On average across OECD countries and other economies, only 43% of students who start a bachelor’s programme complete a degree at any tertiary level within the theoretical duration of their programme. This rate increases to 59% when allowing for one additional year and reaches 70% three years after the end of the theoretical duration.
First-year drop out rates exceed 20% at bachelor’s level in several systems, including Brazil, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, Luxembourg, Peru and Romania.
By the end of the theoretical duration of their programme, 42% of bachelor’s entrants have graduated from that or another bachelor’s programme on average, 1% have completed a short-cycle tertiary programme, 38% remain enrolled and 20% have left tertiary education.
Education at a Glance 2025
Completion rates of full-time students at any tertiary level
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Context
Completion rates in tertiary education are a key measure for understanding how effectively education systems support students from entry to graduation. They provide insights into the functioning and efficiency of tertiary programmes, highlighting whether systems are enabling students to complete their studies within a reasonable timeframe. For policy makers, this indicator is particularly relevant, as studying for extended periods or failing to complete a programme can carry significant financial and social costs for both individuals and society. High drop out rates or delays in completion may indicate a misalignment between student needs and programme offerings, challenges in academic preparation or issues related to guidance and support services. They may also reflect a mismatch between the expectations and skills of new entrants and the actual demands of the programmes. When students enrol in courses that do not align with their competencies or goals, the risk of non-completion increases significantly (Archer, Godec and Holmegaard, 2023[1]; Colyar, Chatoor and Deakin, 2023[2]).
Importantly, non-completion or delayed completion does not always reflect failure. Students may leave their programmes for diverse reasons: they might switch fields after discovering new interests, pause their studies due to personal circumstances or take advantage of early job opportunities. Some may also have entered tertiary education without a clearly defined academic goal, using initial enrolment as a way to explore different study options. In such cases, flexible pathways into different programmes and levels can be seen as an opportunity rather than a weakness of the system.
Understanding the factors that shape completion requires considering students’ socio-economic background, academic preparation and the structure of tertiary systems themselves, including entry requirements, institutional selectivity and support mechanisms. These factors interact in complex ways, influencing whether students graduate “on time”, after a delay or not at all.
By exploring how completion rates vary across education levels, fields of study, gender and type of institution, this chapter sheds light on potential policy levers to improve student outcomes. It also highlights the importance of balancing flexibility with efficiency, and of designing tertiary education systems that support diverse student pathways and aspirations.
Other findings
On average across OECD countries, completion rates three years after the theoretical duration reached 80% among bachelor’s students in health and welfare, 71% in arts, humanities, social sciences, journalism and information, and 68% in STEM fields, highlighting significant variation by field of study.
Women are more likely than men to complete their bachelor’s studies: 48% of female entrants graduate on time, compared to 37% of male entrants. After three additional years, the gap remains the same (75% versus 63%).
In almost all countries that reported completion rates for bachelor's programmes of different durations, longer programmes tend to have higher completion rates.
Note
Completion and attainment rates are two distinct measures. Completion rates, as presented in this chapter, refer to the percentage of students who enter a tertiary programme and graduate from it within a specified timeframe. In contrast, attainment rates reflect the share of the population that has achieved a certain level of education, regardless of when or where the qualification was obtained (see Chapter A1). They represent the relationship between all graduates – both recent and from previous years – and the total population.
This chapter presents data on the completion of tertiary education by the end of the theoretical duration of programmes and one and three years later. These completion rates are calculated using true cohort data. True cohort completion rates correspond to the share of students from a specific entry cohort who graduate within a particular timeframe. This is the preferred methodology for analysing completion rates, but only countries with longitudinal surveys or registers are able to provide such information. Panel data may be available in the form of an individual student registry (using unique personal identification numbers for students) or a cohort of students used to conduct a longitudinal survey. In earlier editions of Education at a Glance, completion rates were also calculated using cross-cohort data, but these estimates were not comparable with true cohort measures and often overestimated completion rates. In recent years, many countries have strengthened their data collection systems, enabling a more consistent use of true cohort data in this chapter.
Completion rate by timeframe
Bachelor’s programmes
On average across OECD countries and economies, 43% of students complete their bachelor's programme within the theoretical duration, although completion rates vary substantially across countries. The highest rates, where more than 60% of all bachelor’s entrants complete a tertiary degree (at any level) within the expected timeframe, are in Ireland, Israel, Romania, the Republic of Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Several other countries, including Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway and Poland, report slightly lower rates but still around the 50-60% range. At the lower end of the spectrum, Austria, Chile, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, and Peru show notably lower rates of on-time completion (below 25%) (Figure B5.1). These cross-country differences may reflect a variety of contextual factors, including the structure and official length of bachelor’s programmes, the availability and accessibility of student support services, the level of public or private funding and financial aid, the flexibility of study pathways (such as the availability of part-time study or the possibility of taking gap years), and broader labour-market conditions and incentives for timely graduation. At the individual level, academic readiness at entry and prior success in upper secondary education can be the determining factors behind the prompt completion of tertiary studies.
On average across OECD countries and economies, completion rates for bachelor’s entrants increase by 16 percentage points - reaching 59% - when the timeframe is extended by one additional year after the theoretical programme duration. This indicates that a considerable share of students who do not graduate within the expected period will nevertheless be able to complete their studies shortly afterwards. The increase in Chile, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland is relatively large (around 25 percentage points or more) over this extended timeframe. In contrast, in some countries where on-time completion rates are already relatively high, such as Ireland and Romania, the additional gain from extending the observation period by one year tends to be more modest. These differences highlight broader cross-country differences in completion dynamics: in some systems, most students either graduate on time or not at all, whereas in others a significant share will complete their studies after some delay (Figure B5.1).
The data on completion rates by the end of the theoretical programme duration correspond to a graduation period of June to December 2020. During this period, and in the months leading up to it, many students were experiencing disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as universities shifted to remote learning, exams were postponed or cancelled and students faced challenges such as limited Internet access, economic hardship and decreased academic support. While some students were able to complete their exams on line, others faced delays that postponed their graduation. In Denmark, for instance, students reported challenges in maintaining motivation, adapting to lockdown measures and managing an increased risk of dropping out. The Netherlands also experienced major disruptions, with delays in student progress and a noticeable decline in completion rates, despite institutional efforts such as deadline extensions and the transition to online assessments. In contrast, Australia and Sweden managed the shift to online learning more effectively, maintaining retention and completion rates at pre-pandemic levels.
Studies suggest that completion rates remained relatively stable in many systems. In Norway and Sweden, for example, early evidence pointed to consistent graduation outcomes and student performance throughout the pandemic period. In contrast, in Hungary and the Slovak Republic, the research highlights inequalities and challenges in student progression, particularly during the first year of the pandemic (See Box B5.2 for more discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and differences in completion rates between 2020 and 2023).
Extending the observation period to three years beyond the theoretical programme duration generally leads to a further increase in completion rates, as students who required additional time to balance study commitments with work or personal responsibilities complete their programmes. However, in almost all systems, the incremental gain due to these two additional years is significantly smaller than that achieved by extending the period by only one year. This suggests that most students who take longer to complete their degree than the expected timeframe do so relatively soon after the official programme end date. The added time brings diminishing returns, as students who have not completed a tertiary degree within one additional year may be more likely to withdraw without a qualification (Figure B5.1).
Short-cycle tertiary and long first degree master’s programmes
Only 18 OECD and partner countries and economies have true cohort data available for short-cycle tertiary programmes and, as with bachelor’s programmes, completion rates at this level vary widely. In Chile, Israel, Slovenia and Peru, less than 25% of students who enter a full-time short-cycle programme graduate from any tertiary programme within the theoretical duration of the programme. In France, more than 70% of students graduate within this timeframe. As with bachelor’s programmes, completion rates increase in all countries after three additional years, but especially in those where completion rates within the theoretical duration are lower. The completion rate almost doubles in Canada (from 32% to 62%) and more than doubles in Chile (from 25% to 52%) and Israel (from 22% to 57%) (Table B5.1).
In most countries, completion rates of short-cycle tertiary entrants are higher than those for bachelor’s entrants by the end of the theoretical duration, with only eight countries having a lower rate. The difference is greatest in Israel, where the completion rate of bachelor’s programmes is 40 percentage points higher than for short-cycle tertiary programmes. However, bachelor’s completion rates tend to be higher than short-cycle tertiary rates three additional years after the end of the theoretical duration of the programme. Only five countries have higher completion rates for short-cycle tertiary students than bachelor’s students over the longer timeframe (Table B5.1). In order to put these differences into context, however, it is important to understand the distribution of students in each tertiary level. For example, Austria is the only OECD country where more first-time entrants to tertiary education enrol in short-cycle programmes (43%) than in bachelor’s programmes (39%) (see Chapter B4).
Master’s long first degree programmes have a longer theoretical duration than bachelor’s programmes, and completion rates within that timeframe tend to be higher. In 8 out of the 13 countries with available data, completion rates were higher for master’s students than for those entering bachelor’s degrees by the theoretical end of their programmes. Completion rates three years after the theoretical duration were higher in all countries for students who entered master’s long first degrees than for bachelor’s students, ranging from 55% in Peru to 96% in Republic of Türkiye (Table B5.1). This may be due to the selection processes for entry to master’s long first degree programmes, as well as students’ own self-selection, given the greater complexity of the course content. In Spain, for example, some long first degree programmes in fields such as medicine, architecture or veterinary science have higher admission criteria and require strong academic performance in upper secondary education and university entrance exams. Box B5.1 provides a more detailed discussion of completion rate differences between programmes of shorter and longer duration.
Policies to increase completion rates in tertiary education
In recent years, many countries have implemented policies aimed at increasing tertiary completion rates. A common approach is to make the financing of institutions conditional to some extent on student completion rates. In Estonia, for example, 20% of the funding for tertiary institutions is performance based and allocated according to five criteria, one of which – student completion within specified timeframes – is relatively significant (OECD, 2019[3]). In Denmark, a significant share of higher education funding is tied to indicators such as study duration, graduate employment rates and student satisfaction. Institutions can lose up to 3.75% of core funding if average completion time exceeds programme duration by over a year – highlighting the emphasis placed on timely graduation within the funding model (OECD, 2021[4]). Similar conditional funding mechanisms exist in Finland, Israel and Lithuania.
In other countries, completion rates are taken into account in the financing provided directly to students. In Norway, for example, students may have up to 40% of their student loans converted into grants if they progress through their studies without delays and meet the relevant income and residence requirements (Eurydice, 2023[5]). Since academic year 2019/20, students in Norway have also been obliged to complete their overall degree in order to receive the full loan-to-grant conversion. In Brazil, specific financing has been provided to institutions in the past in order to help ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds complete their degree without excessive delays, but funding for these programmes have recently diminished for budget reasons, especially following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Portugal, a EUR 7 million pilot project involving a group of universities is using AI to develop models to identify drop out risk indicators. The initiative supports early intervention to improve student retention in higher education (European Comission, 2024[6]).
Other policies focus on helping students make better choices about their field of study, thereby reducing the number of cases where students transfer to other courses or leave tertiary education entirely due to a poor fit with their original programme. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for example, a study guidance tool called “Columbus” has been established for use in secondary schools to guide students’ choices about what to study in higher education (see Annex 3). In the United Kingdom, all government-backed careers information has been gathered onto the National Careers Service website to help young adults understand the careers landscape and find the education programmes with the right fit (UK Government, 2025[7]).
Generally, bachelor’s programmes across countries have a theoretical duration of three to four years, but there are notable exceptions. In Luxembourg, one bachelor’s programme lasts only two years, while in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, some bachelor's programmes extend to five or even six years. For short-cycle tertiary programmes, Chile, Colombia, Israel and Peru report durations of three years, while Israel and the United Kingdom have also one-year programmes at that level. At the long first-degree master’s level, Chile and Peru report programmes lasting up to seven years, whereas Sweden reports some shorter programmes with a theoretical duration of four years.
In this chapter, completion rates for programmes of varying durations have been aggregated by level of education. Nevertheless, examining the potential impact of programme length on completion provides additional insight. While it might be assumed that longer programmes were associated with a higher risk of students dropping out and therefore lower completion rates, the data suggest otherwise. In almost all countries that reported completion rates for bachelor's programmes of different durations, longer programmes tend to have higher completion rates. In some cases, the gap is substantial: in Luxembourg and Slovenia, the completion rate for four-year programmes exceeds that of three-year programmes by more than 20 percentage points. Only Chile reports lower completion rates for longer programmes than for shorter ones (Figure B5.2).
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Survey on tertiary completion rate database.
The reasons for these higher completion rates are varied. In some countries, programme durations differ depending on the field of study, entry requirements and other factors. In Norway, four-year bachelor’s programmes in teacher and music education differ from standard three-year degrees and have stricter admission requirements such as auditions or specific grade criteria. These programmes also lead directly to professions, setting them apart from other bachelor’s programmes. Similarly, in Slovenia, academically oriented four-year bachelor’s or equivalent programmes, mainly in education, social sciences and the arts, have higher completion rates than three-year programmes, partly due to differences in students’ prior education. These longer programmes attract students with general upper-secondary backgrounds and often require entrance exams, suggesting higher motivation and commitment. On the other hand, in many countries, the fourth (or even fifth) year represents an additional stage in the study programme, pursued only by students who have successfully completed the first three years without delay. In Australia for example, students may follow a four-year bachelor’s degree and continue to a fifth year under the bachelor’s honour degree programme or enrol in a cluster of qualifications comprising a bachelor’s and bachelor’s honours degree.
Drop out rates by timeframe
To better understand student trajectories, completion data should be considered alongside drop out patterns, both after the first year of study and at later stages. Examining when and why students disengage from their studies provides valuable insights that can enable policy makers and education institutions better target early interventions.
Drop out rates after the first year of study refer to the proportion of students who are no longer enrolled and have not obtained a degree by the start of the second academic year. This period often represents a critical juncture in students’ educational journeys, during which many discover that their chosen programme does not meet their expectations or that balancing study with work, family or other commitments is too difficult. Some systems, such as Brazil, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, Luxembourg, Peru and Romania exhibit relatively high first-year drop out rates at bachelor’s level (20% or more) (Figure B5.3).
These patterns may reflect a range of factors, including prior academic achievement and financial conditions faced by students. In Colombia, the introduction of SPADIES, a comprehensive student retention tracking system, has shown the importance of examining factors behind students dropping out (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2009[8]). The data from Colombia indicate that academic readiness at entry plays a crucial role in students dropping out, potentially to a greater extent than previously understood, outweighing financial factors. In Estonia, the most common reason for students dropping out after their first year is a mismatch between their chosen field of study and their interests, strengths, or career plans. In addition, students with lower upper secondary school examination scores are more likely to leave their programmes early (Jaggo, 2020[9]).
After the first year, the number of students who have dropped out continues to accumulate throughout the duration of tertiary programmes. Although the rate of attrition tends to increase more gradually after the first year, some countries with moderate first-year drop out rates, such as Lithuania and Sweden, may still see significant cumulative numbers dropping out over time (Table B5.4, available on line). In Sweden, later-stage drop out is most common among students with weaker academic backgrounds, particularly those with low grades from upper secondary education (Swedish Higher Education Authority, n.d.[10]). In contrast, countries such as Israel, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Türkiye, which also record relatively low drop out rates in the first year, tend to experience either a steady pace of attrition or a plateau, suggesting they have more effective support mechanisms and interventions that help students remain engaged. An additional factor influencing attrition patterns is the timing of high-stakes examinations. In some systems, these assessments are scheduled early in the programme and serve as a filter, quickly identifying students who do not meet academic expectations. Other systems allow students to progress further before major assessments occur, often after students themselves recognise they will not be able to earn the required credits. These structural differences can influence whether students drop out early or late. It is important to note that early withdrawal can sometimes be preferable, as it may reduce the time and resources expended on an ultimately uncompleted programme. Thus, effective systems not only support continued engagement but also help students make timely, informed decisions about their educational paths.
The risk of dropping out from tertiary education is unequally distributed across student populations and is influenced by a variety of social and economic factors. These disparities became more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Colombia, economically disadvantaged students also faced higher drop out rates, even when they entered higher education with strong academic preparation. This highlights the need for comprehensive approaches that address both academic and financial support. In Sweden, while overall drop out rates among new entrants remained stable during the pandemic, there was an increase among students from less advantaged educational backgrounds, raising concerns about equitable access in the context of remote learning. In New Zealand, the effects of the pandemic varied across types of institutions and population groups, with particularly pronounced challenges for older students and those attending Wānanga – tertiary institutions that focus on Māori values and knowledge (Earle, 2024[11]). These examples reinforce the importance of tailored and inclusive policy responses that address the specific needs of vulnerable and diverse student populations in tertiary education.
Drop out rates by level of education
Tertiary programmes vary considerably in their structure, purpose and duration (see Chapter B4). Short-cycle programmes typically span two years, bachelor’s programmes last three to four years, while long first degree programmes at the master’s level may last five years or more. Given these differences, comparing drop out rates after the first year of study can provide more meaningful insights than overall completion rates or attrition over extended timeframes. The share of students who drop out after the first year can serve as an indicator of the extent to which students’ skills, expectations and goals align with the content and demands of the programme, as well as with their perception of its relevance for future career or study opportunities. As shown in Figure B5.3 drop out rates after one year are considerably higher among students who entered short-cycle programmes and consistently lower for long first degree master’s programmes compared to bachelor’s programmes. These patterns underscore the importance of examining how programme structure, student support services and entry requirements influence early student attrition in tertiary education.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section
Long first degree master’s programmes generally report the lowest drop out rates after one year, averaging around 6% across OECD countries and economies. These programmes tend to be more selective, and students are often better academically prepared, contributing to higher retention levels. In Hungary, Lithuania and Türkiye, the proportion of students who leave during the first year is lower than 3%, while in Poland and Slovenia it exceeds 12%.
Short-cycle programmes show notably higher drop out rates in some countries. On average, 19% of students enrolled in short-cycle programmes across OECD countries leave within the first year. In New Zealand, the figure reaches approximately 46%, compared to around 10% for students in bachelor’s programmes. This gap may reflect the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as short-cycle programmes often rely on hands-on or vocational content that proved more difficult to deliver remotely. Colombia also reports high first-year drop out rates, around 20% in both short-cycle and bachelor’s programmes, indicating a consistently elevated level of attrition across programme types. In contrast, Hungary, Israel, Spain and Türkiye report relatively low drop out rates for both short-cycle and bachelor’s programmes, suggesting stronger retention mechanisms and student support systems.
These findings should be interpreted with caution. In many countries, enrolment in short-cycle or long first degree master’s programmes is relatively limited, which may affect the stability and comparability of these indicators. Differences across countries may also reflect broader national contexts, including admission criteria, labour-market structures and the role of tertiary education in the wider education and training ecosystem.
Several countries have conducted government-backed studies to examine the personal, economic and academic factors behind students dropping out from tertiary education. Longitudinal German surveys show that 15% of students drop out by the third year, mainly due to poor programme fit, high workload with little support and financial strain, especially among older students, part-timers and those without a clear career path (DHZW, 2022[12]). A Hungarian qualitative study found that dropping out and delaying graduation in higher education often stem from poor institutional fit, intensive work or sports commitments and peer influence, though exact drop out-rates remain unclear due to inconsistent methodologies (Bocsi et al., 2019[13]). In Peru, the COVID-19 pandemic notably increased drop out rates due to technical and connectivity issues, financial hardship and family care responsibilities. Female and rural students were disproportionately affected by the pandemic’s negative impacts (Government of Peru, 2021[14]).
In many countries, governments have investigated the unique socio-economic, academic and psychological challenges driving drop out rates among specific groups of students, aiming to improve their retention in higher education. A review of Norwegian studies found that disadvantaged students are especially vulnerable to dropping out due to mental health struggles, lack of belonging and poor study planning. These challenges are best addressed through early mental-health screening, integrated study-skill workshops and peer-supported “study-cafés” (Hovdhaugen, 2019[15]). A study in Finland found that financial debt, failed courses and activity on the university's online learning platform were the strongest predictors of students dropping out, with their importance changing over time. Although demographic data had less predictive value overall, the findings emphasise the need for early and late-stage interventions, especially for disadvantaged students with low academic performance or poor engagement (Vaarma and Li, 2024[16]).
Pathways through tertiary education
In addition to examining students’ completion rates, it is important to consider the different pathways they take through tertiary education. This provides insights into the flexibility and responsiveness of education systems and helps shed light on the trajectories of students who do not complete their original programme. Key questions include whether these students are still enrolled, have transferred to another tertiary programme or have left the education system altogether.
On average across OECD countries and economies with available data, 43% of students who entered a bachelor's programme graduated from that or another bachelor’s programme by the end of the theoretical duration. An additional 1% had transferred and graduated from a short-cycle tertiary programme, 38% remained enrolled in tertiary education, although not necessarily in their original programme, and 20% had left the system without a qualification (Table B5.4, available on line).
Although only a small share of bachelor’s students transfer into different tertiary programmes, typically in the low single digits, this highlights the availability of alternative educational pathways. In countries such as Canada, Chile and the United Kingdom, a modest but visible proportion of students who had started bachelor’s programmes had transferred into short-cycle tertiary programmes one year after the theoretical end of their programme. These tend to be more practice-oriented and specialised and could offer a better fit for students whose initial programme did not align with their interests or career plans. In other cases, students move into more advanced programmes. For example, in Poland, some students transfer to long first degree master’s programmes, reflecting opportunities for academic progression and pursuit of more specialised qualifications (Figure B5.4 and Table B5.4, available on line).
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section
Over the following three years, many of those who were still studying either graduate or exit the system. Three years after the theoretical duration, on average, 68% of students have completed a bachelor’s programme, 2% a short-cycle tertiary programme and 1% a long first degree master’s programme. Around 8% remain enrolled, while 23% are no longer participating in tertiary education (Table B5.4, available on line).
Access to alternative tertiary pathways often hinges on whether prior credits can be transferred, yet recognition practices vary widely. Institutional autonomy leads to diverse criteria across and within countries and economies, affecting students' ability to switch programmes. For example, in Brazil credit recognition for prior learning is legally permitted and relatively common, but each university sets its own criteria, examining subject compatibility, grades, time elapsed and internal rules. In the French Community of Belgium, credit‐transfer decisions (e.g. moving from one bachelor’s programme to another) are made on a case-by-case basis by disciplinary juries. In Estonia, the VÕTA process enables the recognition of prior formal, non-formal and informal learning – including work experience – for academic credit or professional qualifications. It streamlines study paths for learners and helps institutions engage with a more diverse, experienced student body (Republic of Estonia, 2024[17]).
Even in systems where transitions between programme types remain limited, the availability of such alternative routes plays an important role in supporting student to remain in tertiary education. For some students, changing programmes allows for a better match with their learning needs, preferred academic environment or professional goals. These flexible options may help reduce drop out rates by providing opportunities to reorient towards more suitable forms of study or shorter qualification pathways.
Research in Australia also shows that partial completion of higher education can still yield significant benefits for students. Many individuals who do not complete their bachelor’s programmes go on to attain vocational qualifications and often earn more than those who never enrolled in a bachelor’s programme. Moreover, students who leave university before graduating report skill gains, career clarity, social connections or employment benefits. These findings challenge the traditional binary framing of higher education outcomes as either success (completion) or failure (non-completion), suggesting the need for a more nuanced understanding of student trajectories and the broader value of participation in higher education (Luckman and Harvey, 2018[18]; Cunninghame and Pitman, 2019[19]).
To further support student success and ensure that tertiary education remains responsive to societal and labour-market needs, many countries are strengthening the alignment between education and employment. This includes fostering closer ties between higher education institutions and industry through curriculum co-design, work-based learning opportunities such as internships and collaborative research or innovation projects. These partnerships not only enhance the relevance of academic programmes but also create more structured and purposeful transitions for students – whether they are continuing in their original programme or shifting to a new one better matched to emerging job market demands. Complementing these efforts, governments are also introducing policy measures that reinforce the link between education and employability. For example, Ireland’s Micro-Credential Course Learner Fee Subsidy supports short, targeted courses in priority skill areas such as renewable energy, sustainability, artificial intelligence and cyber security by offering subsidies of up to 80% on fees (HEA, 2024[20]).
Completion rate by gender
In every country and economy with available data, women in bachelor’s programmes have higher completion rates than men. On average across countries, 48% of female entrants and 37% of male entrants to bachelor’s programmes graduate within the theoretical duration. The average gap remains similar after allowing three additional years, as the completion rate increases to 75% among women and 63% among men (Figure B5.5).
Some countries have a narrower gender gap than others. The difference in completion rates between women and men within the theoretical duration is below 5 percentage points in Austria, Chile, Denmark, Iceland, Peru and the United Kingdom for students in bachelor’s programmes, but 20 percentage points or more in Estonia, Finland, Hungary and Poland. In 22 out of 31 countries and economies with available data, the gender gap in completion rates of bachelor’s students did not change greatly after three years following the theoretical end of programmes, with differences of less than 5 percentage points. Of the remaining countries, the gender gap widened in Chile and Sweden after three additional years, but it narrowed in Türkiye (Figure B5.5).
National conscription policies, which often apply differently to men and women, may help explain some of the wider gender differences in completion rates although students tend to be exempted from military or alternative service while enrolled in higher education, or are required to complete it before beginning their studies. In Finland, all male citizens aged 18 to 30 must perform military or alternative service, usually between the ages of 19 and 20, while women may choose to do so voluntarily. This may partly explain why 59% of women entering bachelor’s programmes complete their studies on time, compared to 37% of men. The gender gap in Finland narrows from 22 to 17 percentage points when considering a longer timeframe. In Estonia, where military service is also mandatory for men only, completion rates by the end of the theoretical duration are 49% for women and 29% for men. However, unlike in Finland, the gender gap does not narrow significantly over the following three years, suggesting that conscription is not the sole driver of the difference in completion rates (Figure B5.5).
Differences in the completion rates of men and women may also be partly explained by the different returns to tertiary education by gender. Although employment rates are higher for both men and women with tertiary education than those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, the gains differ. On average across OECD countries, employment rates for tertiary-educated men are only 5 percentage points higher than for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, compared to a 10 percentage point difference for women. This suggests that women may experience greater employment gains from completing tertiary education although they tend to benefit less in terms of earnings, as the financial returns to tertiary education are generally lower for women than for men (see Chapter A3).
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Completion rate by type of institution
In most OECD countries, tertiary education is offered in both public and private institutions (OECD, 2025[21]). In public institutions, a public agency has overall control over the general policies and activities of the institution including staff appointments. Private institutions may be managed by non-governmental organisations or by a governing board, most of whose members are not selected by a public agency. However, there can be significant differences in the ways in which private institutions are regulated and managed (UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat, 2024[22]). In the United Kingdom, for example, all higher education institutions are private but receive most of their funding from the government while in many OECD countries with significant shares of students attending private institutions there are no such government-dependent private institutions (OECD, 2025[21]).
Most private higher education institutions function on a not-for-profit basis, so surplus revenue cannot be paid to their owners (OECD, 2019[23]). However, there have been increasing numbers of for-profit private institutions emerging in some OECD countries (Shah and Sid Nair, 2013[24]). Some research suggests that for-profit institutions may be more responsive to market demand through their ability to quickly adapt their programme offerings to meet students’ and employers’ needs (Gilpin, Saunders and Stoddard, 2015[25]); however, they have also been criticised for being focused on financial gain at the expense of students’ educational outcomes (Hodgman, 2018[26]).
Completion rates by the end of the theoretical duration of a bachelor’s programme often differ significantly between public and private institutions. In some countries, students enrolled in private institutions are less likely to graduate on time. For example, in Denmark and Estonia, on-time completion rates are more than 20 percentage points lower in private institutions than in public ones. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as the share of students enrolled in private institutions is very small in some countries. This is the case in Denmark, for example, where there are very few private institutions and they tend to cater to students with specific profiles. In contrast, private institutions outperform public ones by over 20 percentage points in Austria, Finland and New Zealand. In other countries, such as the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the difference between sectors is minimal (2 percentage points or less), suggesting comparable effectiveness in supporting timely graduation across both public and private providers (Table B5.2).
When extending the observation period to three years beyond the theoretical duration, the gap in completion rates between public and private institutions often narrows. This indicates that students in both sectors – particularly those who may have taken longer to progress – tend to catch up over time. In Denmark, for example, private institutions experience a substantial increase in completion rates over the extended period, reducing the earlier disparity. Estonia shows a similar trend, with private institutions making larger gains over time, although public institutions also improve and continue to maintain a moderate lead in overall completion rates (Table B5.2).
Several factors can help explain the differences in completion rates between public and private institutions, including admission criteria, programme characteristics, study conditions and financial considerations. Admission requirements are one possible source of divergence. Where entry into higher education is more selective, students are likely to have stronger academic preparation, which may increase their chances of progressing and graduating on time. For example, in many public institutions in Austria, students do not need to pass an admission exam to start a study programme (OECD/European Union, 2019[27]) whereas more selective entry procedures for private institutions may result in better-prepared student cohorts.
The organisation and quality of teaching and learning may also play a role. In Austria, survey data suggest that students enrolled in private universities and universities of applied sciences are more likely to rate the quality of teaching and the structure of their courses positively than those in public universities. These students also tend to report a higher intensity of study, which may contribute to higher on-time completion rates (Zucha, Engleder and Rieder, 2023[28]; Haag et al., 2024[29]).
Differences in programme orientation and specialisation can further affect completion rates. In New Zealand, for instance, private higher education expanded after 1989 into more specialised and professionally oriented areas such as business and information and communication technologies (ICT). This occurred alongside a well-established public sector that had long provided traditional academic and vocational education through universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education (Xiaoying and Abbott, 2008[30]). Students in these vocationally focused programmes may be more motivated to complete their studies on time, as their enrolment tends to be driven by specific career goals.
Financial incentives and the cost of study may also influence completion rates. In systems where tuition fees are higher – often more common in private institutions – students may face greater financial pressure to complete their studies within the theoretical duration. Chapter C5 provides a more detailed discussion of how tuition fees and financial aid mechanisms affect student behaviour and outcomes.
Completion rate by field of study
Completion rates vary significantly by field of study. On average across OECD countries, 80% of full-time bachelor’s students who entered the field of health and welfare had graduated from a tertiary programme three years after the theoretical duration. This compares to 71% in arts, humanities, social sciences, journalism and information, and only 68% in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. These differences are especially pronounced in some countries: in Austria, Chile, Spain and Sweden, students in health and welfare fields are over 20 percentage points more likely to complete their programmes than those in STEM. New Zealand is a notable exception, where STEM completion rates exceed those in health and welfare (Table B5.3).
However, not all students complete their studies in the same field or even at the same level at which they began. In health and welfare, 74% of students complete a programme in the same field, 4% switch to a different field at the same level and 2% graduate from a different level of education. In contrast, students in STEM are more likely to switch: only 58% complete in the same field, while 9% shift to another field at the same level and 2% change levels. The pattern is similar in arts and humanities. This suggests that students who initially choose health and welfare are more likely to remain in that field, while those in STEM and arts fields are more prone to change (Figure B5.6 and Table B5.3).
The degree of switching also varies across countries. In Canada, Chile, New Zealand and Poland, almost or more than 20% of students who entered STEM either changed fields or moved to a different level of education. Even in health and welfare, over 11% of students from these countries switched, exceeding the OECD average. In many of these countries, flexibility is built into the system through broad-based first-year programmes or credit structures, enabling students to explore different fields before committing (Figure B5.6).
Several factors may help explain these patterns. Labour-market dynamics can influence student decisions. In fields such as ICT or engineering, where demand is high, students may find job opportunities before completing a full qualification, reducing the incentive to graduate. Partial completion may be sufficient to enter the workforce, particularly in vocationally oriented fields.
Admission selectivity may also play a role. Fields with more rigorous entry requirements often attract students with stronger academic preparation and clearer motivation, which can lead to higher completion rates. In the Netherlands, for example, a study found that students admitted to medical school through competitive selection were more likely to complete their degrees on time than those admitted by lottery (Vos et al., 2019[31]).
Gender disparities in completion also emerge, particularly in STEM. Women account for just 30% of new entrants to STEM fields, yet in most contexts, a larger share of women change programmes or level before graduating compared to men (OECD, 2025[21]). Research suggests that this may be related to women in STEM programmes experiencing isolation, micro-aggressions and a male-dominated culture (Ong, Smith and Ko, 2017[32]). Women might also experience less of a sense of belonging then men in STEM-related fields, which has been associated with a decreased likelihood of persisting in their programme (Lewis et al., 2017[33]). To address these challenges, many OECD countries have implemented initiatives to reduce gender gaps. In Australia, the 2015 “Restoring the focus on STEM in schools” initiative sought to encourage more girls and disadvantaged students by expanding the Summer Schools for STEM programme and promoting STEM-related career pathways (OECD, 2017[34]). Higher education institutions can also play a role by adapting teaching methods, revising curricula and offering targeted mentoring to support women to complete their programmes (Do et al., 2021[35]).
For data, see Table B5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Most countries and economies have seen little change in bachelor’s completion rates between 2020 and 2023. The exceptions are Australia and Italy, where the share of those completing by the end of the theoretical duration in 2023 was around 16 percentage points higher than in 2020. By the end of the theoretical duration plus three years, completion rates do not greatly differ except for Canada where the completion rate in 2023 was 12 percentage points higher than in 2020. Although completion patterns remained stable in many countries, others saw continued changes or improvements, possibly reflecting the longer-term effects of earlier disruptions and system-level responses (Figure B5.7).
For data, see Table B5.1 and Table B5.1 from Education at a Glance 2022 (OECD, 2022[36])).
Although COVID-19 first emerged in late 2019, its major impact on higher education began in March 2020, when lockdowns and campus closures were implemented worldwide. For students expected to graduate that year, the pandemic introduced sudden disruptions: delayed assessments, the cancellation of practical components and a rapid shift to online learning. These challenges, combined with mental health concerns and economic uncertainty, could have affected students' ability to graduate on time. However, despite these substantial disruptions, most countries did not report significant drops in tertiary completion rates for the affected cohorts.
One possible explanation is that, while some students did experience delays, many institutions and governments took swift action to minimise the academic consequences of the pandemic. Temporary adjustments to graduation criteria and academic requirements were widely implemented. These included flexible assessment formats, simplified grading and waivers for certain graduation components such as internships, research papers or foreign language certifications. For instance, Germany extended eligibility for student financial aid and allowed programme durations to be exceeded without penalty. Hungary temporarily waived its language requirement for graduation in 2020 (Government of Hungary, 2020[37]; Government of Hungary, 2020[38]) and Portugal introduced more flexible submission deadlines for theses. In Peru, emergency legislation allowed automatic graduation for students between 2020 and 2024, while in Latvia, institutions were granted discretion to adjust graduation criteria. These adaptive measures may have buffered the impact of the pandemic on formal completion rates. Moreover, some delays in graduation might not appear in the statistics if students met academic requirements in 2020 but received their official degree in 2021 due to administrative lags. Although the long-term impacts remain under investigation in many countries, these adaptive policy responses likely helped mitigate some of the disruption in completion trends.
The true cohort method requires following an entry cohort through a specific timeframe, which in the case of this survey corresponds to the theoretical duration of the programme, the theoretical duration plus one and three years. Only countries with longitudinal surveys or student registers are able to provide such information.
Full-time students in this chapter refer to students who entered the given tertiary programme with full-time status. They may have switched status during their studies.
The theoretical duration of programmes is the regulatory or common-practice time it takes a full-time student to complete a level of education.
This chapter covers only full-time students. On average across OECD countries, about 30% of tertiary students in 2023 were enrolled part time (OECD, 2025[21]). The theoretical duration of tertiary programmes varies across countries. Therefore, although the reference year for graduation is consistent (2023 unless otherwise specified), the entry year of student cohorts differs according to the length of the programme in each country.
For countries that submitted data using the true cohort method, it is possible to calculate two different completion rates (described below) which are computed for two different timeframes (theoretical duration N, one year N+1 and three years later, N+3):
Completion rate of students who graduate at the same ISCED level which they entered: Number of graduates in a given calendar year and ISCED level divided by the number of entrants to that same ISCED level N/N+1/N+3 calendar years before
Completion rate of students who graduate at any tertiary ISCED level: The sum of graduates from all tertiary ISCED levels in a given calendar year who entered a given ISCED level N/N+1/N+3 calendar years before.
Countries that submitted true cohort data either used first-time entrants to tertiary education (which considers only students who entered tertiary education for the first time) or new entrants to the tertiary level (which considers all first-time entrants to each tertiary level, regardless of whether they have pursued a different tertiary level before). Please see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for the list of countries using each methodology (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
If countries offer programmes of different theoretical durations within the same ISCED level, the completion rate of each programme is weighted by the number of new entrants to each programme.
Please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018 (OECD, 2018[39]) for more information and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for country-specific notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Data on completion rates refer to the academic year 2022/23 and were collected through a special survey undertaken in 2024. Data for some countries may have a different reference year, please refer to Education at a Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for country-specific notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
References
[1] Archer, L., S. Godec and H. Holmegaard (2023), “Misfits or misrecognition? Exploring STEMM degree students’ concerns about non‐completion”, Science Education, Vol. 107/4, pp. 912-938, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21794.
[13] Bocsi, V. et al. (2019), “The discovery of the possible reasons for delayed graduation and dropout in the light of a qualitative research study”, Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation, Vol. 3/1, pp. 27-38, https://doi.org/10.1556/2059.02.2018.08.
[2] Colyar, J., K. Chatoor and J. Deakin (2023), Linking postsecondary non-completion rates and labour market outcomes, Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, https://heqco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Linking-Postsecondary-Non-completion-Rates-and-Labour-Market-Outcomes-in-Ontario-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).
[19] Cunninghame, I. and T. Pitman (2019), “Framing the benefits of higher education participation from the perspective of non-completers”, Higher Education Research and; Development, Vol. 39/5, pp. 926-939, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1705255.
[12] DHZW (2022), Student drop-out: Extent and motives, German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, https://www.dzhw.eu/en/forschung/projekt?pr_id=240.
[35] Do, T. et al. (2021), Championing Girls and Women in Information Technology: A Review of Challenges, Monash University, Melbourne, http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/595031.
[11] Earle, D. (2024), How do expectations influence tertiary education attainment, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis Te Pou Kaupapahere Ministry of Education.
[6] European Comission (2024), Education and Training Monitor 2024: Portugal, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/540081.
[5] Eurydice (2023), Higher Education Funding Norway, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/norway/higher-education-funding.
[25] Gilpin, G., J. Saunders and C. Stoddard (2015), “Why has for-profit colleges’ share of higher education expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor market changes”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 45, pp. 53-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.11.004.
[38] Government of Hungary (2020), Act LVIII of 2020 on Transitional Rules and Epidemiological Preparedness Related to the Cessation of the State of Danger, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette].
[37] Government of Hungary (2020), Government Decree No. 101/2020 (IV.10.) on the Declaration of a State of Danger and Related Measures, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette].
[14] Government of Peru (2021), “Reporte sobre la interrupción de estudios universitarios en el Perú, en el contexto del COVID-19”, Working Paper, Ministerio de Educación.
[29] Haag, N. et al. (2024), “Studienverläufe – Zusatzbericht der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung 2023”, Research Report, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/7207/6/ihs-report-2024-haag-binder-et-al-studienverlaeufe-studierenden-sozialerhebung-2023-v2.pdf.
[20] HEA (2024), HCI Pillar 3 Micro-Credentials Learner Fee Subsidy, Higher Education Authority of Ireland, https://hea.ie/skills-engagement/hci-pillar-3-micro-credentials-learner-fee-subsidy.
[26] Hodgman, M. (2018), “Understanding for-profit higher education in the United States through history, criticism, and public policy: A brief sector landscape synopsis”, Journal of Educational Issues, Vol. 4/2, p. 1, https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v4i2.13302.
[15] Hovdhaugen, E. (2019), Årsaker til Frafall i Høyere Utdanning: En Forskningsoppsummering av Studier Basert på Norske Data, Nordisk Institutt for Studier av Innovasjon, Forskning og Utdanning (NIFU), https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2593810/NIFUarbeidsnotat2019-3.pdf.
[9] Jaggo, I. (2020), Katkestamine ja väljalangemine kõrghariduses 2011/12-.
[33] Lewis, K. et al. (2017), “Fitting in to move forward”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 41/4, pp. 420-436, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720186.
[18] Luckman, M. and A. Harvey (2018), “The financial and educational outcomes of bachelor degree non-completers”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 41/1, pp. 3-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2018.1553106.
[8] Ministerio de Educación Nacional (2009), deserción estudiantil.
[21] OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
[36] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
[4] OECD (2021), “Resourcing higher education in Denmark: Thematic policy brief”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c8217325-en.
[23] OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en.
[3] OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.
[39] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
[34] OECD (2017), “The under-representation of women in STEM fields”, in The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-10-en.
[27] OECD/European Union (2019), Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Austria, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c45127b-en.
[32] Ong, M., J. Smith and L. Ko (2017), “Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: Marginal and central spaces for persistence and success”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 55/2, pp. 206-245, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21417.
[17] Republic of Estonia (2024), Recognition of prior learning and work experience, Ministry of Education and Research website, https://www.hm.ee/en/education-research-and-youth-affairs/recognition-prior-learning-and-work-experience.
[24] Shah, M. and C. Sid Nair (2013), “Private for-profit higher education in Australia: Widening access, participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 32/5, pp. 820-832, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777030.
[10] Swedish Higher Education Authority (n.d.), Studenternas bakgrund och tidiga avhop.
[7] UK Government (2025), Career skills and training, Department for Education, https://www.gov.uk/career-skills-and-training.
[22] UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat (2024), UOE Data Collection on Education Systems: Volume 1 - Manual: Concepts, Definitions and Classifications, OECD, Paris.
[16] Vaarma, M. and H. Li (2024), “Predicting student dropouts with machine learning: An empirical study in Finnish higher education”, Technology in Society, Vol. 76, p. 102474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102474.
[31] Vos, C. et al. (2019), “Bachelor completion and dropout rates of selected, rejected and lottery-admitted medical students in the Netherlands”, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 19/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1511-4.
[30] Xiaoying, . and M. Abbott (2008), “The development of private higher education in a mature market: A New Zealand case study”, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 35/2.
[28] Zucha, V., J. Engleder and K. Rieder (2023), “Studierbarkeit und Digitalisierung – Zusatzbericht der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung”, Research Report, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/7216/.
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 B5.1. Completion rates of new entrants into tertiary education, by level of education and timeframe (2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical end and 2020 to the theoretical end. The year of entry (and consequently the year of reference for the drop-out rate) varies among countries, as it depends on the duration of the programme.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia.
Table B5.2. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes, by type of institution, timeframe and gender (2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical end and 2020 to the theoretical end.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia.
Table B5.3. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes by the end of the theoretical duration of their programme plus three years, by selected fields of study and gender (2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical end and 2020 to the theoretical end.
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: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.