Dropout in Russian Higher Education and Ways to Reduce it

Vinokurova Ol'ga Semenovna ORCID: 0000-0002-1376-0581 PhD in Economics Associate Professor, Department of English No. 2, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 119454, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Prospekt Vernadskogo, 76 vinokurovao@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction to the problem.

The level of education is an important factor in the development of society and the economic progress of the country, as it affects key socio-economic indicators, including employment and unemployment, the workload of the health system and security.  The state is interested in increasing the level of education of citizens in order to achieve sustainable development of the economy and society and takes an active part in regulating this market. In this regard, the coverage of higher education programs is growing worldwide at a rate exceeding GDP growth: since 1970 it has increased by more than 6 times, while GDP has increased by more than 2 times ^{[1, p.56]}. The rapid development of the higher education market in Russia was facilitated by the adoption of Federal Law No. 273-FZ dated 29.12.2012 "On Education in the Russian Federation", which made it possible to create private educational institutions and provide paid educational services by state universities. The subsequent rapid development of the market required the reform of higher education in 2014, including the tightening of the system of control and supervisory activities.  Licensing of educational activities and mandatory accreditation in order to ensure the quality of education have led to a decrease in the number of universities. Despite the reduction in the number of educational institutions due to consolidation and liquidation against the background of demographic decline, an important result of the state policy in the field of education was a significant increase in the proportion of the population with higher education in Russia: according to Rosstat in 2021, the total number of citizens who graduated from higher education was more than 31% compared to 11% in 1989 G.. With the obvious absolute growth of the indicator, its comparison with analogues of developed countries is required to determine sufficiency to ensure the sustainable development of the Russian economy and society. It also seems reasonable to supplement the indicator of the level of higher education with the indicator "retirement".

The subject of the study is the indicator "retirement" as a characteristic of the higher education market. The indicator "attrition" in this study is an indicator expressed as a percentage, which is the ratio of the number of students of a certain year of enrollment who stopped or interrupted their studies in an educational program for any reason to the total number of students enrolled in this program enrolled in the same year. 

Research objectives: to substantiate the importance of using the "retirement" indicator as a characteristic of higher education and to propose the definition and values of the "retirement" indicator in higher education; to formulate proposals for reducing the "retirement" indicator.  

 Methodology.

The works of Russian scientists are analyzed, including a series of articles by the HSE Institute of Education on the topic of "retirement" and, in particular, a study by E. V. Gorbunova summarizing the scientific experience of foreign and Russian authors on the terminology and concepts of "retirement" ^[2]. The works of foreign authors on the subject of work have been studied: a number of researchers focus on the indicator of attrition in the framework of bachelor's programs of the country ^[3]. Others choose first-year students of a certain specialty as the object of research ^[4] or students from rural areas ^[5]. Separate studies are devoted to the impact of the pandemic on the level of attrition ^[6]. There is a significant predominance of English-language information both at the level of conceptual works and at the level of open statistical data, which explains the predominant use of English-language literature as sources when writing a work.

Empirical methods were used: the OECD statistical databases and open data of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation were studied, the results of oral surveys and written questionnaires of students about the reasons for retirement were analyzed.

Higher and tertiary education.

The OECD statistical databases use the ISCED classification, adopted by UNESCO in November 2011 and designed to present internationally comparable statistical data ^[7]. ISCED classifies educational programs according to their content using two main cross-cutting classification variables: levels of education and areas of education. The classification provides for 8 levels of education, the last 4 of which belong to the tertiary education system: ISCED 5 – a short cycle of tertiary education; ISCED 6 – bachelor's degree or its equivalent; ISCED 7 – Master's degree or its equivalent, ISCED 8 – doctoral degree or its equivalent. In the Russian Federation, according to Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation", the following levels of vocational education are established: 1) secondary vocational education; 2) higher education – bachelor's degree; 3) higher education – specialty, master's degree; 4) higher education – training of highly qualified personnel. Thus, "tertiary education" according to the ISCED system can be compared with "vocational education" in the Russian Federation. At the same time, "secondary vocational education" is not included in the system of "higher education" in Russia when ISCED 5 is included in the system of "tertiary education". Therefore, the term "tertiary education" cannot be an analogue of the term "higher education".

According to OECD data, the level of tertiary education in Russia (57%) is significantly higher than the average of the participating countries (40%) ^{[8, p.48]}.When broken down into levels within the "tertiary education" group, the greatest differences are observed between countries in terms of the level of education with a short cycle. On average, in OECD countries, 7% of people aged 25-64 have a short-cycle tertiary education, with less than 1% in the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland and the Slovak Republic, and more than 20% in Canada and Japan. In Russia, this figure is a significant 25%, second only to Canada (26%), against a combined 32% for the other three levels of this group, which in Russia belong to "higher education".

Analysis of the OECD methodology allows us to conclude that the relatively high proportion of tertiary education in Russia is due to a significant indicator for short-cycle programs with a slight predominance of the share of higher education (32%) over secondary vocational education (25%). At the same time, according to the overall indicator of the last three groups of the ISCED classification (32%), Russia is inferior to many OECD countries (the OECD average is 33%, while Switzerland's is 46%) ^{[8, p.48]}. Relatively low indicators against the background of high demand for higher education among school leavers (85% of schoolchildren) confirm the importance of studying the "attrition" indicator in order to develop measures to increase the number of university graduates with a given number of educational institutions and students ^{[9, p.13]}.

The disposal rate. The main reasons.

The definition of the term "retirement" is not fixed in official documents regulating Russian higher education. At the same time, the methodological recommendations on the application of accreditation indicators for educational programs of higher education, approved by the order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation No. 1094 dated November 25, 2021, contain the AP3 indicator, the reverse of the "dropout" indicator: the proportion of students who successfully completed training in the educational program of higher education, out of the total number of students enrolled to study according to the relevant educational program of higher education. This indicator is calculated as the ratio of the number of students who have successfully completed training under the educational program to the total number of students enrolled in training under the educational program. The FIS of the GIA and Admission and the Federal Register of Information on Educational Documents (FRDO) are given as data sources necessary for calculating this indicator.

Instead of the above AP3 indicator, it seems reasonable to use the "attrition" indicator, expressed as a percentage, and define it as the proportion of students who have stopped or interrupted their studies in an educational program for any reason, to the total number of students enrolled in the corresponding higher education program. This proposal is subordinated to the goal of unifying the terminology used in research on the topic of higher education and simplifying the process of comparing the values of the "attrition" indicator with similar terms widely used in foreign scientific literature and international statistical databases ^{[10, p.662]}.

The above recommendations have established three ranges of values of the AP3 indicator with a certain number of points awarded to an educational organization. With a value of 70% or more (hence, with an attrition rate of 30% or less), the number of points awarded is the maximum (10). If the value is in the range of 50%-69% (retirement from 31% to 50%), 5 points are awarded. If the value is less than 50% (the dropout is more than 50%), no points are awarded. Matching points suggests that a retirement rate of 30% or less is desirable, and a retirement rate in the range of 31%-50% is acceptable (points are still awarded for it). 

Based on the statistical data presented on the website of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (information on the admission, number of students and graduation of specialists of educational organizations engaged in educational activities under educational programs of higher education), the number of people accepted for higher education programs significantly exceeds the number of people who have completed these programs. The average discrepancy is 25% and is approximate due to the lack of publicly available data on those enrolled in subgroups (bachelor's degree, specialty, master's degree, postgraduate and doctoral studies), each of which has its own standard terms of study, and data on students who are on academic leave, who can recover on the program later after completing their studies in a year other than the estimated year of completion of the program with continuous training. However, even with the complexity of calculating the exact indicator, the preliminary retirement rate of 25% is significant and requires consideration, as it indicates a potentially higher level of the population with higher education in the country.

In order to gradually reduce the attrition rate, it seems reasonable to revise the criteria values of the AP3 indicator and the corresponding points established by the methodological recommendations on the use of accreditation indicators for the purposes of accreditation monitoring in the direction of tightening. The maximum number of points awarded should not correspond to the retirement level of 30%, since this value deprives universities of additional motivation to reduce this indicator. It makes sense to base the criteria values on a comprehensive calculation, taking into account the average level of attrition by country, region, and, possibly, the specifics of training.

Let's turn to the international experience. On average, in OECD countries, only 39% of full-time undergraduate students complete their studies during the standard duration of the program ^{[11, p.208]}. After three additional years, the indicator increases to 67%. At the same time, on average, 12% of full-time bachelor's degree students drop out before the start of the second year of study. The indicator increases to 20% by the end of the standard duration of the program and to 24% after three years. Consequently, the average retirement rate is at least 24%. The experience of the USA is indicative, where the attrition rate is about 45% and is one of the highest among the OECD countries ^{[12, p.23]}.

The socio-economic consequences of retirement are significant. Citizens without higher education, as a rule, remain in the low-income group, make higher demands on state and social services and experience difficulties in the labor market. The loss of the possibility of vertical mobility of a part of society is also manifested outside the economic sphere, affecting the life expectancy of the population, the level of culture and security of the country. An important state task is to increase the number of graduates with higher education in the conditions of a given number of students and universities. Significant losses for society explain the interest of scientists in studying this issue.  Against the background of the low probability of re-enrolling a student in an educational institution, the analysis of the reasons for retirement and the development of possible ways to solve the problem is especially relevant ^[13].

 The main reasons for disposal should be highlighted. Economic reasons include:

·           The high cost of education and difficulties with paying the costs of maintaining a certain standard of living during study. Tuition fees are rising significantly faster than the standard of living. The cost of education in the United States, for example, has increased by more than 25% over the past decade with low inflation ^[14]. For most students, even distance learning is impossible without financial assistance. At the same time, there is an inverse relationship between retirement and indicators such as the student's wealth and the duration of training ^[15].

·           The discrepancy for the student of tuition costs and potential benefits. As a result of the cost-benefit analysis, students conclude that the real debt required to complete their education is more important for them than the employment prospects after graduation. Low attrition rate at leading American universities (5% at Harvard and Stanford) indirectly confirms the direct relationship between the reputation of the educational institution and the retirement rate ^[16].

·           The inability to combine work and study. Many students have to work to meet basic needs during their studies. At the same time, the areas where large universities are located are characterized by a high cost of living and related expenses. Employers are reluctant to hire students who need a flexible schedule. Almost 54% of students who dropped out of universities indicated that they could not combine work and study ^[17].

·           Changes in financial circumstances: loss of a source of income or a sharp reduction in funding for various reasons, including illness or dismissal of a student or relatives, as well as changes in the conditions of financial support for a student and lending.

Individual reasons:

·           High academic workload and emotional burnout: some students are not ready for the difficulties of studying.

· Disappointment in the chosen direction of training: a number of students enter universities in order to meet the expectations of others (family, spouse, teacher, etc.) and are quickly disappointed.

·           New life commitments that are difficult to reconcile with training (caring for family members, pregnancy or illness).

· Difficulties of adaptation or emotional conflict with students and teachers:  inability to integrate into the team or inconsistency with the corporate culture of the university.

·           Lagging in studies and lack of academic support from teachers and university administration.

The socio-demographic factor is also important: an inverse relationship between the probability of retirement and the level of education of the student's parents has been revealed ^[18]. The composition of the family also has an impact on the successful completion of the educational program ^[19].

A thorough study of the reasons for retirement should contribute to the development of policies aimed at reducing this indicator and, as a result, solving other issues important to society. Thus, with the established connection between education and life expectancy, it is possible to regulate, among other things, the demographic situation ^{[8, p.26]}.

Conclusions.

The scientific novelty of the article lies in the comparison of the terms "tertiary" and "higher education" and the formulation of the definition and values of the indicator "retirement" in higher education. According to the author, it seems reasonable to use the term "retirement" in official documents for better comparability with the "dropout rate" indicator used in English-language literature and calculated by international organizations when compiling education reports, instead of one of the indicators of accreditation monitoring in Russia since March 1, 2022, namely, "the proportion of students who successfully completed training according to the educational program of higher education, of the total number of students enrolled in the relevant educational program of higher education" (Order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation dated 25.11.2021 No. 1094 "On approval of accreditation indicators for educational programs of higher education").

Based on the analysis of the reasons for retirement, the author has developed recommendations for reducing this indicator:  

·           Providing applicants with detailed information about the curriculum, the schedule of classes and the workload of students during the study period, contributing to an informed choice of the university and the program.

· Development of the system of individual curricula and simplification of the change of educational institution and faculty within the training area in accordance with the changed financial or other conditions.

·           Revision of the curriculum in the direction of reducing the number of contact hours to provide students with greater independence in planning academic work and the possibility of combining study and work.

·           The possibility of continuing education after the expiration of the standard term of the program when crediting previously mastered disciplines and credits of labor intensity.

· Development and popularization of the educational credit system.

Conclusion.

The "attrition" indicator indicates the human resources that society and the economy have potentially received less. The analysis of the reasons for retirement makes it possible to identify vulnerabilities in the higher education system in general and individual educational programs in particular. This analysis is necessary on a regular basis, taking into account the changing environment both at the level of educational organizations to increase the competitiveness and efficiency of the university, and at the state level to improve the educational system and create conditions conducive to increasing the number of graduating students. Currently, the analysis of the "attrition" indicator is complicated by insufficient coverage of the problem and low representation of information about those who have left in the public domain: general information on the website of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education is not sufficient for a detailed analysis. An indirect indicator of attrition is the number of vacant places for which universities recruit before the start of a new semester, published on the pages of relevant educational institutions. Scattered information requires generalization and systematization, and "retirement" requires additional study as an indicator reflecting the state of the higher education market. The author indicates the importance of further research into the causes of retirement in order to develop measures to ensure the possibility of vertical mobility of all population groups.