Simultaneously the increasing HE participation rates brought about the problem of non-traditional students’ care and there were several interventions designed to their retention and educational success (Koucky et al. 2010). Regarding the diversity of the student community, some of the literature discusses the heterogeneity of students in terms of sex, social origin, ethnicity and religion (Harper–Quaye 2009). Studies in educational sociology are consistent in calling certain groups non-traditional if they show new features in the above respects, or are underrepresented compared to their social significance. The following risk groups have been identified: students from low-status families, women, those who belong to an ethnic or religious minority, those who start their studies at a somewhat later age (over 21), family providers and those who work besides studying (Thomas–Jones 2007, Harper–Quaye 2009). Less attention is paid, however, to the cultural and interactional diversity of the communities of students. There has been an increase in the proportion of non-traditional students, who are also drawn away from the HE milieu by their external contacts. We seek a more precise explanation for the achievement of various student groups in HE by using a more sensitive, multidimensional approach to social status, taking into consideration the influence of personal relationship networks. Accordingly, we have reviewed theories and researches that put an emphasis on the power of relationships among students (Astin 1993, Tinto 1993, Pascarella-Terenzini 2005). In the special literature and also throughout our former researches we identified four student types with special external relationships: married/cohabiting students (Oppenheimer 2003, Goldrick-Rab 2010, Engler 2011), students with extra-campus job (Astin 1993, Györgyi 2012), members of sport-clubs (Purdy et al. 1982, Broh 2002, Pusztai et al. 2012), and religious students (Astin et al. 2011, Pusztai 2011). We plan to test Tinto’s integration-hypothesis by comparing their study career and achievement (Tinto 1993). In the world of mass higher education the concept of student success is even less clearly defined than in compulsory education. In the course of our research we came to the conclusion that it is now inevitable for higher education to develop and implement its own efficiency indicators that are independent of the transitory and temporary processes going on in the economic environment. The new indicators should reflect the efficiency of the institution and the success of the graduates, with the key elements of the system being independent of factors outside the institution. The indicators should take into account long-term effects and added educational values, regardless of the specific major the student has graduated in. We studied several models described in the related literature and drafted an apparently well-functioning model that meets the requirements set up preliminarily. The main elements of the new indicator system are indirect proxies and predictors of further achievement:  the commitment of students to do curricular and extra-curricular work, their devotion to improve their knowledge in formal and informal ways and their readiness to undertake work – work done also for public good and not exclusively personally profitable activity.

Astin, Alexander W. (1993): What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Astin, A. W.- Astin, H, S. & Lindholm, J. A. (2011): Cultivating the Spirit: How College Can Enhance Students' Inner Lives. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Broh, B. A. (2002): Linking Extracurricular Programming to Academic Achievement: Who Benefits and Why? Sociology of Education 75 (1). 69-95. Coleman, James S. 1990 Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard U.P. Engler Á. (2011): Tanulmányi pályafutás a magánéleti tervek tükrében. [Academic career in the light of private plans] Új Pedagógiai Szemle 11-12. 173-183. Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010): The Future of Children. Fragile Families 20 (2). 179-203. Györgyi, Z. (ed.) (2012): Students in Partium. Higher Education for Regional Social Cohesion. Öradea: University of Oradea Györgyi, Z. (2012): Képzés és munkaerőpiac. [Higher Education and job market] Budapest: Új Mandátum Harper, Sh. R. & Quaye, S. J. (eds.) (2009): Student Engagement in Hiher Education. New York-London: Routledge Koucky, J., Bartusek, A. & Kovarovic, J. (2010): Who gets a degree? Prague: Education Policy Centre Oppenheimer, V. (2003). Cohabiting and Marriage during Young Men's Career-Development Process. Demography 40 (1). 127-149. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005): How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Purdy, D., Eitzen, D. & Hufnagel, R. (1982): Are Athletes Also Students? The Educational Attainment of College Athletes. Social Problems 29 (4). 439-448. Pusztai G. (2011b) Schools and Communities of Norm-awareness. Religions 2:(2) 372-378. Pusztai G., Baltatescu S., Kovács K. & Barta S. (2012): Social Capital and Student Well-being in Higher Education. Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2:(1) 54-74. Thomas, L. & Jones, R. (2007): Embedding Employability in the Context of Widening Participation. York, The Higher Education Academy Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago-London, The University of Chicago Press