European higher education policy has been increasingly focused on the issue of high dropout rates. By strengthening the social dimension in higher education these policy initiatives aim at providing appropriate conditions that may enable students from underrepresented and vulnerable groups to succeed in their studies (EHEA Ministerial Conference, 2015). Yet, if more students should be able to complete their studies regardless of their social background, a more profound understanding of dropout from higher education is needed (Vossensteyn et al., 2015).

The aim of this study is to examine the relationships of social background, academic-related and institution-related factors with the different indicators of higher education dropout risk in Croatian higher education.

Dropout risk may be shaped by a number of factors including socio-economic and socio-cultural characteristics of students, their academic-related characteristics, institutional characteristics as well as the characteristics of national higher education systems (Behr et al., 2020; Quinn, 2013; Vossensteyn et al., 2015). Also, these factors can be understood as elements of a self-selection mechanism relating to differences in educational outcomes net of academic ability (Nash, 2003; Dupriez et al., 2012). Such position corresponds with an integrated perspective on self-selection processes, i.e. a perspective that takes into account students’ experiences in the family environment, at school and at the higher education institution and which presumes that the perception of such experiences is often an act of “various degrees of self-awareness and deliberation” (Nash, 2003: 448).

Social background factors refer to students' economic (e.g. financial situation), social (e.g. social networks) and cultural capital (e.g. cultural habits and behaviours, parental education) (Bourdieu, 1997). Depending on these different types of capital, students adjust their behaviour and expectations in relation to educational opportunities and provision. The lack of family resources (in the form of economic, social and cultural capital) may create material and other constraints that can shape students' educational aspirations and academic adaptation. Further, there may be a rift between students’ habitus of origin, as “one’s view of the world and one’s place in it” (Dumais, 2002: 45), and the values and norms of academic institutions that can be hard to overcome for students of deprivileged backgrounds (Müller and Schneider, 2013; Thomas, 2002).

Regarding academic-related factors, different studies have demonstrated that type of secondary school, as well as pre-study and in-study educational performance impact on student dropout and retention. In a study of university students in the UK, Johnes (1990) showed that better secondary school performance, attending an academically oriented secondary school, as well as higher results on early university examinations were negatively associated with early withdrawal from university. Investigating the role of pre-study education, Müller and Schneider (2013) found that dropout rates in German higher education depended on students' pre-tertiary educational pathways, that is, students who took the direct track to higher education via the Gymnasium had lower dropout rates then students who completed vocational qualifications.

Institution-related factors refer to the ways in which the values and practices of higher education institutions impact on student dropout and retention. Variations in the risk of non- completion may be related to characteristics such as assessment and teaching approaches, course guidelines or fields of study (Korhonen and Rautopuro, 2019). In the process, institutional characteristics affect students' study satisfaction and their commitment to finish their studies (Bennett, 2003).

The following research questions were formulated: What is the relationship between social background, academic-related and institution-related factors on the one hand and students' perceived probability of graduating on the other? What is the relationship between social background, academic-related and institution-related factors on the one hand and students’ consideration of leaving their studies on the other?

The data used in the present study were collected during the 2016/17 academic year as part of a research project “Study choice, educational achievement and family background: horizontal differences in the higher education system” that was conducted by the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb. The faculties were sampled intentionally with the purpose of recruiting students from different study fields. The data were obtained via paper-and-pencil questionnaire survey, which students completed at faculties during their classes. We used two dichotomized measures of dropout risk that served as the outcome variables in our study: students' perceived probability of graduating (0 – Some degree of uncertainty in finishing studies, 1 - I will definitely finish these studies) and students’ consideration of leaving their studies (Have you ever seriously considered leaving your current studies? Yes – No). The questionnaire contained items about students’ mother and father employment status, the main source of funding for their studies, if they were paying tuition fee, their mother’s and father’s education levels, and place of residence. In addition, students’ social background characteristics included measures of their cultural activities and reading behaviour as two indicators of cultural capital. Furthermore, we operationalized students’ habitus by asking them to specify when they started thinking about enrolling in higher education. In addition, we tested the effects of type of upper secondary school that the student attended prior to enrolling in the university studies, student’s upper secondary school GPA and enrolled year of studies. Students were also asked if the enrolled study programme was their first choice, have they studied something else before, and what was their achievement in studies so far. Study programmes were classified in six study fields (technical, biotechnical, health care, science and mathematics, social sciences and humanities). We also measured students’ satisfaction with their study programme and perceived reputation of the faculty. Desirability of study programmes was measured with two indicators: the number of students in generation who marked the particular study programme as their first enrolment choice and ratio of first enrolment choices and study programme’s enrolment quota. Finally, the effect of gender was controlled. We employed multilevel binary logistic modelling in order to take into account the hierarchical nature of the sample and the fact that students were nested within different faculties and/or study programmes. The analyses were performed using the mixed model procedure in IBM SPSS 22.

The results confirmed the assumption that higher education dropout risk may be associated with different factors (social background, academic and institution-related characteristics), but also that there may be differences regarding the two indicators of perceived dropout risk. With regard to students’ social background, a factor that includes their financial situation, only paying tuition fees had effects on both analysed measures of perceived dropout risk, that is, it lowered students' perceived probability of graduating and increased their consideration of leaving the studies. The attendance of cultural activities and an early determination of enrolling in higher education was related with a stronger perceived probability of graduating. The analysis revealed a consistent association of both measures of perceived dropout risk with academic-related variables. Higher secondary school achievement, type of secondary school, previous attending of higher education and higher achievement in studies positively affected students’ perceived probability of graduating, whilst not studying the first enrolment choice, not studying anything else before and lower achievement in studies all intensified students’ considerations of leaving their studies. As for institution-related variables, the results indicated the significance of field of study and satisfaction with study programme for students’ perceptions of dropout risk. The analysis indicated that perceived dropout risk may be lower for students in STEM fields compared to students in the humanities. Also, higher level of study programme satisfaction was associated with higher perceived probability of graduating and fewer considerations of leaving the studies. The analysis revealed that perceived dropout risk may be viewed as part of a process of self-selection in which a combination of different factors leads to students’ withdrawal from higher education. Accordingly, the impact of the covariates of dropout risk should not be viewed only relative to each other, but should be evaluated in the context of educational decision-making net of academic ability.

Behr, A., Giese, M., Teguim Kamdjou, H. D., & Theune, K. (2020). Dropping out of university: a literature review. Review of Education, 8(2), 614-652. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3202 Bennett, R. (2003). Determinants of Undergraduate Student Drop Out Rates in a University Business Studies Department. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/030987703200065154 Bourdieu, P. (1997). The Forms of Capital. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, Economy, and Society (pp. 46–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role of Habitus. Sociology of Education, 75, 44-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090253 Dupriez, V., Monseur, C., Van Campenhoudt, M., & Lafontaine, D. (2012). Social inequalities of post-secondary educational aspirations: influence of social background, school composition and institutional context. European Educational Research Journal, 11(4), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.4.504 EHEA Ministerial Conference (2015). Yerevan Communique. EHEA Ministerial Conference Yerevan 2015. http://ehea.info/page-ministerial-declarations-and-communiques Johnes, J. (1990). Determinants of student wastage in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012331377611 Korhonen, V., & Rautopuro, J. (2019). Identifying Problematic Study Progression and “At Risk” Students in Higher Education in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(7), 1056-1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1476407 Müller, S., & Schneider, T. (2013). Educational pathways and dropout from higher education in Germany. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 4(3), 218-241. https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v4i3.251 Nash, R. (2003). Inequality/difference in education: Is a real explanation of primary and secondary effects possible? British Journal of Sociology, 54(4), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000143537 Quinn, J. (2013). Drop-out and completion in higher education in Europe among students from under-represented groups. Brussels: European Commission. Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930210140257 Vossensteyn, H., Stensaker, B., Kottmann, A., Hovdhaugen, E., Jongbloed, B., Wollscheid, S., Kaiser, F., & Cremonini, L. (2015). Dropout and completion in higher education in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.