Towards a European graduate tracking mechanism : recommendations of the expert group : October 2018 - October 2020.
Date: 2021-02-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: EU Member State, data collection, diploma, education policy, higher education, integration into employment, labour market, professional qualifications, report, teaching quality, vocational education, vocational training

Towards a European  
graduate tracking mechanism

Recommendations  
of the expert group

October 2018 > October 2020

Education and
Training

This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible  
for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021
© European Union, 2021
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).
Credits images ©Shutterstock
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Print 

ISBN 978-92-76-18188-0 

doi:10.2766/67489  NC-03-20-276-EN-C

PDF    ISBN 978-92-76-18187-3     doi:10.2766/970793  NC-03-20-276-EN-N

Contents

Foreword 
Executive Summary 
Introduction 
Scene setter 
The starting point – purpose and content of European graduate tracking 

State of graduate tracking in national systems 
Coverage of different groups of students 
Specificities of tracking higher education vs. VET graduates 
Alternative ways of collecting graduate data 

1.0 
2.0 
2.1 
2.2  Organisation of the expert group’s work 
2.3 
2.4 
2.5 
2.6 
2.7  Data protection regulation 
3.0  Work and recommendations of task forces 
3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
4.0 
4.1 

Task force 1: Options on comparable European graduate data 
Task force 2: Information on mobile graduate students and employees 
Task force 3: Information on administrative data items 
Task force 4: Principles and standards for VET 
Recommendations from the expert group 
Identification of the informational requirements 

5
6
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
13
13
14
14
15
16
16
19
19

3

 
 
4.1.1  Policy objectives and related policy questions 
4.1.2  Essential and recommended information 
4.2 

4.3 
4.4 

A gradual approach which includes both a European Graduate Survey  
and Administrative Data 
Target groups 
Implementation and integration of a European Graduate Survey with  
national graduate tracking measures: a modular approach 
Access to data 

Timelines 

4.5 
4.6  Governance within a European network 
4.7  Monitoring the graduate tracking recommendation 
4.8 
5.0  Next steps 
6.0  ANNEX 0: Detailed background information 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 

Composition of the expert group 
State of play of graduate tracking in the Member States and other EEA countries 
Feasibility of a full roll-out of the European Graduate Survey 
The link between the information requirements and policy questions 

19
19

21
22

22
24
24
25
26
27
28
28
28
29
30

4

 
 
Foreword

In building the European Education Area by 2025, we are creat-
ing one large talent pool of Europeans with unlimited study and 
research opportunities across the EU. Their feedback can help 
policy-makers,  educational  establishments  and  researchers  
make  better-informed  decisions  when  it  comes  to  designing 
education  curricula,  offering  career  guidance,  or  identifying 
skills-development  needs.  Although  well  developed  in  many 
European  countries,  the  instruments  for  tracking  students 
after graduation focus on students in their home countries and  
rarely capture those who moved abroad in pursuit of learning or 
job opportunities. We want to change this and build on existing 
national  graduate  tracking  systems  to  create  a  Europe-wide 
system that generates information about graduates, wherever 
they are in Europe. I am convinced that this is key to making 
our education systems more connected and more relevant to 
society  and  a  necessary  step  towards  achieving  a  European 
Education Area by 2025.

In difficult times, like the current global health and economic  
crises,  clear  information  and  processes  are,  more  than  ever, 
key to instilling confidence in the education and labour market  
systems.  The  ongoing  pandemic  has  brought  about  numerous 
changes.  Students  have  new  factors  to  take  into  account 
when they make their choices about what to study and where. 
While  they  are  restricted  in  their  ability  to  gain  work  experi-
ence abroad, they have access to an unprecedented amount of 
online learning material. Education staff are delivering courses  
online  and  wondering  how  best  to  engage  and  assess  their 
students remotely. Graduates are entering an unstable labour 
market that is changing at high speed towards more digitalisa-
tion. Employees are required to be more resilient, more adapt-
able and to boost their innovation skills if they are to continue 

thriving in a volatile workplace. Higher education is increasingly 
expected to show the way in helping to build a green and digital 
Europe. 

their  graduate  tracking  systems  and  to  make  the  European 
Graduate  Survey  a  success,  including  in  the  context  of  the 
upcoming Higher Education Transformation Agenda.

At the same time, many of our universities in Europe are no 
longer  operating  just  at  regional  level,  but  have  the  entire 
European continent or even the world in their orbit. Thus, they 
also need to draw on talent from across Europe and beyond 
and  are  increasingly  connecting  with  higher  education  insti-
tutions from abroad, including through the flagship European  
Universities  initiative.  The  flow  of  talent  across  European 
labour markets is a reality, closing skills gaps in some regions 
while causing labour shortages in others. Therefore, it was not 
a surprise that the Council of the European Union asked the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  in  November  2017  to 
devise a strategy for tracking graduates at home and abroad. 
Everyone  could  see  that  it  would  be  extremely  useful  to 
have a complete picture of the skills and knowledge flows at 
both national and European level. Three years down the line,  
we  have  advanced  significantly  on  the  European  graduate 
tracking agenda. 

I welcome this report, which sets out the results of the expert 
group’s  hard  work.  It  is  an  important  milestone  on  the  way 
to  having  high-quality  data  on  graduate  outcomes  that  are 
comparable at European level. I commend the diligent work of  
the  experts  who  have  contributed  to  this  report  for  being 
visionary as well as pragmatic, and for being both ambitious 
and realistic. I welcome their recommendation to have 80 %  
of  EU  and  other  European  Economic  Area  countries  join  the 
European Graduate Survey by 2025. The European Commission  
will  continue  to  support  the  Member  States  in  coordinating 

Mariya Gabriel
Commissioner for Innovation, 
Research, Culture, Education  
and Youth

5

Executive summary

Turning the idea of European-level graduate  
tracking into practice.

High-quality  data  on  the  pathways  of  higher  education  and 
vocational  education  and  training  (VET)  graduates  after  they 
finish their studies enable policy-makers and educational insti-
tutions to improve future teaching and learning outcomes, the 
employability of graduates, tackle skills gaps and mismatches, 
and ensure social inclusion in education.

Data  on  graduates  that  are  comparable  at  EU  level  enable 
cross-country comparison, which in turn enables benchmarking, 
the  identification  of  policy  areas  in  need  of  attention,  better 
targeting  and  a  higher  efficiency  of  education  investment.  In 
the  Council  Recommendation  on  tracking  graduates  (2017)a, 
Member States committed, with the support of the European 
Commission, to collect information from higher education and 
VET graduates that is comparable at European level.

An expert group to set out a roadmap towards  
the goal.

To facilitate the implementation of the Council Recommenda-
tion, a European Commission expert group on graduate tracking 
(2018-2020) was established to monitor progress in the devel-
opment  of  graduate  tracking  systems  in  the  Member  States, 
to explore options for collecting national data that is mutually 
compatible and comparable at EU level, and to make recom-
mendations on how to further develop and support the European  
graduate tracking initiative.

The  expert  group  consisted  of  66  standing  members,  repre-
senting  European  Economic  Area  (EEA)  governments  and  key 
European stakeholders, as well as several EU bodies. The mem-

6

bers represented a wide range of expertise and backgrounds, 
which contributed to rich discussions that looked at issues from 
many  different  angles.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  large  man-
date it was given, the expert group was divided into four task  
forces, each covering a distinct set of topics (vision and options, 
mobile graduates, administrative data and VET learners), which 
fed into the plenary discussions and culminated with a set of 
common recommendations elaborated in this report. 

Essential and recommended information on  
graduates that countries should be able to provide.

In  formulating  its  recommendations  for  the  way  forward,  the 
expert  group  was  guided  by  the  Council  Recommendation 
that  defined  the  aspirations  and  ideal  quality  standards  for 
the  graduate  tracking  mechanisms  at  national  and  European 
levels,  which  are  to  be  implemented  either  through  graduate 
surveys  or  administrative  data.  It  also  took  into  account  the 
diversity  of  starting  positions  and  tracking  traditions  in  the 
Member States and other EEA countries. In addition, the group 
considered alternative less labour-intensive ways of acquiring 
data  on  graduates,  such  as  through  big  data,  but  concluded 
that, at this stage in the development of these tools, it would 
be premature to invest heavily in such approaches.

In order to satisfy the policy goals of the European graduate 
tracking initiative and to acquire comparable EU-wide data on 
a  range  of  policy-relevant  issues  (relevance  of  education  for 
employment and lifelong learning, skills mismatches and their 
drivers, social mobility in education and the impact of learning 
mobility), the group deliberated and agreed on precise statis-
tical information that is the minimum for countries to collect. 
These  are  split  into  lists  of  ‘essential’  information  (socioeco-
nomic data and data on employment, education and mobility) 

and  ‘recommended’  information  (on  perceptions  concerning 
the skills obtained and required, the quality and relevance of  
education, and the reasons for mobility).

A gradual approach, starting with a European  
graduate survey and leading to administrative  
data exchange.

The group considered that, in the short term, only a European  
graduate survey would be able to guarantee the collection of 
comparable  graduate  data  (including  for  mobile  graduates) 
covering  the  dimensions  of  the  Council  Recommendation.The 
group also expressed the intention that, in the medium to long 
term, the essential factual background information on graduates 
will be provided from administrative data sources and that the 
recommended qualitative information will come from surveys.

After  an  extensive  assessment  of  the  fitness-for-purpose, 
together  with  the  effectiveness  of  several  options,  the  group 
proposed  a  gradual  two-step  approach  to  establishing  
a European-wide graduate tracking mechanism. In the short  
term, by 2022, 50 % of countries (increasing to 80 % of countries  
by  2025)  should  take  part  in  the  European  survey  of  higher 
education graduates, while ensuring that overlaps with national  
graduate surveys are avoided. In the medium term, countries 
should develop or adapt their administrative information sys-
tems  to  open  up  the  possibility  of  generating  a  common  set 
of comparable indicators on graduates at EU level. For those 
countries  that  are  already  well  advanced,  they  could  use  the 
data gathered through their national survey or through admin-
istrative data if a high quality and comparability of data can 
be guaranteed.

 
An efficient and lean coordination structure to steer 
further development.

To  ensure  the  ownership  and  sustainability  of  the  initiative, 
the expert group proposed a model of a coordination structure 
that can bring forward the development of graduate tracking 
in  Europe,  while  respecting  the  competences  and  choices  of 
the  Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries.  The  proposed 
structure would consist of a network of national coordination 
centres  on  graduate  tracking  in  all  participating  countries,  
a  steering  committee  to  provide  strategic  guidance,  with  the 
support from a  European Commission secretariat. Educational 
institutions, social partners and other stakeholders would play 
an important role in the coordination structure.

This new coordination structure should look into the feasibility 
of the use of a potential unique identifier to track graduates 
across  systems  and  borders,  and  on  ways  to  capture  those 
leaving education.

Regular monitoring to ensure high standards of 
data from each country and ultimately high-quality 
data at EU level.

The  implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  will  be 
monitored every 2 years against a baseline analysis made in 
the mapping study on graduate tracking measures (European 
Commission, 2020) along five dimensions: level of inclusion of 
graduate programmes and of types of graduates, longitudinal-
ity,  quality  of  data,  and  dissemination  and  use  of  data.  The 
timeline of implementation proposed by the expert group sees 
80 % implementation by 2025 and 100 % implementation by 
2030, though the group acknowledges that the VET sector may 
follow a different timeline due to a different starting position.  
A detailed overview of principles and guidelines for the devel-
opment  of  VET  graduate  tracking  was  produced.  It  could  be 
used by policy-makers to develop and operate graduate track-
ing systems in the VET sector. 

In  terms  of  access  to  graduate  data  in  the  future  European 
coordinated  information  system,  different  possibilities  for 
data sharing and use will need to be explored, in line with the 
European legislation on privacy, open data and the re-use of 
public sector information. The expert group recommends that 
indicators are made available, while acknowledging the value 
of microdata for some end users, provided that the rules and 
regulations of national data protection and the General Data 
Protection Regulation (GDPR) are respected.

7

1.0 Introduction

Society is changing rapidly: Europe will need to respond to the 
twin challenges of digital and green transition; people face more 
frequent  job  changes;  the  need  for  upskilling  and  reskilling  is 
rising. Information on the destinations of recent graduates1 can 
provide  insights  into  the  extent  to  which  graduates’  skills  and 
knowledge match the needs of the economy and society.

Tracking  graduates  can  also  be  a  core  component  of  quality 
assurance  systems  as  it  provides  a  mechanism  for  gathering 
intelligence on skills utilisation in the labour market, placement 
rates  and  the  career  paths  of  graduates2.  It  should  be  noted, 
however, that European-level graduate tracking is not intended 
for the purposes of ranking educational institutions.

In  the  single  European  market,  increasingly  characterised  by 
international study and labour mobility, it is also important to 
have  quantitative  and  qualitative  comparable  information  on 
graduates with regard to their recruitment and employment sit-
uation, their international mobility, their perception about skills 
and jobs, and their career progress.

As  a  consequence  of  the  COVID-19  (SARS-CoV-2)  pandemic,  
which  is  likely  to  have  a  significant  impact  on  students  and 
graduates, the need for timely, high-quality and comparable EU 
data on graduates’ labour market outcomes is now even greater.  
The economic downturn that European countries are now expe-
riencing will likely affect their decisions to enrol in tertiary edu-
cation and their choice of field and university. Besides, and as 
a  consequence  of  the  accelerated  digital  transformation,  the 
demand for labour will also be affected, with the possibility that 
new graduates in certain fields (e.g. ICT experts) will be in high 
demand. Labour mobility patterns of graduates (both within and 
across countries) are also likely to be affected. 

High-quality  data  enables  policy-makers  and  educational/ 
training  institutions  to  improve  learning  outcomes  and  the 
employability of graduates; tackle skills gaps and mismatches; 
and ensure social inclusion. Data comparable at EU level enable 
cross-country  comparisons  that  in  turn  enable  benchmarking, 
identification  of  policy  areas  in  need  of  attention,  and  better 
targeting and higher efficiency of education investment. 

As a follow-up to the 2017 Renewed Agenda for Higher Educa-
tion3 and the 2016 New Skills Agenda for Europe4, the European  
Commission  proposed,  and  the  European  Council  adopted,  
a Recommendation in November 2017 on tracking graduates5. 
In  this  Recommendation,  Member  States,  with  the  support  of 
the European Commission, committed to collect graduate track-
ing  information  in  higher  education  and  vocational  education 
and training (VET) that is comparable at European level. 

The European Skills Agenda  adopted on  1  July  2020 aims  at 
strengthening  skills  intelligence  –  among  other  tools,  through 
graduate  tracking  –  as  the  foundation  for  up-  and  re-skilling 
that  is  relevant  for  the  labour  market.  The  more  recent  Com-
mission Communication on the European Education Area6 fur-
ther emphasises that feedback from the graduates after they 
finish their education – obtained through graduate tracking – is 
essential for ensuring that the knowledge, skills and competenc-
es acquired by students are of a high quality and relevant for the 
job markets of today and tomorrow. 

Following the Council Recommendation on tracking graduates, 
a Eurograduate Pilot Survey was launched in 20187. That same 
year  a  mapping  study  of  graduate  tracking  in  VET  was  com-
pleted8, and a European Commission Expert group on Graduate 
Tracking (2018-2020)9 was established to provide a forum for 
cooperation and mutual learning about graduate tracking. 

8

The objectives of the expert group were to facilitate implemen-
tation of the Council Recommendation by monitoring progress 
in the development of graduate tracking systems in the Mem-
ber  States,  exploring  options  for  collecting  national  data  that 
is  mutually  compatible  and  comparable  at  EU  level,  discuss-
ing effective ways of tracking graduates, including considering 
the optimal frequency of longitudinal surveys and following the 
work on the pilot European Graduate Survey, and communicat-
ing about the lessons learned in the home country. This report 
sets out the group’s recommendations for the further develop-
ment  and  support  of  the  graduate  tracking  strategy  and  tool 
development at European and national/system levels.

The  expert  group  consisted  of  66  policy  members  –  policy- 
makers, data analysts, researchers and representatives of stake-
holder organisations – representing a wide range of expertise 
and covering all Member States and other European Economic 
Area (EEA) countries. The diversity of the experts’ backgrounds 
contributed to rich discussions that looked at issues from many 
different  angles.  The  authors  of  the  final  report  sought  the 
broadest possible consensus among the expert group’s mem-
bers  in  order  for  the  final  recommendations  to  reflect  a  large 
majority of views. 

2.0 Scene setter  

In this chapter, several important topics are outlined, which set 
the framework conditions for discussions in the task forces and 
lead to the group’s final recommendations.

An additional and important goal specified in the 2017 Council 
Recommendation  is  to  improve  the  comparability  of  data  at 
the  EU  level.  To  support  this  objective,  the  Recommendation 
invited Member States to collect data in the following areas:

2.1 The starting point – purpose and 
content of European graduate 
tracking

The 2017 Council Recommendation invited Member States to 
take steps to ensure the timely, regular and broad dissemina-
tion  and  exploitation  of  the  results  of  their  analysis  of  data 
from  their  graduate  tracking  system(s),  with  the  following 
objectives:

>  Socio-biographical and socioeconomic information.

>  Information on education and training.

>  Information on employment or further education  

and training.

>  Relevance of education and training to employment  

or lifelong learning.

>  Strengthen career guidance for prospective students, 

current students and graduates. 

>  Career progress.

>  Support the design and updating of curricula to improve 

the acquisition of relevant skills and employability.

>  Improve skills matching so as to support 

competitiveness and innovation at the local, regional 
and national levels, and to resolve skills shortages.

The  expert  group  discussed  these  objectives  and  noted  that,  
in  some  countries,  additional  objectives  are  associated  with 
graduate tracking. These include:

>  Monitoring the effectiveness of particular programmes, 

qualifications or types of training.

>  Plan for and forecast evolving employment, educational 

and social needs.

>  Monitoring emerging regional imbalances.

>  Contribute to policy development at both national  

and EU levels.

>  Supporting quality assurance initiatives/processes  

at the system and provider levels.

2.2 Organisation of the expert  

group’s work

The expert group on graduate tracking was set up in September 
2018 as an ‘informal Commission expert group’ and as such is 
subject to the horizontal rules established by Commission deci-
sion  C(2016)3301,  which  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with 
Commission Communication C(2016)3300.

The expert group included 66 standing members representing 
EEA  governments  and  key  European  stakeholders,  as  well  as 
several  EU  bodies  –  Eurostat,  European  Training  Foundation, 
European  Centre  for  the  Development  of  Vocational  Training 
(Cedefop) and the Joint Research Centre (see 6.0 Annex 0). It set 
up a comprehensive work programme for exchanging practices 
on the design, development, sustainable implementation and 
enhancement of national graduate tracking systems, including 
both administrative information matching and surveys, as well 
as developing options for comparative EU graduate data.

In order to facilitate the work of the group, it was decided to 
divide into four dedicated task forces to enable deeper study 
and  discussion.  Each  task  force  was  invited  to  develop  and 
agree on its specific mandate, to appoint a chair (or joint chairs) 
for the coordination and to look into good practice examples. 
Discussions in the task forces were complemented by plenary  
presentations  on  emerging  issues  and  developments  at  a 
national  or  European  level.  Each  task  force  developed  mate-
rials, guidance  and recommendations that  were  presented to  
the entire expert group.10 

9

 
 
The mandates of the task forces focused on the following areas:

Task force 1: Visionary task force on the options for  
comparative EU graduate data
The mandate of the task force was to examine different ways to 
organise the data collection in the higher education sector and 
in  VET  at  the  European  level,  including  looking  in  depth  at  the 
methodology  of  the  European  Graduate  Survey.  First  the  task 
force identified the data required to track graduates at European 
level  in  order  to  satisfy  the  ‘policy  objectives’  set  in  the  2017 
Council Recommendation. This led them to assess the potential 
and feasibility of three options, primarily focused on higher edu-
cation, according to their strengths and weaknesses, for national 
systems and at the European level.

Task force 3: Technical subgroup on comparative analysis 
of national graduate tracking indicators
This task force analysed the potential use of administrative data, 
collected  in  education  and  population  registries,  social  security 
or  tax  databases,  to  support  graduate  tracking  systems  in  the 
Member States in order to 1) evaluate if and to what extent part 
of a graduate tracking system could be based on administrative 
data  sets  and  2)  identify  core  indicators  that  could  constitute 
cross-national comparable data. The mandate of the task force 
was to establish a registry of key academic, economic and social 
statistical  indicators  that  are  comparable  and  common  for  all 
countries. The task force extended its reflections to IT develop-
ment, information content, IT governance and General Data Pro-
tection Regulation (GDPR) issues.

Task force 2: Task force on the pilot of exchanging data 
on migrant graduates
This task force examined potential questions and methodologies 
in order to exchange information and track graduates across bor-
ders.  It  also  considered  the  nature  and  extent  of  students  and 
graduates’  mobility  between  European  countries.  Finding  ways 
to gather harmonised information across Europe about the vol-
umes  and  patterns  of  mobile  graduates  is  important  because  
1)  mobility  is  a  key  feature  of  the  labour  market  outcomes  of 
graduates and 2) expanding knowledge on mobile graduates pro-
vides insight into one of the core principles of the EU: the free 
movement of workers.

Task force 4: Task force on the development of VET 
graduate tracking
This task force’s mandate focused on the specificities of gradu-
ate  tracking  for  vocational  education  and  training.  It  organised  
a  series  of  mutual  learning  activities  and,  based  on  best  prac-
tices,  sought  to  identify  principles  and  standards  that  could  be 
used by policy-makers to develop and operate graduate tracking 
systems in the VET sector. In compliance with the 2017 Council  
Recommendation, these principles and standards support coop-
eration  among  authorities  to  improve  the  availability,  reliability  
and  comparability  of  graduate  tracking  information  for  VET 
(including the tracking of migrating graduates).

2.3 State of graduate tracking  

in national systems

Throughout the discussion, expert group members increased their 
awareness of the different approaches used by Member States 
and other EEA countries to track graduates. The scanning of the 
current state of play of graduate tracking in the individual coun-
tries helped formulate recommendations for the way forward.

The recent European Commission study (2020) on ‘Mapping the 
state of graduate tracking policies and practices in the EU Mem-
ber  States  and  EEA  countries’11  served  as  a  baseline  analysis 
by  developing  criteria  to  measure  the  extent  to  which  Member 
States and EEA countries implemented the Council Recommen-
dation.  A  summary  of  the  main  results  of  the  mapping  study  
is available in 6.0. This study also contains advice rich in detail 
on  good  practices  in  setting  up  and  running  graduate  tracking 
systems12. 

Lessons  learned  as  part  of  the  expert  group’s  work,  as  well  as 
the resources developed, are easily transferable beyond the EU’s 
borders to a broader geographical context of the European Higher 
Education Area.

10

 
  
2.4 Coverage of different groups  

of students

2.5 Specificities of tracking higher 
education vs. VET graduates

These are the commonalities:

The  2017  Council  Recommendation  addresses  both  VET  and 
higher education. The expert group considered it important that 
the statements in this report apply to both higher education (HE) 
and VET. On the other hand, there are some notable differences 
between the sectors that will affect the implementation of rec-
ommendations in HE and in VET. 

Graduate  tracking  systems  may  focus  on  a  wide  range  of  stu-
dents  and  graduates,  ranging  from  ‘traditional’  students  who 
complete a full-time degree to those who complete a short ‘unit 
of learning’ on their employer’s premises as part of a continuing 
professional  development  programme,  and  from  the  European  
Qualifications  Framework  (EQF)  level  4  up  to  the  EQF  level  8 
graduates. 

Most of the recommendations of the expert group are relevant 
for  all  types  of  graduates;  however,  many  of  the  deliberations 
focused on graduates of full degrees at EQF levels 6 and 7 for 
higher education and for EQF levels 4 and 5 for VET. The expert 
group  supports  the  inclusion  of  doctoral-level  (EQF  level  8) 
graduates  in  the  European  graduate  tracking  initiative,  as  it  is  
an important segment of higher education with growing labour 
market  relevance.  The  specificities  of  this  level  were,  however, 
not discussed in detail in the scope of this group’s work. 

In  addition,  the  expert  group  recognised  the  importance  of  fol-
lowing up on early leavers from VET and higher education. How-
ever, due to the tight agenda of the group and the complexity of 
the problems already covered by the four task forces, the expert 
group recommends that the tracking of early leavers is addressed 
at a later stage. There are, nevertheless, some recommendations 
on  early  leavers  from  vocational  education  and  training  (see 
Annex 4)*.

>  Both HE and VET graduate tracking is fairly widespread 
and developing further. About two thirds of the Member 
States and EEA countries have system-level graduate 
tracking in higher education and VET: AT, BE-NL13, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, LT, NL, NO, SE, SK, UK.

>  Policy aspirations for students/graduates are almost 

identical. They include the development of knowledge, 
skills, competences and behaviours that enable graduates 
to succeed in their career and in society; the acquisition 
of ‘soft skills’, helping graduates to gain employment and 
work effectively with others; the potential to succeed in 
further study/learning; the encouragement to desire,  
and recognise the importance of, lifelong learning.

>  Including mobile graduates in the tracking system is 
interesting for both HE and VET sectors. An increasing 
number of graduates move to a different country following 
the completion of their programme and the interest in 
tracking graduates abroad is growing.

>  There is alignment in the use of agreed definitions of 

indicators and statistics, i.e. several classification systems 
are in place, which, when applied to graduate tracking, 
enable comparability across different information  
sources within countries but also across countries14.

11

 
 
Despite differences in the organisation and state of develop-
ment of VET graduate tracking in the EU, the commonality of 
policy  aspirations  is  the  basis  for  proposing  some  common 
approaches to the tracking of both HE and VET graduates (see 
4.3 Target groups). At the same time, in light of the differenc-
es between the situations in the two sectors, it appears that 
European graduate tracking can be achieved sooner for higher 
education than for VET.

These are the differences:

>  The governance of the education systems differs, which 
has an effect on the potential for standardised data. 
Largely, Member States and EEA countries organise and 
manage higher education in similar ways in line with  
the commitments of the European Higher Education 
Area15. This is not the situation in vocational education 
and training, as VET is organised in different ways across 
Europe. 

>  A centralised register of education programmes and 
providers is more frequently available for higher  
education compared to the VET sector, which is especially 
challenging as regards continuous VET and non-formal 
VET. These governance structures impact on the 
possibilities to collect representative information.

>  Continuous VET and non-formal VET is least covered by 
systemic tracking measures and there is considerable 
room for improvement across all benchmarking criteria 
(coverage, quality of data, longitudinal, dissemination). 
The high number of providers and the diverse range 
of courses available make standardised tracking less 
straightforward. If graduate outcome information is only 
available on a selected number of programmes, it will limit 
the understanding of the impact policies and interventions 
have and also the comparability at national and EU level. 

>  Information on the educational history (as well as 

background information) on HE and VET graduates is  
often not held by the same administration.

>  Graduate tracking is generally well embedded in higher 
education institutions across the EU and EEA countries, 
which makes it easier to run graduate surveys in HE.  
A survey16 conducted among higher education institutions 
showed that 9 out of 10 survey respondents said their 
higher education institution undertakes some form of 
graduate tracking. In VET, this coverage is smaller and 
therefore the potential for a EU-wide survey is less.

12

2.6 Alternative ways of collecting 

graduate data

The expert group examined the possibilities of using alternative 
data sources, e.g. the European Union Statistics on Income and 
Living  Conditions  (EU-SILC),  the  Labour  Force  Survey  (LFS)  and 
others)  as  the  basis  of  a  European  graduate  data  collection. 
The group considered that in their current format, these sources/ 
surveys  are  not  suitable  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  the 
Council Recommendation. 

EU-SILC  and  LFS  are  not  designed  to  provide  a  representative 
sample  of  graduates:  they  do  not  provide  information  on  the 
school/higher  education  institution  (or  the  country)  from  which 
individuals graduated, and they do not provide information on the 
satisfaction  of  graduates  with  their  learning  experience  nor  on 
the relevance of their studies for their current job. Nevertheless, 
duplication between graduate tracking and other data collections 
at European level should be avoided.

Some complementarity between the European graduate tracking 
data  and  other  large  European  datasets,  e.g.  European  Tertiary 
Education  Register  (ETER)  and  U-Multirank,  LFS,  is  desirable  to 
allow for the linking of data and analysing the role of additional 
drivers on graduate outcomes, such as local economic conditions 
or institutional characteristics (e.g. research performance; ranking 
of the institution, teacher/student ratios, etc.).

The expert group also considered the current and potential use 
of ‘big data’ to support graduate tracking, e.g. through presenta-
tions  from  international  IT  companies  and  national  initiatives 
for graduates to use online databases to identify their skills and 
competences.  At  this  stage  in  the  development  of  these  tools, 
the expert group felt it would be premature to invest heavily in 
such approaches.

2.7 Data protection regulation

In the course of the mandate, the expert group was familiarised 
with the rules and requirements of the GDPR legislation, including 
the responsibilities of data controllers, the principle of account-
ability and the risk-based approach. An important principle that 
emerged from the discussions is that the implementation of the 
GDPR  legislation  is  in  the  remit  of  Member  States.  Any  future 
European graduate tracking initiative has to be fully in line with 
the GDPR requirements; individual Member States have to make 
sure  that  any  handling  of  personal  data  as  part  of  European 
graduate tracking is in line with their national requirements.  

A  more  detailed  analysis  of  the  specific  data  protection  rules 
applicable  to  a  future  European  graduate  tracking  was  outside 
the remit of the expert group but it is evident that data protection 
will  play  a  significant  role  in  determining  the  future  model  for 
the collection of comparable information on graduate outcomes.

13

 
 
3.0 Work and recommendations of task forces

This section summarises the work of each individual task force, 
based on their mandates, and outlines their conclusions and rec-
ommendations.  More  detailed  reports  of  the  work  of  the  task-
forces are available in four annexes to this report, one for each 
task force*.

3.1 Task force 1: Options on comparable 

European graduate data

In examining the different options for organising a graduate out-
comes data collection at EU level, task force 1 took into account 
the policy priorities of the EU, of the Member States and other 
EEA countries, and the needs of other potential users of EU-level 
graduate outcomes data. The starting point were three specific 
options for data collection at the European level:

>  Option 1: a European graduate outcomes project where 
data already collected through national surveys and/
or administrative data matching is collated and made 
available (possibly accompanied by a technical or 
substantive report).

>  Option 2: a European-wide Graduate Survey along  

the lines of the Eurograduate Pilot Survey, but covering  
all Member States and EEA countries.

>  Option 3: a combination of nationally available data  
on graduate outcomes with a European survey or 
a European set of survey questions to be gradually 
integrated into national surveys. 

The evaluation of these options was based on three sets of criteria: 
i) the ability to provide information on the main ‘policy objectives’  
as  set  out  in  the  2017  Council  Recommendation  (see  2.1  The 
starting  point  –  purpose  and  content  of  European  graduate 
tracking); ii) the effectiveness of each option, based on scientific  
(e.g.  quality,  regularity  and  novelty  of  data)  and  non-scientific  
criteria (e.g. cost effectiveness); iii) governance and administra-
tion issues, all of which are elaborated in detail in Annex 1*.

Each option was also discussed in relation to the different groups 
of graduates and different education sub-systems, with particu-
lar  emphasis  on  the  implementation  in  the  VET  sector  and  the 
inclusion of those with doctorates. For each option, task force 1  
analysed  strengths  and  weaknesses,  and  made  a  proposal  to 
the entire expert group, combining elements of the three initial 
options.

The final proposal, agreed upon after an intense and exhaustive 
debate, combines various aspects of the three original options. 
It is based on the reflection that, in the short term, a European 
Graduate Survey (to be designed in such a way as to avoid con-
flicts  or  incongruences  with  existing  national  graduate  surveys) 
is the most appropriate solution to gather comparable graduate 
tracking information as quickly as possible, since administrative 
data  and  indicators  –  due  to  lack  of  homogeneity  among  the 
Member States – cannot guarantee comparability, completeness 
and quality. 

For  the  medium  term,  it  is  recommended  that  Member  States 
and other EEA countries, possibly supported by the EU, develop 
relevant administrative information systems (in case they are not 
yet in place) and ensure the interlinking (educational information 
linked  to  social  security  and  tax  data).  This  will  guarantee  the 
possibility of generating a common set of comparable indicators 
through commonly identified and defined administrative data.

However, due to the very nature of administrative data, this com-
mon  set  does  not  cover  all  the  objectives  of  the  2017  Council 
Recommendation. The proposed solution is to invest in the devel-
opment  of  comparable  and  reliable  administrative  data  at  the 
national level that would provide the bulk of the factual informa-
tion, leaving to a (flexible) European Graduate Survey the task of 
gathering data on aspects such as opinions and evaluations that 
are not provided by administrative data. Member States and oth-
er  EEA  countries,  in  agreement  with  the  European  Commission, 
should handle the organisation of the survey. 

Ultimately this will generate a European coordinated information 
system  in  which  Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries  could 
share  their  national  information  (administrative  data,  values  of 
the  statistical  indicators  as  well  as  survey  data).  This  shall  be 
achieved  by  respecting  such  fundamental  European  values  as 
institutional  freedom,  national  autonomy  and  social  dialogue. 
When  completed,  this  European  coordinated  information  sys-
tem would include information on all graduates covered by the 
Council Recommendation, including VET graduates and holders of 
doctorates. These activities should go hand in hand with broader 
initiatives such as the European Data Strategy17 and the review 
of the Public Sector Information (PSI) directive18. Where technical 
conditions can be met, the collection of comparable EU graduate 
data should be as comprehensive as possible.

The understanding of the group, however, is that this process will 
be gradual and that not all Member States and other EEA coun-
tries and education sectors/areas/systems will be able, or willing, 
to participate in the European Graduate Survey and the adminis-
trative data sharing for all graduates, certainly not from the start. 
It is very important to ensure that the information collection – via 
a  European  Survey,  national  surveys  or  national  administrative 
data – satisfies high-quality data standards in order to guarantee 
that the collected data are reliable and comparable.

14

 
 
3.2 Task force 2: Information on mobile 
graduate students and employees

European harmonised information about the volume and pattern 
of mobile graduates is important to ensure a full picture of the 
labour market outcomes for graduates. Including mobile gradu-
ates in tracking systems provides an insight into one of the core 
principle of the EU: the free movement of people. This task force 
carried out the following:

>  Provided the definition of the mobile graduate. 

>  Explored options on how to best capture mobile  

graduates with graduate tracking measures; assessed 
data sources to be used. 

>  Assessed the scope and relevance of data collection 

efforts at national, EU and international levels. 

>  Discussed the data protection rules to be considered. 

>  Identified the information needed to analyse the drivers 

of international graduate mobility and the socioeconomic 
effects of brain drain/brain gain at regional and  
national levels.

For  the  purpose  of  this  graduate  tracking  initiative,  a  mobile 
graduate is a person possessing an academic (equivalent to EQF  
level  6  and  higher)  or  a  vocational  degree  (equivalent  to  EQF  
level 4 and higher), and working or learning in a different country 
from that of graduation at any point following completion of his/
her studies. 

Regardless of the sources of data on mobile graduates (surveys 
or administrative data), the data itself needs to satisfy the infor-
mational  requirements  defined  by  task  force  1  (see  4.1  Identi-
fication of the informational requirements), with one additional 
criterion: information needs to be representative with respect to 
the ‘mobile graduate’ dimension.

Below are some of the key ‘policy questions’ (derived from the 
2017 Council Recommendation ‘policy objectives’) that data on 
mobile graduates would help to answer:

>  What are the sectors that attract most mobile graduates? 

>  To what extent are the skills and knowledge acquired  
by individuals while studying in one country relevant  
for employment in another country?

>  What are the skills and knowledge needed in  

an international labour market?

>  Do mobile graduate workers earn, on average, more  
than similar workers who do not move abroad?  
If they do, does the wage premium associated with 
moving abroad change depending on the home or 
destination country?

>  Do mobile graduate workers display higher levels  
of job satisfaction than similar graduates who do  
not move abroad?

Task force 2 recognises that there are several obstacles to creat-
ing a harmonised European system that would also track mobile 
graduates  and  provide  meaningful  messages  about  this  popu-
lation. The most prominent difficulty is the current implausibility 
of connecting different graduate tracking systems and different  
countries,  which  could  potentially  be  solved  by  establishing  
a cross-border (or European) identity. 

Finally, task force 2 recommends a modular approach that dis-
tinguishes  between  short  and  medium  term.  In  the  short  term,  
a European Graduate Survey appears as the only solution able to 
guarantee that comparable graduate data (including on mobile 
graduates) are collected and used to provide information on the 
dimensions specifically underlined by the 2017 Council Recom-
mendation. For the medium term, it is advisable to support the 
development and linking of administrative data, both within and 
across EU Member States and EEA countries, together with the 
adoption of a unique student/EU ID registration number (possibly 
linked to stable contact details) that would allow the tracking of 
mobile graduates.

15

 
3.3 Task force 3: Information on 
administrative data items

would guarantee completion, reliability and the comparability of 
graduate tracking data.

3.4 Task force 4: Principles and 

standards for VET

Task force 3 focused its work on the following work aspects:

Thirdly, task force 3 identified the following prerequisites for estab-
lishing a EU graduate tracking system using administrative data:

The  task  force  identified  a  set  of  principles  and  standards  that 
can be used for the following:

1.  Graduate  identification  (e.g.  using  a  unique  identifier)  for 
graduate tracking at national level and across borders.

2.  Identification of administrative/registry data that could be 
used for tracking graduates and their availability in Member 
States.

3.  Prerequisites for the creation of a EU graduate tracking sys-

tem based on administrative data.

Firstly, a prerequisite for tracking graduates using administrative 
data is a unique identifier (ID), which enables the identification 
of an individual through various registers. Examples from Austria 
and  other  countries  show  that  this  matching  is  possible  with 
total respect for data privacy regulations. Tracking an individual 
across records – both at national and international levels – can 
be  supported  by  the  work  done  on  cross-border  identification  
and authentication by the eIDAS19 project. Although this system 
cannot be applied directly to graduate tracking at the moment,  
it should be possible at a later stage.

Secondly, task force 3 set up an electronic survey to evaluate the 
current status of administrative data availability and coverage in 
the Member States and other EEA countries. Of the 27 Member 
States invited to participate, 20 responded, providing the requested 
information20  on higher education, VET or both. The results of the 
survey  show  the  vast  heterogeneity  in  data  availability  across 
Member States and signal that it would be necessary to invest 
resources  at  national  level  to  improve  the  administrative  data 
collection in many Member States and other EEA countries, which 

1.  A  uniform  methodology  for  collecting  individual  graduate 
tracking data should be set up at the European level. This 
will ensure comparability and reliability of data. As the evo-
lution of the HE and VET systems and labour market is an 
ongoing process, the methodology should be re-evaluated 
periodically.

2.  As a first step, graduate tracking at the EU level should be 
based on Member States reporting commonly agreed indi-
cators,  which  are  calculated  on  the  basis  of  Europe-wide 
standardised data features (i.e. coverage of the entire tar-
get  population,  coverage  of  specific  graduate  cohorts  for 
specific years of graduation etc.).

3.  Ultimately, it is desirable to provide access to anonymised 
microdata,  in  accordance  with  GDPR  and  national  regula-
tions, as this would allow for an in-depth analysis of grad-
uate tracking information at EU level. Member States and 
other  EEA  countries  are  encouraged  to  find  appropriate  
IT  solutions  to  guarantee  high-quality  data  for  graduate 
tracking within a coordinated EU system of information.

4.  A  clear  model  of  data  access  and  governance  should  be 
established.  Data  collection  and  processing  at  EU  level 
could be entrusted to Eurostat in cooperation with national 
statistical offices.

5.  Finally,  EU-level  data  should  be  made  publicly  available 
in coherence with open access politics, in accordance with 
GDPR and national regulations.

>  To guide those responsible for designing and  
implementing VET graduate tracking systems. 

>  To encourage self-reflection and self-evaluation.

>  To facilitate the development of comparable  

European data.

These  principles  and  standards  build  on  existing  European  work 
such  as  the  European  Quality  Assurance  in  VET  framework  
(EQAVET)21, the research and development work of Cedefop and the 
European Training Foundation (ETF), and national good practices. 

When  taken  together,  the  principles  and  standards  provide  the 
basis for ensuring the availability or strengthening of the qual-
ity of tracking data, and enable tracking systems to align at EU 
level (even though national VET systems and approaches remain 
different). The principles and standards have been designed for 
the target audience of the VET sector with concrete examples of 
VET tracking measures from the countries represented in the task 
force.  However  there  is  much  that  is  also  applicable  to  higher 
education and school tracking systems. 

16

 
 
 
 
The principles are fundamental to the development and strength-
ening of graduate tracking systems. They enable long-term trends 
to be established and analysed, and they create a framework for 
the strategic direction of a graduate tracking system. 

A graduate tracking system should:

Standards provide practical guidelines for those seeking to design 
or improve tracking systems. These standards are based on a syn-
thesis  of  good  practice,  current  knowledge  and  emerging  ideas 
relating to tracking. Taken together, they enable the effective oper-
ation of a graduate tracking system in line with the principles set 
out above. 

1.  put  the  students’  right  to  high-quality,  inclusive,  relevant 
and  efficient  education  and  training  at  the  centre  of  the 
tracking  process,  as  set  by  the  first  Chapter  of  the  Euro-
pean Pillar of Social Rights, with special focus on the right 
to  quality  education,  training  and  lifelong  learning  and  to 
active support to employment;

2.  be underpinned by a quality assurance system;

3.  respect private information in line with the data protection 
rules and ensure confidentiality for all graduates who are 
tracked;

4.  demonstrate clear links with other education policies;

5.  supplement other sources of intelligence to support the eval-
uation, planning and governance of complex skills systems.

Tracking systems should:

1.  contribute to the agreed objectives of the VET system(s);

2.  aim at covering all initial and continuing VET programmes;

3.  aim at providing quality data on the full graduate population;

4.  enable comparative analysis between subgroups of learners;

5.  use comparison groups;

6.  be based on multiple measurement points in order to create 

a longitudinal analysis;

7.  define the desired quality of the tracking information and use 
quality assurance to support the graduate tracking system;

8.  ensure  that  information  from  graduate  tracking  systems 
is  accessible  in  a  form  that  meets  the  agreed  needs  of 
stakeholders and social partners;

9.  strengthen cross-border partnerships by including graduates 
who move to another country following the completion of 
their programme;

10.  contribute to EU-level cooperation in VET.

The task force recommended that these principles and standards 
should be adopted by the expert group as the basis for developing 
and strengthening VET graduate tracking systems. This recommen-
dation was accepted by the expert group.

17

18

4.0 Recommendations from the expert group 

This section sets out the recommendations from the whole expert 
group based on the work of the task forces and the deliberations 
in  the  plenary.  These  recommendations  represent  the  broadest 
possible consensus among the experts.

Finally,  the  broad  policy  areas  that  the  informational  require-
ments correspond to are:

4.1.2 Essential and recommended information

4.1 Identification of the informational 

lifelong learning. 

>  Relevance of education and training to employment and 

>  Existence of horizontal and vertical skill-mismatches and 
their drivers (including field of study, student’s/graduate’s 
ability, parental background, area of residence, etc.).

>  Social mobility and integration: i) the role of higher 

education in fostering vertical social mobility; ii) labour 
market outcomes of underrepresented groups in higher 
education after graduation in comparison with other 
groups.

>  Impact of learning mobility on labour mobility and 

employment (including destination countries/regions).

requirements

4.1.1 Policy objectives and related policy questions

To  operationalise  the  ‘policy  objectives’  of  the  2017  Council 
Recommendation, the expert group translated them into ‘policy  
questions’  of  value  for  European  and  national  policy-making. 
Starting off with some 40 policy questions prepared by the Euro-
pean  Commission,  task  force  1  was  able  to  narrow  down  the 
number of key policy questions to 16 (widest list), 10 (wide list), 
and 7 (limited list), elaborated in detail in Annex 1*. These policy 
questions then framed the practical decisions around the statis-
tics to be collected at EU level (see 4.1.2 Essential and recom-
mended information).

The first challenge the group encountered in this process was to 
differentiate clearly between policy objectives, policy questions, 
indicators, variables and data/information requirements. The sec-
ond challenge in this process was to find agreement on a defin-
itive  list  of  policy  questions  that  would  satisfy  all  the  different 
target groups, from European and national policy-makers to data 
analysts and researchers. Finally, an added complexity was the 
need  to  take  into  account  the  feasibility  of  collecting  data  on 
the policy questions from two different sources, (administrative 
statistical data and survey data), both in their own state of devel-
opment across European countries.

The expert group has identified a set of factual background infor-
mation that is essential to meet the requirements of the 2017 
Council Recommendation and which needs to be collected for all 
graduates (Essential information (A)). 

The expert group also recognises that there exists a set of infor-
mation  beyond  the  factual  background  information  that  would 
need to be obtained to fully satisfy the policy objectives set by 
the  2017  Council  Recommendation.  It  therefore  recommends 
that  these  data  be  also  collected  for  all  graduates  (Recom-
mended  information  (B)).  These  informational  requirements 
are subdivided into thematic areas for ease of reading.

Member  States  and  EEA  countries  are  also  free  to  expand  the 
list of information collected for graduate tracking beyond those 
suggested by the expert group. 

The classification into two categories of ‘information’ here aims 
to offer a list of future comparable European graduate tracking 
data with a degree of complexity and usefulness. In the long run, 
the  idea  is  that  most  of  the  items  on  list  A  could  be  gathered 
using linked administrative data, while some of the items on list B  
would require a graduate survey.

19

 
Essential information (A)

Recommended information (B)

Job search, career progression and satisfaction

>  Date of birth (month/year)

>  Gender

>  Country of birth and citizenship

>  Country of residence

>  Completed degree (possibly with indications  
of the final grade22) and field of education

>  Employment status

>  Sector and occupation (for those employed)

>  Geographical destination of employment

>  Basic information on working conditions  
(full time vs. part time; contract type)

>  Educational achievement level of parents

>  Information on career progression (job history  
before present job), including further formal  
learning after graduation

>  International study mobility (i.e. degree and credit  

mobility of graduates while studying)

>  International labour mobility of graduates

Background information

>  Children and partner (and basic related information  
such as age, education and employment status)  

>  Employment duration and work experience

>  Income/earnings (labour and other forms of income)

Education

>  Full education history

>  Education delivery models (fully online vs. fully  
face-to-face vs. mixed model; working student)

>  Education experience and work-based learning  
experience after or before graduation, and  
perception of relevance for the current job

Skills

>  Self-assessment of skills

>  Relevance of the skills acquired by graduates during 
education and training, and the skills they are using  
in their current job (self evaluation)

>  Reasons for the lack of a horizontal match  
(for graduates not horizontally matched)  
(self-evaluation)

>  Reasons for the lack of a vertical match  

(for graduates not vertically matched) (self-evaluation)

>  Job search duration/length of time incurred between 

graduation and first job

>  Satisfaction with the learning experience (education  
and work-based), in general and in relationship with  
the current and with past jobs and with the job  
search experience

>  Job satisfaction

>  Quality of employment

Mobility 

>  Drivers of mobility decision (including expectations)

>  Detailed information on the work/education  

conditions of mobile graduates (see Annex 2)*

20

4.2 A gradual approach that includes 
both a European Graduate Survey 
and administrative data

There are significant differences in the existing graduate tracking 
systems in Member States and EEA countries, and in the organi-
sation, governance, quality assurance and qualifications offered 
by higher and vocational education institutions (see 2.3 State of 
graduate tracking in national systems). The expert group recom-
mends that the European Commission works with Member States 
and EEA countries to establish a gradual two-step approach to 
graduate tracking, taking into account the status quo of data col-
lection in the different Member States and EEA countries and also 
the relative pros and cons of survey and administrative data.

Step 1: Short term – a European Graduate Survey 

Considering  the  results  of  the  work  done  by  task  force  3  (see 
Annex 3*) on the status of administrative data, the expert group 
considers  that,  in  the  short  term,  only  a  European  Graduate  
Survey (or surveys) could generate comparable graduate track-
ing data, especially for countries that have no graduate tracking 
systems  in  place.  It  is  also  the  only  solution,  under  the  current 
conditions – and provided that stable contact details are recorded 
– that would allow the tracking of graduates who have moved 
to other Member States and EEA countries, either for education, 
work or personal reasons. 

This survey (or surveys) should take place (at least) every 4 years  
and  Member  States  and  EEA  countries  should  be  invited  to 
become  involved  (participation  is  voluntary).  The  European  
Commission  should  encourage  participation  with  the  aim  of 
gradually achieving full coverage for all EU and other EEA mem-

bers, in line with the 2017 Council Recommendation. During the 
development of this survey, it will be important to ensure that the 
statistical process for selecting graduates is based on a rigorous 
sampling methodology to allow for the collection of representa-
tive data rather than being based on the pragmatic availability 
of  graduate  contact  information.  Where  the  conditions  are  not 
in  place  to  ensure  the  highest  methodological  standards,  the 
cohorts should not be included. 

It is also fundamental to design the questionnaire properly, ensur-
ing that the relevant ‘policy questions’ can be assessed, that the 
questionnaires  are  coherent  across  Member  States  and  other 
EEA countries, that high response rates are obtained in individual 
Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries  and  that  the  response 
rates of national surveys are not negatively affected.

Each  wave  of  the  European  Graduate  Survey  (surveys)  should 
address  two  cohorts  of  graduates:  the  cohort  of  graduates  who 
completed their course in the previous year and the cohort of grad-
uates who completed their course 5 years prior to the survey23.

The expert group recommends that with regard to higher education:

up to 80 %

of countries  
        participate in  
             the second 
                      wave 

up to

50 %

of countries participate 
 in the first wave of the graduate 

survey

However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  a  survey  roll-out  requires 
that  the  governance  structure  and  funding  has  been  agreed 
upon by Member States, other EEA countries and the European 
Union. After that, it would probably take between 1 and 2 years 
before the survey can be conducted. Indeed, the COVID-19 crisis 
may have an effect on the proposed timeline. It is important for 
some members of the expert group to note that the funding of 
this initiative through EU sources should not be to the detriment 
of  existing  actions  funded  through  the  Erasmus  programme,  in  
a scenario of limited resources following the COVID pandemic.

Step 2: Medium term – linked administrative data 

Looking at the medium term, the expert group recommends that 
Member States and other EEA countries, with the support of the 
European  Union,  improve  the  collection  and  linking  of  adminis-
trative data, particularly in relation to education, labour market 
participation and earnings. Member States and other EEA coun-
tries  that  have  experience  in  collecting  and  linking  this  type  of 
data could provide valuable information on how to structure such 
data collection, its costs and its benefits. The European Union (the 
European Commission, Eurostat, etc.) could also support this pro-
cess by suggesting how to make the relevant administrative data 
reliable and comparable across all countries. 

In order to track mobile graduates, the expert group recognises 
that the adoption of a unique European identifier (possibly linked 
to  stable  contact  details)  would  be  an  important  step  forward. 
However, this point will need to be further addressed by the Euro-
pean Union and by the Member States and other EEA countries.  

The  process  of  administrative  data  integration  should  start  as 
soon as possible, but is not likely to be completed in a short time, 
as it involves many complex issues that must be discussed and 

21

 
 
 
 
coordinated across different Member States and other EEA coun-
tries  (including  disclosure  policies,  which  need  to  be  addressed 
thoroughly). However, when completed, there will be a collection 
of comparable data on many ‘policy questions’ of national and 
European relevance. Regarding administrative data, work needs 
to  commence  with  the  preparation  of  a  methodological  hand-
book so as to ensure comparability and help countries by setting 
a benchmark.  

When comparable and high-quality administrative data become 
available for many participating countries, it will be possible to 
further reduce the length of the questionnaire of the European 
Graduate Survey, which could be dedicated to those ‘policy ques-
tions’ that cannot be addressed with administrative data (such as 
those in list B in 4.1.2). The elaboration of the method of linking 
administrative data with survey responses was outside the remit 
of this expert group. However, the group acknowledged that much 
can  be  learned  from  those  EU  countries  that  have  this  kind  of 
matching in place.

4.3 Target groups

The expert group recommends a pragmatic approach to tracking 
different  types  of  graduates.  Ultimately,  European-wide  com-
parable  graduate  tracking  should  include  EQF  levels  4  to  8,  as  
set  out  in  the  Council  Recommendation.  However,  given  that  
higher  education  systems  are  more  comparable  across  the  EU 
than VET systems, and given that in many countries the condi-
tions  for  tracking  higher  education  graduates  are  more  easily 
met, higher education is likely to move faster towards that goal. 

Participation in the European Graduate Survey is voluntary. Also, 
Member States can choose whether to include the doctoral/PhD 
graduates  in  the  European  Graduate  Survey.  Future  work  on 
tracking PhD graduates can rely on the resources already avail-
able on this topic24, EU projects25 and professional networks of 
stakeholders26.

The roadmap for potential inclusion of VET graduates will be fine-
tuned  in  the  framework  of  the  future  governance  structure.  In 
countries where the conditions are already in place in the short 
term, Member States can choose to include VET graduates in the 
European Graduate Survey.

For the advancement of VET graduate tracking, the expert group 
recommends  that  the  European  Commission  and  national/  
regional authorities use a common set of principles and standards 
to  inform  the  development  and  strengthening  of  system-wide 
tracking measures (for details see 3.4 Task force 4: Principles and 
standards for VET).

4.4 Implementation and integration of  
a European Graduate Survey with 
national graduate tracking measures: 
a modular approach

The introduction of a European Graduate Survey needs to take 
into account the fact that, in some Member States and EEA coun-
tries, national graduate surveys and administrative data tracking 
measures are already in place. The technical assessment of the 
Eurograduate  pilot  survey  notes  that  for  the  majority  of  coun-
tries there is either no national graduate survey conflicting with 
a  European  graduate  survey  or  that  it  was  possible  to  identify 
workable solutions for aligning the national survey with a Euro-
pean survey27. However, for 7 (out of 29) Erasmus+ countries no 
workable solutions have yet been identified. 

The expert group has considered various options for the integra-
tion  of  national  graduate  tracking  measures  and  the  European 
Graduate Survey, and recommends the following solutions:

1.  EU  Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries  that  do  not 
have a graduate survey in place participate in the European 
Graduate Survey, with the possibility of expanding the list of 
data requirements in light of national policies and interests.

2.  EU Member States and other EEA countries that have in 
place  national  graduate  tracking  measures  and  wish  to 
participate  in  the  European  Graduate  Survey,  need  to 
choose one of the three options below:

22

 
 
2.a.  Countries  can  either  choose  to  stop  running  their 
national  graduate  survey  in  the  year  in  which  the 
European Graduate Survey is carried out and only run 
the  latter,  or  they  can  choose  to  run  their  national 
survey in parallel with the European Graduate Survey.

2.b.  Add  a  national  module  to  the  European  Graduate 
Survey  in  the  year  in  which  the  latter  is  run.  In  the 
national  module,  participating  countries  can  add 
questions  that  are  of  national  interest.  Since  the 
European  Graduate  Survey  is  designed  to  ensure 
cross-country comparability, the addition of national 
modules will only affect the cross-country compara-
bility of these modules.

2.c.  Satisfy  the  data  requirements  with  data  gathered 
through their national survey or administrative data, 
while guaranteeing comparability of data. It is within 
the limits of the countries to use existing instruments 
of  data  collection  adapted  to  the  national  context 
to  collect  all  or  parts  of  the  data.  In  this  case,  it  is 
important to ensure that the data gathered are fully 
comparable across countries, which requires the col-
laboration of Member States and other EEA countries.

would need to provide evidence that their data satisfy the quality 
standards and informational requirements to ensure full compa-
rability across countries.

The introduction of a European Graduate Survey should also take 
into account the principles, timing and approaches used by the 
Eurostat, Eurostudent and Eurydice data collections.

A full assessment of the quality standard achieved in each wave 
of the European Graduate Survey should be ensured.

Concerning Option 2.c., the timing of the national graduate sur-
veys (i.e. the interval following graduation), the sampling meth-
ods  adopted  and  the  methods  used  to  contact  graduates  will 
all  heavily  influence  the  degree  of  cross-country  comparability. 
Member  States  and  EEA  countries  making  use  of  this  option 

23

c)  Following on from point b) above, there are different ways 
and formats in which data can be collected at the Euro-
pean level. One option is to produce indicators on the rel-
evant policy dimensions.29 On the other side of the spec-
trum  are  microdata,  which  are  used  to  derive  aggregate 
measures, such as indicators. 

The use of microdata provides additional value to stake-
holders,  including  policy-makers,  because  they  enable:  
1)  identifying  the  role  of  each  individual  driver  (hence 
satisfying  the  so-called  ‘other  things  being  equal’  condi-
tion);  2)  analysing  and  estimating  the  effect  of  specific 
drivers  (including  policies)  on  the  relevant  outcome  var-
iables.  Microdata  are  essential  for  understanding  ‘what 
works’ and ‘for whom’, and their use can greatly support 
policy-makers, both at national and international levels. 

The  expert  group  recommends  that  indicators  are  made 
available. There is also a need for further discussions on 
the possibility of making microdata available as well, pro-
vided that data protection and GDPR rules and regulations 
are respected. This discussion needs to take place as part 
of the follow-up work because the expert group has not 
yet had a chance to discuss it in depth.

d)  The expert group acknowledges the expertise of research 
data centres to host and provide access to data gathered 
by the European graduate tracking project in observance 
of data protection laws and GDPR.

4.6 Governance within a European 

network

Given  the  gradual  and  modular  approaches  recommended  by 
the  expert  group,  it  is  important  to  design  a  governance  mod-
el that can bring forward the development of graduate tracking 
in Europe, while respecting the competences and choices of the 
Member States and other EEA countries. The governance model 
will need to ensure that the required competences are provided in 
the relevant decision-making bodies. The expert group has iden-
tified three sets : a) competences in the area of survey design 
and implementation; b) competences in the area of administra-
tive data integration; and c) competences in the area of privacy 
protection and GDPR (possibly from a comparative perspective).

The group also acknowledged the crucial role that higher educa-
tion  institutions  and  VET  institutions  play  in  the  success  of  the 
graduate tracking project, especially in the area of graduate sur-
veys. As key partners in building the relationship towards gradu-
ates (often educational institutions only hold the contact details 
of  graduates),  the  institutions  need  to  see  a  clear  benefit  of  
a  European-wide  graduate  tracking  in  order  to  take  ownership 
of  the  process.  The  educational  institutions  need  to  be  part  of 
the future governance structure in order to help shape the final 
product according to their needs.

4.5 Access to data

The  expert  group  recommends  that  Member  States,  other  EEA 
countries and the European Commission explore different possi-
bilities for data sharing and use between Member States, other 
EEA countries, the EU and other stakeholders in compliance with 
the European legislation on open data and the re-use of public 
sector information28.

The expert group recommends that when discussing the possibili-
ties for data sharing, the following key principles are observed (for 
both survey and administrative data):

a) 

b) 

It is essential to ensure compliance with national data protec-
tion laws and the GDPR. This requires a careful assessment of 
the legal implications of every proposed solution, considering 
the relevant national and EU laws and regulations.

It  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  data  gathered  for  the 
European  graduate  tracking  project  (survey  and  admin-
istrative  data)  provides  value  to  the  largest  number  of 
stakeholders.  These  include  Member  States,  other  EEA 
countries, EU institutions (including the European Commis-
sion, the European Parliament and the European Council), 
higher education institutions, social partners, researchers, 
citizens, companies and organisations. 

Different types of users are likely to benefit from this data 
in different ways. For this reason, graduate tracking data 
should be made available in styles and formats that are 
useful  for  the  different  stakeholders.  Further  discussions 
between  the  European  Commission  and  the  countries 
need to take place to ensure that the outcomes and the 
presentation of data are aligned with the policy require-
ments and fully adapted to the user groups.

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
The proposed governance model is structured as follows:

1.  Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries  are  invited  to 
establish,  if  currently  not  in  existence,  a  Graduate  Track-
ing  Coordination  Centre  or  reference  point  for  both  higher 
and vocational education and training. Such centres (which 
may be virtual, based on a network of contacts/experts, or 
a physically-located organisation) should be invited to build 
on the existing structures and arrangements in each Mem-
ber State. In accordance with national practice, they should 
bring together existing relevant organisations (for example, 
National Statistical Institutes, representatives of education-
al institutions, etc.) and involve social partners and relevant 
stakeholders at national and regional levels in order to sup-
port the development or strengthening of national graduate 
tracking systems in line with EU policy.

2.  These  national  Coordination  Centres/reference  points 
should form a European network of experts, as foreseen 
by the Council Recommendation on tracking graduates.

3.  The European Commission is invited to provide a Secretar-
iat  to  the  network  of  the  Coordination  Centres/reference 
points, in order to support implementation of the Council 
Recommendation  on  graduate  tracking.  This  Secretariat 
would facilitate cooperation and mutual learning, develop 
and promote guidance material, and provide information 
on  developments  in  graduate  tracking  across  Member 
States and EEA countries and more widely.

4.  The network (point 2 above) and the network’s Secretariat 
(point 3 above) are invited to create a Steering Committee/ 
Board to strategically guide the implementation of gradu-
ate tracking among all participating countries. The Steer-
ing Committee/Board should consist of a limited number 
of  representatives  of  the  network,  the  Secretariat/Euro-
pean Commission, representatives of European networks, 

Eurostat,  European  agencies  in  the  relevant  fields30  and 
European-level  social  partners31.  It  will  provide  guidance 
for the practical work of the network and the Secretariat 
towards  the  implementation  of  the  Council  Recommen-
dation.  The  representatives  of  the  network  should  either 
be  elected  from  among  the  centres/reference  points  bi- 
annually,  or  follow  the  sequence  of  the  trio  Presidencies 
of the Council.

The  European  Commission  is  invited  to  continue  working  with 
Member States in the framework of the Open Method of Coor-
dination in order to advance the implementation of the Council 
Recommendation  on  tracking  graduates  among  policy-makers 
and representatives of the EU governments.

European graduate tracking 

coordination structure

Steering Board

Secretariat

Network of national centres

National 
Centre

National 
Centre

National 
Centre

4.7 Monitoring the graduate tracking 

recommendation

Monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  Council  recommenda-
tion on graduate tracking means measuring the extent to which 
national  systems  collect,  analyse  and  use  data  to  improve  the 
quality  and  relevance  of  students’  programmes.  As  described 
above, the expert group recommends that the Secretariat should 
work  with  the  Coordination  Centres/reference  points  to  monitor 
progress  in  implementing  the  graduate  tracking  recommenda-
tion. The Secretariat should coordinate this process to ensure that 
the  information  provided  is  available  in  a  standardised  format.  
It  is  important  that  the  approach  used  for  monitoring  is  devel-
oped in partnership with the Coordination Centres/reference points 
to  ensure  a  non-judgemental  and  supportive  methodology  and 
reporting system.

The  expert  group  noted  the  current  position  in  relation  to  the 
implementation  of  the  2017  Council  Recommendation  (as 
described in Section 4 of the 2020 study on mapping graduate 
tracking practices32) and proposes that this is used as the basis 
for monitoring its implementation every 2 years. In order to sim-
plify the work of the Coordination Centres/reference points, the 
timing of this 2-yearly monitoring cycle should be aligned with 
the collection of data through the European Graduate Survey. 

25

 
The  expert  group  recommends  that  the  Secretariat  uses  these 
measures  as  the  basis  for  the  initial  monitoring  of  the  imple-
mentation of the graduate tracking recommendation. Over time, 
the Secretariat, in partnership with the Graduate Tracking Coor-
dination Centres/reference points and the European Commission, 
should refine these criteria to reflect emerging developments and 
priorities.

4.8 Timelines

The expert group recommends that national authorities (at either 
regional  or  system  level)  agree  a  timeline  to  implement  the 
Council Recommendation on graduate tracking. 

The expert group recommends that the target timeline should be:

80 %

of countries  
  have fully
implemented the  
       Recommendation 
                     by 2025

100 %

of countries have fully implemented  
             the Recommendation by 2030

The monitoring arrangements should be based on a broad view 
of the recommendation’s implementation. The expert group rec-
ommends that the following five criteria (as put forward by the 
2020 mapping study) form the basis of evaluating the progress 
made in implementing the Council Recommendation:

>  Inclusion of graduate programmes – coverage of 
relevant programmes in higher education, initial and 
continuing vocational education and training, PhD 
programmes.

>  Inclusion of graduates – inclusion of all types of 

graduates in each cohort, including people who migrate  
to another country after graduation.

>  Longitudinal tracking – tracking graduates at different 

times after they have graduated.

>  Quality of data – based on qualitative and quantitative 
information from both survey and administrative data33, 
the gathered information should be used to understand 
graduates’ progress based on education/training  
providers, regions, fields of study, etc.

>  Dissemination and use of data – anonymised data 

is available in an open format so that it can be used for 
different purposes and by different users in the national/
regional systems in compliance with GDPR. Ongoing 
communication with the users of data is ensured and  
data is published under open access policy.

26

 
5.0 Next steps

This report should be published and disseminated in the Mem-
ber  States  and  other  EEA  countries,  as  well  as  to  the  relevant 
EU agencies, and discussed in relevant EU entities that relate to 
higher education, vocational education, data gathering and evi-
dence-based policymaking. 

The topic of the use and proper utilisation of data on graduate 
outcomes at national and European level in line with the needs 
of the different users should be further explored. 

The  European  Commission  and  Member  States  need  to  make 
formal political decisions on the issues of capacity building, the 
content, schedule and roll-out of the European Graduate Survey, 
EU-level  data  management  and  access  issues,  the  governance 
model and the funding of the EU-level graduate tracking. 

The open issues identified in this report should be discussed at 
the relevant level in the context of the new governance model. 
In particular, clarifying the role of Eurostat and national statisti-
cal offices is important for the further development of EU-level 
graduate tracking.

The European Commission, Member States and other EEA coun-
tries should start taking steps towards implementing the expert 
group’s recommendations.

27

6.0 ANNEX 0: Detailed background information 

6.1 Composition of the expert group

The establishment of a network of experts is part of the European 
Commission’s work to encourage cooperation and mutual learn-
ing in relation to tracking systems and their further development. 
The expert group consisted of: i) delegations from 27 EU Member 
States and EEA countries, with each delegation comprising up to 
2 representatives and 2 alternates, making a total of 52 Mem-
ber State representatives; ii) representatives from 10 stakeholder 
organisations; iii) 4 representatives from EU bodies. 

The  expert  group  members  came  from  a  diverse  range  of 
organisations,  including  ministries  of  education,  state  agen-
cies,  research  institutes  and  higher  education  institutions.  The 
expert  group  included  stakeholders  from  the  European  Univer-
sity  Association,  European  Council  of  Doctoral  Candidates  and 
Junior  Researchers  (EURODOC),  the  European  Students’  Union, 
the  European  Trade  Union  Confederation  (ETUC),  the  European 
Trade  Union  Committee  for  Education  (ETUCE),  the  European 
Association of former members of the European Association of 
Aerospace Students (EUROAVIA), the European Vocational Train-
ing  Association  (EVTA),  the  Groningen  Declaration  Network,  the 
German  Academic  Exchange  Service  (DAAD)  and  The  Guild  of 
European Research-Intensive Universities. 

Four  EU  bodies  (Cedefop,  the  European  Training  Foundation, 
Eurostat  and  the  Joint  Research  Centre)  were  also  invited  to 
participate  in  the  expert  group,  which  was  chaired  by  a  repre-
sentative from the European Commission’s DG Education, Youth, 
Sport and Culture (DG EAC) and managed in close liaison with DG 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL). 

these meetings were held virtually). The taskforce chairs met on 
many occasions in between the plenary meetings. Members who 
voluntarily acted as taskforce chairs were instrumental in pushing 
the work of the group forward and in translating the outcomes of 
the discussions into recommendations.

> In three countries without system-level graduate track-

ing, the Eurograduate survey provided a significant push 
to start developing a national system: HR, GR and MT.

> In CY and LI there is currently little or no relevant  

experience with graduate tracking.

6.2 State of play of graduate tracking  
in the Member States and other  
EEA countries

The work of the expert group was informed by the 2020 study on 
‘Mapping the state of graduate tracking policies and practices in 
EU Member States and EEA countries’34.

1. 

In terms of coverage of graduate tracking measures, the 
study  concluded  that  about  two  thirds  of  the  countries 
have system-level graduate tracking in higher education 
and  VET.  The  remainder  will  have  to  make  considerable 
improvements if they are to establish system-level grad-
uate tracking in the next 5 years. In particular:

> Higher education and VET graduate tracking is an 

established practice in 18 countries: AT, BE-NL, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, LT, NL, NO, SE, SK, UK.

> Five countries have system-level graduate tracking 

measures for just one of the sectors: higher education: 
BG, HU, PL; VET: BE-FR, PT.

2. 

In  terms  of  whether  graduate  tracking  is  an  entrenched 
practice, the study found that the countries where graduate 
tracking is a legal obligation tend to have well-established 
tracking systems. However, a legal basis is not a necessary 
condition for regular graduate tracking.

> In almost half of the countries, graduate tracking is 

both a legal obligation and a regular practice: AT, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, PL, SE, and UK.

> In another third of countries, graduate tracking is  

a well-developed practice, despite not being a legal 
obligation: BG (in higher education), BE-NL, CZ, IE, LT, 
LU, NO and SK. In some of these countries, tracking is 
considered to be a policy objective (BG, CZ, IE, LT, SK)  
but in a few there is no policy focus on the topic  
(BE-NL, LU and NO).

> A few countries with poorly developed graduate tracking 
have included the aim to do so in recent policy docu-
ments: BE-FR, BG (in VET), HR, MT, RO and SI.

> Two countries can be expected to have higher education  
graduate tracking in place during the next 1 to 2 years: 
LV, SI.

> In the remaining countries, graduate tracking is poorly 
developed and there are no policy objectives related  
to it: CY, GR, IS, LI.

Members  of  the  expert  group  met  in  plenary  on  5  occasions 
between  October  2018  and  September  2020  (the  latter  2  of 

> In RO and IS there are activities but not necessarily  

at the system level.

28

 
 
3. 

In terms of governance for graduate tracking, the respon-
sibility for graduate tracking generally lies with the nation-
al or regional authorities that oversee higher education or 
VET policies. In the countries where no measures can be 
identified at system level, it was not possible to establish 
which level is responsible for graduate tracking. This hap-
pened for VET in BG, for higher education in RO, and for 
both sectors in CY, GR, HR and IS.

4.  Ongoing reforms indicate an increasing use of administra-
tive data and a combination of administrative data and 
surveys:

> New graduate tracking measures are currently 

under development in BG, LV and SI and have been 
announced in FR, HU, LI, LT, PL, RO and SK35.

> Reforms of existing tracking measures are ongoing  

in BE-NL, DE, ES, FI and SE.

> Ongoing or announced reforms indicate an increase  

in the use of administrative data for graduate  
tracking (ES, FR, SK) and an awareness of the impor-
tance of combining administrative data and surveys.

5.  Graduate  tracking  requires  the  involvement  of  different 
ministries,  national  agencies  and  departments,  including 
statistical  offices  and  research  agencies.  Smooth  coop-
eration between these entities as well as with other rel-
evant  parties,  such  as  education  and  training  providers 
and employer representatives, can be a key factor to the 
successful implementation of graduate tracking. 

Common obstacles to the development of graduate track-
ing include lack of leadership or prioritising the fostering 
of  cooperation  between  the  different  actors,  restrictions 
due to differing legislation on personal data protection in 
Member  States,  insufficient  methodological  and  techno-
logical capacity, and insufficient funding.

6.3  Feasibility of a full roll-out of  
the European Graduate Survey

The  group’s  work  has  also  been  informed  by  the  Eurograduate 
Pilot  Survey36,  which  approached  higher  education  graduates  in  
8  countries  (AT,  CZ,  HR,  DE,  GR,  LT,  MT,  NO).  It  covered  nearly  
21 000 bachelor-level and master-level graduates from graduating 
cohorts in the academic years of 2012/1337 and 2016/17. The sur-
vey covered the following aspects: labour market reference, skills, 
(international) mobility, democratic values and further studies. 

Within  its  technical  report38,  the  Eurograduate  pilot  consortium 
has  produced  country  sheets,  primarily  based  on  information 
provided by representatives of the Erasmus+ countries within a 
standardised  questionnaire  and  a  guided  qualitative  follow-up 
interview. Such sheets contain information on countries’ interest 
in participating in a European Graduate Survey and on the risk of 
conflict with existing graduate surveys. 

Of  the  29  countries  that  provided  information,  only  3  declared 
that  they  are  currently  not  interested  (BE  Flanders,  NL,  UK).  
A  further  5  countries  indicated  that  being  interested  would 
require more information or solutions to problems in participating 
in a European Graduate Survey (DE, DK, FI, IE, LU), and 7 countries 
(DE, DK, FI, IE, NL, UK) mentioned the risk of a conflict with exist-
ing national surveys. For several of these countries the adoption 
of  a  modular  and  flexible  approach  to  the  European  Graduate 
Survey is likely to solve these problems. 

The Eurograduate Technical Assessment provides more detailed 
information on the need and possibilities of coordinating a Euro-
pean Graduate Survey with the existing graduate surveys for all 
29  countries  covered.  Moreover,  almost  all  Erasmus+  countries 
are  interested  in  enhancing  their  graduate  tracking  capacities 
with  a  comparative  dimension  (even  when  they  see  a  potential 
risk of conflict/need of coordination with existing national surveys).

The technical report of the Eurograduate Consortium, based on 
its experience in collecting comparable data on higher education 
graduates across the 8 European countries, concludes that a full 
roll-out  of  a  European  Graduate  Survey  would  be  feasible.  To 
ensure participation of the largest possible number of Erasmus+  
countries  it  would  be  necessary  to  satisfy  the  following  condi-
tions: … ‘the added value for institutions needs to be very clear, 
the topics must be relevant to policymaking in the country, the 
data quality must be high in all countries, there must be no con-
flict with existing surveys and ways for cooperation need to be 
found (often they were already identified), and the tasks of coun-
tries and required resources need to be clearly spelled out before 
decisions on participation can be taken’39.

29

 
 
6.4 The link between the information 
requirements and policy questions

The following section was drafted by the Joint Research Centre as 
a background exploration of the kind of data analysis that is pos-
sible if the essential and recommended information is collected at 
the European level. It is for informational purposes only and does 
not form part of the expert group’s recommendations.

How to use Essential information (A) to answer policy questions 

Below we show how different items belonging to list A (Essential 
information) can be combined to provide evidence on the ‘policy 
objectives’ highlighted in the 2017 Council Recommendation and 
identified  by  this  expert  group.  We  present  examples  of:  1)  the 
creation  of  indicators  (e.g.  indexes)  that  can  be  used  to  monitor 
the performance of countries (e.g. existence of trends in horizontal 
mismatches); 2) the analysis directed at better understanding the 
role of specific drivers on the relevant outcome variables (e.g. the 
impact  of  credit  mobility  on  the  likelihood  of  finding  a  matched 
job; the impact of family background on the probability of being 
employed).

Examples of indicators (in relation to the key policy question):

Relevance of education and training to employment and  
lifelong learning:

> Share of graduates who are employed, by gender.

> Distribution of graduates by field of study, by gender.

> Employment patterns by gender, country of birth  

and field of study.

> Share of graduates employed in full-time jobs,  

by gender.

Examples of analysis of drivers  
(in relation to the key policy questions):

> Distribution by field of study of graduates finding  
a job within 6 months from graduation, by gender.

Relevance of education and training to employment  
and lifelong learning:

Analysis of skills mismatches and their drivers:

> Share of graduates employed in occupations that  
are coherent with the field of study in which they  
graduated (horizontal match based on occupation  
and field of study), by gender.

> Share of graduates employed at a qualification level 
coherent with the level of educational attainment 
(vertical match based on educational attainment  
level and occupation), by gender.

Social mobility and integration:

> Distribution of graduates by parental educational  

background, by gender.

> Employment rates of graduates from under- 

represented groups, by gender.

Impact of learning mobility on labour mobility and  
employment:

> Characteristics and mobility patterns of degree  
mobile graduates after graduation, by gender.

> Share of degree/credit mobile graduates that work  

in a country different from that in which they  
graduated, by gender.

> Relationship between post-graduation formal learning 
and the likelihood of being employed (or employed in  
a well-matched job), taking into account gender,  
country of birth, field of study, student’s ability  
and degree/credit mobility.

> Relationship between on-the-job training and the 

likelihood of being well matched, taking into account 
gender, country of birth, field of study, student’s  
ability and degree/credit mobility.

Analysis of skills mismatches and their drivers:

> Relationship between the probability of being  
vertically/horizontally mismatched and gender,  
country of birth, field of study, student’s ability,  
degree/credit mobility, etc.

> Relationship between career progression and the 

condition of being vertically/horizontally mismatched, 
taking into account gender, country of birth, field of 
study, student’s ability, degree/credit mobility, etc.

Social mobility and integration:

> Relationship between labour market outcomes  
(e.g. employment vs. no employment; type of  
employment) and socioeconomic background  
(such as parental education; migrant background),  
taking into account, gender, level of education,  
field of study, student’s ability, etc.

30

 
> Relationship between credit/degree mobility and  
socioeconomic background (such as parental  
education; migrant background), taking into account, 
gender, level of education, field of study, student’s 
ability, etc.

Impact of learning mobility on labour mobility and  
employment:

> Relationship between the probability of being 

employed (including abroad) and credit/degree  
mobility, taking into account socioeconomic back-
ground, gender, level of education, field of study, 
student’s ability, etc.

> Relationship between the probability of being  

vertically/horizontally mismatched and credit/degree 
mobility, taking into account gender, country of birth, 
field of study, student’s ability, etc.

How to combine Essential (A) and Recommended (B)  
information to answer policy questions 

Below we show how, by combining items on list A (Essential infor-
mation) with information from list B (Recommended information), 
it is possible to expand the possibilities of answering the policy 
questions.

Examples of indicators (in relation to the key policy questions):

Relevance of education and training to employment  
and lifelong learning:

> Percentage of graduates who are employed and  
satisfied with their current job40, by gender.

> Percentage of graduates who are satisfied  
with their learning experience, by gender.

Analysis of skills mismatches and their drivers:

> Percentage of graduates who self-assess them-
selves as horizontally/vertically mismatched,  
by gender.

> Percentage of graduates who self-assess them-
selves as vertically/horizontally mismatched  
and their satisfaction with their learning  
experience, by gender.

Social mobility and integration:

> Percentage of graduates from low vs. high parental 
education background that are in the top deciles  
of the distribution of earnings, by gender.

> Percentage of graduates from low vs. high parental 
education background who are satisfied with  
their job, by gender.

31

 
Impact of learning mobility on labour mobility and  
employment:

Analysis of skills mismatches and their drivers:

> Percentage of graduates who are employed among 
those whose foreign degree was recognised, by 
gender.

> Percentage of graduates who are satisfied with 
their job among those who were credit/degree  
mobile, by gender.

Examples of analysis of drivers  
(in relation to the key policy questions):

Relevance of education and training to employment and  
lifelong learning:

> Relationship between non-formal and informal 

learning and labour market outcomes (employment 
vs. no employment; type of employment; satisfaction 
with current job; quality of employment, labour 
income), taking into account gender, field of study, 
self-assessment of skills, sector, occupation,  
full education history, work history, etc.

> Relationship between the probability of being 

employed (alternatively: the quality of employment 
or job satisfaction) and household composition 
(including the presence of children) for female gradu-
ates vs. male graduates, taking into account field of 
study, country of birth, self-assessment of skills,  
full education history, work history, etc.

> Relationship between the probability of being vertically 
and/or horizontally mismatched and participation to 
non-formal learning, taking into account field of 
study, gender, country of birth, full education history, 
work history, etc.

Social mobility and integration:

> Relationship between earnings (or satisfaction with 
the current job or quality of employment) and 
parental educational attainment, taking into account 
gender, field of study, self-assessment of skills, sector,  
occupation, full education history, work history, etc.

Impact of learning mobility on labour mobility  
and employment:

> Relationship between labour market outcomes 

(employment vs. no employment; type of employ-
ment; satisfaction with current job; quality of 
employment, labour income) of mobile graduates 
and formal recognition of their foreign degrees 
(or support from the graduating institution), taking 
into account gender, parental educational attainment, 
field of study, country of birth, existence of special 
relationship with the host country and others. 

32

Footnotes

a 
1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Council Recommendation of 20 November 2017 on tracking graduates (Text with EEA relevance), OJ C 423, 9.12.2017, pp. 1-4, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017H1209%2801%29
In line with the recommendation, this report uses the term ‘graduate’ to refer to a person completing any level of higher education or vocational education and training that is offered at the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) level 4 or above, while 
recognising that some countries also have initiatives to track school leavers.
This is recommended in both the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the European Quality Assurance Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET)
A renewed EU agenda for higher education (COM/2017/0247 final), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1496304694958&uri=COM:2017:247:FIN 
A NEW SKILLS AGENDA FOR EUROPE: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness (COM/2016/0381final), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0381 
Council Recommendation of 20 November 2017 on tracking graduates (Text with EEA relevance) OJ C 423, 9.12.2017, pp. 1-4, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017H1209%2801%29 
Achieving the European Education Area by 2025 – Communication, COM(2020) 625 final, https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/document-library/eea-communication-sept2020_en, p. 23 
See project website www.eurograduate.eu 
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), ICF Consulting Services: Mapping of VET graduate tracking measures in EU Member States: Final report (2018), available at  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/00d61a86-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
Entry of the expert group in the Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Entities: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3580&NewSearch=1&NewSearch=1

9 
10  The reports of the task forces are published as annexes to this report on the following website: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/higher-education/relevant-and-high-quality-higher-education_en
11  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission) and ICF Consulting, Mapping the state of graduate tracking policies and practices in the EU Member States and EEA countries, Final report (2020), available at  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/93231582-a66c-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en, pp. 47-57. 

12  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission) and ICF Consulting, Graduate tracking: A ‘how to do it well’ guide (2020), available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5c71362f-a671-11ea-bb7a

-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search

13  BE-NL is an abbreviation for Flanders.
14  For more details, see Annex 4: Principles and Standards for graduate tracking for VET, standard 10, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/higher-education/relevant-and-high-quality-higher-education_en
15  The European Higher Education Area is an international collaboration in higher education between 48 countries with different political, cultural and academic traditions. During the last 20 years, an area has been created that uses a common set of 

commitments: structural reforms and shared tools. See http://www.ehea.info/

16  Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), ICF Consulting Services: Mapping of VET graduate tracking measures in EU Member States: Final report (2018),  

available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/00d61a86-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

17  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-public-consultation-european-strategy-data 
18  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-consultation-review-directive-re-use-public-sector-information
19  eIDAS – Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market.
20  These are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. In Belgium more than one authority replied, due to the 
federal nature of the country. However, 7 Member States are not included in the analysis:  Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. For these countries there is currently no information to evaluate the existence of (linked) 
administrative data. For Hungary, the national-level VET graduate tracking indicators development project only started in March 2020, financed by a specific European Social Fund (ESF) project (EDIOP-625-2019). The project is therefore at too early a 
stage to be able to provide answers to questions on administrative data, but this can be done when it has reached the appropriate level of maturity. Cyprus replied that administrative data are not available for graduate tracking.

21  https://www.eqavet.eu/What-We-Do/European-Quality-Assurance-Reference-Framework
22  This is often taken as a proxy for students’ ability.
23  This assumes the majority of students start programmes in the autumn and complete in the following summer. Other arrangements may be needed for those whose ‘academic year’ follows a different pattern.
24   Tracking the Careers of Doctorate Holders (EUA-CDE, 2020), How to develop EU-level graduate tracking for doctoral graduates (Eric Carver, 8 October 2020), Declaration on Sustainable Research Careers, (Eurodoc/MCAA, 2019), Delivering talent: careers 
of researchers inside and outside academia (LERU 2018), Career Tracking of Doctoral Holders (ESF, 2017), MORE3 Study ‘Support data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers’ (EC, 2017), Eurograduate Feasi-
bility Study (2016), Careers of Doctorate Holders. Analysis of Labour Market and Mobility Indicators (OECD, 2013).

25  MORE4, DocEnhance, DOC-CAREERS II 
26  European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (Eurodoc), EUA Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE), Professionals in Doctoral Education (PRIDE Network), Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA), national associations of doctoral 

candidates in the EU Member States.

33

27  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission), Eurograduate pilot study: Technical assessment of the pilot survey and feasibility of a full rollout (2020),  

available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8f748637-d079-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

28  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-legislation-reuse-public-sector-information
29  An example would be the share of horizontally mismatched graduates (the outcome variable), by gender and field of study (the relevant characteristics).
30  For example, Cedefop and the European Training Foundation.
31  Since graduate tracking has relevance for the national policies on education, training and employment, the participation of social partners should be ensured in line with the social dialogue principles.
32  Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), ICF Consulting Services: Mapping of VET graduate tracking measures in EU Member States: Final report (2018),  

available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/00d61a86-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

33  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-statistics-code-of-practice
34  Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), ICF Consulting Services: Mapping of VET graduate tracking measures in EU Member States: Final report (2018), available at  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/00d61a86-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

35  A new graduate tracking measure based on administrative data collection was launched in 2019 in Slovakia. Information on the measure was not yet available at the time the ICF (2020) study was completed.
36  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission), Eurograduate Pilot Survey: Design and implementation of a pilot European Graduate Survey (2020), available at:  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/51f88c2e-a671-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
In one of the eight countries, the 2012/13 cohort was covered by a sub-sample of the national graduate survey. 

37 
38  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission), Eurograduate pilot study: Technical assessment of the pilot survey and feasibility of a full rollout (2020),  

available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8f748637-d079-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Ibid.

39 
40  The additional information provided by list B (Recommended information) is in bold. Notice that by using information on list B we can increase the number (and quality) of observable outcomes’ data (e.g. job satisfaction; earnings)  

as well as the number (and quality) of potential drivers (e.g. full education history).
The reports of the task forces are published as annexes to this report on the following website: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/higher-education/relevant-and-high-quality-higher-education_en 

* 

34

Towards a European graduate tracking mechanism – Recommendations of the expert group
2021 – pp.36 – 270 x 170 mm
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
Directorate B — Youth, Education and Erasmus+ 
Unit B.1 — Higher Education 
E-mail: EAC-UNITE-B1@ec.europa.eu
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls);
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/web/general-publications/publications
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

N
C
-
0
3
-
2
0
-
2
7
6
-
E
N
-
N

Facebook 
@EUErasmusPlusProgramme

Twitter 
@EUErasmusPlus