Competing risk models

Table 4 shows the results of the competing risk models. I report the subhazard ratios for each of the outcomes relative to being still enrolled. Subhazard ratios below 1 indicate negative effects, while those above 1 indicate positive effects. In order to facilitate the interpretation of the subhazard ratios, Figure 6 shows the cumulative incidence function of all explanatory variables on the three outcomes. I find that track mobility has a significant effect on dropout, which corresponds to a lower graduation rate, but hardly affects the likelihood of changing courses. A diploma in vocational training results in a higher graduation rate, which does not correspond to lower dropout rates, but to a lower change rate. This indicates that students with vocational education are more likely to graduate from their initially chosen course not because they are less likely to drop out altogether, but because they are less likely to change subjects. For the alternative pathway, I do not find significant effects on any of the outcomes, but I observe

55

comparatively large effects, which indicates low statistical power in this category due to a small subgroup (N = 42).

A cautious interpretation of the effects suggests that students from alternative entry pathways are less likely to drop out, but at the same time are more likely to graduate or change subjects than traditional students. Work experience produces higher persistence in the chosen subject: students with work experience are more likely to graduate because they are less likely to change and less likely to drop out altogether.

The parents’ level of education does not have a significant effect on non- completion or graduation, but men drop out of university less often than women. Having children under the age of six does lead to a somewhat increased risk of dropout, but also increases the subhazard ratio of graduating. However, none of the effects is significant, whereas a current pregnancy has a clearer effect on higher-education outcome: a pregnancy of the respondent (or his partner) increases the subhazard ratio of dropping out, but also of graduating. This is surprising, but may indicate that a pregnancy in some cases impedes course progress, while in other cases it may be deliberately planned shortly before graduation or accelerates graduation. The effects of the field of study reflect the perception that some fields are “easier” than others, a particularly high subhazard ratio for dropout is observed in law and public administration, whereas in STEM/agrarian/ transportation-related fields the change rate is remarkably high, but not the dropout rate. A higher age at enrolment is associated with higher subhazard ratios for dropout and lower subhazard ratios for graduating. The effects for year of first enrolment indicate that persistence in higher education is consistently lower for later cohorts, which may be a consequence of either decreasing selectivity in terms of aptitude or an increasing inclination for students to use the first enrolment as a “parking lot” when the desired education is not available at the time of graduation from secondary education. For example, there may be increasing pressure in the vocational training market in cohorts with large proportions of upper-secondary graduates or competition for an attractive field of study with entry restrictions, such as numerus clausus. Students are then more likely to enrol in a suboptimal course initially, and change to vocational training or the desired course as soon as it is available.

56

Table 4: Results of competing risks regressions, subhazard ratios

Model 1: Drop out vs. still enrolled Model 2: Graduate vs. still enrolled Model 3: Change vs. still enrolled

Pathway to entry qualification

Abitur (ref.)

Track mobility 1.51 * 0.90 0.91

Alternative pathway/second cycle 0.57 1.15 1.01

Vocational training 0.82 1.43 *** 0.51 **

Control variables

Work experience (years) 0.97 1.05 ** 0.81 *

At least one parent with higher-education

degree 0.79 1.02 0.98

Sex (male = 1) 0.62 *** 1.07 0.92

Children before enrolment (yes = 1) 1.03 1.14 0.66

Self or partner pregnant (yes = 1, time varying) 3.53 *** 1.65 ** 0.32

Field of study Education (ref.) STEM/agrarian/transportation 1.04 0.61 *** 2.25 *** Health/care 0.88 0.88 0.91 Economics/administration 1.63 * 0.57 *** 2.30 *** Law/public administration 2.02 ** 0.64 ** 1.52 Social/behavioural sciences 1.49 * 0.55 *** 1.74 **

Age at first enrolment 1.25 *** 0.92 ** 1.00

Year first enrolment 1963-1970 (ref.) 1971-1975 3.84 ** 0.69 * 1.07 1976-1980 7.21 *** 0.55 *** 0.88 1981-1985 7.92 *** 0.44 *** 1.03 1986-1990 5.98 ** 0.48 *** 1.10 1991-1995 5.27 ** 0.51 *** 1.45 1995-2000 4.91 ** 0.49 *** 1.35 2001-2005 3.23 0.41 *** 1.56 N observations (person-months) 100,370 100,370 100,370 N subjects 1,712 1,712 1,712 N failed 211 1,162 275 N competing 1,437 486 1,373 N censored 64 64 64 Log pseudolikelihood -1490.3984 -7971.6508 -1994.2901

57

Figure 6: Cumulative incidence functions based on coefficients in Table 4

My results show that prior educational pathways have an effect on non-completion of university studies. Regarding the effect of prior vocational training, I formulated two contradicting hypotheses, as vocational skills are resources that can be equally beneficial

58

in the labour market and in higher education. The findings indicate that vocational training has no effect at all on dropout rates, which may be because the positive and negative effects of the acquired skills counteract each other, so I can confirm neither Hypothesis 1a nor 1b. I did, however, assume that students with prior vocational training had made a more considered decision regarding their subject and therefore are less likely to change their course. I confirmed this hypothesis (Hypothesis 1c). In sum, students with prior vocational training are more likely than traditional students to graduate from their initially chosen course.

I also examine the effects of different pathways to entry qualifications. In addition to the traditional route to an upper-secondary diploma, students can obtain eligibility via track mobility or alternative pathways. Track mobility appears to be disadvantageous for success in higher education, as I observe that these students drop out more often. This corroborates Hypothesis 2a. Those who have obtained their entry qualification outside general upper-secondary education, on the contrary, have no disadvantages in terms of study success. I suggest that this group is positively selected in terms of motivation and persistence as they have previously “survived the tough route” to their entry qualification. The effects, however, are large but insignificant, due to the small number of cases.