As a result of the adaptation of the Bologna Agreement, the system of higher education in the Netherlands is undergoing a change. Within the new system the higher education institutes receive less government funding. The students will get this money instead. The changing system has introduced more competition between institutions of higher education . The quality of the study programmes and of the internal organisation of the institutions have become the central issue. More than ever it is important to attract and bind students to a study programme or the higher education institute.In the Student Monitor 2002, an annual survey of thousands of students in the Netherlands the study progress of students in the Netherlands is monitored (see De Graaf et al., 2003). Out of every 100 first year students in higher professional education, only 51 persisted in their study within the same institute. Therefore, the potential efficiency gain for institutions and the Dutch higher educational system, by means of better support and improving the quality of the courses, is high. Higher professional education from the first until the third year in college (student cohort 2000/2001) Source: De Graaf et al (2002).Important questions for institutes in higher education are: "What patterns can be found in the switching and drop-out behaviour of their students?" and "How can switching and drop-out be prevented?" Studies in the Netherlands and elsewhere show that switching and drop-out rates are significantly higher for certain groups of students. For example Beekhoven, De Jong & Van Hout. (2004) found that the higher educated students' parents are, the higher the students' expectations of their chances of graduation and consequently, the more study progress they make. Prins (1998) reports that students from ethnic minorities have higher chances to drop-out than other students.In order to gain more detailed insight in switching and drop-out behaviour an institute for higher professional education in the Netherlands initiated a study into these matters. In line with the two central questions above, they raised the following questions: 1. Can switching (within and between institutes) and drop-out be related to particular studies, cohorts or background characteristics/pre-HE history of the students? 2. Is the switching or drop-out voluntary or induced by the HE Institute? Can voluntary and induced switching and drop-out be related to particular studies, cohorts or background characteristics of the students? 3. How do the students who switch between studies or drop-out describe their study motivation and their experiences at the HE Institute? Can this be related to particular studies, cohorts or backgrounds? 4. How can switching and drop-out be prevented? In order to answer these questions three sources of information are used, as is shown in the next table. Background characteristics of the freshmen Drop- out and switching behaviour within the HE Institute Drop- out and switching behaviour within the Dutch HE System Reasons for switching and drop-out Student Administration of the HE Institute X X Dutch student administration (IBG) X X X Survey among students in Higher Education X X X X Starting point of the study are four recent cohorts of students from the HE Institute (freshmen from 2000/2001 till 2003/2004). Based on the student administration their current position (November 2004) was determined. Those student who dropped-out or switched within the institute from one study subject to another were identified. They are invited to fill-in a questionnaire on the Internet. Next to background information, their pre-HE education history, study motivation and study success within the HE Institute, the (former) students are asked about the reasons changing their study subject or for dropping-out.In February the data of the survey will be analysed and combined with the data from the student administrations. Several multi- variate analyses will be conducted to answer the first three questions. The results will be used to give an answer to the fourth question, with the aim of increasing the quality of the courses in order to bind students to the institute. References S. Beekhoven, De Jong, U., & Van Hout, H. (2002). Explaining academic progress via combining concepts of integration theory and rational choice theory. Research in Higher Education, 43(5) 577-600.D. de Graaf, U. de Jong, M. van Leeuwen & I. van der Veen (2003). Nadere analyses Studentenmonitor 2002. [Student Monitor 2002, Further analysis]. Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek nr. 101. Ministerie van OCW. [Ministry of Education, Sciences and Culture.] Den Haag.A. Hofman, U. de Jong, M. van Leeuwen, I van der Veen, et al. (2003). Studentenmonitor 2002 [Student Monitor 2002]. Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek nr. 94. Ministerie van OCW. [Ministry of Education, Sciences and Culture.] Den Haag.U. de Jong, M. van Leeuwen, J. Roeleveld & M. Zijl (2001). Deelname aan Hoger Onderwijs: Toegankelijkheid in beweging. Kiezen voor hoger onderwijs 1995-2000. [Accessibility of higher education. The choice for higher education 1995-2000] Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek nr. 81. Ministerie van OCW. [Ministry of Education Sciences and Culture.] De Haag.I. van der Veen, U. de Jong, J. Korteweg & M. van Leeuwen (2005). The development of higher education students' interest in their subject: The case of higher professional education in the Netherlands. Forthcoming in Studies in Higher Education.J. Prins (1998). Studieuitval in het Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs. [Drop-out in university]. Nijmegen: IOWO.