Is “Only 39% Finish on Time” the Secret Behind Switzerland’s Strong Education Reputation? A Theory-Guided Look at Completion, Delay, and What “Quality” Really Means in Higher Education

Author: Nadia El-Hassan

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

A striking statistic often circulates in debates about higher education quality: “Nearly 40% of students in Switzerland do not finish on time.” Read quickly, it can sound like a failure story. Read carefully, it is something else: a measurement of time-to-degree, not a measurement of whether students ultimately succeed. Using recent OECD evidence on bachelor’s completion in Switzerland—showing that 39% complete within the theoretical duration, rising to 66% within one extra year and 82% within three extra years—this article asks a provocative question: Is delayed completion (or perceived “failure”) a hidden ingredient behind Switzerland’s strong global reputation in education?

To answer, the paper combines a theory-driven framework (Bourdieu’s capital and habitus, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism) with a structured analysis of how completion indicators are produced, interpreted, and politically used. The central argument is that delay is not the same as failure, and Switzerland’s reputation is unlikely to come from “40% failing.” Instead, Switzerland’s standing is better explained by a package of factors: strong research capacity, stable institutions, robust vocational and professional pathways, selective transitions earlier in the pipeline, and high-performing knowledge infrastructures typical of core economies. However, the visibility of on-time completion indicators can generate isomorphic reforms—standardizing study pathways, intensifying performance management, and pushing institutions to “look efficient” for rankings and accountability—sometimes at the cost of flexibility, equity, and student well-being. The article closes with balanced policy implications: improve completion support without turning universities into “throughput factories,” and communicate completion statistics in ways that distinguish delay, dropout, and successful longer pathways.

Introduction

People love simple numbers—especially when those numbers can be turned into a story. “Nearly 40% don’t finish on time” sounds like a scandal, or a secret trick, or proof that a system is brutally selective. Then comes the jump: Maybe Switzerland is highly ranked because many students fail. It is a tempting narrative because it is dramatic and easy to repeat.

But higher education indicators rarely mean what social media debates assume they mean. In tertiary education, “completion within theoretical duration” is a specific measure: it asks whether a student finishes exactly within the planned time (for example, three years for many bachelor’s programs under the Bologna model). It does not automatically label those who finish later as “failures.” A student may take an extra semester because of part-time employment, a change of major, family responsibilities, health, a semester abroad, military/civic obligations, or a strategic internship. Another student may pause, transfer institutions, or shift from academic to professional pathways. These are not always failures; sometimes they are rational adaptations.

The OECD’s most recent snapshot for Switzerland (bachelor’s level) illustrates the point. The OECD reports that 39% of new entrants in Switzerland complete a bachelor’s degree within the theoretical duration, 66% complete one year after the expected end date, and 82% complete three years after the expected end date. In other words: a large share does not finish “on time,” yet a much larger share finishes within a reasonable extended window. That is not a “40% fail” system. It is a system where a significant share takes longer than the ideal schedule.

So why does this misunderstanding persist? And what does delayed completion really tell us about the quality—and international reputation—of Swiss higher education?

To go beyond surface interpretations, this paper treats the statistic as a social object that travels through institutions, media, and policy debates. Using (1) Bourdieu to understand who can navigate delay without being punished, (2) world-systems theory to contextualize Switzerland’s position in the global education economy, and (3) institutional isomorphism to explain how rankings and indicators push universities to imitate certain models of “efficiency,” we examine whether delayed completion is a cause, a consequence, or simply a misread symptom of a high-performing system.

Background and Theory

1) What does “finish on time” actually measure?

The OECD frames completion rates as the share of entrants who obtain a degree within specified time windows. “Theoretical duration” is the program’s expected length; the OECD then often reports completion within the duration, within one extra year, and within three extra years. Switzerland’s bachelor’s completion shows a steep climb across these windows—39% → 66% → 82%—suggesting that delay is common but eventual completion is substantial for many students.

This is crucial: the statistic often quoted as “40% don’t finish” is frequently a misinterpretation of “39% finish on time.” Not finishing on time includes both (a) students who finish later and (b) students who do not complete at all. Without the extended-window figures, people incorrectly treat “not on time” as “fail.”

2) Bourdieu: capital, habitus, and the “ability to afford delay”

Bourdieu’s toolkit helps explain why the same delay can be experienced as a minor detour by one student and as a crisis by another.

• Economic capital: Students with stable finances can extend studies, reduce course loads, take unpaid internships, or recover from setbacks. Those without financial buffers may be forced to drop out when time extends beyond what they can fund.

• Cultural capital: Knowing how universities work—how to select courses, manage requirements, use office hours, interpret academic norms—reduces the risk that delay becomes derailment.

• Social capital: Networks (family, peers, mentors) provide guidance, internships, and emotional support that keep students moving even when progress is non-linear.

• Habitus: Students’ dispositions shape how they interpret difficulty—either as a normal part of elite academic culture (“this is demanding, but expected”) or as a signal they do not belong.

From a Bourdieu lens, delayed completion is not only about academic ability; it can reflect unequal access to the resources needed to “stay in the game” long enough to finish.

3) World-systems theory: Switzerland as a “core” knowledge economy

World-systems theory (associated with Wallerstein) is often used to understand how “core” economies maintain advantage through high-value activities, including research, innovation, and credentialing. Switzerland’s global role as a high-income, research-intensive country means its universities operate inside a broader ecosystem that rewards advanced skills, specialized knowledge, and high-level scientific output.

In core contexts, higher education can be both:

• a sorting mechanism (high standards, demanding progression), and

• a production mechanism (training for research, technology, health, finance, and governance).

Time-to-degree can stretch in such systems because specialization, lab work, internships, and research integration often complicate linear pathways. That said, world-systems theory does not imply that “failure” is the secret ingredient. Rather, it suggests that core systems can demand more complex forms of academic labor and can absorb delays without collapsing reputationally—especially if eventual outcomes (skills, employability, research output) remain strong.

4) Institutional isomorphism: why universities obsess over measurable “throughput”

DiMaggio and Powell describe how organizations become similar through coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures. Higher education is a classic example:

• Coercive isomorphism: Funding rules, government accountability, visa policies, or performance contracts push institutions to reduce time-to-degree.

• Mimetic isomorphism: Universities copy “successful” models—structured degree maps, early warning systems, standard sequences—especially under uncertainty.

• Normative isomorphism: Professional standards (quality assurance, accreditation, rankings criteria) define what “good” looks like.

Rankings and performance indicators can push institutions to prioritize what is easily measured—completion speed—sometimes more than what is educationally meaningful. Research on rankings as a policy instrument links rankings to isomorphic pressures in higher education governance.

In this frame, the obsession with “on-time completion” is not neutral: it is a product of global competition and the need to display efficiency.

Method

This article uses a qualitative, theory-guided analytic method with three components:

1. Indicator reading (document analysis): We analyze OECD-reported completion windows for Switzerland and interpret what “theoretical duration” completion does and does not imply.

2. Comparative contextualization: We situate Switzerland’s on-time completion in relation to OECD averages reported in the same OECD materials to avoid isolated interpretation.

3. Theory application: We apply Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism to explain:

   • how completion delay can emerge in high-performing systems,

   • who is advantaged or disadvantaged by delay, and

   • why institutions may react strongly to completion metrics.

The goal is not to “prove” a single causal mechanism with new primary data, but to produce a rigorous conceptual explanation that corrects common misreadings and generates testable implications for future empirical research.

Analysis

A) The key correction: “Not on time” ≠ “Fail”

Start with the Switzerland figure that fuels the debate. The OECD reports:

• 39% complete a bachelor’s within theoretical duration

• 66% complete within one additional year

• 82% complete within three additional years 

If someone says, “Nearly 40% do not finish on time,” they may be trying to describe the inverse of the first number (roughly 61% are not completed within the theoretical duration). But that does not mean 61% fail. A large portion of that 61% is captured by later completion (66% within one extra year; 82% within three). The more accurate statement is:

“On-time completion is relatively low, but a substantial share finish later.”

Even across the OECD more broadly, the OECD highlights that on-time completion is often low and rises with extended windows—indicating that delay is common in many systems, not a Swiss anomaly.

B) Why might students take longer in Switzerland? Several plausible mechanisms

A delayed completion pattern can emerge from multiple, overlapping realities:

1. Part-time study and work integration Switzerland has strong labor markets and structured professional opportunities. Students may work during study, and part-time enrollment slows formal progression. A “slow” pathway can still be a high-value pathway if it builds employability and professional capital.

2. Program rigor and gatekeeping within programs Some institutions and programs maintain demanding exams, lab requirements, or progression thresholds. Where academic standards are strict, the system may produce more repeats, more re-sits, and more delayed completion. But this is not “failure as strategy.” It is the by-product of maintaining a performance threshold.

3. Switching, reorientation, and better matching In modern systems, students often discover better fits after starting. Changing tracks, adding minors, or moving between institutions can extend time. From a human perspective, that can be a success story: better alignment reduces the risk of graduating quickly into the wrong field.

4. Bologna structure and mobility Bachelor-master structures and exchange opportunities can complicate sequencing. Mobility semesters or internships can extend degree time without reducing learning outcomes.

None of these require a conspiracy where the “secret” is that many fail. They suggest a system with flexibility, complexity, and high standards—features that can coexist with global reputation.

C) Bourdieu’s lens: delay is easier for some than others

Here the story becomes more morally and politically sensitive. In many countries, including wealthy ones, the ability to take longer is unevenly distributed.

• Students with higher economic capital can “buy time.”

• Students with stronger cultural and social capital can navigate bureaucratic rules and academic expectations.

• Students without these forms of capital face harsher penalties for delay—financial stress, visa constraints, family pressure, and the psychological burden of feeling “behind.”

So when a society celebrates rigor while ignoring unequal capacity to endure delay, it risks converting “quality” into a mechanism of reproduction: the credential remains prestigious partly because not everyone can survive the pathway.

This is not a claim that Switzerland intentionally engineers exclusion through delay; rather, it is an analytical warning: time-to-degree metrics hide social stratification unless we examine who delays, why, and with what consequences.

D) World-systems perspective: reputation is built on outputs, not just throughput

Switzerland’s global education reputation is strongly tied to being a high-performing knowledge economy with globally visible research institutions and innovation systems. In a world-systems frame, such countries maintain advantage through:

• concentration of research capacity,

• international talent attraction,

• strong funding ecosystems,

• advanced sector linkages (health, tech, finance),

• stable governance structures.

These features contribute to reputation more directly than whether students finish in exactly three years. A system can be prestigious and still have delayed completion because it produces high-value outcomes: research, patents, advanced skills, and global labor market recognition.

In fact, if a system becomes too optimized for speed, it may reduce deep learning, experimentation, and the intellectual risk-taking that often drives innovation. The “fastest degree” is not necessarily the best education.

E) Institutional isomorphism: why the metric still matters (and can distort behavior)

Even if on-time completion is not the “secret of ranking,” it still matters because indicators shape behavior.

OECD publications and related policy discussions often highlight low completion and suggest interventions—better guidance, clearer course sequences, and support for students at risk.

At the same time, rankings and accountability can create pressure to treat students like units in a pipeline. Research on rankings shows how rankings can drive coercive and normative isomorphism—universities align strategies to match what is measured.

This can produce a predictable institutional response:

• more structured curricula,

• fewer elective explorations,

• tighter exam schedules,

• early exclusion to protect completion statistics,

• increased managerial control over teaching.

Some of these reforms can help students. Others can reduce academic freedom and student-centered education. The risk is that institutions pursue “metric beauty” rather than educational value.

Findings (Synthesis)

From the analysis, five clear findings emerge:

1. The “40% fail” story is conceptually wrong. The OECD figure commonly referenced is about on-time completion, not final completion or academic failure. Switzerland’s completion rises substantially when allowing additional time (66% within one extra year; 82% within three).

2. Delayed completion is compatible with strong educational reputation. A high-performing system can have delayed completion because of part-time study, work integration, mobility, program rigor, or reorientation.

3. Delay has social structure. Bourdieu’s framework predicts (and many studies in different contexts confirm) that the capacity to survive longer pathways is uneven, shaped by economic, cultural, and social capital.

4. Switzerland’s “ranked” education reputation is better explained by system position and outputs. World-systems theory suggests that core economies maintain educational prestige via research ecosystems, institutional stability, and strong connections between higher education and high-value sectors—not via mass failure.

5. Completion indicators still reshape institutions. Through institutional isomorphism, measurable completion targets can push universities to standardize and manage students more tightly. This can improve guidance and reduce confusion, but it can also narrow educational experience and increase pressure.

Conclusion

So, is “nearly 40% not finishing on time” the secret behind Switzerland being seen as a strong education country?

No—at least not in the simplistic sense that “40% fail and that creates quality.” The OECD data do not support that interpretation. Switzerland’s on-time completion (39%) is one point on a timeline; many students complete later (66% within one extra year; 82% within three).

A more honest conclusion is this:

• Switzerland’s education reputation is more plausibly rooted in high-value educational and research outputs, stable institutions, and a knowledge economy position typical of a core country.

• Delayed completion can reflect rigor, complexity, and flexibility, not just failure.

• However, delay can also reveal inequalities, because not all students can afford extended time.

• Finally, because global comparison systems reward what is measurable, institutions may feel pressure to “optimize” completion speed—creating isomorphic reforms that can help, but can also distort education.

If policymakers and universities want to improve completion, the best approach is not to chase speed for its own sake. It is to improve fit, support, and transparency: better academic advising, clearer pathways without eliminating exploration, targeted support in the first year, and honest communication to the public that distinguishes “late completion” from “non-completion.”

The real secret of high-performing education systems is rarely mass failure. It is usually strong institutions, coherent pathways across academic and professional education, meaningful standards, and support structures that help students meet those standards—even if they sometimes take a bit longer than the textbook timeline.

Hashtags

#SwissHigherEducation #OECDData #StudentSuccess #TimeToDegree #EducationPolicy #UniversityQuality #HigherEducationResearch

References

• Anafinova, S. (2020). The role of rankings in higher education policy: Coercive and normative isomorphism. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102264.

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

• Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2025). Assessing the value of incomplete university degrees. (Working paper / scholarly report).

• Fowles, J. (Year not specified in the retrieved copy). University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. (Scholarly paper).

• OECD. (2025). Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.

• OECD. (2025). Education at a Glance 2025: Switzerland (Country Note). OECD Publishing.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Guil Gorostidi, S. C. (2025). Quality management in higher education from the institutional isomorphism perspective: A review. Frontiers in Education