher-education-systems.html 

Departement Onderwijs en Vorming (2013): Evaluatie van de implementatielasten naar 

aanleiding van de flexibilisering van het hoger onderwijs, Maart 2013, Flemish Ministry for 
Education and Training, available online at: 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/publicaties/eindrapport-evaluatie-
implementatielasten-fexibilisering.pdf. 

Department for Innovation, Business and Skills (2014) Learning from Futuretrack: dropout from 

Higher Education. BIS Research Paper No. 168, London, BIS: 
http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/documents/Futuretrack_BIS_Learning_from_futuretrack_dropout.pdf 
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010): STRATEGY DOCUMENT, Further 

Education – New Horizon, Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth, available online at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32366/10-
1272-strategy-investing-in-skills-for-sustainable-growth.pdf. 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2014a): Learning from Futuretrack: Dropout 

from higher education, BIS Research paper no. 168, available online at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287689/bis-
14-641-learning-from-futuretrack-dropout-from-higher-education-bis-research-paper-
168.pdf. 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2014b): National strategy for access and 
student success in higher education. OFFA and HEFCE, London. Available online at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299689/bis-14-516-
national-strategy-for-access-and-student-success.pdf. 

Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., McKay, J. (2012): Effective teaching and support of 
students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for teaching staff. 
Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching. 

Di Pietro, G., Cutillo, A. (2008): Degree flexibility and university dropout: The Italian 

Experience. Economics of Education Review 27 :546-555. 

Duty, D. (2011) Seven years at the coal face: The retention phenomenon through the lens of a 

year tutor. EdD Thesis. University of Huddersfield. 

EACEA; Eurydice; Eurostat; Eurostudent (2012), The European Higher Education Area in 2012: 

Bologna Process Implementation Report. Brussels: Eurydice. 

EUA - Trackit (2012): Tracking Learners’ and Graduates’ Progression Paths TRACKIT. Available 
online at http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/EUA_Trackit_web.sflb.ashx. 
European Commission (2001): Towards the European Higher Education Area, Communiqué of 

the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education in Prague, May 19th 2001. 

European Commission (2010): Communication from the Commission on ‘Europe 2020: A 
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. COM(2010) 2020 final. Available 
online: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/intex_en.htm. 

European Commission (2013): Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher 

education institutions. Report to the European Commission, June 2013. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

12-2015  96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission (2014): New modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Report 

to the European Commission, October 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the 
European Union. 

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2012): The European Higher Education Area in 2012: 
Bologna Process Implementation Report. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture 
Executive Agency. 

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2014): Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: 
Access Retention and Employability 2014. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union.  

European Commission (2015), Yerevan Communiqué, EHEA Ministerial Conference, 14-15 May 

2015, Yerevan, Armenia. 

European University Association (EUA) (2014 forthcoming): Reports of External Evaluation of 
Higher Educational Institutions in Montenegro (by EUA – European University Association). 
Expected in July 2014. 

Eurydice (2011): Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Funding and the Social 

Dimension. Available online at 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/131EN.pdf. 

Evaluation Commission (Republic of Macedonia)(2011): Izveštaj za samoevaluacijata na 

univerzitetot Sv. Kiril i Metodij vo Skopje (za periodot 2006/7-2009/1)0 (Self-evaluation 
Report of the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (in the period 2006/07-2009/10)) 
(2011) Skopje: University Ss. Cyril and Methodius – Skopje. 

Farnell, T., Matković, T., Doolan, K., Cvitan, M. (2014): Social inclusivity of Croatian higher 

education. Zagreb: Institute for the Development of Education. 

Frølich, Nicoline; Waagene, Erica; Stensaker, Bjørn (2014): På vei mot integrasjon? 

Universiteters og høgskolers arbeid med internasjonalisering. Oslo: NIFU Nordisk institutt for 
studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. 

Finnish Ministry on Education and Culture (2015): Towards a future proof system for higher 
education and research in Finland. Publications of the Finnish Ministry on Education and 
Culture, 2015:11, (Technopolis), available online: 
http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2015/liitteet/okm11.pdf?lang=en. 

Fitzsimons, E, Dearden, L & Wyness, G 2015, 'Money for nothing: estimating the impact of 

student aid on participation in Higher Education' Economics of Education Review 
Gansemer-Topf, A.M., Schuh, J.H. (2006): Institutional Selectivity and Institutional 

Expenditure: Examining Organizational Factors that Contribute to Retention and Graduation. 
Research in Higher Education 47:613–642. 

Georg, W. (2009): Individual and institutional factors in the tendency to dropout of higher 

education: a multilevel analysis using data from the Konstanz Student Survey. In Studies in 
Higher Education 34 (6), pp. 647–661. 

Goovaerts, M.: Wie overleeft het eerste bachelorjaar niet? Een onderzoek naar dropout in het 

hoger onderwijs. Edited by VVKHO. Vlaams Verbond van Katholieke Hogescholen: 
http://ond.vsko.be/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/VVKHORUBRIEKEN2010/VVKHO2010/07/COPY_OF_COPY_OF_
02%20200911%20VAN%20WEEL/201209_GOVAERTS_DROPOUT.PDF. 

Graaf, D. de en E. van de Berg (2011), Monitor Associate degree 2006-2010, Eindevaluatie, 

Amsterdam: SEO Economisch Onderzoek. 

Haastrup, L. et al. (2013): Brobygging mellem teori og praksis i 

profesjonsbachelorutdannelserne. København: KORA 

Hagedorn, L. S. (2004): How to define retention: A New Look at an Old Problem: 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493674.pdf. 

Hamshire, C., Willgoss, T. G., Wibberley, C. (2013): Should I stay or should I go? A study 

exploring why healthcare students consider leaving their programme. Nurse Education Today 
33 (8): 889–895. 

HEFCE (2009) Part-time first degree study: Entry and completion. Issues Paper May 2009/18, 

Bristol: HEFCE. 

HEFCE (2010) Student ethnicity: experiences in full-time, first degree study 

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2010/201013/name,63870,en.html. 

HEFCE (2013) Higher education and beyond: Outcomes from full-time first degree study 

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201315/name,82005,en.html. 

HEFCE (2014) Differences in degree outcomes: Key findings 

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201403/name,86821,en.html. 

Helland, H. (2005): Realkompetansestudenter bortvalg og studiepoengsproduksjon [Study 
progression and dropout among students entering on documented non-formal learning]. 
NIFU STEP report 6/2005, Oslo: NIFU STEP. 

12-2015  97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heublein, U. (2010): Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkömmlichen 
Studiengängen. Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung von Exmatrikulierten des 
Studienjahres 2007/08, Hannover: HIS. 

Heublein, U., C. Hutzsch, J. Schreiber, D. Sommer, Besuch, G. (2010): Ursachen des 

Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkömmlichen Studiengängen. Ergebnisse einer 
bundesweiten Befragung von Exmatrikulierten des Studienjahrs 2007/08. http://www.his-
hf.de/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201002.pdf. 

Heublein, U., Schmelzer, R., Sommer, D. (2008); Die Entwicklung der Studienabbruchquote an 

den deutschen Hochschulen, Hannover. 

Heublein, U., Spangenberg, H., Sommer, D. (2003): Ursachen des Studienabbruchs. Analyse 

2002, Hannover: HIS, Hochschul-Informations-System. 

Higher Education Authority (2014): A Study of Progression in Irish Higher Education Institutions 

2010/11 to 2011/12: 
http://www.hea.ie/sites/default/files/a_study_of_progression_in_irish_higher_education_institutions_2010-11-2011-
12_0.pdf. 

Hockings, C. (2010): Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of 

research. York: Higher Education Academy. 

Hodgson, A., Spours, K. (2001): Part-time Work and Full-time Education in The UK: the 

emergence of a curriculum and policy issue. Journal of Education and Work 14 (3):373-388. 

Houston, M., McCune, V. and Osborne, M. (2011) Flexible learning and its contribution to 

widening participation: a synthesis of research. York: Higher Education Academy 

Hovdhaugen, E. (2009): Transfer and dropout: different forms of student departure in Norway, 

Studies in Higher Education 34 (1): 1-17. 

Hovdhaugen, E. (2011): Do structured study programmes lead to lower rates of dropout and 

student transfer from university? Irish Educational Studies 30 (2):237-251. 

Hovdhaugen, E. (2012): Leaving early: Individual, institutional and system perspectives on why 
Norwegian students leave their higher education institution before degree completion. PhD-
dissertation, Sociology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Oslo. Oslo: University of Oslo. 

Hovdhaugen, E. (2014): Working while studying: the impact of term-time employment on 

dropout rates, Journal of Education and Work, published online, DOI: 
10.1080/13639080.2013.869311 

Hovdhaugen, E., Aamodt, P.O. (2009): Learning environment – Relevant or not to students’ 

decision to leave university? Quality in higher education, 15 (2):177-189. 

Hovdhaugen, E., Frølich, N., Aamodt, P. O. (2013): Informing Institutional Management: 

institutional strategies and student retention. In European Journal of Education 48 (1), pp. 
165–177. 

ICON/QUANTOS (2015): Final report. D3: Concluding analysis and recommendations on input 

data and computation methods, unpublished report.  

In der Smitten, S., Heublein, U. (2013): Qualitätsmanagement zur Vorbeugung von 

Studienabbrüchen. In Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 8 (2):98–109. Available online at 
http://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/512/538. 

In der Smitten, S.; Jaeger, M. (2012): Ziel- und Leistungsvereinbarungen als Instrument der 

Hochschulfinanzierung. Ausgestaltung und Anwendung. Forum Hochschule 16/2012. 
Available online at: http://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201216.pdf. 

Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2009): UITVAL EN RENDEMENT IN HET HOGER ONDERWIJS - 

Achtergrondrapport bij werken aan een beter rendement. 
http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/binaries/content/assets/Actueel_publicaties/2009/Werken+aan+een+
beter+rendement+-+achtergrondrapport.pdf.  

Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2009): Werken aan een beter rendement. Casestudies naar uitval 

en rendement in het hoger onderwijs. 
http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/binaries/content/assets/Actueel_publicaties/2009/Werken+aan+een+
beter+rendement.pdf. 

Jarić, I. & M. Vukasović (2009) : Bolonjska reforma visokog školstva u Srbiji - mapiranje faktora 

niske efikasnosti studiranja. Filozofija i društvo, vol. 20, br. 2, in Serbian 

Johnes, J. (1996): Performance assessment in higher education in Britain. European Journal of 

Operational Research. 89:18–33. 

Johnes, J. (1997): Inter-university variations in undergraduate non-completion rates: A 
statistical analysis by subject of study. Journal of Applied Statistics. 24:343–362. 
Jørgensen, Thomas E. and Sursock, Andrée (2014): Evaluations of ten higher education 

institutions in Montenegro. Cross-cutting summary report. European University Association 
(EUA). Available online at: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/IEP/Montenegro_system-wide_report.sflb.ashx. 

12-2015  98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jorzik, Bettina (2013) (ed.): Charta guter Lehre: Grundsätze und Leitlinien für eine bessere 

Lehrkultur. Essen: Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Wissenschaftspflege: 
http://www.stifterverband.info/wissenschaft_und_hochschule/lehre/charta_guter_lehre/charta_guter_lehre.pdf. 

Krause, K.L. (2011): Transforming the learning experience to engage students, in Thomas, L. 
and Tight, T. (eds): Institutional transformation to engage a diverse student body. Bingley: 
Emerald Books. 

Kuh, G. D.; Kinzie, J.; Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B., Hayek, J. C. (2006): What Matters to Student 

Success: A Review of the Literature. (http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf). 

Kuzmanoska I., et al. (2008): Macedonian Education Policy & Priorities in the Light of EU’s Policy 

Direction, Turin: European Training Foundation. 

Lassibille, G., Navarro Gómez, L. (2008): Why do higher education students dropout? Evidence 

from Spain. In Education Economics 16 (1): 89–105. 

Lee, C., Buckthorpe, S. (2008): Robust Performance Indicators for Non‐completion in Higher 

Education. In Quality in Higher Education 14 (1): 67–77. 

Longden, B. (2012): "Bearing Down" on Student Non-Completion: Implications and 

Consequences for English Higher Education. In Journal of College Student Retention: 
Research, Theory and Practice 14 (1): 117–147. 

Lowis, M., Castley, A. (2008): Factors affecting student progression and achievement: 

prediction and intervention. A two‐year study. In Innovations in Education and Teaching 
International 45 (4): 333–343. 

Mäkinen, J., Olkinuora, E., Lonka, K. (2004): Students at risk: Students' general study 

orientations and abandoning/prolonging the course of studies. Higher Education. 48:173–188. 

Mastekaasa, A., Smeby, J.-C. (2008): Educational choice and persistence in male- and female-

dominated fields. Higher Education. 55:189–202. 

Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., Born, M. P.(2010): Reasons for withdrawal from higher 

vocational education. A comparison of ethnic minority and majority non‐completers. In 
Studies in Higher Education 35 (1): 93–111. 

MESR (2013): L’université en mouvement. Dossier de presse Septembre 2013. Rentrée 

Étudiante. Available online at: http://cache.media.enseignementsup-
recherche.gouv.fr/file/Actus/62/3/DP-rentree-universitaire-2013_268623.pdf. 

Mickovska-Raleva A. et al., (2010): Kako do pokvalitetno visoko obrazovanie (Quality Tertiary 

Education: How to Achieve It), Skopje: Center for Research and Policy Making. 

Ministry of Education and Sports Montenegro (2011): Strategy for Financing Higher Education 

2011-2020. 

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2015), Pravidla pro poskytování příspěvku a dotací 
veřejným vysokým školám Ministerstvem školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy [Rules for the 
Provision of a Contribution and Subsidies to Public Universities by the], Article 3, paragraph 
2. Prague: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 

Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Croatia (2013): Strategy for Education, Science and 

Technology. Proposal. https://www.azvo.hr/images/stories/visoko/Strategija_OZT-
Radni_materijal_rujan_2013-1.pdf. 

Minstry of Human Resource Development Hungary (2013): Strategic directions and the next 

steps in the development of higher education, Deputy Secretary of State in Higher Education, 
Ministry of Human Resource Development, 12 September, 2013) 
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-bRb8Wxe4bXTVdlaktGU1d1d0U/edit. 

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur and Wetenschap (MINOCW) (2014): Kerncijfers 2009-2013 

onderwijs, cultuur, wetenschap. Available online at: 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2014/05/21/ocw-kerncijfers 

Młynarska-Sobaczewska, A. and Gońda, M. (2013): Partner Research Report Poland, 

20/02/2013. 

Mooney, O., Patterson, V., O’Connor, M., Chantler, A. (2010): A study of Progression in Irish 

Higher Education. A report by the Higher Education Agency. October 2010. HEA, Available: 
http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/statistics/2010/Retention%20&%20Progression/HEA%20Study%20of%
20Progression%20in%20Irish%20Higher%20Education%202010.pdf. 

Moulin, S., Doray, P., Laplante, B., Street, M.C. (2012): Work Intensity and Noncompletion of 
University: Longitudinal Approach and Causal Inference. Journal of Education and Work 26 
(3): 333–356. 

NAO (2007) Staying the course. The retention of students in higher education. National Audit 

Office. London: The Stationery Office. 

Nursaw Associates (2015): What do we know about the impact of financial support on access 

and student success? Review of the research and evaluation of the impact of institutional 

12-2015  99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
financial support on access and student success. Available online at: 
https://www.offa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Literature-review-PDF.pdf 

OECD (1998): Education at a Glance 1998. Paris: OECD. 
OECD (2008): Education at a Glance 2008. Paris: OECD. 
OECD (2010). How many students drop out of tertiary education? Highlights from Education at a 

Glance 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2011): Education at a Glance 2011, indicator B5. Paris: OECD. 
OECD (2013): Education at a Glance 2013. Paris: OECD. 
Österreichischer Wissenschaftsrat (2014): Zur Studieneingangs- und  Orientierungsphase 

(StEOP)  an Österreichs Universitäten Stellungnahme und Empfehlungen. Wien: 
Österreichischer Wissenschaftsrat: http://www.fteval.at/upload/Zur_Studieneingangs-
_und_Orientierungsphase_an_Oesterreichs_Universitaeten.pdf 

Opheim, Vibeke (2011): Changing the System of Student Support in Norway: Intended and 

Unintended Effects on Students, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55: 1, 39—
59, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2011.539853. 

Opionion Way (2013): Evaluation admission post-bac, http://www.opinion-way.com/pdf/bj9022_-

_ens_sup_-_admission_post-bac_-_presentation_des_resultats_-_synthese.pdf.  

Oppedisano, V. (2011): The (adverse) effects of expanding higher education: Evidence from 

Italy. Economics of Education Review. 30:997–1008. 

Orr, D., J. Wespel and A. Usher (2014), Do changes in cost-sharing have an impact on the 
behiour of students and higher education institutions? Evidence from nine case studies, 
Volume I: Comparative report, Brussels: European Commission, DG-EAC. 

Pop Ivanov L., Božinoska, M., Božović, S. (2011): Sonuvame da patuvame: analiza na 

akademskata i studentskata mobilnost preku alatkata pristap do informacii od javen karakter 
(We Dream to Travel: an Analysis of Student and Academic Mobility by Using the Access to 
Public Information Tool), Skopje: Youth Educational Forum. 

Pop Ivanov L., Velkovski, G. (2010): EKTS – Realnost ili iluzija vo visokoto obrazovanie, analiza 
preku alatkata pristap do informacii od javen karakter (ECTS - Reality or Illusion in Higher 
Education, an Analysis by Using the Access to Public Information Tool)), Skopje: Youth 
Educational Forum. 

Powney, J. (2002): Successful student diversity. Case studies of practice in learning and 

teaching and widening participation: HEFCE. 

Quinn, J. (2013): Dropout and completion in higher education and Europe among students from 

under-represented groups. NESET-report, October 2013. European Commission. 

Reason, R. D. (2009): Student Variables that Predict Retention: Recent Research and New 

Developments. In NASPA Journal 46 (3), pp. 482–501. 

Reisel, L., Brekke, I. (2010): Minority Dropout in Higher Education: A Comparison of the United 
States and Norway Using Competing Risk Event History Analysis. European Sociological 
Review. 26:691–712. 

Reviewcommissie (2014), Universiteiten en Hogescholen maken werk van profilering, 
Persbericht Reviewcommissie Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek, 19 december 2014. 
Roksa, J. (2011): Differentiation and work: inequality in degree attainment in U.S. higher 

education. Higher Education 61, 3:293–308. 

Salmi, J. (2013): Appropriate Funding Mechanism for the Development of Higher Education in 

Montenegro, Main Report, Prepared for the Ministry of Education of Montenegro, 15-06-2013. 

Schnepf, S. V. (2014): Do Tertiary Dropout Students Really Not Succeed in European Labour 
Markets? IZA Discussion Paper NO 8015, March 2014. (http://ftp.iza.org/dp8015.pdf.) 
Schnepf, S. V. (2014): Do Tertiary Dropout Students Really Not Succeed in European Labour 
Markets? IZA Discussion Paper NO 8015, March 2014. (http://ftp.iza.org/dp8015.pdf.) 
Sellers, J., Van der Velden, G. (2003): Supporting Student Retention. Learning and Teaching. 

Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). 

Severiens, S., Dam, G. (2012): Leaving College: A Gender Comparison in Male and Female-

Dominated Programs. Research in Higher Education. 53:453–470. 

Singell, L. D. & G. R. Waddell (2010): Modelling Retention at a Large Public University: Can At-

Risk Students Be Identified Early Enough to Treat? Research in Higher Education. 51:546–572. 

Slovenian National Higher Education Programme 2011-2020. 
Statistik Austria (2015): Bildung in Zahlen 2013/14. Schlüsselindikatoren und Analysen. Wien: 

Statistik Austria. 

Thomas, L. (2012): Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of 

change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention and Success programme. 

12-2015  100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Higher Education Academy. Available at http://www-
new2.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/what-works-student-retention/What_works_final_report.pdf. 

Tilkidjiev, N., Milenkova, V., Nedelcheva, T., Hristiva, S., Petkova, K., Mileva, N. (2011): The 

Successful Roma. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad 

Tinto, V. (1975): Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. 

Review of Educational Research. 45:89–125. 

Tinto, V. (1993): Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd 

edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Tinto, V. (2006): Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next? Journal of College 

Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 8 (1): 1–19. 

Tinto, V. (2007): Taking student retention seriously. New York: Syracuse University. 
Titus, M. A. (2004): An Examination of the Influence of Institutional Context on Student 

Persistence at 4-Year Colleges and Universities: A Multilevel Approach. Research in Higher 
Education. 45:673–699. 

Trow, M. (1973): Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Report for 

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on HE. 

Trow, M. (2006): Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and 
phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII, in: J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach 
(Eds) International handbook of higher education. vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Springer), 243-280. 
Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., Holmegaard, H. T. (2010): What do we know about explanations for 
dropout/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes? Studies in 
Science Education 46 (2): 209–244. 

Unger, M., Wroblewski, A., Latcheva, R., Zaussinger, S., Hofmann, J., Musik, C. (2009): Frühe 
Studienabbrüche an Universitäten in Österreich. Edited by BMWF. Bundesministerium für 
Wissenschaft und Forschung. Wien. Available online at 
http://www.equi.at/dateien/Frueher_Studienabbruch_an_Un.pdf. 

University of Maribor (2014): Poročilo o samoevalvaciji članic Univerze v Mariboru za študijsko 
leto 2012/2013 / Report on self-evaluation of the members of the University of Maribor for 
the academic year 2012/2013. Maribor, 12 February 2014.  

Vossensteyn, J.J. (2005): Perceptions of student price-responsiveness. A behavioral economics 
exploration of the relationships between socio-economic status, perceptions of financial 
incentives and student choice. Dissertation, CHEPS, University of Twente. Enschede: CHEPS. 

Vossensteyn, J.J. (2013), Widening Participation in the Netherlands, Report submitted to CFE 

research and consultancy specialists in employment and skills, Edge Hill University, 
Leicester: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 

Vossensteyn, J.J., Cremonini, L., Epping, E., Laudel, G., Leisyte, L. (2013): International 

Experiences with Student Financing: tuition fees and student financial support in perspective. 
Final Report for the Dutch Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Enschede: CHEPS. 
Warps et al. (2010): Vervroeging aanmelding, Onderzoek naar de impact van vervroeging van 

de aanmelddatum in het hoger onderwijs, Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger Onderwijs en 
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 136, Den Haag: MinOCW. 

Warren, D. (2003): Improving student retention: A ‘team approach’, Annual Conference of the 

Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE, University of Warwick, Coventry, London 
Metropolitan University. 

Werkgroep ‘Studievoortgangsbewaking’ (2014): Eindrapport September 2014: 

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/publicaties/Rapport-Studievoortgangsbewaking.pdf. 

Whitehead, G. (2011) Developing institutional strategies to support failing/failed part-time 

students in higher education. The Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, vol 11, no. 2 
Wolter, S. C., Diem, A.; Messer, D. (2013): Studienabbrüche an Schweizer Universitäten. Edited 

by SKBF. Swiss Coordination Centre for Research in Education (SKBF Staff Paper, 11). 
Available online at http://skbf-csre.ch/fileadmin/files/pdf/publikationen/Staffpaper11.pdf. 

Woodfield, R., Thomas, L. (2012): Male students: engagement with academic and pastoral 

support services. Equality Challenge Unit. Available at http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/42018/1/male-
students-engagement-with-academic-and-pastoral-support-services.pdf. 

Yorke, M. (1999): Leaving early: Undergraduate non-completion in higher education. London: 

Falmer Press. 

Yorke, M., Longden, B. (Eds.) (2004): Retention and student success in higher education. 

Maidenhead: Open University Press. 

12-2015  101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12-2015  102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS  

Free publications:  

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);  

•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (free phone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).  

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).  

Priced publications:  

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l

C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

N
C
-
0
4
-
1
5
-
7
7
9
-

E
N
N

-

[

[

[

C

C

C

a

a

a

t

t

t

a

a

a

l

l

l

o

o

o

g

g

g

u

u

u

e

e

e

n

n

n

u

u

u

m

m

m

b

b

b

e

e

e

r

r

r

]

]

]

doi: 10.2766/826962 
ISBN: 978-92-79-52352-6