Student dropout from programmes in higher education is often framed as inherently problematic: public and private resources are spent on studies that do not result in a degree, study places are occupied that could have gone to someone else, and individuals forgo earnings while studying (e.g., Yorke, 1998; Hovdhaugen, 2009). At the same time, dropping out of a study programme is not always problematic for the individual, for example when students transfer to a preferred programme, move and continue their studies elsewhere, or leave because of an attractive job offer. This paper synthesises the dropout/retention/attrition literature and develops an operationalised typology of student dropout using high-quality, full-population Swedish register data that capture individuals’ life trajectories as sequences of states (e.g. enrolment states in the education system and labour market positions). Although the literature on student dropout is united in its references to Tinto’s theory of student departure (1975; 1993), the scholarly and administrative field remains fragmented in terminology and measurement. As Kehm et al. notes, the research field needs “to establish a clearer concept of dropout and distinguish between different types of dropout behavior” (2019, p. 158). Common distinctions, such as voluntary versus involuntary dropout, transfers to other programmes versus exits from higher education, temporary versus permanent dropout, and early versus late dropout (Tinto, 1975; 1993; Kehm et al., 2019), are not mutually exclusive and rarely have standardised operationalisations. As a result, dropout estimates are difficult to compare across studies and contexts, and very different student trajectories risk being treated as the same phenomenon. For example, as Tinto (1975) noted, a failure to distinguish exits from transfers may lead to gross overestimations of dropout numbers on a system level. The purpose of the study is to estimate the prevalence of different dropout patterns in higher education and to identify which student groups are most exposed to specific forms of dropout. Building on existing classifications and measures, and leveraging register data on individual students’ trajectories into their higher education study programme (e.g. prior studies/credentials and admission), through their programme (e.g. progression and academic performance), and out of their programme (e.g. into employment, unemployment, or further studies), the paper proposes a coherent typology of dropout trajectories with explicit operational definitions. By proposing operational definitions, it also aims to facilitate cross-study comparability across institutional or national contexts and enable more focused discussions of when, how, and for whom student dropout constitutes a problem.

Hovdhaugen, E. (2009). Transfer and dropout: Different forms of student departure in Norway. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802457009 Kehm, B. M., Larsen, M. R., & Sommersel, H. B. (2019). Student dropout from universities in Europe: A review of empirical literature. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.9.2019.1.18 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922461.001.0001 Yorke, M. (1998). Non-completion of full-time and sandwich students in English higher education: Costs to the public purse, and some implications. Higher Education, 36(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003217602541