Category: mental health

  • Our drop-out and pace miracle is harming students’ health and learning

    Our drop-out and pace miracle is harming students’ health and learning

    One of the most alarming things about the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned National review of higher education student suicide deaths is the apparant role of academic pressure.

    Well over a third of the serious incidents reviewed made explicit reference to academic problems or pressures – often tied to exams or exam results.

    Other pressures included anxiety about falling behind, upcoming deadlines, perceived pressure to perform, and involvement in “support to study” procedures.

    And just under a third of those reviewed had submitted requests for mitigating circumstances – often citing personal reasons, mental health issues, or anxiety about academic performance.

    The review concluded that students struggling academically should be recognised as at-risk and provided with enhanced, compassionate support – and noted the need for greater awareness at critical points in the academic calendar, particularly around exam times, given that March and May saw peaks in suicide and self-harm incidents.

    Basically, academic pressure was not a sole cause but a consistent co-factor – frequently present and potentially exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. The report calls for better early detection, more proactive outreach, and a systemic rethink of how institutions respond to academic distress before it becomes a crisis.

    But what if the system, and its associated rhythms and traditions, is itself causing the problems?

    See the mess and trouble in your brain

    In our recent polling on health, academic culture emerged as a significant but often overlooked determinant, with students describing patterns of overwork, presenteeism, and what we’ve heard called a “meritocracy of difficulty” in some countries – one that rewards suffering over learning outcomes.

    My department seems to pride itself on how much we struggle,” wrote one student, while another observed that “lecturers brag about how little sleep they get, as if that’s something to aspire to.” In some departments in some providers, unhealthy work patterns are normalised and even celebrated.

    Assessment strategies featured prominently in student concerns about academic pressure. “Having five deadlines in the same week isn’t challenging me intellectually – it’s just testing my ability to function without sleep” and “I’ve had to skip meals to finish assignments that seem designed to break us rather than teach us” are two of the comments that got the highlighter treatment.

    Some spoke of the way in which assessment approaches particularly disadvantage students with health conditions:

    When everything depends on one exam, my anxiety disorder means I can’t demonstrate what I actually know.

    The glorification of struggle appears deeply embedded in some disciplines. “There’s this unspoken belief that if you’re not miserable, you’re not doing it right,” noted one respondent. Another observed:

    …completing work while physically ill is treated as a badge of honor rather than a sign that something’s wrong with the system.

    Students also highlighted the disconnect between health messaging and academic expectations – “The university sends emails about wellbeing while setting impossible workloads” and “We’re told to practice self-care but penalised if we prioritise health over deadlines.”

    Many articulated a vision for healthier academic cultures – with comments like “Learning should be challenging but not damaging,” and “I want to be pushed intellectually without being pushed to burnout.” As one student noted:

    The university keeps trying to teach us resilience when what we really need is a system that doesn’t require being superhuman just to graduate.

    Students called for workload mapping across programmes to identify assessment bottlenecks and unreasonable clustering, alongside assessment strategies that offer more flexibility and multiple ways to demonstrate learning.

    They advocated for mandatory staff training on setting healthy work boundaries and avoiding “struggle” glorification, as well as health and wellbeing impact assessments for all new curriculum and assessment designs.

    Their asks included “reasonable adjustments by design” policies ensuring assessments are accessible by default, clear policies distinguishing between challenging academic content and unnecessary stress, and the revision of attendance policies to discourage presenteeism during illness.

    One comment pushed for student workload panels with the authority to flag unsustainable academic demands. As the respondent put it: “If workload is such an issue for UCU, why isn’t an issue for the SU”?

    You feel lazy but stop the fantasies and bubble butts

    Even when we were in the EU, the UK for some reason always declined to take part in Eurostudent – a long-running cross-national research project that collects and compares data on the social and economic conditions of higher education students in Europe.

    But we can do some contemporary comparisons.

    First we can look at the World Health Organisation’s Well-Being index (WHO-5), which invites respondents to consider whether, over the past two weeks:

    • They have felt cheerful and in good spirit
    • They have felt calm and relaxed
    • They have felt active and vigorous
    • They woke up feeling fresh and rested
    • Their daily life has been filled with things that interest me

    Cibyl’s Mental Health Research is the largest UK study of university students and recent graduates’ mental health – and if we consider its results via the Eurostudent comparison, we are at the upper end of low well-being.

    We can also look at students’ general perceptions of their own health – a big part of which will be their mental health:

    The question asked in Eurostudent is the one we asked in our recent health polling. If we sort by the percentage of students responding positively, we don’t fare well – and the temptation would be to assume that if we can act to improve students’ health, we might ease academic pressures.

    Students are diverse, of course. Here’s what our scores look like by disability:

    The mind drifts to improvements to the NHS, increased awareness, cheaper and more nutritious food or easier access to sports facilities. But as we know, causation is not correlation. What if, rather than good health being a solution to academic pressure, that pressure is a cause of the bad health?

    In this detailed Eurostudent 2024 analysis, higher study demands – specifically long hours spent on coursework, preparation, and class attendance – were directly associated with lower wellbeing scores.

    The findings are grounded in a Study Demands-Resources (SD-R) framework, which distinguishes between stress-inducing demands (like excessive workload or time pressure) and supportive resources (such as peer contact or teacher guidance).

    In multivariate regression analyses, students who reported the highest time spent studying were consistently more likely to report poor well-being, defined by WHO-5 scores of ≤50. The trend held even after controlling for social and financial variables.

    Students studying more than 40 hours per week consistently reported lower wellbeing scores, while those studying 30-40 hours show optimal outcomes. Interestingly, students studying under 20 hours also experienced reduced wellbeing, likely reflecting disengagement or underlying difficulties rather than lighter workloads being beneficial.

    Commuting time created additional strain, with wellbeing decreasing progressively as travel time increases – students commuting over 60 minutes each way showed notably lower scores than those with shorter journeys.

    The relationship between paid work and wellbeing followed a pattern where moderate employment (1-20 hours weekly) actually enhanced student well-being, possibly through increased financial security or beneficial structure. But working more than 20 hours weekly eroded those benefits and became detrimental to mental health.

    Childcare responsibilities initially appeared to correlate with slightly higher wellbeing, but the effect disappeared when support systems were factored in – suggesting external support rather than the caring role itself influenced outcomes.

    Excessive academic pressure drained cognitive and emotional reserves. Without adequate recovery, connection, or flexibility, students began to internalise stress, which eroded their self-efficacy and increased the risk of burnout, depression, and anxiety. As students fall behind, the pressure compounds – creating a feedback loop of academic struggle and psychological deterioration.

    Running from the debt in the battle of cyber heads

    Intertestingly, age played a crucial role – older students tended to report higher levels of well-being compared to younger students. This was attributed to more effective coping strategies such as increased support-seeking and greater use of engagement strategies, while younger students are more likely to use avoidance strategies.

    EUROSTUDENT’s model explicitly included age as a socio-demographic factor that shaped a student’s “contextual conditions” – such as their academic and personal study environments – which in turn influenced study demands, access to resources, and ultimately mental health outcomes.

    Its multivariate analysis supported the idea that age has a statistically significant impact on wellbeing, even when controlling for other factors such as financial stress and social isolation. All of which puts two key stats into sharp focus.

    Our undergraduates are pretty young – In Europe only Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands beat us on percentage of 18/19 year olds enrolled, and here’s the mean age of undergraduates on entry across the whole OECD. We’re in the middle of the pack on 22:

    But here’s the distribution for the average age on graduation from a Bachelor’s, which suggests we have the youngest undergraduate graduates in Europe:

    If you then bear in mind that our non-completition rates are lower, it’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that at least part of the problem we see with wellbeing and mental health is structural – and that taking steps to cause students to both enrol later, and complete slower, would help.

    Keep you feeling impressed

    In recent years, plenty of other countries have been attempting to speed up their students’ completion – partly because those countries are keen to get often older students out into the labour market.

    But it does mean that the research that has gone into why students take so long in some countries to accrue the 180 credits for a Bachelor’s can be interrogated for signs of those systems’ ability to accommodate and relieve pressure.

    A decade ago, the HEDOCE (Higher Education Dropout and Completion in Europe) project was a large-scale comparative study examining dropout and completion rates across 35 European countries – providing insight into the policies that European countries and higher education institutions employed to explicitly address study success, how these policies were being monitored and whether they were effective.

    It combined a literature review of academic and policy documents with three rounds of surveys among selected national experts from each country, eight in-depth country case studies (Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland), institutional case studies within those countries including interviews with policy-makers, institutional leaders, academic staff and students, and statistical analysis of available completion, retention and time-to-degree data.

    It found Denmark providing student funding in a way that explicitly acknowledged that the theoretical three-year timeline may not reflect educational reality. The Netherlands went further, offering students a full decade after first enrolment to complete their degree for loan-to-grant conversion, a policy that helped reduce average time-to-degree from 6.5 to 5.8 years while improving completion rates.

    It’s notable that the populists’ proposal of a study-time penalty to reduce the time further late last year in NL brought swift condemnation from the two national students’ unions – with concerns that forcing the same pace would result in unequal outcomes, worries that students’ high employment-during-studies rates were incompatible with a faster pace for some, and a major concern that the tens of thousands of students attempting less than 30 credits in a semester to fit in a “Board semester” – running the country’s impressive array of student associations – would be under major threat.

    In the HEDOCE report, researchers talk about “pressure reduction” – when students know they have more than three years available, “each individual semester failure is less catastrophic” and systems can “focus on mastery rather than speed.” Students facing temporary setbacks – health issues, family circumstances, financial pressures – were able to reduce their course load temporarily and extend overall duration rather than dropping out entirely.

    Students became “less likely to drop out entirely when facing academic difficulties” and “more likely to persist through temporary setbacks.”

    The Norwegian experience illustrates. Despite – or perhaps because of – allowing extended completion periods, at the time Norway was maintaining completion rates of 71.5 per cent at bachelor level and 67 per cent at master’s level. Students could “explore additional courses and find their optimal path without penalty,” with the well-functioning labour market reducing urgency to complete quickly as “employment opportunities exist even without completion.”

    Extended duration systems acknowledged the reality of student employment. The study found that students working more than 20-25 hours per week in Estonia and Norway showed higher dropout risk – but the systems accommodated it rather than penalising it.

    These systems also enabled what the report termed “assessment flexibility and academic readiness.” Students were able to gauge their preparation for examinations, retake failed modules without catastrophic consequences, and accumulate credits over multiple attempts rather than facing binary pass-fail decisions with immediate ejection consequences.

    Germany’s continuous assessment systems exemplified the approach – allowing students to “gauge their readiness” for progression rather than facing predetermined examination schedules regardless of preparation level. Ditto the Netherlands’ Binding Study Advice system – where students received intensive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction, with the safety net of extended completion timeframes preventing premature dropout due to temporary academic difficulties.

    It’s also worth noting that countries prioritising completion over speed consistently showed better outcomes. Many European systems were:

    …explicitly designed to prioritise completion over speed, viewing extended duration as preferable to dropout.

    That challenges fundamental assumptions about educational efficiency. If the goal is maximising human capital development and minimising wasted educational investment, then systems that achieve 80 per cent completion over four to five years may be superior to those achieving 60 per cent completion over three years.

    As such, the evidence suggested that policymakers face a genuine trade-off between completion speed and completion rates. Systems optimised for rapid completion – three years maximum, immediate financial penalties for delays – may have achieved faster average graduation times but at the cost of overall completion rates.

    So what are we to make of the UK’s stats – where we seem to manage to combine a lower study hours-per-ECTS credit with lower drop-out rates than average and faster enrolment-to-graduation times?

    Every day we live a miracle

    Rather than extending duration to reduce pressure, the report argued that the UK system maintained “a fairly tight admissions system” combined with:

    …a widespread and embedded expectation that completion is possible in three years except for exceptional circumstances.

    Students and families “do not expect to study for longer than the normal time period,” creating social and cultural momentum toward timely completion, and England’s 2012 funding reforms – shifting to £9,000 annual tuition fees with income-contingent loans – created what the researchers describe as putting “students in the driver’s seat.”

    It seems to suggest that the market-driven approach and a desire to avoid extra debt was generating different behavioural incentives than the extended-support models elsewhere.

    Higher education institutions became “dependent on students and study success for their funding,” creating institutional incentives for retention without requiring extended timeframes. It also noted that in England, the HEFCE Student Premium provided targeted funding for institutions enrolling students “with a higher risk of dropout,” but that that operated within the three-year framework rather than extending it.

    Most significantly, it identified the English approach as creating what might be termed “compressed intensity” rather than “extended accommodation” – noting that “institutions and students are not funded for more than three plus one years (except for longer courses),” creating hard financial boundaries that concentrate educational effort.

    Everyone else in Europe might be scratching their head – England in particular seems to challenge the general finding that extended duration typically improves completion rates.

    It suggests an alternative model – intensive, time-bounded education with high support levels and clear completion expectations may achieve similar or superior outcomes to extended-duration systems. But at what cost?

    You don’t need an upgrade anymore

    The pressures identified in the HEDOCE report have intensified since its publication a decade ago. England’s “tight admissions system” referenced in the research is considerably less tight now as we continue to widen access, yet the temporal constraints remain unchanged. That creates a fundamental mismatch between institutional capacity to support diverse student needs and the rigid three-year framework within which everyone expects them to operate.

    The student premium funding available today is nothing like as helpful as it was a decade ago, EUROSTUDENT’s model is as vivid as any on the interactions between student financial support, and any regular reader of Wonkhe will know how far that has fallen in comparison to costs on all sorts of measures. Here’s how we look on average student incomes:

    And here’s how we look when we adjust for comparative spending power:

    Maybe our comparative wellbeing data looks worse precisely because we’ve created a system that prioritises throughput over student experience. Our high percentage of students living away from home, combined with annual rental contracts and significant financial commitments, makes dropping out extraordinarily difficult even when it might be the healthiest option. Students facing mental health crises may persist not because they’re thriving, but because the economic and social costs of withdrawal are so prohibitive.

    Our student maintenance systems don’t really allow enrolling into less than 60 credits a year even if a student wanted or needed to – and the regulatory pressures in the UK, especially England, to reduce dropout rates has created incentives to push students through.

    Rather than addressing the underlying causes of student distress, institutions focus on retention metrics that may keep struggling students enrolled but not necessarily supported. A “retention at all costs” mentality may well contribute to the compressed intensity that characterises the system.

    No more nap, your turn is coming up

    The temporal aspects are especially telling. Even if you set aside the manifest unfairness of a system whose most popular assessment accommodation for disabled students is “extra time”, it causes chaos – and deep opposition when things like self-certification is clawed back at the altar of “academic standards” that seem to be about pace rather than attainment.

    Then the high costs of student support services coping with the race mean that early intervention – the kind identified as crucial in the suicide review – often come too late or prove inadequate. When institutions are financially incentivised to maintain high completion rates within tight timeframes, the investment required for genuine wellbeing support becomes a secondary consideration.

    When Denmark had a run at speeding students up, this study found that the majority of students were led by an explorative educational interest that contradicted the reform’s demand that all students complete their education at the same pace. It also found a need to consider wider social interest and engagement among students:

    Rather than focusing exclusively on their own success, the students in the survey were often motivated by the social aspects of the study environment, and in many cases, the study environment appeared crucial for the students’ motivation and their completion times.

    In one telling quote, a first-year student in Computer Science saw the reforms as a risk to students’ voluntary engagement:

    One of the places where I think the Study Progress Reform will shoot itself in the foot is that there will no longer be someone who has the time to be a student instructor, because you have to complete your study in half the time. There is nobody who dares to sacrifice their own studies in order to teach others about what they learned last year.

    Another explained how she might take advantage of the new rules on transferring ECTS credits to gain more time for her bachelor project:

    I have perhaps become a bit rebellious in relation to the new regulations because I would like to enjoy this study… I would like to have more time to go into greater depth. I cannot plan what will happen in ten years, and I cannot see how the job market will look, but at the same time, I just simply need to look forward. … I have decided what I will write about in my bachelor [project], and I could actually use some of those credits from Tibetology, which I studied before.

    A third thought the reform had made her reconsider her own propensity to risk:

    It has always been important for me to have a period of study abroad, and it was an essential objective to learn and speak a decent level of Spanish. But then I found out the other day that the study abroad agreement that the Ethnology Department has in Spain requires that you take an exam in Spanish. And you have to take a language test before you go down there. … I think that now, all of a sudden, there is a lot at stake.

    The paper concludes that an acceleration of time has taken place in late capitalist societies, with movement becoming an objective in itself – institutions and practices are marked by the “shrinking of the present”, a decreasing time period during which expectations based on past experience reliably match the future.

    Can’t you see the link?

    But there’s another dimension to the story that complicates any simple narrative about slowing down or extending duration. The evidence from international skills assessments suggests that our efficient degree production system isn’t actually producing the learning outcomes we might expect.

    The Mincer equation – the fundamental formula in labour economics that models the relationship between earnings, years of schooling, and work experience – has traditionally suggested that each additional year of education participation yields measurable increases in both skills and earning potential. So what does the UK’s speed mean for learning and earning?

    The 2023 PIAAC (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) results reveal that UK graduates, particularly those from England, perform relatively poorly compared to graduates in many other OECD countries across literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving assessments.

    The scale of the underperformance is stark. Adults in Finland with only upper secondary education scored higher in literacy than tertiary-educated adults in 19 out of 31 participating countries and economies, including England. While England has seen a 13 percentage point increase in the proportion of tertiary-educated adults between 2012 and 2023, average skills proficiency has not increased correspondingly. The PIAAC data show no significant gains in literacy or numeracy among our growing graduate population.

    In other words, we’re “producing” graduates faster and more efficiently than most other systems, but they’re demonstrating lower levels of the foundational competencies that their qualifications should represent. UK tertiary-educated adults scored around 280 points in numeracy compared to over 300 in Japan and Finland. In problem-solving in technology-rich environments, only about 37 per cent of UK tertiary-educated adults reached the top performance tiers, compared to over 50 per cent in countries like the Netherlands and Norway.

    That suggests that our model of “compressed intensity” may be producing credentials rather than capabilities. The three-year norm, rigid subject specialisation, grade inflation and high completion expectations all appear to prioritise the award of qualifications over the mastery of skills.

    The implications are profound. If degrees are not effectively developing human capital – the literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving capabilities that employers, society and students themselves expect – then the entire economic justification for higher education expansion with its considerable personal investment comes into question.

    Countries with extended-duration systems may achieve better learning outcomes precisely because they allow time for deeper engagement with material, multiple attempts at mastery, and the kind of reflective learning that develops transferable skills.

    The pressure-reduction mechanisms identified in HEDOCE – the ability to retake modules, explore additional courses, and gauge readiness for progression – may be essential not just for wellbeing, but for genuine learning and subsequent economic activity too.

    Pressure rocks you like a hurricane

    The irony is that students are desperate to slow down. A growing “slow living” movement represents a cultural shift from “hustle culture” to prioritising rest and mental health, driven by widespread burnout and exhaustion.

    Books like Emma Gannon’s “A Year of Nothing” and Jenny Odell’s “How to Do Nothing” advocate for intentional rest and resistance to productivity-obsessed capitalism, particularly resonating with those who’ve experienced chronic burnout from economic instability and social pressure to constantly achieve.

    Easing off won’t be straightforward. Financial pressures in providers seem to be reducing the optionality of slow(er) credit accrual, as more modules become “core modules” and our rigid system of year-groups gets more, rather than less, entrenched.

    Big decisions need to be taken soon re the Lifelong Learning Entitlement. I’ve written before about the way in which universally setting the full-time student maintenance threshold at 60 credits a year is both unreasonable and discriminatory – but even if that was eased off at, say, 45 credits, students will be acutely aware that every extra semester means more cost.

    In an ideal world, we’d kill off fees altogether – but even without free education, the case for linking fees to module credit is seriously undermined by the evidence. Why on earth should a disabled student whose DSA has taken all year to come through be expected to pay for another year’s participation while they attempt to catch up?

    There’s very little that’s fair about a system where some providers’ students need more support to succeed, but don’t get it because they’re sharing support subsidy with more that need it. Especially when much of that support is needlessly aimed at an artificial time pressure coupled with a low drop-out pressure.

    Take the pill to feel the thrill and touch it all

    With central government support in DfE budgets under pressure, there’s no chance of student premium funding stepping in to deliver the top-ups required any more.

    So link maintenance debt to time in study if we have to – but retain (and rebuild) a progressive repayment system that extracts a fair(er) contribution from those that didn’t need the support (interest on loans), all while severing the link between modular student debt and modular institutional income.

    Put another way, if student A needs to take 2 years to get to 180, student B takes 3 years, and student C takes 5 years, if we must have notional (tuition) student debt, they of course should all graduate with the same amount.

    Other options are available, and all have trade-offs. But whatever we do, we mustn’t go into the next decade assuming that the system we have created is some sort of miracle, or somehow advantageous in comparison to our international peers.

    Our traditions, pace, structures and incentives have all created a dangerous combination of pace and pressure that is damaging students’ real educational attainment and their health. It’s causing harm, and it needs to change.

    Source link

  • A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    by Caroline Jones and Leonie Sweeney

    Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory as a Methodological Lens

    Higher education is experiencing post-pandemic challenges which have increased pressure on students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways (Jones & Bell, 2024). Existing research suggests that post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted (Chen & Lubock, 2022; Defeyter et al, 2021; Jones & Bell, 2025; McGiven & Shepherd, 2022; Nunn et al, 2021). This indicates that research into the field of higher education is needed more pro-actively than ever before, especially given the diverse student market.

    Currently there is considerable research in the form of critique of policy trends or evaluation of the effectiveness of changes in practice; however, the PATA theory lens suggests an approach to research centring on the educational psychologies and intricacies of the student and the enigma of student engagement (Buckley, 2018; Jones & Nangah, 2020: McFarlane & Thomas, 2017).

    Our recent article presents the PATA theory as a methodological lens through which higher education student behaviours, characteristics, and demographics can be researched. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the PATA theory with specific links to student engagement. The idea of the PATA theory was first explored by Jones in 2017 and developed further in 2020 and 2021 in response to recognised issues faced relating to student engagement in widening participation student demographics. This research establishes the theory which can be applied to investigating the complexities of student demographics, with the aim being to develop knowledge and understanding of issues affecting students such as post-pandemic engagement.

    Guidelines from the QAA (2018) state that due to the demographic of the students who attend each institution, student engagement needs to be interpreted and encouraged in response to student/higher education institutional need. Therefore, student engagement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, examining the links between time, energy and other properties invested by HEIs and students with the aims of cultivating the student experience, strengthening educational outcomes, encouraging development and raising student achievement. Positive student engagement can lead to successful student outcomes, lower attrition rates and improved social mobility, demonstrating the importance of research for understanding and investing in student engagement practices.

    The PATA theory sits under the umbrella of alienation theory: it considers the individual student’s psychosocial status (self-concept/self-esteem levels) and has identified links to academic trust levels (Jones, 2021), particularly for students from the widening participation demographics or those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage, see figure 1.

    Figure 1. PATA Theory (Jones, 2021)

    The PATA theory fits as a methodology within the realms of phenomenology as it enables researchers to present a narrative to represent the phenomena studied to extract significant statements from the data to formulate meaning. Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio (2019, p91) believe it is imperative for the researcher engaging in phenomenological research to be familiar with the philosophical ‘interpretations of human experience’, whilst Morrow, Rodriguez and King (2015, p644) advise that ‘descriptive phenomenology is especially valuable in areas where there is little existing research’. An additional crucial aspect of phenomenology is understanding that social reality has to be grounded in an individual’s encounters in authentic social situations. The focal point of the PATA theory lens research is to understand how students’ psychosocial status affects the academic trust of their higher education experiences and the relationships that arise out of the social exchanges therein, permitting researchers to construe the associations that the participants make.

    This article analyses the PATA theory potential range of research methods that can be employed and used in higher education practice and is supported by three case vignette examples with reflection points.  For example, we would usually see student disengagement relating to activities such as non-attendance, but the PATA theory shows us that the concept of student engagement is much more complex and encourages higher education institutions and professionals to view the issue in a more holistic student-centred way rather than homogenously.

    Additionally, post-Covid there has been a significant rise in the number of students presenting with mental health issues, with students struggling to attend and engage with their programmes of study. Currently, the assessment strategies used by HEIs for capturing student engagement fail accurately to measure both student engagement and sense of belonging. However, using the PATA theory as the research lens would provide a deeper insight into the post pandemic issues faced, by focussing on student alienation and the strengthening of trust between the student and the institution. HEIs could then scrutinise their existing on-campus experiences to aid the re-engagement process, and practice could be adapted to increase the student experience, such as including more pastoral 1:1 support time within the timetable.

    Some further practical illustrations of how the PATA theory might influence our understanding or make a difference in practice are:

    • To understand potential psychological barriers to student engagement based on demographics, behaviours and characteristics.
    • To identify success stories of positive engagement where good practice can be disseminated or shared to improve student outcomes.
    • To take a deep dive into higher education practices, course or programmes to find out if there are specific teaching and learning barriers affecting students.
    • Provides time and space to analyse intricate needs of specific demographics; behaviours and characteristics such as impact of low tariff on entry gaps or previous educational experiences.
    • Can lead to bespoke action to address potential equality and inclusion concerns.
    • Can be used as an early intervention tool to support students’ re-engagement potentially contributing to reduced attrition and improvements in social mobility.
    • Can be used to explore wider societal issues that affect engagement

    The PATA theory has its limitations, being a new and emerging theoretical perspective, and is very much open to academic critique. However, this concept does bring new insight to the complexities of the student community, the higher education institutional and political landscapes and could be used as a methodological lens to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of student engagement challenges. Whilst the PATA theory is a complex idea applied to a range of complex student issues, when the phenomenon is understood well, there is the potential to really make a difference to the educational outcomes for students. Furthermore, existing theories do not make connections between psychosocial status and academic trust which is where the PATA theory can contribute to a stronger understanding of the student phenomena.

    The article on which this blog is based is

    Jones, C. S., and Sweeney, L (2025) ‘The Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory: A new lens to research higher education student phenomena: behaviours, characteristics, and demographics’ Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 79–110 https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1240.

    Caroline Jones is an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in the children and young people field and lecturing/programme leading in Higher Education. Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, having previously been a Lecturer at the University Campus Oldham and at Stockport University Centre. Also an External Examiner for Derby University/Middlesex University and a Peer Reviewer for IETI. Research interests include; leadership and management, social mobility and social policy, risk, resilience and adolescent mental health, young care leavers, widening participation and disadvantage, originator of the ‘psychosocial and academic trust alienation’ (PATA) theory.

    Email: c.jones@mmu.ac.uk. LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/caroline-jones-1bab40b3. Twitter/X: @c_JonesSFHEA. Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline-Jones-39?ev=hdr_xprf.

    Leonie Sweeney is a teaching professional within the Applied Social Sciences faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, with many years of experience working within the children and young people sector. Currently employed as a Higher Education Course Leader and Lecturer, delivering Children and Young People and Early Years degree courses. Additionally, is an External Examiner for University of Chichester and University of Sunderland. Research interests include: student engagement, social mobility, widening participation.

    Email: leonie.sweeney@oldham.ac.uk

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • 3 Tips to Improve Student Mental Health

    3 Tips to Improve Student Mental Health

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    This post is a modified version of an article that originally appeared on the Cengage EMEA “Unstoppable Minds Blog.”

    As Mental Health Awareness Month comes to a close, we’re highlighting insights from someone who’s been in students’ shoes. While studying psychology at Queen Mary University of London and serving as a Cengage EMEA Student Ambassador, Roya Mohamed shared three simple but powerful tips to help students take care of their mental health.

    I remember my first year at university. All of the new friends I made, the exciting modules I took, the societies I joined, my first time living away from home, learning how to cook and how to save money. It was such an exciting time full of adventure and new beginnings. I learned so much about myself and the world of adulthood. However, I also remember the all-nighters, the breakdowns, the tears, the times I almost gave up, the sacrifices I made and the feelings of loneliness and exhaustion I had. Being a student is not easy — I would know — and the increasing academic and societal pressures cause a strain on our precious mental health. Being thrown into the deep end during my first year caused my mental health to plummet and I fell into a deep depression where I had to go to therapy. It was a bleak time in my life and for a while I didn’t know how to get out of the negative cycle I was in. But I did — hooray! There were a couple of changes I made to my daily routine that notably improved my wellbeing and stopped me from ever going back to that period of darkness. Follow these steps to start taking control of your mental health and wellbeing:

    1. Scheduling

    Not having a daily schedule can leave students feeling overwhelmed and unprepared. This can cause feelings of stress which can contribute to poor mental health. Planning time for revision, relaxation, hobbies, friends, family and sleep really helped to create a routine in my life and to avoid the anxiety I used to have about completing everything on my to-do list. However, it will take time to adapt and follow a routine. But having a structure to your life will make you feel less worried and we all know that worrying does us no good.

    1. Positive self-talk

    This is a psychological strategy that you can use to increase your self-esteem, confidence, self-love and positivity. How do you do it? The clue is in the name! This technique involves talking positively to yourself, praising your achievements no matter how big or small they are and motivating yourself with words of affirmation. Being kind to oneself is a crucial step to maintaining good mental health. For example, when I received a grade that I wasn’t happy with, I would say to myself, “Roya, that was a very difficult exam and you still scored above the class average, you should be really proud of yourself!” At first it felt weird doing this, but you begin to internalize the thoughts and quickly realize how good it makes you feel!

    1. Sleep

    We all know that students have a tricky relationship with sleep. It is recommended that university students sleep for 7-9 hours a night. This can prevent you from feeling fatigued, sleepy, having low concentration levels and becoming irritable. However, we commonly see students pulling “all-nighters” where they sleep very little — or not at all — in order to complete an academic task. I don’t recommend this at all. When it comes to revising, all-nighters are practically useless. This is because our sleep cycle at night consists of four cycles, each lasting 90 minutes. In each stage of the cycle, our body and brain rejuvenate in different ways. One area that is affected is our memory of that day. If you don’t go through the four cycles, then the hours of revision won’t be “consolidated” into your memory — moved from short term to long term memory. This causes stress and regularly losing sleep can contribute to poor mental well-being. Once I began to sleep enough, I really saw how it improved my life.

    These are just some of the changes I began to make which took my mental health out of the darkness I was in and back to the bright old me!

     

    Roya Mohamed was a former Cengage Student Ambassador studying psychology at Queen Mary University of London.

    Roya shared three meaningful student mental health tips that can help improve overall well-being. If you think these tips might be impactful for your students, share this article and also check out “5 Ways I’m Building Connections With My College Peers” by Pranav Harwadekar, a junior at Texas A&M University.

    Source link

  • A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    For years, bereaved families have fought for answers – and change – after losing their children to suicide at university.

    When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org, or visit http://www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

    Arguably the most high-profile have been Bob and Margaret Abrahart, who led this charge after their daughter Natasha died in April 2018 at the University of Bristol.

    Despite her severe social anxiety, Natasha was required to give oral presentations that filled her with dread, and in 2022, a judge ruled that Bristol had discriminated against Natasha under the Equality Act by not making reasonable adjustments.

    But he did not find the university owed a general duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm – noting that:

    …if a relevant duty of care did exist… there can be no doubt that the university would have been in breach.

    That distinction prompted the Abraharts and other bereaved families to launch the “#ForThe100” campaign, named after the estimated annual student suicide toll. Their petition for a statutory duty of care gathered over 128,000 signatures and triggered a Westminster Hall debate in 2023, where MPs across parties voiced support.

    The skills minister at the time, Robert Halfon, rejected the call for statutory change. Instead, as part of a higher education mental health implementation taskforce, he announced an independent review of student suicide deaths – a “watching brief” approach that effectively deferred the question of legal responsibility while monitoring the sector.

    The review has now been published – and it reveals a catalogue of missed opportunities, systematic failures, and inadequate protections for vulnerable students.

    It also evidences the patterns identified by campaigners for years – poor monitoring of disengagement, communication silos between academic and support services, inadequate training for staff, and safety concerns in university accommodation.

    The big question now is whether the evidence will drive the legal and cultural shifts needed to protect students and prevent future deaths – or whether it will become yet another well-intentioned PDF on the ever-growing pile of guidance that relies on voluntary implementation.

    A review of student suicides

    The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) team from the University of Manchester was commissioned to conduct the review. Their approach was methodical – all higher education institutions in England were asked to submit redacted serious incident reports for suspected suicides and serious self-harm incidents occurring during the 2023-2024 academic year.

    The response was robust. Of the 115 Universities UK members, 113 (98 per cent) provided a nominated contact, and 110 (96 per cent) responded with information about serious incidents during the academic year. That does at least suggest that universities recognise the importance of addressing student suicide, even if some remain hesitant about legal frameworks for doing so.

    In total, universities reported 107 suspected suicide deaths and 62 incidents of non-fatal self-harm during the 2023-2024 academic year. Of these, 104 serious incident reports (79 for suspected suicides and 25 for self-harm) were submitted to NCISH for analysis. As such, it is the largest collection of detailed individual-level data on student suicide ever compiled in the UK.

    The team then analyzed those reports against established standards, including both the Universities UK/PAPYRUS/Samaritans guidance for conducting serious incident reviews, and NCISH’s own 10 standards for investigating serious incidents. They examined student characteristics, identified risk factors, evaluated the quality of investigations, and assessed the recommendations and action plans arising from these reviews.

    Pressure and disengagement

    In 38 per cent of cases, students were experiencing academic problems or pressures. These ranged from exam-related stress (10 per cent) to anxiety about falling behind or meeting deadlines (19 per cent).

    Nearly a third (32 per cent) of reports identified evidence of non-attendance – a critical warning sign that was often met with inadequate response, if it was noticed at all. The most common intervention was an automated email from administrators, rather than proactive personal outreach.

    The report argues that that represents a significant missed opportunity for intervention – calling for students who are struggling academically to be recognised as potentially at risk, with an enhanced focus on providing a supportive response, as well as increased awareness of support at key pressure points in the academic calendar, especially during exam periods.

    The review also found that while 21 per cent of students were or had been part of “support to study” procedures or equivalent, there were clear instances where a cause for concern had not been appropriately escalated.

    The report identifies a need for additional or more robust processes for monitoring student engagement and non-attendance, including recommendations to review attendance triggers, the development of consistent approaches to responding to non-attendance, and the implementation of earlier interventions when disengagement is identified.

    The timing of incidents reinforces the connection to academic pressure, with peaks occurring in March and May – coinciding with assessment and exam periods – and notably fewer incidents during holiday periods, suggesting that academic stressors play a significant role in student distress.

    One thing I’d add here is that it really shouldn’t be a given that students in the UK all progress and complete at the same pace – that we are the country in the OECD whose students complete the fastest and drop out the least has some obvious downsides that the LLE, and a large dose of culture change, really ought to tackle.

    The other thing worth considering is culture. In our work on student health last month, academic culture popped up a significant but often overlooked determinant of student health in survey responses, with students describing patterns of overwork, presenteeism, and a “meritocracy of difficulty” that rewards suffering over learning outcomes.

    Students’ comments revealed how unhealthy work patterns are normalized within academic environments, with concerns about overwhelming assessment deadlines, high-stakes exams disadvantaging students with health conditions, and the glorification of struggle across disciplines. Students also highlighted the disconnect between wellbeing messaging and impossible workloads, articulating a desire for intellectually challenging environments that don’t lead to burnout – as well as both personal and systems empathy.

    Their solutions included workload mapping, identifying assessment bottlenecks, flexible assessment strategies offering multiple ways to demonstrate learning, staff training on setting healthy work boundaries, health impact assessments for curriculum design, accessibility-focused policies, clear distinctions between challenging content and unnecessary stress, student workload panels with authority to flag unsustainable demands, and revised attendance policies to discourage presenteeism during illness. They are all worth considering – as are projects like the one referenced here.

    Mental health, neurodiversity and support services

    Nearly half (47 per cent) of reports identified mental health difficulties as a factor prior to the incident, with 31 per cent noting diagnosed mental health conditions. Most commonly, these were depression and anxiety disorders (20 per cent).

    Significantly, 30 per cent of reports described a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of neurodiversity, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or dyslexia. Of these neurodivergent students, only 14 described reasonable adjustments or support/inclusion plans tailored to their needs, and 12 per cent also had a mental health diagnosis. That suggests big gaps in support for students with overlapping mental health and neurodevelopmental needs.

    Especially concerning is that 70 per cent of students were known to university support services before their death, most often wellbeing services. These weren’t cases where students were suffering in silence – they had actively reached out for help within the university system. In many cases, students had multiple touchpoints with support services, but there were often gaps in follow-up, inadequate assessment of risk severity, and insufficient intensity or continuity of support.

    It’s partly the silo problem again. The report identified plenty of problems with information sharing in 24 per cent of cases, where critical details about a student’s mental health were not communicated between clinical, pastoral, and academic staff. Communication breakdowns meant that while a student might disclose suicidal thoughts to a counselor, personal/academic tutors remained unaware of the severity of their situation, continuing to apply normal academic pressures.

    Similarly, when academic staff noticed concerning changes in attendance or performance, this information wasn’t consistently shared with mental health professionals who could have intervened.

    The review specifically recommends improving information sharing internally and externally but notes that (often unfounded) concerns about confidentiality prevent effective coordination – leaving vulnerable students to navigate fragmented support systems and tell their story repeatedly to different university staff. What I’d note is that recommendations and guidance on this have been around for years now – universities clearly need to go further, and faster.

    And the realities of the funding system, the state of the sector’s finances and the resultant staff-student ratios in plenty of departments also need an honest conversation. If it’s noticing that matters, other students also need to be in the mix as well as academic staff.

    Location and transition

    Where location was known, 23 per cent of incidents occurred in university-managed accommodation – suggesting serious safety concerns in spaces directly controlled by institutions. The review specifically recommends reviewing the safety of university-managed accommodation, including physical safety, high-risk locations, the criteria for welfare checks, and signposting for support, particularly out-of-hours.

    I’d suggest that that should probably reflect, via the codes of practice the firms will be required to join to escape the regulation in the Renter’s Rights Act, standards in private halls too – although that would, of course require a modicum of coordination between DfE and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of students were undergraduates, with over a quarter (27 per cent) in their first year of undergraduate studies, backing up previous research that has indicated that the first year represents a particularly vulnerable transition period – often leaving home, managing independent living, forming new relationships, and adapting to university-level academic demands.

    The review suggests these changes create a perfect storm of risk factors – first-year students often lack established campus support networks while losing daily contact with home support systems, may struggle with imposter syndrome or academic uncertainty, and frequently hesitate to seek help, believing their struggles are just “normal” adjustment issues.

    The problem is then compounded by institutional factors – with no prior academic record to contextualise changes in engagement and larger first-year class sizes, warning signs frequently go unnoticed by staff. The review specifically calls for enhanced induction processes and early intervention systems for first-years, recognising that proactive support during this critical transition period could significantly reduce suicide risk.

    I remain convinced that near-universal systems of group social mentoring found on the continent could have a major role to play here – they’re even in the legislation in Finland – but I also wonder whether the other notable OECD comparison, that (together with Belgium) we have pretty much the youngest bachelor’s entrants in the world, could also do with some significant thought.

    DfE has, of course, had a previous run at coordinating a national piece of work on transition support and standards – but the less said about that the better. We almost certainly need something more consistent, substantial and credit-bearing – I sketched out what that could look like here.

    International students

    International students accounted for nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of all submitted reports – a disproportionately high percentage given their representation in the overall student population. The overrepresentation could suggest additional challenges, including potential cultural and language barriers, social isolation, and distance from established support networks.

    In many ways, they face much of what home students face, with unfamiliar academic and cultural expectations, (often) studying in a second language, managing complex visa requirements, and coping with significant financial pressures due to higher fees and limited work rights piled on top. Many also experience intense pressure to succeed from family members who may have made substantial sacrifices to fund their education.

    The review found that cultural differences significantly impacted how international students experienced and expressed mental health difficulties. In some cases, cultural stigma around mental illness prevented students from seeking help, while in others, language barriers made it difficult to effectively communicate distress to university staff. The report also noted particular difficulties with international students who were isolated within their own cultural groups, making it harder for wider university systems to identify warning signs.

    Despite the overrepresentation of international students in suicide cases, the review found minimal evidence of culturally sensitive support services or targeted outreach. Many just applied a one-size-fits-all approach to wellbeing support that failed to account for diverse cultural understandings of mental health.

    The review specifically recommends that universities develop more culturally competent services and proactive engagement strategies for international students – particularly those from countries with significant cultural differences from the UK.

    There’s a reason why new Office for Students Condition E6 on harassment and sexual misconduct specifically requires approaches that are tailored to a provider’s specific student population, and that systems and processes to help prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct are accessible to international students. It’s true on this issue too.

    Investigation quality and university response

    Following a death by suicide, the review found significant gaps in postvention support – the care provided to those affected. While 41 per cent of reports showed evidence of support for peers following a suicide, there was significantly less support for affected staff (18 per cent) and bereaved families (9 per cent).

    The review recommends that anyone affected by a student’s death by suicide should be offered or signposted to appropriate support – acknowledging that effective postvention is itself a critical component of preventing further deaths.

    The review then found wide variation in how universities investigate student deaths and respond to them. In three-quarters (76 per cent) of all reviewed cases, families were not involved in any aspect of the suicide investigation process. While 72 per cent of reports indicated that the family was contacted after the death to offer condolences, only 11 per cent of families contributed to or were offered involvement in the investigation process. And just 6 per cent of reports had been shared with the families.

    As the report notes, families provided:

    …moving accounts of feeling excluded from the process of finding out what happened to their loved ones, and some had a perception that the university was evasive and reluctant to answer important and painful questions.

    The exclusion of those who knew the student best not only denies families closure but also prevents universities from gaining valuable insights about circumstances outside the institution.

    It also raised significant questions about who conducts these investigations and their qualifications to do so. In 35 per cent of reports, information on the lead reviewer was not available. Only 13 per cent explicitly stated that the lead reviewer had no prior involvement with the student – a fundamental principle of independent investigation.

    There was also little evidence that those conducting the reviews had specific training or expertise in suicide prevention or investigation. As the report notes:

    …completing a serious incident review is an additional strategic-level responsibility, with no status of its own within someone’s job role.

    Most reviews focused narrowly on the university’s own processes and records, rarely seeking information from external sources. Despite 60 per cent of reports indicating the student had contact with other agencies (such as healthcare providers), only 6 per cent of these included contributions from those organizations in the review process.

    The gathering of information “did not generally extend to records and contributions from other agencies” such as primary care, secondary mental health care, and the criminal justice system. This was true even where the university was aware that those agencies had played a critical role in the student’s care. This inward-looking approach created significant knowledge gaps that could have been filled with input from families, health providers, and other external sources.

    The report also notes that there were examples of gaps in the chronology with little or no information between the student’s last contact with the HE provider and the incident. Without a comprehensive understanding of the student’s circumstances, universities can’t effectively identify all factors contributing to suicide risk.

    This won’t come as a surprise to anyone working in HE, but while 79 per cent of reports identified learning to help prevent future incidents (generating almost 300 recommendations in total), the implementation process was often weak. Over half (53 per cent) identified specific actions, but 18 per cent of these lacked clear owners and 40 per cent had no timescales for delivery.

    That raises questions about whether these recommendations are ever fully implemented or simply filed away. Learning points were “inconsistently assigned or scheduled,” with a lack of institutional commitment to following through on identified improvements. Without accountability mechanisms and clear follow-up processes, there’s little assurance that these recommendations will lead to meaningful change.

    Learning from tragedy

    The review makes 19 specific recommendations across four categories – safety concerns, suicide prevention within university systems, amendments to guidance, and wider system messages. They are comprehensive – but they largely represent guidance rather than enforceable standards.

    The first recommendation, for example, calls for “mental health awareness and suicide prevention training” to be available for all student-facing staff, with consideration for making such training mandatory – acknowledging the critical role staff play in identifying and responding to students in distress.

    But the report stops short of recommending that training be required – using the softer language of “consideration” for mandatory training. It’s a recommendation I’ve read hundreds of times over the years, and in the financial and redundancies state the sector is in, it would be hard to believe that it’s going to happen without a requirement that it does.

    That’ll be why OfS is now requiring it in E6 for harassment and sexual misconduct, and why that includes a line on “no saying you can’t afford it – if you can’t afford it, don’t provide HE”. Something similar should surely apply here.

    Meanwhile recommendations 3 and 4 address academic pressures, calling for students struggling academically to be “recognised as potentially at risk” and for increased support at key academic calendar points. They are a shift toward viewing academic processes not just as educational tools but as potential risk factors for mental health – a perspective that aligns with campaigners’ arguments for a duty of care that encompasses the whole student experience.

    Although as I said above, some system-structural issues relating to age and pace ought be on the list inside DfE’s reform plans for proper consideration.

    While it stops short of recommending a duty of care, it does call for “a duty of candour” to be introduced to the HE sector, setting out organisational responsibilities to be open and transparent with families after a suspected suicide. That would include a duty to provide information on what happened, at the earliest point.

    As it stands, Keir Starmer promised that such a duty, to apply to public authorities including universities, would appear by 15 April – the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. But it’s a deadline that was missed – with rumours that officials have been attempting to water it down and questions over whether it would apply in internal investigations as well as statutory inquiries. A decision will need to come soon.

    Mark Shanahan, on behalf of the LEARN Network, argues that universities are learning communities, but it is unclear from the research whether the learning leads to change. If nothing else, they’re supporting the idea that the exercise becomes annual:

    In some ways, it’s a vindication to see the concerns of bereaved families confirmed, when many feel so excluded when they try to find out what happened to their sons and daughters. Without families’ strength and persistence this report would not have been commissioned. We need to see it repeated annually if lessons are to be learned over the longer term.

    Given that so few University Mental Health Charter Awards have been achieved (just two in 2025), the network also argues that a legal duty of care by universities towards students, delivered by statute and/or regulation is the only way to accelerate the changes advocated in this report.

    Duty of care?

    The review comes, of course, amid ongoing confusion about what a “duty of care” would actually mean in a university context. The current government position, articulated by DfE minister Janet Daby, is that “a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances” which “would be a matter for the courts to decide.”

    On BBC News, asked why a legal duty of care had not been introduced, skills minister Jacqui Smith says that “we do think that universities have a general duty of care to their students”, but that there were “some legal challenges”:

    We’ll be absolutely clear with universities that this is their responsibility. We’ve made resource available and we will continue to challenge them to deliver that.

    Being “absolutely clear” means establishing a legal duty and then asking your regulator to proactively monitor compliance with it – not a combo of endless finger wagging and a charter whose evaluation report found universities where mental health and wellbeing efforts were ad hoc, siloed, had limited proactive outreach, featured inconsistent and sometimes contradictory responses across departments, and lacked a strategic approach to mental health in curriculum design, community building and risk management.

    And “resource” probably doesn’t mean the paltry £5 per student in the grant letter.

    The position on duty of care contrasts sharply with the certainty provided in other contexts – like as the duty of care employers owe to their employees or that schools owe to their pupils – and means students enter university without clarity on what protections they can expect, while universities operate without clear standards for their responsibilities.

    As Bob Abrahart argues:

    …students and universities need instead to know where they stand.

    The review signals pretty clearly that the ambiguity has real consequences – inconsistent practices, missed warning signs, and preventable tragedies. Valuable recommendations will mean nothing if their implementation remains voluntary without a statutory framework.

    And as I’ve argued before on the site, when students have rights and know their rights, they’re better able to contribute to decent conversations about how they might be implemented practically. The rest is all “in an ideal world”, and we’re very much not in an ideal world right now.

    A more comprehensive statutory duty of care would establish clear standards for prevention, requiring universities to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm. It would not, as opponents suggest, treat students as children or make universities responsible for all aspects of student wellbeing. It would provide clarity on the reasonable expectations students can have of their institutions, and ensure consistency across the sector.

    The review has shown where the problems lie – now ministerial courage is needed to implement solutions that are universally applied. The 107 students whose deaths formed the basis of this review deserved better. Future students deserve the protection of clear, enforceable standards that their staff get.

    Source link

  • Supporting Student Wellbeing in Uncertain Times

    Supporting Student Wellbeing in Uncertain Times

    Higher education is operating in a time of rapid change and uncertainty. Changes in federal and state policy, funding, and increasing polarization are reshaping campus environments and profoundly affecting many students’ experiences. As leaders, it is critical to understand how these forces are impacting student wellbeing—and what actions institutions can take to adapt and strengthen their supports for students.

    The Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing (ANEW) is a networked community of higher education changemakers working together to advance systems-level transformation to improve student wellbeing. Drawing on the involvement of more than 200 colleges and universities, our experience shows that while there is no single solution, institutions can act quickly and intentionally to strengthen student support using a practical, data-driven, human-centered approach.

    Through this collaborative work, we’ve identified three strategies that are helping campuses respond more effectively to the rapidly evolving needs of their students: using real-time disaggregated data, conducting empathy interviews, and building a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making.

    Collect real-time quantitative data and analyze it thoughtfully

    How students are doing can change rapidly as policies and rhetoric shift, availability of external resources change, significant events on campus or in the world occur, and new barriers or supports emerge. Relying on older data (e.g. survey data collected nine months ago) can miss important changes. Without timely insight, decisions may be based on outdated information or an incomplete understanding. Systematically collecting real-time data helps institutions stay aligned with students’ current realities.

    To support this kind of real-time data collection, ANEW institutions have used the Wellbeing Improvement Survey for Higher Education Settings (WISHES)—a short survey, available at no cost, that provides institutions with timely and actionable data on a range of outcomes and experiences influencing student wellbeing. WISHES helps institutions monitor student wellbeing and stay responsive to the present moment.

    But aggregate data tell only part of the story. To understand how different groups of students are faring, disaggregating data by relevant student characteristics can reveal patterns that may be hidden in campus-wide averages and allow institutions to focus support where it is most needed, such as groups of students who might be disproportionately struggling.

    In fall 2023, the University of California, Irvine administered WISHES, disaggregated its data, and found that Middle Eastern students seemed to be experiencing more challenges than their peers in some measures. “Aggregate data really doesn’t tell you anything [about what to do]—you have to disaggregate,” said Doug Everhart, director of student wellness and health promotion at UC Irvine. “In order to find meaning behind the data, you have to follow up and ask questions to dig into the lived experience and the ‘why’. That focus is what makes [the ANEW] approach so useful.” The real-time disaggregated data allowed the team to better understand the Middle Eastern student experience and develop strategies responsive to their needs.

    Conduct empathy interviews to develop actionable, human-centered insights

    Real-time disaggregated survey data can reveal where differences exist—but it likely won’t explain them. Empathy interview is a method used in diverse sectors and settings to understand what’s behind the patterns in quantitative data. These insights are important for informing what specific changes are needed to better support students.

    An empathy interview is a one-on-one session that uses deep listening and responsive prompts to explore the lived experience of an individual on a specific topic such as wellbeing. Empathy interviews uncover holistic and nuanced perspectives about a student’s life—including what they’re facing, what matters to them, and how they navigate challenges and opportunities. Empathy interviews are not formal research, but they offer a structured way for leaders to move beyond assumptions and gain insights that are authentic, revealing, and actionable from those who are most affected.

    Katy Redd, executive director of the Longhorn Wellness Center at the University of Texas at Austin, reflected on the value of this strategy, “Going through this process pushed us to confront the gap between how we assume students experience college and what their day-to-day reality actually looks like for low-income students. Listening closely helped us notice invisible norms and structures that many students are expected to navigate without support. It shifted our mindset—away from surface-level solutions and toward deeper questions about how our systems function and for whom.”

    Michelle Kelly, assistant vice president for health and wellbeing at the University of Texas at Arlington, described a similar shift in perspective: “There was a moment after our empathy interviews where it just clicked: we’d been asking students to navigate systems we ourselves hadn’t fully mapped. It was humbling—but also motivating. Hearing their stories reminded us that the data isn’t just about trends—it’s about real people trying to make it through college while juggling a hundred other things.”

    These interviews, coupled with WISHES data, revealed insights that were difficult to uncover through other methods and have helped institutions think and act more systematically about what’s shaping students’ experiences and outcomes.

    Develop a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making

    Being responsive to student needs isn’t about changing course in response to every complaint—it’s about noticing patterns early and adjusting when needed, which requires more than one-time or yearly data collection. Institutions that build a regular rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making are better equipped to detect shifts, learn from them, and adapt in ways that support student wellbeing.

    WISHES is most effective when administered multiple times per semester over many years. Data collected frequently over time provide helpful context when trying to understand how students are impacted by significant events on campus or in the world. Institutions can better answer questions like: Are students struggling more or less than they were at similar points of the semester in previous years? In times of extraordinary change, it is easy to imagine that students are doing worse than they were previously. Frequent data collection and sense-making allow us to objectively determine if this assumption is true.

    ANEW institutions that frequently collect data over time using WISHES have been able to understand in close to real time how large external events—such as the pandemic, October 7, and the shifting political environment—have impacted student wellbeing. Schools have reported that WISHES data enabled them to check their assumptions about the impact these events had on student wellbeing. In some cases, assumptions have been disproven using data, allowing schools to avoid trying to solve nonexistent problems or the wrong problem.

    As the University of Maryland reflects, “We’ve administered WISHES 10 times over the past two years and have seen firsthand the benefits of frequent data collection and are excited for the future. We most recently have begun to build a dashboard to display our WISHES metrics over time and democratize these critical insights to a myriad of roles within our campus community, which we hope will lead to more effective support for students across our university.”

    In the face of today’s challenges, higher education has a powerful opportunity—and responsibility—to lead with empathy, insight, and action. By embracing a data-driven, student-centered approach, institutions can move beyond assumptions and truly understand what their students need to flourish. The experiences shared by ANEW institutions demonstrate that meaningful change is not only possible but already underway. Now is the time for campuses to lean in, listen deeply, and build the systems that will support every student’s wellbeing.

    This post was written by Joanna Adams (Rochester Institute of Technology), Jennifer Maltby (Rochester Institute of Technology), and Allison Smith (New York University), with the co-leadership and insights of hundreds of changemakers contributing to the Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • connecting-with-peers-in-college-5-ways- The Cengage Blog

    connecting-with-peers-in-college-5-ways- The Cengage Blog

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a time to elevate conversations around mental wellbeing and reduce the stigma that surrounds it. In recognition, we’re sharing stories directly from students who are navigating the pressures and facing the challenges of higher ed life today.

    One of those students is Pranav Harwadekar, a junior at Texas A&M University. Here’s Pranav’s perspective, in his own words.

    The power of connection

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned as a college student, it’s that connection isn’t just helpful, it’s healing. In the middle of exam stress, academic pressure and juggling 12 open tabs of assignments (and let’s be honest, at least three of them are YouTube, Instagram and Tiktok), having people around you — friends, study partners or just someone to grab a coffee with — can make all the difference.

    Connection isn’t a one-size-fits-all thing. Some people find it during big events, others in quiet moments. As a student navigating a hectic schedule full of coding projects, data analysis and meetings (shoutout to the group projects that always start at 9:00 PM), I’ve had to find creative ways to build community. And in doing so, I’ve realized it’s not just about making friends but about protecting mental health and helping others do the same.

    So, here are five real ways I’ve been fostering connections with my peers, and why they’ve made college feel a little more human.

    1. Group chats that turn into lifelines

    Group chats usually start as the go-to place for messages like, “Wait…when is this due again?” or “Anyone understand question four?” But over time, something funny happens — they evolve. What began as an academic safety net in my computer science classes slowly morphed into a space where we actually talk. We rant when a project takes five hours longer than expected, laugh (gently) about who’s been making good use of extensions and spiral together when the exam review sheet drops and it’s 12 pages long.

    Those chaotic late-night messages, the random hot takes on campus food and the “I give up, I’m switching majors” jokes? They bond us. There’s something comforting about knowing you’re not the only one losing it over a bug that shouldn’t be there.

    2. Volunteering for a shared cause

    One of the most meaningful ways I’ve built connections is through giving back. Whether it was organizing events with UNICEF or volunteering at Hope Health Care, I’ve learned that shared purpose creates real bonds. At Texas A&M, I joined the Engineering Honors Executive Committee. One of the events we take the most pride in is The Big Event — where over 15,000 “Aggies” step out to serve the local community in a single day of service.

    There’s something powerful about rolling up your sleeves next to someone, whether you’re painting fences, planting trees or just picking up trash. You start out as strangers, but by the end, you’ve shared laughs, swapped stories and worked towards something bigger than yourselves. Service naturally opens the door to honest conversations and, often, unexpected friendships.

    3. Making space for real talk

    Some of the best conversations I’ve had in college didn’t happen in classrooms or club meetings. They’ve happened on the walk back from class, while sitting outside the library or in a dining hall when someone casually asked, “How’s everything going?” One time after a brutal week of exams, I admitted to a classmate that I was completely burnt out and questioning if I was even cut out for this major. Instead of brushing it off, they nodded and said, “Same.” That moment of honesty sparked a 30-minute conversation about stress, expectations and feeling like we were just trying to stay afloat.

    I’ve learned that being vulnerable about things, like imposter syndrome, burnout or just needing a mental break, often gives others permission to open up too. It doesn’t always have to be deep. But carving out space for real conversations can turn casual classmates into people you genuinely trust.

    Mental health isn’t just about crisis moments. It’s also about those small check-ins. A simple “How are you doing — really?” can go a long way.

    4. Saying yes to the spontaneous stuff

    Some of the most meaningful connections I’ve made came from saying “yes” to the random stuff: A late-night walk to the campus food truck. A last-minute invite to play spikeball on the quad. A spontaneous movie night where half of us fell asleep mid-way through.

    College is full of moments that don’t feel significant at first. They become the ones you remember because they weren’t forced. They were real. It’s easy to say, “I’m too busy” or “Maybe next time.” But leaning into those little, unplanned hangouts has helped me find people who make the stress feel lighter and the experience way more fun.

    Sometimes, connection starts with just showing up.

    5. Celebrating the little wins together

    College can feel like a never-ending cycle of deadlines, exams and late-night study sessions. It’s easy to stay stuck in survival mode — just pushing through one task after another. That’s why I’ve made it a habit to pause and celebrate the small stuff: finishing a tough project, surviving a brutal week or even just showing up when it was hard to.

    Sometimes that celebration means grabbing dinner with friends, playing spikeball until the sun goes down or spontaneously turning someone’s dorm into a cricket ground. These moments might seem small, but they remind us to slow down and actually enjoy the experience. When we celebrate the little wins together, the big challenges feel a lot more manageable.

    Why this matters (especially in May)

    College can feel isolating at times. And Mental Health Awareness Month is a powerful reminder that we’re not meant to navigate it all alone. The truth is: connection doesn’t have to be big or complicated. It can begin with something as small as a “You good?” text, a shared laugh over a meme or sitting next to someone new in class.

    When we make space for each other — through the small things — we build something bigger: resilience, community and a sense that we belong. Every time we show up for someone, or let them show up for us, we help create a more supportive and compassionate campus.

    And if you’re reading this and feeling even a little disconnected — I get it. I’ve been there too. But trust me: connection often starts with a tiny step. Say yes to that invite. Send that message. Sit down at the crowded table. You might be surprised by how much better things feel when you do.

    Written by Pranav Harwadekar, a junior computer science honors major at Texas A&M University.

    Are your students having trouble connecting with peers in college? Share Pranav’s article for inspiration. Plus, check out an additional student’s perspective on navigating the “College Life Crisis.”

    Source link

  • student-mental-wellbeing-college-life-crisisThe Cengage Blog

    student-mental-wellbeing-college-life-crisisThe Cengage Blog

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a time to elevate conversations around mental wellbeing and reduce the stigma that surrounds it. In recognition, we’re sharing stories directly from students who are navigating the pressures and facing the challenges of higher ed life today.

    One of those students is Ruby Adamowicz, a sophomore at Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Here’s Ruby’s perspective, in her own words.

    The right direction

    I’m nearing the end of my sophomore year of college, and I can still confidently say that I have absolutely no idea where I’ll end up after graduation. I see my peers landing internship offers and studying abroad — even my own roommate has a full-time job offer set for her once she graduates.

    Now, I’m not saying that I’m coasting through college. Trust me, I have put in the work. But I’ve also realized that success does not look the same for everyone. We’re all moving through life at our own pace. I always remind myself that some people find themselves as undergrads, some as post-grads and many are simply still trying to figure out who they are, which is normal and okay.

    This brings me to the question that’s almost always in every student’s head: “Am I headed in the right direction?”

    Second-guessing first-year decisions

    For me, I have always struggled with finding my passion and figuring out what jobs align with my major. It’s like a mental battle. I’m constantly asking myself: “Am I doing this because I genuinely love it, or is it just what makes the most sense?”

    I consider myself extremely fortunate that I was a freshman while both of my sisters were seniors at the same school. In all honesty, they were the ones who encouraged me to major in marketing. In my high school mind, following in their footsteps was what made the most sense. I figured I would know what classes to take, how to find an internship and have some overall guidance during my first year. And it seemed like the smart choice. Business is so broad and allows you to be creative. But, two years in, I still second-guess whether this is my “passion.”

    Figuring things out – one day at a time

    There are days when I feel inspired and even motivated to work on social media projects and brainstorm my entrepreneurial ideas. Other days, I feel like I’m going through the motions — just checking off my tasks for the day. Sometimes, I’m inspired to plan out my goals, update my resume and have a strong sense of where I want to be post-grad. There are also times when I feel like I’m stuck, almost like a fish out of water. And that’s okay. I’ve learned that “figuring it out” doesn’t mean that your life will fall into place that same day. It means taking small steps, such as talking to your professors, stepping out of your comfort zone, joining clubs, being social and challenging yourself.

    Follow your own path

    What I’ve come to learn during my time at college is that nobody has it all figured out — even your classmate who has 500+ connections on LinkedIn and is posting about their summer internship.

    We’re all experiencing college for the first time and trying to figure out what to do to be happy. There are ups and downs, but you can take it one day at a time. If you’re reading this and are feeling lost, confused, behind or even stuck, I’m here to remind you that it is so normal. It’s a feeling that comes from comparing yourself to people who are on a different path than you. As the saying goes, “Comparison is the thief of joy.”

    What now

    Honestly, this is a great question that I try to answer each day.

    Life is not one straight line. It’s everyone’s first time living, trying to navigate what the world has to offer. But the more you show up and put yourself out there, you’ll find what life has for you. College is not a race to be employed. It’s a chance to figure out what makes you feel happy.

    Apply for the internship you feel underqualified for, make friends with new people and take advantage of all the opportunities possible.

    So, I will leave you with this. If you’re feeling lost and keep asking yourself, “Am I doing enough?” — you are not alone.

    Take it one day at a time.

    Written by Ruby Adamowicz, sophomore marketing major at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Cengage Student Ambassador

    Do you see some students struggling with their mental health? Let them know they’re not alone. Share this article and explore additional articles about student mental wellbeing.

    Source link

  • The State of Student Mental Health at HBCUs

    The State of Student Mental Health at HBCUs

    Title: Flourishing: Bolstering the Mental Health of Students at HBCUs and PBIs

    Source: United Negro College Fund (UNCF)

    Student mental health is often a chief concern for university administrations and faculty alike, with institutions working to develop strong mental health resources for students. Mental health concerns, however, can vary drastically from student to student, requiring dynamic responses to support the ever-changing challenges students face.

    Over the course of two semesters in 2023, over 2,500 students at 16 HBCUs and two Predominantly Black Institutions were administered the Health Minds Survey (HMS) to determine the unique mental health challenges and provide insights into the college experience for Black students. A report by UNCF, in partnership with the Healthy Minds Network and The Steve Fund, found that Black students at HBCUs demonstrate more positive mental health outcomes compared to students overall. The report also highlights potential areas for schools to further support students. The key takeaways are listed below:

    • HBCU students are flourishing: 45 percent of HBCU students report flourishing mental health, in comparison to the national HMS sample of students (36 percent) and Black students at small predominantly white institutions (PWIs) (38 percent). These figures were determined by students agreeing with statements such as “I am a good person and live a good life” and “I am confident and capable in the activities that are important to me.”
    • HBCU students report a greater sense of belonging (83 percent) and lower levels of high loneliness (56 percent) than their peers when compared to Black students at PWIs, of whom 72 percent report feeling a sense of belonging and 58 percent report high loneliness.
    • HBCU students report less anxiety, less substance use, and being less at-risk for developing an eating disorder than both the national HMS sample of students and the sample of Black students at PWIs.
    • Financial stress plays a significant role in mental health for students at HBCUs, with 52 percent of students reporting that their financial situation is “always” or “often” stressful.
    • More than half of students at HBCUs report unmet mental health needs (54 percent), which can be defined as “exhibiting moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression and reporting no mental health treatment within the past year.” Findings indicate that this may stem in part from HBCU students reporting stigmas around seeking out mental health services. 52 percent of HBCU students reported experiencing these stigmas, compared to 41 percent of the national HMS sample.
    • Nearly 80 percent of HBCU students agree that student mental health is a top priority for their school, and 55 percent of students report feeling that their campus supports open discussions regarding mental health.

    In response to the survey findings, the report supplies several recommendations to further support and increase research on HBCU mental health resources. UNCF states that producing longitudinal studies regarding mental health at HBCUs and exploring the intersecting factors that impact mental health may allow institutions to better react to the ever-changing mental health needs of their students. Further data support would provide means to measure outcomes for mental health programs and resources, allowing institutions to fine-tune their services to best support student flourishing.

    To read more, click here to access the full report.

    —Julia Napier

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • ShareWell Offers Free Mental Health Support to University Students Nationwide

    ShareWell Offers Free Mental Health Support to University Students Nationwide

    ShareWell—the first peer-to-peer mental health support platform—is now offering free, unlimited memberships to all university students across the U.S.

    With 70% of college students reporting mental health challenges, ShareWell aims to fill critical gaps in care by providing live, virtual peer-led support groups on topics like anxiety, depression, academic pressure, and life transitions. Students can join as many sessions as they want—completely free—by signing up with their university email at www.sharewellnow.com.

    It’s a simple way to access community support during what can be some of the most overwhelming years of life.

    Source link

  • When musicians get the blues

    When musicians get the blues

    Music is known to boost cognitive and emotional wellbeing, yet those who pursue it professionally experience greater levels of psychological distress compared to the general population.

    Psychological distress among professional musicians is a global phenomenon, shown in studies from Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and South Korea. More than two-thirds of professional musicians in the UK suffer from depression, according to a 2016 study involving over 2,000 musicians. In Canada, as many as one in five professional musicians experience suicidal ideation.

    Now, musicians are calling on the industry for change. In February, Grammy-winning artist Chappell Roan used her Best New Artist acceptance speech to advocate for healthcare and a living wage for developing artists.

    “I told myself if I ever won a Grammy, and I got to stand up here in front of the most powerful people in music, I would demand that labels in the industry profiting millions of dollars off of artists would offer a livable wage and healthcare, especially to developing artists,” Roan said.

    Major record labels have now provided commitments to the mental health of their artists. Universal Music Group recently partnered with Music Health Alliance to launch the Music Industry Mental Health Fund, which provides a new suite of outpatient mental health support for musicians.

    A lack of support systems

    Musicians’ mental health suffers from a paucity of institutional protections for freelancers, irregular work schedules and profound financial instability. This is often exacerbated by high instances of performance anxiety and perfectionism among professional musicians, said Dr. George Musgrave, senior lecturer in cultural sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London.

    “When people talk about music being good for health and wellbeing, they’re not talking about working musicians,” Musgrave said. “Those who are doing it for leisure or creation are not anxious and depressed in the same way that those who do it for their job are.”

    Unpredictability also characterizes the career trajectories of many professional musicians, said Noah Fralick, artist manager at Huxley Management.

    “You don’t really go to school, get training, then work your way into the workforce and slowly build up,” Fralick said. “There’s no linear path. You might go from total obscurity to huge amounts of popularity quite quickly.”

    Emotional labour is also inherent in this line of work, which can put musicians at risk for mental health pressures, said Dr. Sally Anne Gross, principal lecturer at the University of Westminster.

    “There’s an interrelatedness to sport, where the body’s running so fast and in doing that, you would expect it to get injured,” Gross said. “If you’re working with your emotions in your working environment … you can expect that you might have emotional injuries.”

    The strains of a music career

    The traditional trope of the “tortured artist” — the idea that an artist must suffer pain to generate authentic creative output — has taken on new significance in the digital age.

    “The digital world is desperate for real things,” Gross said. “The artist now has to be larger than life …  in this atmosphere, at this point in time, if you are a young emerging artist or a current artist, you have to engage in a way that is seen to be authentic and there’s nothing more authentic than pain.”

    Mass democratization of music creation has made it easier than ever for musicians to enter the industry, but with no guarantee that their music will find an audience. Musicians feel pressure to show vulnerability as a way to stand out in a market flooded with options.

    “About 100,000 new songs are uploaded to Spotify every day,” Fralick said. “Streaming has sort of eliminated the barrier to access the music industry, but diluted the potential for any one [musician] to be successful.”

    This creates an environment in which consumers fall back to familiar tunes and artists, as deciding between a multitude of new options can feel overwhelming. As a result, it’s a rare artist who becomes a star. But these success stories become well-known, and the dramatic publicization of those who succeed can explain part of the allure of the music business, Fralick said.

    “I always use this analogy of a lottery winner, and the way that lotteries are set up, we see the winner,” Fralick said. “We think ‘I’m going to buy a ticket because that could be me,’ because your brain is only seeing the success story.”

    Pressure to succeed

    Musgrave said that this mindset can be detrimental for musicians. “Many of them are afflicted with what I’ve referred to as cruel optimism. The optimism is cruel because it’s keeping them tethered to an unrealizable ideal,” he said.

    Aside from emotional investment, launching a professional music career can also entail hefty financial costs. These costs could include paying distributors, shooting music videos, receiving coaching and joining premium memberships.

    The opportunity cost can also be significant. “You give up a lot of earning potential in order to invest in this craft,” Musgrave said. 

    For female musicians, age can be a critical stressor and determining factor of success. As the marketability of their music often hinges upon maintaining a youthful image, it can place additional pressures to find success faster.

    Many female musicians see the age of 30 as a hard cut-off, Musgrave said. “Age is a spectre that haunts women’s musical lives in a way that doesn’t haunt men’s,” he said. 

    Getting help to those who need it

    The last 10 years has seen a sea of change regarding mental health interventions for musicians. 

    In the UK, all three major record labels — Universal Music Group, Warner Music and Sony — have mental health support offerings either in-house or through outsourcing. But in-house mental health counselling could present potentially challenging scenarios for conflict of interest, Musgrave said.

    Currently, the biggest source of musicians’ mental health support is the charitable sector. Organizations such as MusiCares, Music Minds Matter, Music Support and the Man Down Programme provide various offerings such as weekly support groups, 24/7 crisis support lines and training packages for music industry workers.

    Gross said that while poor mental health among professional musicians is an urgent concern, that shouldn’t stop schools from providing music education. Instead, the occupational health hazards of professional music careers should be clearly communicated, so that young people can make informed decisions.

    “I think we have to reassess and re-evaluate the ways in which creative industry jobs have been sold to the next generation,” Gross said. “We have to really think about what’s happening in the educational space … and it’s absolutely essential that we deal with the issues and challenges of the working environment for all professionals.”  

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What unique pressures do professional musicians face?

    2. What is meant by the term “cruel optimism”?

    3. Why do so many people dream of becoming famous performers?

     

    Source link