Comparatieve analyse

Voor elk van de hogeronderwijsstelsels betrokken in dit project � Nederland,\ud Oostenrijk, Denemarken, Duitsland, Finland, Vlaanderen, Frankrijk, Zweden\ud en het Verenigd Koninkrijk � is in de hoofdstukken vier tot en met twaalf de\ud stand van zaken weergegeven met betrekking tot de meest belangrijke\ud scheidslijnen tussen sectoren en hogeronderwijs-instellingen in de nationale\ud stelsels. In deze comparatieve analyse worden thematische vergelijkingen\ud gemaakt. De thema�s die in de landenbeschrijvingen de leidraad hebben\ud gevormd � input, structuurkenmerken, andere systeemkenmerken, output en\ud (recente) ontwikkelingen � zijn ook richtinggevend voor de analyse in dit\ud hoofdstuk. Bij deze thematische vergelijkingen vormt de positie van het\ud Nederlandse hogeronderwijsstelsel ten opzichte van de andere systemen veelal\ud het uitgangspunt. Aan het eind van dit hoofdstuk worden de thematische\ud elementen samengebracht om te reflecteren op de algemene positie van het\ud Nederlandse stelsel ten opzichte van de andere stelsels

Study success in higher education: male versus female students

Study success is an important topic for countries concerned with the effectiveness of their higher education system. A closer look at study success outcomes suggests there are noticeable differences between male and female students: in terms of enrolment, study choices, drop‐out rates, retention rates and completion rates. On study success indicators female students are outperforming male students. Through a literature review, insights from European experts, and case studies at seven Dutch higher education institutions, this paper looks into the extent of the problem experience, the by the literature suggested explanations, and the policy instruments implemented to bridge the gender gap in study success. The problem experience differs by country, yet most European experts see aspects where female students are performing better. On the institutional level, it are mainly specific study programmes (e.g. primary teacher education) that experience study success differences and where gender‐specific policies have been introduced, such as curricula made more in line with characteristics of male students. However, the effectiveness of the implemented instruments is largely unknown. The same outcome is found in the literature review: policies can address, for example, learning environments, but the effect is unknown. More recent insights into differences in brain development between males and females, suggest that alternative learning environments might be more in line with female non‐ cogitative skill, which they developed earlier. This is seen as a strong reason for further research and continues consideration of possible effects on the gender gap in higher education policy reforms

Inclusive Higher Education Access for Underrepresented Groups: It Matters, But How Can Universities Measure It?

Measuring access to higher education for underrepresented groups is a relevant yet challenging task. The article shows that while social inclusion is recognised as a priority, policymakers, academics, and institutional leaders struggle to define, operationalise, and measure it. This makes answering the question of what constitutes a socially inclusive higher education institution quite difficult. While the answer to this question may be context‐specific, there is a clear need for a set of commonly defined indicators that allow higher education institutions to measure their progress throughout time and in relation to others. The article synthesises insights from policy, practise, and scientific research to identify which indicators are the most promising for assessing the access of under‐representative students to higher education. By discussing indicator relevance, validity and feasibility, the article contributes to the quest for internationally comparable social inclusion indicators of underrepresented student groups