Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?

The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills provides a snapshot of adults’ proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving. These are foundation skills that enable individuals to engage and function effectively across a broad spectrum of everyday situations and to perform the tasks required by their various social roles, in everyday life as well as in their jobs. Command of these skills enables adults to:

• achieve personal goals, cultivate their knowledge and potential, and actively engage in society

• navigate and handle the mathematical challenges encountered in a range of situations in adult life

• use cognitive and metacognitive processes to define problems, seek relevant information and implement solutions across diverse information environments and contexts.

As literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving are linked to several important economic and social outcomes for both individuals and countries (see Chapter 4), raising skills proficiency of all adults is crucial for individual and collective prosperity. The skills adults possess are determined by the learning opportunities available throughout their lives. These opportunities start during childhood and youth and continue into adulthood and old age. Therefore, policies must strive to give all citizens the same opportunities to develop and reach their full potential by eliminating the barriers to learning related to social circumstances outside of individuals’ control (OECD, 2021[1]; 2019[2]; 2018[3]).

Despite increasing and continuing efforts to ensure equal educational opportunities for all, no country has achieved a level playing field for everyone, although some succeed better than others. Disparities in access to resources persist among different socio-demographic groups, which are reflected in observed differences in proficiency between adults with low and high levels of education, between men and women, between immigrants and non-immigrants, and between adults raised in families with different economic and cultural resources.

To achieve equal opportunities, well-targeted policies in various areas continue to play a key role. For these policies to be effective, policy makers should carefully assess the challenges and barriers some population groups face. Policies should also be adaptable and responsive to evolving trends and crises, which can both exacerbate inequalities and potentially offer new avenues to achieve fair and equal conditions.

This chapter examines adults’ skills proficiency as assessed in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills. Its first section reports on adults’ average proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving in each participating country and economy, compared to adults in other countries and economies as well as to the OECD average. This section also presents the distribution of adults across proficiency levels in all domains. Finally, it examines aggregate inequalities, by considering the inter-decile range. This refers to the gap that separates the highest-performing and lowest-performing 10% of adults within each country and economy. Its second section looks at inequalities with respect to adults’ socio-demographic characteristics. It examines the average proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving of adults in different socio-demographic groups, which are defined in terms of age, education, gender, immigrant background and parental education.

The average literacy proficiency of adults in OECD countries and economies participating in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills is 260 points with a standard deviation of 55 points (Table 2.1). Adults in Finland scored, on average, significantly higher (296 points) than the averages for all other participating countries and economies. Adults in Japan (289 points), Sweden (284 points) and Norway (281 points) also achieved average scores above 280 points. In nine other countries and economies, adults performed significantly above the OECD average, ranging from an average of 279 points in the Netherlands to 263 points in Ireland. The results in Czechia and New Zealand (both 260 points) and the United States (258 points) were not statistically different from the OECD average. In contrast, adults in 15 countries scored significantly below the OECD average, with average scores ranging from 255 points in France and Singapore to 218 points in Chile.

The average numeracy proficiency among participating OECD countries and economies is 263 points with a standard deviation of 58 points (Table 2.2). Adults in Finland scored significantly higher (294 points on average) than those from all other participating countries and economies. In five other countries, average scores exceeded 280 points: Japan (291 points), Sweden and Norway (both 285 points), the Netherlands (284 points), and Estonia (281). Nine more countries and economies scored significantly above the OECD average, ranging from an average of 279 points in the Flemish Region (Belgium) and Denmark to 267 points in Czechia and Austria while the average scores in Latvia (263 points) and the Slovak Republic (261 points) were not statistically different from the OECD average. Fourteen countries scored significantly below the OECD average, ranging from 260 points in Ireland to 214 points in Chile.

Across OECD countries and economies, adults scored on average 251 points in adaptive problem solving with a standard deviation of 47 points (Table 2.3). Adults in Finland and Japan scored significantly higher (276 points on average in both countries) than those from all other participating countries and economies, followed by Sweden (273 points) and Norway (271 points). Another nine countries and economies scored above the OECD average, ranging from the Netherlands (average of 265 points) to Austria (253 points). Average scores in Singapore (252 points), Czechia (250 points), and New Zealand (249 points) were not statistically different from the OECD average. In contrast, 15 countries and economies scored below the OECD average, ranging from 249 points in Ireland and 248 points in France to 218 points in Chile.

Countries performing well in one domain typically did well in other domains as well. The same five countries are at the top of the ranking in all domains: Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Seven other countries and economies scored above the OECD average in all domains: Canada, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, the Flemish Region (Belgium), Germany and Switzerland. Eleven countries scored, on average, significantly below the OECD average across all domains: Chile, Croatia, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Average proficiency in Chile was significantly lower than in all other participating countries and economies in all three domains.

A similar picture emerges when looking at the association between average proficiency in different skill domains across countries. Figure 2.1 shows the relationship between average proficiency in literacy and numeracy. Average performance in the two domains is highly correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.881. The dashed line in Figure 2.1 represents the best estimate of numeracy proficiency for a given value of literacy proficiency, based on the underlying data from all participating countries and economies. For countries above the dashed line, average performance in numeracy is higher than what could be predicted based on average performance in literacy. One way of interpreting such results is saying that adults in these countries perform relatively better in numeracy than in literacy. The opposite can be said for countries that fall below the dashed line. A similar positive correlation between literacy and numeracy was also found in the first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2016[4]).2

To facilitate the interpretation of results, the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills divides the scales for the three domains, which range from 0 to 500, into proficiency levels. The scales for literacy and numeracy are divided into six levels: Below Level 1 and Levels 1 to 5, while adaptive problem solving does not include Level 5. For more information, readers are advised to consult the Reader’s Companion (OECD, 2024[5]).

The difficulty of the different assessment tasks is expressed on the same scale used for measuring the proficiency of respondents (see Chapter 1). This makes it possible to describe what adults at each proficiency level are able to do, based on the characteristics of the assessment tasks whose difficulty level matches that of respondents. These descriptions are provided in Table 2.4 for literacy, Table 2.5 for numeracy and Table 2.6 for adaptive problem solving.

As skills are valuable for individuals but also for societies, one priority for policy makers is the identification of adults who perform at low proficiency levels. This report defines low-performing adults as those who score at the two lowest levels (at or below Level 1) in all skill domains. Box 2.1 provides information on how the Survey of Adult Skills measures what adults with very low proficiency can do.

On average, across participating OECD countries and economies, 26% of adults are low performing in literacy, meaning they scored at or below Level 1: 9% scored below Level 1 and 17% scored at Level 1 (Figure 2.2). Chile has the largest share of such low-performing adults (53%), while Japan has the smallest (10%). Further up the scale, 31% of adults scored at Level 2 and 31% at Level 3, on average across OECD countries and economies. At the highest proficiency levels, 11% of adults scored at Level 4 and 1% at Level 5. Finland has the largest share of adults at Levels 4 and 5 (35%), while Chile and Lithuania have the smallest (2%).

In numeracy, 25% of adults in participating OECD countries and economies are low performing on average. In particular, 9% of adults scored below Level 1 and 16% scored at Level 1 (Figure 2.3). The share of low-performing adults is largest in Chile (56%) and smallest in Japan (10%). On average, 31% of adults scored at Level 2, 31% at Level 3, 12% at Level 4 and 2% at Level 5. Finland is the country with the largest share of adults performing at Levels 4 and 5 (31%), while Chile has the smallest (2%).

In adaptive problem solving, on average, 29% of adults in participating OECD countries and economies are low performing (scoring at Level 1 or below). In particular, 8% of adults scored below Level 1 and 22% at Level 1 (Figure 2.4). Chile has the largest share of low-performing adults, at 56%, while Japan has the smallest, at 11%. In this domain, 38% of adults scored at Level 2 on average, 27% at Level 3 and 5% scored at Level 4. Finland has the largest share of adults scoring at Level 4 (13%) and Chile, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic have the smallest, below 1%.

As proficiency in literacy and numeracy is correlated (OECD, 2016[4]), adults with low proficiency in one domain are also likely to have low proficiency in other domains. Figure 2.5 shows the share of adults with low proficiency in all three domains. This share is highest in Chile (44%) and lowest in Japan (7%). Figure 2.5 also presents the percentage of low-performing adults in literacy and numeracy only. This share ranges between 48% in Chile and 8% in Japan.

Aggregate skills inequalities can be measured by the dispersion of the distribution of skills within each country or economy. One measure of such dispersion is the inter-decile range, i.e. the distance between the 90th percentile of the national skills distribution (the score below which 90% of adults perform) and the 10th percentile of the national skills distribution (the score below which 10% of adults perform).

On average, the inter-decile range in literacy in participating OECD countries and economies is 140 points (Figure 2.6, Panel A). Inequality is particularly pronounced in Singapore and the United States, where the inter-decile range exceeds 160 points. The distribution is more compressed in Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, where the inter-decile range is below 115 points.

In numeracy, the inter-decile range in participating OECD countries and economies averages 144 points (Figure 2.6, Panel B). The difference is widest in New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore and the United States, where the inter-decile range exceeds 160 points, while it is more compressed in Japan, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, where the inter-decile range is below 130 points.

In adaptive problem solving, the inter-decile range averages 119 points (Figure 2.6, Panel C). Variation is widest in New Zealand and the United States, with the inter-decile range exceeding 140 points. The skills distribution is more compressed in Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, where the inter-decile range is lower than 100 points.

The countries with the greatest inequality (widest inter-decile range) across all domains are New Zealand, Singapore and the United States; those with the lowest levels of inequality are Japan, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Sweden. Inequality in skills does not appear to be clearly correlated with average levels of proficiency, suggesting that education and training policies can succeed in equipping a large majority of the population with relatively high levels of skills. Countries where skills inequality is high also tend to be countries where parents’ level of education is more strongly related to skills proficiency of their offspring. This is consistent with findings from the previous cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills (Paccagnella, 2015[7]), and highlights the importance of helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve a more inclusive and fairer distribution of skills.

Monitoring the skill endowment of different population subgroups can help countries and economies identify at-risk populations with low levels of foundation skills. Policy makers can use this information to identify, design and implement targeted policies to address the needs of low-skilled populations, as well as assessing the effectiveness of such measures. This section considers skill differences across groups defined in terms of age, educational attainment, gender, immigrant background and parental education.

Skills are not static. Over the course of a lifetime they can be acquired and developed, lose value, and even decline (Kautz et al., 2014[8]). Skills are influenced by the nurturing effects of the home, family, school and work environment (Kautz et al., 2014[8]); culture (Baltes, 1993[9]); genetic factors (Toga and Thompson, 2005[10]); effects related to ageing (Desjardins and Warnke, 2012[11]; Kautz et al., 2014[8]); and many other factors such as beliefs, attitudes and values. With increased life expectancy leading to longer working lives, it is more important than ever to understand how skills develop throughout people’s lives, including into old age.

The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills covers adults aged 16 to 65 (born between 1957 and 2007), spanning the end of compulsory schooling, through working age and up to the onset of retirement. Not all differences in skills among adults of different ages can be attributed to ageing itself (i.e. the consequences of growing older, including factors such as neurological development or behavioural maturation). Some of those differences can be due to cohort effects (which reflect the different experiences that adults born at different times go through, for example different educational policies) as well as to period effects (which capture influences that vary through time, like macro-economic conditions, or events like the COVID-19 pandemic). Cross-sectional data such as those collected in the Survey of Adult Skills, which only provide a snapshot of the skills of the population at a particular point in time, do not allow age, cohort and period effects to be disentangled. Chapter 3 uses information from the two cycles of the survey to separately investigate age and cohort effects.

Figure 2.7 shows the average proficiency of adults in different age groups in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving. In the vast majority of countries and economies, adults aged 55-65 display the lowest average proficiency in all domains. The exceptions are New Zealand and Sweden, where 16-24 year-olds achieved the lowest average proficiency in numeracy in both countries. In literacy, New Zealand is the only country where 16-24 year-olds achieved the lowest average proficiency.

In most countries and economies, the highest average proficiency is observed among either 25-34 year-olds or 16-24 year-olds. Adults aged 25-34 achieved the highest average proficiency for literacy in 15 out of 31 countries and economies, in 14 for numeracy, and in 16 for adaptive problem solving while those aged 16-24 achieved the highest average proficiency in 14 countries and economies for literacy, 12 for numeracy, and 14 for adaptive problem solving. The exceptions in literacy are New Zealand, where 45-54 year-olds scored the highest on average, and the Slovak Republic, where the best-performing adults were 35-44 year-olds. In numeracy, 35-44 year-olds scored highest in Finland, Hungary and Sweden, while 45-54 year-olds scored highest in New Zealand and the Slovak Republic. In adaptive problem solving, 35-44 year-olds scored highest in the Slovak Republic.

Skills are developed, enhanced and accumulated over a lifetime through education and training opportunities. The various skills that adults possess at any given time are determined by their past access to learning opportunities. This process begins during early childhood education and care, continues through formal school education, and extends into adulthood through formal, non-formal and informal learning at work, in leisure time activities and at home. Assessing the relationship between education, learning opportunities and the skills proficiency of adults is therefore complex, as skill development is a dynamic process in which the skills acquired at earlier stages in life determine the learning at later stages in life (Cunha et al., 2006[12]).

Educational reforms and the expansion of access to formal education over the past decades have affected adults’ skills. Educational attainment levels have risen, a trend that is reflected in the expansion of tertiary attainment rates. Between 2000 and 2021, the share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary attainment increased from 27% to 48% (OECD, 2022[13]). Opportunities for adults to advance their education, especially through online learning, have expanded. Although the COVID-19 pandemic had adverse effects, including school closures (Grewenig et al., 2021[14]; Werner and Woessmann, 2021[15]) and reduced informal learning opportunities (OECD, 2021[1]), it has also led to a substantial increase in online learning opportunities for adults (OECD, 2020[16]).

While skills can be developed through various education and training settings, formal education plays a pivotal role in the development of foundation skills (Desjardins, 2003[17]; OECD, 2013[18]). Historically, educational attainment or years of schooling have been used as the main proxy for the stock of human capital (Barro and Lee, 2013[19]; Hanushek and Woessmann, 2011[20]). However, this proxy is imperfect as it overlooks factors unrelated to educational attainment that affect skill development (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2011[20]; 2008[21]). Some of these factors are related to education systems – such as school quality, tracking, the share of privately funded schools and government systems (Green and Pensiero, 2016[22]; 2015[23]) – while others are related to the family, as elucidated further below.

Formal education has a crucial role in providing children, adolescents and adults with adequate proficiency in foundation skills like literacy, numeracy and problem solving. It is important to examine whether it is fulfilling this mission. This section analyses the relationship between the highest educational qualification obtained by adults and their foundation skills. However, it is important to acknowledge that the skills of the working-age population are not solely a product of their formal education and the design of school systems and selection processes (Silva et al., 2020[24]). They are also influenced by their occupation, their educational choices (in terms of the field of study, for instance), and the availability of non-formal and informal learning opportunities. It is also important to keep in mind that literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving are only some of the skills that are developed in formal education. In fact, formal education develops a wide range of skills, including subject-specific skills, social and emotional skills (OECD, 2024[25]), and creative thinking (OECD, 2024[26]).

The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills finds that higher levels of educational attainment are associated with higher average proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving (Figure 2.8). Tertiary-educated adults scored 33 points higher in literacy, on average, than those with upper secondary attainment, who in turn scored, on average, 43 points higher than adults who did not complete upper secondary education (Figure 2.8, Panel A). These findings confirm the relationship already observed in the first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2016[4]). The analysis here is limited to those aged 25-65, as they are the most likely to have completed their formal education. Younger adults are a much more heterogeneous population, as only some of them have left education, while others will still be following a variety of educational paths.

Cross-country comparisons of the proficiency of adults at either the same level of educational attainment or at different levels, can be informative about how well different educational systems succeed in building their citizens’ skills. Adults with the same level of qualifications (e.g. tertiary) may perform better on average in one country or economy than their equally qualified peers in another. When adults with different levels of attainment (e.g. tertiary and upper secondary) are compared, those with upper secondary attainment in one country might be found to perform better than tertiary-educated adults in the other, on average.

Such comparisons show that the expected pattern of higher proficiency among individuals with higher levels of qualification does not always hold across borders: adults with relatively lower levels of educational attainment may have relatively high skills proficiency. For example, adults with upper secondary attainment in Finland scored 288 points in literacy on average, outperforming tertiary-educated adults in 19 out of 31 participating countries and economies (Figure 2.8, Panel A).

Conversely, highly educated adults in some countries might have lower proficiency than adults with lower attainment in other countries. For example, tertiary-educated adults in Chile scored an average of 249 points in literacy, below the average for those with upper secondary attainment in 17 other participating countries and economies.

These results underline the value of the Survey of Adult Skills in providing information about differences in skills between and within countries that statistics on educational attainment are unable to fully capture. The considerable differences can be attributed to cross-country differences in the quality of their education systems, but also to differences in the provision and organisation of education and lifelong learning opportunities. These include factors such as when learning takes place (e.g. childhood, youth or adulthood), where it takes place (formal, informal and non-formal), how learning is facilitated (e.g. whether there are barriers to participation), and what is learned (e.g. skills, attitudes and values) (OECD, 2021[1]).

The size of the skills gap between highly educated adults (those with tertiary education) and low-educated ones (with below upper secondary education) varies across participating countries and economies (Figure 2.9). However, France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States consistently have the widest gaps across all domains: exceeding 94 points in literacy, 102 points in numeracy and 76 points in adaptive problem solving. Conversely, the smallest gaps are in Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Spain for literacy, at 54 points and less, and in Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Spain for numeracy, at less than 61 points. In adaptive problem solving the five countries with the smallest average gaps (below 40 points) are Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Spain.

Figure 2.9 also presents so-called “adjusted” differences. These take into account the fact that adults at different levels of education also differ in other dimensions that are independently related to skills proficiency. Box 2.2 describes the interpretation of adjusted versus unadjusted differences and the information they provide to countries, economies and policy makers. Estimates of adjusted differences control for age, gender, immigrant background, the language spoken at home and parents’ educational attainment. These socio-demographic characteristics, however, can only account for a small part of the observed gaps, confirming the important role played by education in explaining skills differences.

Adults can achieve their highest formal qualification through several pathways. These pathways are, among other things, determined by the policies and practices used to select and sort students during formal schooling as well as by adults’ educational choices (OECD, 2020[27]). These choices include the orientation of an educational programme (general, vocational or combined) and the field of study. Box 2.3 discusses how differences in the field of study chosen by tertiary-educated adults are related to their proficiency in numeracy, focusing in particular on the skills of adults who studied science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM programmes).

Promoting gender equality is not just a matter of social justice: it also has the potential to enhance growth, productivity, competitiveness and the sustainability of economies (Klasen, 2002[30]). While efforts have been made to reduce gender gaps in various aspects of life, disparities persist, including in academic performance (OECD, 2023[31]; 2016[4]), financial literacy (Monticone, 2023[32]), physical skills (Borgonovi, Seitz and Vogel, 2022[33]), labour-market outcomes (OECD, 2023[34]) and leadership positions (OECD, 2019[35]).

In recent years, historical gender gaps in education that originally favoured men have narrowed and, in some cases, even reversed. For example, the share of women aged 25-34 with tertiary education has consistently risen over the past decades, overtaking the share of men; as of 2023, the gap in OECD countries is 13 percentage points in favour of women, on average, and widening (Lee and Lee, 2016[36]; OECD, 2024[37]; 2021[38]). Despite this, women continue to face considerable disadvantages. For example, women and girls, on average, score lower in mathematics and numeracy performance (OECD, 2023[31]; 2019[39]). Women are also under-represented in STEM programmes, as men and women tend to make different choices about what to study (OECD, 2023[40]; 2022[13]). Box 2.4 shows differences in the field-of-study choices between men and women, along with associated gaps in numeracy proficiency. There are also worrying gender gaps to the disadvantage of men and boys. For example, among 15-year-olds, boys make up a larger share of low performers in reading (31% of boys and 22% of girls) (OECD, 2023[31]) and on average 57% of students who repeat a grade are boys (OECD, 2024[37]).

In the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills women scored higher in literacy, while men scored higher in numeracy and adaptive problem solving, on average. Men are also more likely to be low performers in literacy while women are more likely to be low performers in numeracy.

On average across participating OECD countries and economies, women scored 3 points higher than men in literacy, while men outscored women by 10 points in numeracy and 2 points in adaptive problem solving (Figure 2.14). After accounting for relevant background characteristics, the adjusted gender gap shrinks to 1 point in favour of women in literacy (which is not statistically significant), but widens to 12 points in numeracy and 4 points in adaptive problem solving in favour of men. One potential explanation for this increase in the size of the adjusted coefficients in numeracy and adaptive problem solving is gender differences in educational attainment. For example, on average, 48% of women are tertiary educated, but only 40% of men are (see Table B.3.3 in Annex B). As higher levels of education are normally associated with higher proficiency, adjusted differences control for the fact that women appear to underperform in the assessment, compared to what one would expect based on their level of education.

In literacy, women in 13 countries (Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland) scored significantly higher than men on average before accounting for relevant background characteristics, while in Singapore, men achieved significantly higher average literacy proficiency than women. In numeracy, men scored, on average, significantly higher than women in 27 countries and economies. In adaptive problem solving, in nine countries and economies (Austria, Chile, England [United Kingdom], the Flemish Region [Belgium], Korea, Lithuania, Portugal, Singapore and Switzerland) men scored significantly higher than women, on average. The direction of the gender gap in numeracy is the same as in the first cycle of the survey (OECD, 2019[39]); for literacy, however, the gender gap has reversed.

On average across participating OECD countries and economies, the direction of the gender gaps observed in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills in literacy and numeracy mirrors those found in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).3 In 2022, 15-year-old boys scored on average 9 points above girls in the PISA mathematics assessment, while girls had a 24-point advantage in reading (OECD, 2023[31]). Although the average gender gaps in proficiency in PISA and the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills point in the same direction, the magnitude of the gaps cannot be directly compared, as PISA and the Survey of Adult Skills use two different reporting scales. However, it is possible to express gender gaps in the two surveys relative to their respective average standard deviations (55 points in literacy and 58 points in numeracy in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills; and 90 points in mathematics and 101 points in reading in PISA). When dividing the gender gap by the standard deviation, the resulting effect size in reading is 24% of a standard deviation among 15-year-olds in PISA, compared to 5% of a standard deviation in literacy among adults in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills. This suggests that the gender gap in literacy among adults is smaller than the gender gap in reading for 15-year old students. In contrast, the effect size is 10% of a standard deviation for mathematics in PISA, compared to 16% of a standard deviation for numeracy in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills, suggesting a widening of the gap among adults. These findings are in line with previous studies that compared the proficiency of 15-year-olds in PISA with that of 27-year-olds in the first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills (Borgonovi, Choi and Paccagnella, 2021[44]).

Observed gender disparities in academic performance tend to develop early in life due to prevailing stereotypical expectations and cultural norms within the social and cultural environment (González de San Román and De la Rica, 2020[45]). The empirical evidence suggests that gender stereotypes about mathematics ability emerge before any actual differences in achievement are observed (Cvencek, Meltzoff and Greenwald, 2011[46]). Boys also tend to be more confident than girls in tackling maths tasks (OECD, 2013[47]), while girls exhibit higher levels of mathematics anxiety (OECD, 2015[48]). Men are more likely than women to select fields of studies – and consequently occupations – that require more intense use of numeracy skills, which fosters their development. These could explain the widening gap in numeracy. The smaller literacy gap among adults may be explained by literacy being considered a more transversal skill that is developed irrespective of the field of study (Borgonovi, Choi and Paccagnella, 2021[44]).

As higher proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving are associated with a number of important economic and social outcomes for both individuals and countries (see Chapter 4), it is important to identify those scoring at low proficiency levels. This section examines differences in the percentage of low-performing men and women, i.e. those scoring at or below Level 1.

Figure 2.15 shows the percentage of low performers among men and women for all three skill domains. In literacy, 27% of men and 25% of women are low performing. In numeracy the shares are 24% of men and 26% of women. In adaptive problem solving, the share of low performers is not statistically different across genders (29% each).

Low literacy performance is more prevalent among men than among women in 16 countries. In Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Latvia and New Zealand, gender differences are particularly pronounced, with men 5 percentage points more likely than women to be low performers. The opposite is true in Singapore, where only 28% of men are low performing, compared to 31% of women.

In numeracy, the share of low-performing women is significantly higher than that of men in nine countries and economies (Austria, Canada, Chile, England [United Kingdom], France, Korea, Portugal, Singapore and Switzerland). In adaptive problem solving, Estonia has significantly more low-performing men, while Chile, Korea, Portugal and Singapore have significantly more low-performing women.

The over-representation of low performers among men in literacy and among women in numeracy mirrors findings from PISA. Among 15-year-olds, 31% of boys and 22% of girls are low performing in reading. In contrast, in mathematics, slightly more girls than boys are low performing (32% versus 31%).

Migration flows in OECD countries and economies have reached an unprecedented level, with over 6 million new permanent immigrants in 2022 (OECD, 2023[49]).4 By mid-2023, OECD countries had recorded an influx of around 5 million refugees fleeing the war of aggression of Russia against Ukraine.5 In light of these circumstances, public and policy discussions regarding the support and facilitation of migrants’ integration into education systems, labour markets and society remain prominent on the political agenda.

This section distinguishes between adults who are foreign-born of foreign-born parents, native-born of foreign-born parents and native-born of native-born parents. On average, native-born adults of native-born parents make up 75% of the adult population across countries and economies participating in the Survey of Adult Skills (see Table B.3.10 in Annex B).6 These shares range from 46% in Switzerland to 97% each in Japan and Korea and 99% in Poland. Foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents comprise the second largest group with 15%, with shares ranging between 1% in the Slovak Republic to 33% in Switzerland and New Zealand. Finally, native-born adults of foreign-born parents comprise 5% of respondents on average, with shares ranging from 1% in Czechia, Italy, Lithuania and Spain to 18% in Israel. When interpreting the average proficiency of immigrant groups or proficiency differences between native-born adults of native-born parents and immigrant groups, the size of the immigrant population should be considered (see Table B.3.10 in Annex B).

The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills found substantial differences in proficiency between adults with different immigrant backgrounds in each domain. In literacy, on average, native-born adults of native-born parents scored 267 points, native-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 260 points and foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 222 points (Figure 2.16, Panel A). Average scores of native-born adults of native-born parents range from 219 points in Chile to 307 points in Finland. Among native-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range from 233 points in Czechia to 289 points in Ireland. Among foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range from 188 points in Korea to 254 in Ireland.

In numeracy, on average, native-born adults of native-born parents scored 269 points, native-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 258 points and foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 230 points (Figure 2.16, Panel B). Among native-born adults of native-born parents, scores range from 215 in Chile to 302 points in Finland. Among native-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range from 224 points in Portugal to 280 points in Switzerland and 281 points in Canada. Among foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range between 190 points in Czechia and more than 260 points in Estonia (262), Canada (263) and Singapore (264).

In adaptive problem solving, on average, native-born adults of native-born parents scored 256 points, native-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 249 points and foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 223 points (Figure 2.16, Panel C). Among native-born adults of native-born parents, scores range from 218 points in Chile to 280 points or higher in Norway (280 points), Sweden (282 points) and Finland (283 points). Among native-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range from 224 points in Czechia to 271 points in both Ireland and Norway. Among foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents, scores range between 201 points in Czechia and 245 points or higher in Canada and Ireland (245 points each) and Sweden (246 points).

Figure 2.17 compares the literacy proficiency of native-born adults of native-born parents to that of foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents and native-born adults of foreign-born parents. On average, foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 44 points lower than native-born adults of native-born parents (Panel A). The largest difference is observed in Finland (105 points), the lowest in Latvia (3 points) and Lithuania (1 point). Native-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 8 points lower than native-born adults of native-born parents in literacy, on average (Panel B). The largest difference was in the Flemish Region (Belgium), at 38 points. In contrast, in Ireland, native-born adults of foreign-born parents scored on average 25 points higher than native-born adults of native-born parents. Native-born adults of foreign-born parents also scored significantly higher than native-born adults of native-born parents in Canada (9 points) and Israel (6 points).

These differences (which are often substantial) partly stem from the fact that adults with a migration background are subject to multiple sources of disadvantage. It is therefore particularly important to take into account differences in other socio-demographic characteristics when interpreting skills differences among adults with different immigrant backgrounds. Accounting for these socio-demographic factors reduces the gap in literacy skills between foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents and native-born adults of native-born parents from 44 to 28 points (Figure 2.17, Panel A). In Finland, where the unadjusted proficiency gap between these groups is widest, it narrows from 105 to 61 points after accounting for socio-demographic characteristics. Among native-born adults of foreign-born parents, adjusted estimates reduce the gap from 8 to 4 points (Figure 2.17, Panel B).

Differences in numeracy and adaptive problem solving between native-born adults of native-born parents and adults with different immigrant backgrounds are provided in Table A.2.10 (N, A) in Annex A. In numeracy and adaptive problem solving the gap between native-born adults of native-born parents and foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents is 38 points and 32 points, while the gap between native-born adults of native-born parents to native-born adults of foreign-born parents is 10 points and 6 points.

The Survey of Adult Skills assesses adults’ proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving in a particular language(s) spoken in the participating countries and economies. Proficiency in the language of the assessment is therefore a crucial factor that must be taken into account when interpreting the results. Individuals who lack the language proficiency to participate in the survey are nonetheless included in this analysis, as some minimal information has been collected on them through the doorstep interview (see Box 1.1. in Chapter 1). Unsurprisingly, the large majority of adults that were only able to answer the doorstep interview were foreign-born (see Table B.3.18 in Annex B and Chapters 5 and 6 in OECD (2024[5])). Immigrants who speak the language in which the test is administered can naturally be expected to display higher proficiency than those who do not.

Therefore, the reduction in these gaps before and after accounting for relevant background characteristics may be explained by migrants being less likely to speak the language of the assessment (or having lower proficiency in the language of the assessment) and lower levels of education on average. For example, among foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents, only 45% speak the language of the assessment at home (see Table B.3.11 in Annex B), and the share of those without upper secondary education is 9 percentage points higher than among adults who are native-born of native-born parents (see Table B.3.12 in Annex B). As discussed below, the survey assesses some of these characteristics and their association with migrants’ proficiency. However, there are multiple other factors that may further contribute to explaining proficiency gaps. Among these are the quality of school education in their country of birth; differences in school resources between schools with a high and low proportion of migrants in the host country; and differences in financial, human, and social and cultural capital between parents of migrants and non-migrants.

Migrant populations are highly heterogeneous across and within countries. Even within the same host country, migrants have different migration histories. The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills collects detailed information on the migration history of adults. Migrants can be characterised by the following factors: whether they speak the language of the host country, where they obtained their education, their age at arrival and the duration of their stay in the host country. These migration-related factors are relevant in explaining differences in performance in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving.

As stated above, foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents constitute the largest group of those with an immigrant background. On average, 45% of foreign-born adults speak the language of the host country at home; 26% had arrived within the last five years, meaning 74% have been in the host country for more than five years; 62% obtained their education abroad; and 12% arrived in the host country at age 6 or younger, 9% between the ages 7 and 12, and 82% after age 12 (Table B.3.11 in Annex B).

Figure 2.18 compares the performance in literacy of native-born adults of native-born parents to that of foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents with a range of migration-related characteristics. Overall, foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents have higher literacy proficiency if they speak the language of the host country at home (Panel A); if they have been living in the host country for more than five years (Panel B), if their highest educational qualification was obtained in the host country (Panel C); if they arrived in the host country at a young age (Panel D). Doorstep respondents are included in Panel A and Panel B. The share of doorstep respondents among foreign-born of foreign-born parents by language and duration are provided in Table B.3.19 in Annex B.

On average, native-born adults of native-born parents scored 267 points in literacy. Foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents averaged 243 points if they speak the host country’s language at home, but only 204 points if they do not (Panel A). Those who obtained their education in the host country scored 247 points compared to 227 points for those who were educated abroad (Panel B). Looking at the age of arrival, foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents scored 257 points on average if they were aged 6 or younger when they arrived, 247 points if they were between the ages 7 and 12, and 231 points if they were 13 or older (Panel C). Those who have been in the host country for more than five years scored on average 224 points, compared to 214 points among more recent arrivals (Panel D). Results for numeracy and adaptive problem solving are provided in Table A.2.11 in Annex A.

These findings are in line with results from the first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills and PISA. The first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills also found notable differences in numeracy and literacy performance, with foreign-born adults experiencing a disadvantage compared to native-born adults.7 It also found that a portion of these gaps can be attributed to factors related to their individual migration histories (OECD, 2019[39]; OECD, 2018[50]). Similarly, the latest PISA report found that the significant gaps in reading and mathematics performance between immigrant and non-immigrant 15-year-old students diminish when accounting for socio-economic background and language spoken at home (OECD, 2023[31]).8

Differences in academic achievement are associated with differences in socio-economic background. Socio-economically advantaged families have more financial, human and social capital resources. As a consequence, individuals raised in such families are more likely to benefit from access to learning materials, receive parental support for learning, attend better schools and be guided towards activities that will promote their eventual career success (Conger and Donnellan, 2007[51]).

Socio-economic status is a construct that captures various dimensions, such as parents’ income, education and occupational status. This report uses the highest educational qualification obtained by the respondents’ parents as a proxy for their socio-economic background in childhood. This section groups adults into those with highly educated parents (having at least one parent who had attained tertiary education), those with medium-educated parents (having at least one parent who had attained upper secondary education, but none who attained tertiary) and those with low-educated parents (neither parent had attained upper secondary education). As the level of education of parents is not recorded in the doorstep interview, adults who only answered the doorstep interview are excluded from the analysis presented in this section.

Adults with highly educated parents scored higher on average than those with medium-educated parents in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills, while in turn adults with medium-educated parents outscored those with low-educated parents. This pattern holds across all domains, but the size of the gaps varies across countries. For example, proficiency gaps to the advantage of adults with highly educated parents are relatively high in Germany while relatively low in Spain.

Figure 2.19 shows the average proficiency scores grouped by parents’ attainment level across participating OECD countries and economies for all three domains. Overall, adults with highly educated parents scored 284 points in literacy on average, those with medium-educated parents scored 264 points and those with low-educated parents scored 234 points (Panel A). Results for numeracy and adaptive problem solving are provided in Panels B and C.

Figure 2.20 shows the proficiency gap between adults with highly educated parents and those with low-educated parents. On average, across participating OECD countries and economies, the unadjusted differences are 50 points in literacy (Panel A), 49 points in numeracy (Panel B) and 42 points in adaptive problem solving (Panel C), to the advantage of adults with highly educated parents.

The largest unadjusted gaps are observed in literacy in Germany and Switzerland (70 points and more), in numeracy in Germany and the United States (70 points and more), and in adaptive problem solving in Germany and Switzerland (more than 57 points), all to the advantage of adults with highly educated parents. Conversely, the smallest (yet still significant) gaps, to the advantage of adults with highly educated parents, on average, are observed in literacy in the Slovak Republic, Spain and Sweden (less than 33 points); in numeracy in Lithuania, Spain and Sweden (less than 36 points); and in adaptive problem solving in the Slovak Republic, Spain and Sweden (less than 29 points). Accounting for relevant background factors explains almost half of these gaps.

Generally, the findings are in line with the differences in proficiency observed among adults in the first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills, which also found that adults whose parents had higher-level qualifications achieved higher average proficiency scores and that background characteristics explained a large part of the estimated gap (OECD, 2016[4]). PISA survey results also found that 15-year-olds with socio-economically advantaged backgrounds have greater proficiency in mathematics (OECD, 2023[31]) and science (OECD, 2016[52]). A study comparing 15-year-olds (PISA) and 27-year-olds (first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills) has also shown that literacy disparities between students of low- and highly educated parents tend to widen over time, with the gap becoming more pronounced at the bottom end of the proficiency distribution (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2021[53]).

[9] Baltes, P. (1993), “The aging mind: Potential and limits”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 33/5, pp. 580-594, https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/33.5.580.

[19] Barro, R. and J. Lee (2013), “A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 184-198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001.

[44] Borgonovi, F., A. Choi and M. Paccagnella (2021), “The evolution of gender gaps in numeracy and literacy between childhood and young adulthood”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 82, p. 102119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102119.

[53] Borgonovi, F. and A. Pokropek (2021), “The evolution of socio‐economic disparities in literacy skills from age 15 to age 27 in 20 countries”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47/6, pp. 1560-1586, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3738.

[33] Borgonovi, F., H. Seitz and I. Vogel (2022), “Swimming skills around the world: Evidence on inequalities in life skills across and within countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 281, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0c2c8862-en.

[51] Conger, R. and M. Donnellan (2007), “An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58/1, pp. 175-199, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551.

[12] Cunha, F. et al. (2006), “Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1574-0692(06)01012-9.

[46] Cvencek, D., A. Meltzoff and A. Greenwald (2011), “Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children”, Child Development, Vol. 82/3, pp. 766-779, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x.

[17] Desjardins, R. (2003), “Determinants of literacy proficiency: A lifelong-lifewide learning perspective”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 39/3, pp. 205-245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.04.004.

[11] Desjardins, R. and A. Warnke (2012), “Ageing and skills: A review and analysis of skill gain and skill loss over the lifespan and over time”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 72, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9csvw87ckh-en.

[45] González de San Román, A. and S. De la Rica (2020), “Gender gaps in PISA test scores: The impact of social norms and the mother’s transmission of role attitudes”, Studies of Applied Economics, Vol. 34/1, pp. 79-108, https://doi.org/10.25115/eae.v34i1.3008.

[23] Green, A., F. Green and N. Pensiero (2015), “Cross-country variation in adult skills inequality”, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 59/4, pp. 595-618, https://doi.org/10.1086/683101.

[22] Green, A. and N. Pensiero (2016), “The effects of upper‐secondary education and training systems on skills inequality. A quasi‐cohort analysis using PISA 2000 and the OECD Survey of Adult Skills”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 42/5, pp. 756-779, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3236.

[14] Grewenig, E. et al. (2021), “COVID-19 and educational inequality: How school closures affect low- and high-achieving students”, European Economic Review, Vol. 140, p. 103920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103920.

[20] Hanushek, E. and L. Woessmann (2011), “The economics of international differences in educational achievement”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53429-3.00002-8.

[21] Hanushek, E. and L. Woessmann (2008), “The role of cognitive skills in economic development”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 46/3, pp. 607-668, https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.3.607.

[8] Kautz, T. et al. (2014), “Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 110, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en.

[30] Klasen, S. (2002), “Low schooling for girls, slower growth for all? Cross-country evidence on the effect of gender inequality in education on economic development”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 16/3, pp. 345-373, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3990191.

[36] Lee, J. and H. Lee (2016), “Human capital in the long run”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 122, pp. 147-169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.05.006.

[32] Monticone, C. (2023), “Gender differences in financial literacy and resilience”, in Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9f80ab9-en.

[41] OECD (2024), Bridging Talent Shortages in Tech: Skills-first, Micro-credentials and Inclusive Outreach Strategies, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f35da44f-en.

[37] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[26] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en.

[25] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.

[5] OECD (2024), Survey of Adult Skills 2023: Reader’s Companion, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3639d1e2-en.

[49] OECD (2023), International Migration Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f40584-en.

[40] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.

[31] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[34] OECD (2023), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea13aa68-en.

[13] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.

[1] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en.

[6] OECD (2021), The Assessment Frameworks for Cycle 2 of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4bc2342d-en.

[38] OECD (2021), “Why do more young women than men go on to tertiary education?”, Education Indicators in Focus, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6f7209d1-en.

[27] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.

[16] OECD (2020), “The potential of online learning for adults: Early lessons from the COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ee040002-en.

[2] OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.

[35] OECD (2019), Fast Forward to Gender Equality: Mainstreaming, Implementation and Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa5-en.

[39] OECD (2019), Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en.

[3] OECD (2018), Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en.

[50] OECD (2018), Skills on the Move: Migrants in the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307353-en.

[54] OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Technical Report, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/pisa/publications/technical-report/PISA2015_TechRep_Final.pdf.

[52] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.

[4] OECD (2016), Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en.

[48] OECD (2015), “Does math make you anxious?”, PISA in Focus, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5js6b2579tnx-en.

[43] OECD (2015), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.

[47] OECD (2013), “Mathematics self-beliefs and participation in mathematics-related activities”, in PISA 2012 Results: Ready to Learn (Volume III): Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-8-en.

[18] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

[28] OECD (n.d.), Technology Pact, OECD AI Policy Observatory, https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/http:%2F%2Faipo.oecd.org%2F2021-data-policyInitiatives-24780 (accessed on 14 October 2023).

[29] Office of Science and Technology Policy (2021), Progress Report on the Implementation of the Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan, Executive Office of the President of the United States, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-CoSTEM-Progress-Report-OSTP.pdf.

[7] Paccagnella, M. (2015), “Skills and Wage Inequality: Evidence from PIAAC”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 114, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5js4xfgl4ks0-en.

[24] Silva, P. et al. (2020), “Student selection and performance in higher education: Admission exams vs. high school scores”, Education Economics, Vol. 28/5, pp. 437-454, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1782846.

[10] Toga, A. and P. Thompson (2005), “Genetics of brain stucture and intelligence”, Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 28/1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135655.

[42] Vallee, C. (2021), Gender bias in AI: What the United States, Canada, and Western European nations can learn from other countries, OECD AI Policy Observatory, https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/ai-national-gender-bias.

[15] Werner, K. and L. Woessmann (2021), “The legacy of COVID-19 in education”, CESifo Working Paper, No. 9358, Ifo Institute Center for Economic Studies, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3945280.