The analysis also found what many of us know or intuitively feel: that it is “disadvantaged students (that is, Indigenous students, students with a disability and students from a low socioeconomic [SES] background)” are less likely to complete a qualification. In addition, those less likely to complete tend to be enrolled in a certificate I or II qualification. This group, of course, includes many of those with a disadvantaged background as these certificates are often referred to as “enabling courses”. They help participants acquire foundation and marketable skills and access further studies, or possibly work. So this mixture of course level and student type is sort of a ‘double whammy’ and accounts for relatively poor completion rates in these lower level certificates: particularly Certificate Is.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, students in an apprenticeship or traineeship are more likely to complete their VET qualifications. Using multiple modes of learning also increases the likelihood of completion or – predictably – those who complete using RPL or credit transfer. Those least likely to complete studied in the classroom only, electronically or by correspondence. No real surprises there either.<\/p>\n

Overall, they concluded that: “course and student attributes play a pivotal role in explaining the likelihood of completion at the aggregate level.”<\/p>\n