The ratio of students to academic staff ratio is slightly lower in public institutions than in private institutions, with about 15 students per academic staff member in public institutions and 18 in private institutions on average across OECD countries.
Across the OECD, the share of academic staff aged 50 or over has remained at 40% between 2013 and 2023. In Greece, Italy and Korea, more than half of the academic workforce are at least 50 years old, indicating a need to replace a large number of retiring academic staff in the near future.
The representation of women among academic staff has grown since 2013 in most OECD countries, reaching 46% on average across OECD countries in 2023.
Education at a Glance 2025
OECD Indicators
Context
The tertiary education landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including demographic trends, labour-market shifts and institutional diversity. One key metric for assessing academic resources is the ratio of students to academic staff. This ratio is often associated with the level of support and individual attention available to students, but must be interpreted with care at the tertiary level. For instance, short-cycle tertiary programmes – typically vocational in nature – often combine large-scale theoretical instruction with small-group practical modules, resulting in varied levels of staff engagement. There are also different instructional formats at higher levels of education: general courses may be delivered in large lecture halls, while specialised or research-focused programmes often involve smaller groups and more intensive academic interaction. These structural and pedagogical variations highlight the need to consider student-staff ratios in relation to institutional type, level of study and programme orientation. Furthermore, institutional characteristics such as mission, size and geographical distribution can influence how academic resources are allocated, underscoring the importance of disaggregated analysis.
The demand for academic staff across countries is shaped by multiple factors, including workload models, staffing structures and enrolment patterns across education levels. In several OECD countries, a significant share of academic staff is approaching retirement age, raising concerns about future capacity. This is compounded by growing expectations for higher education institutions to contribute to workforce upskilling and adult education, alongside demographic shifts that are likely to increase overall student demand in some countries. Gender and age dynamics further complicate the staffing landscape. Despite policy efforts to promote gender equity, men continue to dominate senior academic ranks in many systems, and women disproportionately face short-term contracts and limited advancement opportunities. These structural inequalities point to the need for more systemic reforms in academic career pathways.
Institutional diversity is another defining feature of tertiary education systems. In response to pressures to promote social equity, meet evolving skills demands and limit costs, governments have expanded traditional universities or introduced new institutional categories in tertiary education (OECD, 2020[1]). This contributes to greater diversity, as newly established institutions tend to develop distinct missions, reputations and performance profiles. In some cases, governments have deliberately created new types of institutions – such as universities of applied sciences – with the explicit goal of fostering “horizontal” differentiation. This approach seeks to promote institutional variety not through hierarchy, but through complementarity, recognising diverse institutions as equally valuable components of the higher education landscape. Understanding institutional diversity across multiple dimensions is thus critical to informing effective policy decisions and long-term strategic planning.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
3. Public institutions only.
For data, see Table D5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
Women are better represented among younger staff, accounting for about 52% of academic staff under 30 on average across OECD countries, a much larger share than among academic staff of all ages (46%).
Young academic staff (under the age of 30) only account for a small proportion of the total: averaging 6% in short-cycle tertiary education and 9% at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels combined across OECD countries. These young staff are usually starting out in academia, either during their doctoral programme or directly after.
In most countries, research-intensive institutions producing 3 or more PhD graduates per 100 non-PhD graduates generally have lower student-to-academic staff ratios than those producing fewer PhD graduates. However, some countries show the opposite trend or minimal differences, reflecting variations in academic staffing, doctoral student roles and national higher education structures.
Ratio of students to academic staff
The student-academic staff ratio is a key indicator of how educational resources are allocated at the tertiary level. It has implications for the quality of instruction, the efficiency of funding and the working conditions of academic staff. While this indicator may not be as central as the student-teacher ratio at lower levels of education in signalling the human resources available to students, it still provides valuable insights into tertiary education systems. When calculated at the national level, the student-academic staff ratio offers a broad perspective on resource allocation across countries. At the institutional level, it can reveal important differences in how resources are distributed, depending on factors such as programme type or institutional mission (see Box D5.1 for a closer look at institutional diversity). A better understanding of this ratio can help inform policies that promote student success, support academic staff and strengthen the overall sustainability of tertiary education systems.
Ratio of students to academic staff by type of institution
At the tertiary level, private institutions have slightly more students per academic staff than public institutions on average across OECD countries, with 15 students per academic staff member in public institutions and 18 in private institutions (Table D5.1). The OECD average should be interpreted with caution, however, given the variety of institutional characteristics both within and across countries. Disaggregating student-academic staff ratios by type of institution is essential, as public and private institutions often differ in their funding models, governance structures and educational missions – factors that can strongly influence staffing levels and resource allocation.
Among OECD and partner countries, Brazil, Estonia, Norway, Peru and Poland report student-academic staff ratios in private institutions that are at least twice as high as those in public institutions (Figure D5.1). However, no more than 20% of tertiary students are enrolled in private institutions in Estonia, Germany and Norway (OECD, 2025[2]). The relatively small share of enrolment accounted for by in private institutions may make this indicator more sensitive to fluctuations, which could partially explain the large differences observed in ratios between public and private institutions.
In Poland, the ratio of students to staff in private institutions is 34:1, more than three times the ratio in public institutions of 10:1. This large difference could be related to the way the Polish private tertiary education sector has responded to domestic demographic decline by actively recruiting international students, who are in turn attracted by cost-effectiveness and English-taught programmes, while academic staff numbers have not risen (OPI PIB, 2022[3]; Walker, 2025[4]). The largest difference in student-academic staff ratios between public and private institutions is in Brazil where it is 62:1 in private institutions compared to 10:1 in public institutions. In Brazil, about 77% of tertiary students are enrolled in private institutions, which are considered less selective than public institutions and rely largely on distance learning, which may allow larger student-academic staff ratios (OECD, 2018[5]). Brazilian students face either a performance barrier to accessing free but highly selective public institutions, or a financial barrier to accessing private institutions, which could limit their opportunities and raises equity concerns (McCowan, 2007[6]). In some other partner countries, the difference between public and private institutions is significant in the other direction: in India and Indonesia, public institutions have over twice as many students for each academic staff member as private institutions (Table D5.1).
Ratio of students to academic staff by education level
Differences in student-academic staff ratios between short-cycle tertiary programmes and bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programmes reflect the diverse structures and objectives of these educational levels. On average across OECD countries, the ratios are quite similar: 15:1 at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent level compared to 14:1 in short-cycle tertiary education. However, in Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia the ratios at the short-cycle tertiary level are more than double those at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels. These differences may stem from structural aspects of programme delivery, variations in institutional capacity or differences in how academic staff are allocated across levels of education (Table D5.1).
Differences between public and private institutions in student-academic staff ratios can also vary depending on the level of education. At the short-cycle tertiary level, public institutions have higher student-academic staff ratios than private ones in five OECD and partner countries. At the combined bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels, this patten is less common, with eight countries reporting higher ratios in public institutions, while 20 countries report lower ratios, and one country shows no difference. Moreover, in some countries such as Austria, Colombia and Israel, there are contrasting patterns across education levels. For example, in Colombia, public institutions at the short-cycle tertiary level have much higher student-academic staff ratios (41 more students per staff member than private institutions), whereas at the higher education levels, the ratio is lower in public institutions (9 fewer students per staff member). This contrast may be linked to the high demand for vocational training in Colombia, much of which is provided by Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje (SENA), a public institution overseen by the Ministry of Labor. As one of the largest providers of short-cycle tertiary education in the country, SENA focuses on expanding access, especially for students from lower-income backgrounds (Dinarte-Diaz et al., 2020[7]). This emphasis on inclusivity may contribute to higher student-academic staff ratios in public institutions at this level. Conversely, the lower ratio at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels in public institutions (23:1) may reflect greater investment in academic staffing and different institutional priorities (Table D5.1).
Trends in the ratio of students to academic staff
Since 2013, the average student-academic staff ratio has remained relatively stable at around 15:1 at the tertiary level across OECD countries. However, this conceals different trends among individual OECD and partner countries. In 21 countries, the ratio of students to academic staff has fallen, reflecting increased investment in and prioritisation of quality in tertiary education (see Chapter C1). Conversely, the countries that have seen a general increase in the ratio over this time include Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia and Mexico, where rapid expansion in higher education systems has often outpaced the growth of academic staff, driven by rising demand for access to tertiary education (Table D5.1).
Diversity in higher education refers to the variety found within higher education institutions and systems. It concerns differences in the programmes or services provided by institutions and differences in the types of institutions themselves (Widiputera et al., 2017[8]). Higher education systems are characterised by significant institutional diversity, reflecting a wide range of missions, organisational structures, activities and educational goals (Dill and Teixeira, 2000[9]; Meek, Goedegebuure and Huisman, 2000[10]; Huisman et al., 2015[11]).
How do tertiary institutions differ by research orientation?
Debates around the "research-teaching nexus" often highlight tensions between these two foundational functions, particularly when policy measures unintentionally exacerbate conflicts between them. This can affect faculty workload distribution as well as the overall student experience (Geschwind and Broström, 2014[12]). In this context, analysing the student-academic staff ratio becomes crucial for ensuring transparency, promoting equity in access and maintaining a balanced and responsive higher education system that meets diverse societal needs.
Tertiary institutions with different research orientations face unique challenges. In research-intensive institutions, increased specialisation in academic roles allows research-active faculty members to focus more on research, often resulting in lighter teaching loads. Consequently, fixed-term or teaching-only staff bear a disproportionate share of instructional responsibilities, leading to higher actual ratios of students to academic staff. While this model boosts research productivity, it may hinder career advancement for teaching-focused staff and raises concerns about equitable workload distribution and institutional recognition of teaching contributions (OECD, 2020[1]; Kwiek, 2019[13]). In less research-oriented institutions, issues such as funding sustainability, limited research infrastructure and constraints on faculty professional development also arise. These institutions often focus more heavily on undergraduate education and community engagement yet may struggle to secure resources due to the emphasis placed on research outputs in funding models and policy frameworks. As tertiary education systems continue to expand across OECD countries, striking a balance between research and teaching priorities is essential to ensure high-quality education, faculty well-being and the long-term sustainability of diverse institutional models.
PhD intensity is frequently used to indicate the extent to which an institution is research-oriented relative to its undergraduate and master’s level teaching. It is calculated as the ratio of doctoral graduates (ISCED level 8) to the total number of graduates at short-cycle, bachelor’s and master’s level combined (ISCED levels 5 to 7) (European Commission, 2023[14]). A high PhD intensity suggests a strong research focus, typically associated with research universities, whereas a low PhD intensity points to a greater emphasis on undergraduate education, commonly seen in teaching-focused institutions or colleges. This metric helps differentiate institutions by their research mission, allocation of resources and overall academic profile. In this analysis, institutions with a PhD intensity above 0.03 (i.e. at least 3 doctoral graduates per 100 non-doctoral graduates) are categorised as more research oriented.
Figure D5.2 displays student-academic staff ratios by research orientation. In most countries with available data, institutions with higher PhD intensity typically have lower student-academic staff ratios. However, in Austria, Croatia, Greece and Switzerland, it is the less research-intensive institutions which have the lower ratios.
In Finland, Norway and the United Kingdom, student-to-academic staff ratios in less research-intensive institutions are at least twice those in more research-oriented institutions. Finland has the largest absolute gap: on average, academic staff in research-intensive institutions are associated with 13 fewer students than those in less research-intensive institutions. In Finland, this difference is largely explained by institutional types: universities tend to be more research-oriented and offer doctoral degrees, whereas universities of applied sciences focus more on teaching and do not offer doctoral programs. This structural distinction likely contributes significantly to the differences in staff-to-student ratios. Additionally, this discrepancy may be due, in part, to how doctoral students are accounted for in institutional data – being included as both enrolled students and as part of academic staff. This dual classification can skew the ratio, especially in countries like Finland where PhD students are often actively involved in teaching and research. In the Republic of Türkiye, student-academic staff ratios also differ significantly in absolute terms, even though both types of institution report ratios at or above 18:1. This may reflect a structural concentration of academic staff in specialised or academically focused universities, which can reduce the ratio despite overall high enrolment (Figure D5.2).
Note: Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance learning programmes are excluded.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Denmark, Greece, Poland and Spain.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication.
By contrast, countries such as Portugal and Switzerland display relatively small differences in student-academic staff ratios between the two institutional groups – with a difference of fewer than three students per academic staff member. This suggests a more uniform distribution of academic resources across institutions regardless of research orientation. Among these two countries, Portugal shows higher student-to-academic staff ratios for both groups, while Switzerland maintains low ratios across the board (Figure D5.2). These patterns reflect broader national differences in higher education funding, academic workforce policies and institutional structures, as discussed in the section above.
How do tertiary institutions differ by size?
The size of a tertiary institution is a fundamental characteristic that influences multiple aspects of the higher education system, including accessibility, resource distribution and the potential for economies of scale – each with important policy implications. Larger institutions often benefit from more stable funding streams, extensive infrastructure and greater research capacity. In contrast, smaller institutions may provide more personalised learning environments, with closer student-teacher interactions and specialised academic offerings. Analysing how institutional sizes vary across countries can offer valuable insights into the efficiency and equity of national higher education systems.
Figure D5.3 displays a box plot of tertiary institution sizes by country. Among countries with available data, Greece has the highest median tertiary institution size, at around 15 000 students, indicating a system concentrated in larger institutions. In contrast, Slovenia has the smallest median size, with only around 480 students, suggesting a landscape dominated by smaller institutions. As well as ranking fourth in terms of median institution size, at around 13 000 students, the Netherlands also displays the widest interquartile range. This reflects significant variation in the number of students enrolled across institutions, while the lack of outliers suggests that this variation is consistent across the system rather than driven by extreme cases. The Dutch system is notable for its large student population – approximately 900 000 enrolments (OECD, 2025[2]) concentrated in just 51 institutions. This characteristic is partly a result of historical education policy reforms. Notably, the 1983 white paper titled "Scale-enlargement, Task-reallocation and Concentration (STC)" proposed a major restructuring of the universities of applied sciences (HBO) in the Netherlands. The aim was to increase institutional size through mergers, enhance institutional autonomy and improve efficiency through economies of scale (Lang, 2003[15]; OECD, 2002[16]). These reforms have had a lasting impact, shaping Dutch higher education into a system with fewer but significantly larger institutions.
Note: The number in parentheses indicates the number of tertiary institutions. Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance learning programmes and institutions with enrolment in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programmes (ISCED levels 6 to 8) below 200 are excluded. This analysis focuses on bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programmes (ISCED levels 6 to 8).
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Greece, Poland and Romania.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication. Data for Australia, Canada, Iceland and Korea are from national data source.
Several countries – such as Luxembourg and Iceland – exhibit relatively tight distributions, without notable outliers and institution sizes clustered closely around the median. This suggests systems characterised by uniformity in institutional scale, reflecting the influence of small national populations and a limited number of tertiary institutions, which naturally promote structural consistency across the sector. Similar patterns are observed in Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, where the compact spread of institution sizes further underscores the role of demographic and systemic constraints in shaping higher education landscapes. Meanwhile, countries such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, Norway and Switzerland show moderate median enrolments, controlled spreads and occasional outliers, indicating a balanced but diverse institutional profile. These systems typically combine standardisation and differentiation, often shaped by binary or tiered structures, strong national policy co-ordination and efforts to accommodate both general academic and applied or vocational education pathways (Figure D5.3).
Overall, the analysis highlights marked variation in the size distribution of tertiary institutions across countries. These differences may be influenced by several factors, including the total number of institutions, demographic trends and the urban-rural distribution of the population. In addition, national policies – such as funding allocation models, governance frameworks and strategic priorities for institutional consolidation or expansion – play a critical role in shaping institutional sizes (OECD, 2020[1]; Williams, 2017[17]).
Age distribution of academic staff
The age distribution of the academic workforce varies considerably across countries and levels of tertiary education. It can be affected by a variety of factors, such as the level of development of tertiary institutions in the country, the size and age distribution of the population, the duration of tertiary education, and staff salaries and working conditions. More time spent in tertiary education can delay the entry of academic staff into the labour market. At the same time, competitive salaries, good working conditions for permanent staff and career development opportunities may have attracted young people into academic professions in some countries or helped to retain effective academic staff in others.
Young staff members (under the age of 30) only account for a small proportion of academic staff on average across OECD countries: 6% in short-cycle tertiary education and 9% at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral level combined. At short-cycle tertiary level, young staff make up less than 10% of the academic workforce in all countries except for Luxembourg, New Zealand and Norway (Table D5.2). This pattern is not unexpected, as a doctoral degree is often a prerequisite for entry into an academic career, especially at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral level, and individuals typically complete their doctoral studies in their late twenties or later.
On average across OECD countries, 40% of academic staff are aged 50 or over. However, this share varies widely across countries, from just 13% in Luxembourg – where the academic workforce is relatively young due to the recent development of the higher education system – to 55% in Italy (Figure D5.4). Variations in the age structure of academic staff are influenced not only by retention rates but also by the historical timing of higher education system expansion and recent recruitment trends. In countries where higher education systems experienced substantial growth several decades ago, a large share of the staff hired during that period will now be reaching their late career stages. Similarly, limited recruitment in recent years may contribute to a higher concentration of older staff. Although a larger proportion of older and experienced academic staff may indicate strong institutional capacity and experience, it also underscores the importance of planning for future workforce renewal and ensuring sustainable academic career pathways for younger scholars.
Academic staff often follow different retirement trajectories to other professional groups. Academic careers typically require many years of training and progression, involve a strong long-term commitment to scholarly work, and often mean starting a first full-time position later than in other professions (Sugar et al., 2005[18]). One factor influencing the age profile of academic staff is national legislation on retirement age (Eurydice, 2025[19]). However, actual retirement patterns can be difficult to predict, as many academics continue working beyond the statutory retirement age (Baldwin, Belin and Say, 2018[20]).
Trends in academic staff ages
In per cent
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Year of reference differs from 2023.
4. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
For data, see Table D5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
On average across OECD countries, the share of academic staff aged 50 and over has remained stable at around 40% between 2013 and 2023 for all levels of tertiary education combined. However, this average masks growing disparities across countries. In more than half of OECD and partner countries with available data, the proportion of academic staff in this age group has steadily increased from 2013 to 2018 and 2023. Notably, Greece, Korea and Romania experienced increases of at least 7 percentage points over this period. While the share of older academic staff in Romania remains below the OECD average, in Greece it is already more than 10 percentage points higher than the OECD average. In Greece, the increase may be partly attributable to reduced recruitment -- fiscal constraints following the financial crisis are likely to have limited new hiring (Figure D5.4).
In contrast, several countries have experienced a shift toward a younger academic workforce. In Bulgaria, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the Slovak Republic, the share of academic staff aged 50 and over has consistently declined over the past decade. In Estonia, Finland, Latvia, New Zealand and Slovenia, the share increased slightly during some periods but showed an overall decrease between 2013 and 2023 (Figure D5.4). These trends may partly reflect targeted recruitment policies aimed at attracting both national and international talent. For example, in Norway, the Research Council of Norway (RCN) has implemented a range of initiatives to stimulate interest in research careers, including the Science Knowledge Project for children (Nysgjerrigper), the Proscientia Project for youth aged 12-21 and the Annual Science Week. The RCN also offers awards such as the Young Excellent Researchers award, which requires applicants to demonstrate strong scientific merit, leadership potential and international experience (OECD, 2019[21]). In addition, some countries have introduced mandatory retirement ages or implemented measures to encourage early retirement, further contributing to generational renewal in the academic workforce (Ackers and Gill, 2005[22]; Courty and Sim, 2015[23]).
Gender profile of academic staff
Men make up a small majority of academic staff across OECD countries, averaging 54% of the total. The share of women among academic staff at all levels of tertiary education combined ranges from 31% in Japan to 55% or more in Iceland, Latvia and Lithuania (Figure D5.5).
The gender profile of academic staff also differs across levels within tertiary education. On average across OECD countries, women account for 53% of academic staff in short-cycle tertiary programmes, compared to 45% in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programmes. In only nine OECD and partner countries do bachelor's, master's and doctoral programmes have a larger share of female academic staff than short-cycle tertiary programmes, by 9 percentage points or more in Germany, Peru and Saudi Arabia – countries where short-cycle programmes account for a relatively small share of tertiary provision. In contrast, in Belgium, Czechia and Japan, the share of women in short-cycle programmes exceeds that in longer tertiary programmes by more than 20 percentage points (Table D5.3). This disparity may be linked to the subject areas commonly offered at the short-cycle level, which are often concentrated in fields with higher representation of female academic staff (OECD, 2025[24]). In Czechia, for example, the only field offered at this level is arts and humanities. In Belgium, over half of students in short-cycle programmes are enrolled in health and welfare fields. In Japan, the distribution is more diverse but includes a high concentration of students in education, arts and humanities, and health-related programmes – all areas typically associated with a greater presence of women in the academic workforce.
On average across OECD countries, women represent 52% of academic staff under the age of 30. However, their representation decreases with age, with women accounting for 43% of academic staff aged 50 or older (Table D5.3). This suggests that the overall gender imbalance in academia is influenced by older age cohorts. While this may imply that gender parity could improve over time as younger cohorts advance, it also raises the question of whether women face barriers to progressing into more senior academic roles at the same rate as their male counterparts (see Box D5.2).
Early-career female academics often face similar challenges to their male counterparts, such as precarious employment contracts and the pressure to publish extensively to secure career advancement. However, these challenges can be compounded for women due to persistent gendered expectations and responsibilities, such as family and household duties, which continue to fall disproportionately on them in many contexts. Women’s careers and progression in academia are more likely to be affected by family responsibilities and the absence of formal policies designed to support gender equity (Winslow and Davis, 2016[25]). Despite encouraging trends in female representation among younger academics, the increasing reliance on temporary and part-time contracts in higher education institutions has particularly impacted early-career researchers, with women being more likely to occupy these less secure positions. The combination of job insecurity and the "publish or perish" culture can also hinder the retention and progression of women in academia (OECD, 2024[26]).
Trends in the share of female academic staff
In per cent
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
2. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
3. Public institutions only.
4. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table D5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Although the gender imbalance remains, the representation of women in tertiary education has increased in most OECD countries over the past decade. Between 2013 and 2023, the average share of women among academic staff across OECD countries rose by 3 percentage points, from 43% to 46% (OECD, 2025[27]). Among countries with available data, the Netherlands and Slovenia recorded the largest gains: in the Netherlands the share of women increased from 43% in 2013 to 49% in 2023, and in Slovenia it increased from 40% to 48% (Figure D5.5).
Nevertheless, gender disparities remain a significant challenge across most OECD countries. Inequalities begin at the doctoral level and widen throughout academic career paths (European Commission, 2024[28]). Female researchers are also more likely than men to hold temporary or non-standard contracts, and notable gender pay gaps persist in scientific research and development occupations. Addressing these structural challenges is essential to building more inclusive and equitable academic systems.
In response, several OECD countries and economies have introduced structural reforms to improve the representation of women in academic roles. At the European level, the EU has supported initiatives such as the Institutional Transformation for Effecting Gender Equality in Research (INTEGER) project, which aims to strengthen the career development of female researchers in higher education and research institutions (European Commission, 2016[29]). In Germany, the Women Professors Programme (WPP) was launched to increase the number of female professors and promote structural change within higher education institutions. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the share of women in research positions is included among the indicators used for performance-based research funding. Similarly, Norway offers additional funding to institutions that increase appointments of female faculty (OECD, 2019[21]).
Many of these initiatives are embedded within broader equal opportunity frameworks that also address other dimensions of diversity, including ethnicity, disability, age, religion, political beliefs and sexual orientation. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Equality Challenge Unit was established by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to support universities in advancing equality across the sector (HEFCE, 2010[30]). While these policy efforts represent important progress, gender disparities persist in academic participation, working conditions and pay. Sustained investment, institutional commitment and further research are needed to ensure more inclusive and equitable academic environments.
Seniority in academia reflects both the level of professional competence and the nature of assigned tasks and responsibilities. It is also a key determinant of contractual stability within the academic profession (Eurydice, 2025[19]). Moreover, seniority interacts with other important factors like the age distribution of academic staff and gender dynamics. Seniority is often closely linked to age, as academic careers typically follow a progressive trajectory from junior to senior roles. However, variations in the timing of career milestones (such as obtaining a PhD, securing a permanent contract or achieving tenure) can lead to differences in seniority even among similarly aged staff. In systems where career progression is slow or highly competitive, older academics might still be in junior or precarious positions, which raises concerns about long-term career sustainability.
Seniority also intersects significantly with gender. Although the share of female academic staff is growing, in many higher education systems, women are under-represented in senior academic positions despite near parity or even majority representation at the entry level. Structural barriers – such as gender bias in promotion processes, unequal access to research funding and the impact of career breaks for caregiving – can hinder women’s advancement (OECD, 2021[31]). This creates a gender imbalance at the top tiers of academia, often referred to as the "leaky pipeline". Hence, understanding the composition of academic staff by seniority level is vital for addressing issues related to career progression, ensuring equitable opportunities across diverse demographics and fostering an inclusive academic environment.
The classification of tertiary academic staff defines seniority levels hierarchically according to career progression. Staff can be divided into four categories: junior, intermediate, senior and other. Junior refers to entry grades/posts into which an individual would normally be recruited to begin their academic career. Intermediate includes academic staff pursuing an academic career working in positions below the top positions but more senior than entry-level positions. Senior refers to the highest grades/posts for academic staff pursuing an academic career. Lastly, the other category includes instructional and research personnel who are not considered to be on an academic career track, excluding doctoral candidates, and teaching and research assistants.
In per cent
Note: Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance learning programmes are excluded.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Greece and Poland.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication.
Figure D5.6 shows the distribution of academic staff by seniority level across countries. In Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland and Türkiye, junior staff represent the largest share. In contrast, the intermediate level is the most common in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Spain and the Slovak Republic. Having a high proportion of more junior, lower-cost staff may reduce costs, but raises questions about institutional capability and the quality of academic work (Winslow and Davis, 2016[25]; Australian Government, 2018[32]). In terms of the share of senior staff, Portugal is the country with the smallest share among countries with available data – 4% academic staff are senior. In order to balance cost and quality, Portugal has legislated to impose a minimum number of staff in senior categories (OECD, 2020[1]).
Academic staff include personnel whose primary assignment is instruction or research, or both. Teaching staff also include departmental chairs whose duties include some teaching but exclude non-professional personnel who support teachers in providing instruction to students, such as teachers’ aides and other paraprofessional personnel.
The ratio of students to academic staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students at a given level of education by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff at that level and in similar types of institutions.
For the ratio of students to academic staff to be meaningful, consistent coverage of personnel and enrolment data are needed. For instance, if academic staff in religious institutions are not reported in the personnel data, then students in those institutions are also excluded.
Personnel data is based on headcounts for the calculated indicators included in the analysis in Box D5.1 and Box D5.2.
Data refer to the reference year 2023 (academic year 2022/23) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024/25. For more information see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
References
[22] Ackers, L. and B. Gill (2005), “Attracting and retaining ’early career’ researchers in English higher education institutions”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 18/3, pp. 277-299, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610500186649.
[32] Australian Government (2018), TEQSA’s Risk Assessment Framework, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resourses/resources/corporate-publications/risk-assessment-framework.
[20] Baldwin, R., A. Belin and B. Say (2018), “Why reinvent academic retirement?”, New Directions for Higher Education, Vol. 2018/182, pp. 9-16, https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20276.
[23] Courty, P. and J. Sim (2015), “Retention of talented academic researchers: Evidence from a government intervention”, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, Vol. 48/5, pp. 1635-1660, https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12175.
[9] Dill, D. and P. Teixeira (2000), “Program diversity in higher education: An economic perspective”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13/1, pp. 99-117, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-8733(99)00026-4.
[7] Dinarte-Diaz, L. et al. (2020), “The contribution of short-cycle programs to student outcomes: Evidence from Colombia”, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 9424, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/956501601925307143/pdf/The-Contribution-of-Short-Cycle-Programs-to-Student-Outcomes-Evidence-from-Colombia.pdf.
[28] European Commission (2024), She Figures 2024: Gender in Research and Innovation: Statistics and Indicators, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2777/592260.
[14] European Commission (2023), European Tertiary Education Register (ETER): Handbook for Data Collection, European Commission, https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-01/ETERIV_Handbook_Complete_2023updated.pdf.
[29] European Commission (2016), Final Report Summary: INTEGER (Institutional Transformation for Effecting Gender Equality in Research), https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/266638/reporting.
[19] Eurydice (2025), National Education Systems, European Commission, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/national-description_en.
[12] Geschwind, L. and A. Broström (2014), “Managing the teaching–research nexus: Ideals and practice in research-oriented universities”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 34/1, pp. 60-73, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332.
[30] HEFCE (2010), “The higher education workforce framework 2010: Main report”, Issues Paper, No. 2010/05a, Higher Education Funding Council for England, https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/978/1/10_05a.pdf.
[11] Huisman, J. et al. (2015), “Measuring institutional diversity across higher education systems”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 24/4, pp. 369-379, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv021.
[13] Kwiek, M. (2019), “Social stratification in higher education: What it means at the micro‐level of the individual academic scientist”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 73/4, pp. 419-444, https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12221.
[15] Lang, D. (2003), “The future of merger what do we want mergers to do: Efficiency or diversity?”, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 33/3, pp. 19-46, https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v33i3.183439.
[6] McCowan, T. (2007), “Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to higher education in Brazil”, Higher Education, Vol. 53/5, pp. 579-598, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-0097-4.
[10] Meek, V., L. Goedegebuure and J. Huisman (2000), “Understanding diversity and differentiation in higher education: An overview”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13/1, pp. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-8733(99)00032-x.
[2] OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21k.
[27] OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21l.
[24] OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21m.
[26] OECD (2024), “The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en.
[31] OECD (2021), “Reducing the precarity of academic research careers”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en.
[1] OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en.
[21] OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en.
[5] OECD (2018), Rethinking Quality Assurance for Higher Education in Brazil, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309050-en.
[16] OECD (2002), Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v14-1-en.
[3] OPI PIB (2022), Nowe dane już w RAD-on, https://opi.org.pl/nowe-dane-juz-w-rad-on/.
[18] Sugar, J. et al. (2005), “Academic administrators and faculty retirement in a new era”, Educational Gerontology, Vol. 31/5, pp. 405-418, https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590921672.
[4] Walker, A. (2025), Continued growth in Poland’s PBSA sector, GSL Global, https://gslglobal.com/2025/05/02/continued-growth-in-polands-pbsa-sector/.
[8] Widiputera, F. et al. (2017), “Measuring diversity in higher education institutions: A review of literature and empirical approaches”, IAFOR Journal of Education, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.1.03.
[17] Williams, J. (2017), “Collaboration, alliance, and merger among higher education institutions”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 160, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf14d4b5-en.
[25] Winslow, S. and S. Davis (2016), “Gender inequality across the academic life course”, Sociology Compass, Vol. 10/5, pp. 404-416, https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12372.
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent data.
Table D5.1. Ratio of students to academic staff by tertiary level of education and type of institution (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, Peru and Saudi Arabia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
3. Tertiary includes staff and students from post-secondary non-tertiary level.
Table D5.2. Age distribution of academic staff, by tertiary level of education (2013, 2018, 2023)
1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia and Peru.
3. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Denmark, Estonia, Korea, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
4. Post-secondary non-tertiary teachers may teach at tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
Table D5.3. Share of women among academic staff, by tertiary level of education and age group (2013, 2018, 2023)
1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, India, Peru and Saudi Arabia.
3. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2015 for Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
4. Post-secondary non-tertiary teachers may teach at tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
Percentage of female teachers in public and private institutions by age group and level of education
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.