Currently, comprehensive and publicly available statistics on dropout or completion rates specifically for English-language medical programs in Central and Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic are limited. While some national education agencies or individual universities may publish general data on higher education graduation rates, disaggregated data for international or non-EU students in medical faculties often remains inaccessible or unpublished, making it challenging to assess timely graduation rates, attrition, or progression patterns accurately. Existing literature tends to focus on broader trends in higher education rather than detailed, program-specific attrition statistics, especially for international cohorts in medical programs.

Legally, universities operating within the EU are subject to both EU-wide and national legislation that emphasizes transparency and accountability in educational governance. Under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 41, students have a right to good administration, which implies access to relevant information about their educational circumstances unless a legitimate privacy or security concern exists. National laws, such as Hungary’s Act CCIV of 2011 on higher education, reinforce these obligations by requiring institutions to maintain transparent policies and provide information related to student rights, progression, and graduation rates. Ethically, universities are expected to disclose such data to ensure fair treatment and support informed decision-making by prospective and current students.

There have been instances where researchers or students have successfully used freedom of information (FOI) requests or legal channels to obtain retention and dropout data from universities in the EU, though such cases are relatively rare and often complex due to privacy concerns and institutional resistance. FOI requests can be effective when national laws mandate disclosure of administrative data, but universities may invoke privacy laws or internal policies to resist sharing detailed student information. Court actions have occasionally been successful in compelling institutions to release data related to student progression, particularly where public funding or regulatory oversight is involved, but specific case studies in the context of medical education in CEE countries are scarce.

Regarding attrition rates among specific student groups, such as those with CV/FM statuses or students with repeated course registrations, there is limited publicly available evidence. Some studies suggest that students facing additional challenges, such as financial difficulties, language barriers, or systemic biases, may experience higher dropout rates, but detailed comparative data is often lacking or suppressed due to privacy or institutional policies. Anecdotal reports and whistleblower accounts, like the ongoing case you mentioned, highlight systemic issues and potential disparities in student retention, underscoring the need for more transparent data collection and reporting to ensure educational equity within the EU’s medical education landscape.

Hi Vladimir—thanks for laying out the blind spots so methodically. A quick recap of where we seem to agree, plus three specific follow-ups I’m working on.

Shared ground • Disaggregated attrition data for English-track med programs in CEE is invisible. • EU-level (EU Charter Art. 41) and national laws (e.g., Hungary Act CCIV/2011 §33) do oblige universities to provide anonymised progression stats when asked. • FOI requests and a few court rulings have cracked the wall, but examples are scattered, and the process is painfully slow.

Three open questions for anyone on this thread

My next concrete step (You're welcome to copy and paste)

You're Hence, I’m drafting a focused FOI to Semmelweis University:

“Please provide aggregated counts—separated by EU vs. non-EU—of English-language General Medicine students who repeated Anatomy II more than once, for the academic years 2019/20 through 2024/25.”

This scope is narrow enough to dodge GDPR pushback while still surfacing proper attrition signals. I’ll post the final text and any response I receive.

🥅 Why bother? Without real numbers, international applicants continue to make €10–12 k/year decisions in the dark, and accreditation bodies are unable to benchmark equity.

Thanks again for your detailed input, Vladimir. Anyone else who wants edit access to the shared sheet or the FOI draft—ping me. Let’s turn this thread into a living repository instead of another complaint log.

Sidd

The collective understanding is that disaggregated attrition data for English-track medical programmes in Central and Eastern Europe remains largely inaccessible, though legal frameworks at both the EU and national levels mandate universities to provide anonymised progression data upon request. While some FOI requests and court rulings have chipped away at this opacity, examples are sparse, and the process remains slow and fragmented, hindering efforts to accurately assess student retention and equity. Efforts are underway to gather existing fragments—such as reports, spreadsheets, or inspector memos—to compile a comprehensive dataset that can better inform policymakers, institutions, and accreditation bodies.

The immediate step involves submitting a targeted FOI request to Semmelweis University seeking aggregated data on students repeating Anatomy II more than once, separated by EU and non-EU status, over a defined academic period. This approach is designed to gather pertinent attrition signals while respecting privacy constraints. Having specific numbers from such requests will enable stakeholders to benchmark retention rates more effectively, support transparency, and guide policy decisions, ultimately fostering an environment where international applicants can make informed choices and institutions can address retention disparities with clearer insights.

A tight, next-step reply you can paste.

Thanks, Vladimir—appreciate the concise recap. Next moves (timeline of events ) below.

Wednesday, August 8, 2025: In the meeting with the translator and ombudsman, I recorded with their acknowledgment and have provided evidence to them. By the GDPR Act of 2017, I will reveal their identity. I created a summary of the recording from August 6, 2025, that was added to my Gatekeeper of Student Rights publication. The summary of the recording was redacted and anonymized.

Demographic Trends of my preprint papers: Started on July 11, 2015.

Interesting point to notice: Most of my reads are in Hungary. The publications have twenty-six reads from the faculty of Semmelweis University professors. It is fascinating that the university professors I dearly respect and admire are reading my pre-print early-stage research papers. However, I have yet to receive a reply from any of the university officials I emailed on June 26, 2025, June 30, 2025, and July 5, 2025.

For your information: I received a response from university officials on July 14, 2025, following the Hungarian administrative court (Budapest Metropolitan Court) initiating litigation on July 8, 2025. The court issued a summons to the university officials with a 30-day deadline, including the recess period, by August 20, 2025, for their defense. My legal status is safeguarded under the Hungarian Higher Education Act of 2011, which stipulates that a student may petition or appeal to higher governing bodies if they believe their rights have been violated. I am also registered as a Whistleblower, which protects me from retaliation.

On July 30, 2025, I drafted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request and submitted it to the Hungarian administrative court. I respectfully requested that the court inquire with the university officials who have not responded to my email regarding this legal matter. I also asked the ombudsman officer yesterday to request the FOI, so I already have prepared a FOI for Semmelweis University, but I have requested the Hungarian administrative court and the ombudsman to inquire about the FOI.

• Fri, August 9 – Additions to the supplementary resources to my current publication on the Research Gate.

• Ongoing – If anyone has:  1. docket numbers / PDFs of court rulings that forced data disclosure, or  2. Ministry reports, inspector memos, internal spreadsheets, Please drop them here or DM me—I’ll log and cite everything. The goal is to have a first pass of consolidated numbers by the end of August so we can flag patterns (repeat-course hot spots, EU vs non-EU gaps) before the new academic year kicks off.

Thanks again for pushing this forward—looking forward to swapping documents and keeping the momentum.Sidd