Tag: Paradox

  • The paradox of parents’ involvement in their children’s time at university

    The paradox of parents’ involvement in their children’s time at university

    Over the past few decades, there has been – as many an academic will attest – a significant shift in the extent to which parents are involved in their children’s higher education.

    Parents now often attend university open days with their children, with some institutions laying on separate talks and events for them. Moreover, despite the introduction of tuition fees and maintenance loans, many parents end up making some financial contribution to their child’s higher education.

    To date, however, we know relatively little about parents’ perspectives on their involvement, nor about the extent to which they support their children in non-financial ways once they have embarked on their higher education journey. Research that I have recently completed (with Julia Cook and Dan Woodman) on parents of Australian higher education students may be transferable to the UK, given the similarities between the two higher education systems and social structures more generally.

    Drawing on data from the longitudinal Life Patterns project, which has been following the lives of young Australians since the 1990s, we asked parents with children in higher education – or shortly to enrol – a series of questions about the support, if any, they were offering their children, as well as whether they felt parents should be supporting their children in any particular ways. Their responses were fascinating.

    Independence and intervention

    Nearly all of those we spoke to believed that higher education was a space in which young people learned how to be independent – and it was this that helped to distinguish it from school. University was typically positioned as a space where their children would “fend for themselves”, engage in “adult learning”, and be accountable for their own actions.

    However, while there was a strong rhetorical commitment to higher education as a time of achieving independence, when describing the detail of their parenting practices our participants outlined a wide range of ways in which they had been closely involved in the lives of their student children (or thought a parent should be), providing high levels of practical and emotional support.

    All of those we interviewed were either already providing financial support to their offspring at university, or they had clear plans to do so when their children enrolled. In addition, they either had already spent, or thought it was desirable to spend, considerable time with their children supporting them through any problems they encountered during their studies. This differed between participants but often included “coaching” approaches, to help the child identify the root cause of problems; strong encouragement to take advantage of the various services available on campus – sometimes with detailed advice about how best to access these; and, in a significant number of cases, direct involvement in academic matters, including paying for private tutors.

    The following excerpts from our interviews are illustrative:

    Yeah, we would help [daughter] through that and … make a timetable for her for the week on how she could help with the study. …. So she’s not thinking it’s all got to be done in a short amount of time.

    The other thing we could do is investigate some tutoring if that’s required.

    None of our interviewees remarked on the apparent paradox between the rhetorical foregrounding of “independence”, on the one hand, and the numerous examples of parental intervention, on the other. This is perhaps unsurprising. It does, however, raise the interesting question of why these parents continued to see university as a space of independence given the various forms of support they were giving their child (or thought should be given).

    Defining distances

    In answering this question, we can first point to the dominance of discourses about independence. Despite the well-documented changes to young people’s lives over recent decades and the associated later age at which the traditional markers of adulthood are on average now reached, independence as an achievement of early adulthood retains considerable discursive power. Admitting that one’s child is “semi-dependent”, or similar, while at university may thus be viewed as admitting or that an adult child is struggling and even that one has “failed” as a parent.

    Relatedly, it appears that there continues to be some social opprobrium associated with acknowledging that one intervenes in the life of one’s son or daughter once they reach the age for higher education. This is alluded to in the following comment from one of our interviewees:

    Kids get older, they’re more mature than you think. You don’t want to be seen as mothering your children, I don’t want to be that umbrella parent that’s hanging over them all the time saying ‘do go do this’ or ‘you should do that’.

    Both structural factors (such as having to pay tuition fees, and the high cost of university housing) and cultural influences (such as the expectation that parents take responsibility for monitoring their child’s educational progress) likely encourage parents to continue to intervene quite significantly in the lives of their student-children. Yet it appears that these participants were nevertheless keen to discursively distance themselves from such behaviours.

    These findings provide new insights into how parenting practices are shifting over time. They may also have broader political and policy implications. Our sample was broadly middle class and we would speculate that the interventions outlined above may not be available to all students – particularly those from families with no prior experience of higher education. Universities thus need to be aware that some students may be being supported in their academic endeavours by parents, and this may serve to exacerbate social inequalities. Can more support be offered within universities to those without such familial resources?

    With respect to more general policy debates, for those who believe that the student loan should be increased (or grants restored) to cover costs currently often picked up by parents, arguments may be harder to make if the actual degree of parental contribution is masked by the discourse of “independence”. There may therefore be some advantage to being more open about the degree of parental support, with respect to finances at least.

    Source link

  • Understanding the commuter student paradox

    Understanding the commuter student paradox

    When we think about commuter students, the first thing that often comes to mind is the difficulties in balancing their studies with the demands of travel.

    We frequently talk about how their lives are more challenging when compared to their peers who live nearer to campus, given the time constraints and added cost pressures they are exposed to.

    However, a closer look reveals a fascinating paradox. Despite the perceived hardships, commuter students who progress with their studies can achieve better outcomes.

    At the University of Lancashire, our ongoing student working lives (SWL) project, which was set up to understand the prevalence and impact of part-time work on the student experience, has started to shed light on the unique experiences of commuter students.

    Our survey considers self-reported responses to questions related to students’ part-time work and university experiences, alongside linked student data to reveal a clearer picture of their non-university lives and their connection with student outcomes.

    Initial data from our latest wave of the SWL project suggests that while commuter students frequently experience tighter schedules due to increased travel commitments and other out-of-class responsibilities, they can often experience better outcomes in their university and non-university lives than their non-commuter peers.

    This data comes from our 2025 student working lives survey which is based on an institutional sample of 484 students, with permission to link data from 136 students.

    Our research extends the recent debate around the choice versus necessity of commuting by repositioning commuters, not as left behind, but as a group of students prepared to meet the challenges laid in front of them, and in some ways, better navigating challenges and excelling in their studies.

    Choose Life

    The survey’s results reinforce the common belief that commuter students have busy lives.

    In combination, commuter students are twice as likely to have caring responsibilities, tend to live in more deprived neighbourhoods (based on IMD quintile) and have a higher work and travel load than their non-commuting counterparts, resulting in less time to spend on study.

    However, questions of necessity or choice can imply that university is the most central thing in their lives, challenging whether the assumptions we hold about commuting students have the correct premise.

    Image of three bar charts outlining workload and travel by commuter status.

    Looking at our latest research, it tells us that commuters are more likely to spend longer working than non-commuter students. While an increased workload highlights the disadvantage some commuters experience, our findings reveal a more complex picture that requires a deeper dive into the lives of this student demographic.

    As such, the commuter students we surveyed achieved higher attainment on average (+2pp) when linking this to university records, despite a lower self-reported rating of belonging compared to their peers.

    Put bluntly, while commuting students feel slightly less attachment to the university and commit less time to study, they go on to receive better marks.

    While this identifies a positive outcome for those students in our study, we should be mindful of wider research suggesting that commuter students are at greater risk of withdrawing, given the acute nature of the challenge experienced. As the study progresses we’ll continue to track further longitudinal outcomes such as continuation, completion and progression over the coming months and years.

    Choose work

    In our study, when understanding experiences of work, commuter students reported that they felt their work was more meaningful, more productive and more fairly paid than their non-commuter peers.

    They also felt better supported at work by their colleagues and managers and felt their current job requirements and responsibilities would enhance future employment prospects. What can we take from this?

    Student population Student Working Lives – % Agree
    Is your work meaningful? Is your work productive? Do you feel fairly paid or rewarded? Do you feel supported by colleagues? Do you feel supported by managers? Do you feel your job enhances your future employment prospects?
    Commuter 43.5% 53.2% 47.2% 42.7% 37.5% 41.1%
    Non-Commuter 40.3% 39.8% 44.5% 38.6% 31.4% 30.9%

     

    It’s important to state that the quality of work outcomes, despite being slightly improved for commuter students, reinforce the findings from our 2024 SWL report and last year’s HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey – students are having to work more to deal with the increased cost of living and on the whole are not experiencing what can be considered as “good” work.

    However, commuter students appear to be negotiating their challenges exceptionally well and are more likely to have a job that supports their future career aspirations.

    While commuter students face unique challenges, are they effectively leveraging their time and resources to excel in their studies, leading to positive outcomes in various aspects of their lives?

    If so, could this add further weight to reframing the argument away from a one-dimensional deficit approach when talking about commuting students?

    We already know that commuter students often have busy lives. This fuller life however, with its many facets, could give them the direction and motivation to succeed in their studies and at work.

    They are not just students, they are employees, caregivers, and active members of their communities. Rather than being a deficit, these experiences can add to their educational success if they can be supported to leverage their experiences.

    Choose commuting

    It’s important for universities to recognise this clear paradox around commuter students. Time restrictions and commitments make things harder for commuter students to designate more time to their studies, in particular independent study that infringes on the family home.

    The benefits of having more time in the workplace, having a family and traveling can enrich their student experience and outcomes.

    By understanding and appreciating these unique experiences, universities can better support commuter and non-commuter students alike.

    At the University of Lancashire, we are feeding these insights into our institutional University of the Future programme. This focuses on curriculum transformation to enhance the student learning experience, the transition to block delivery to consider the pace learning aligns with student lives, and the introduction of a short course lifelong learning model that looks to meet the changing needs of students.

    Commuter students teach us that life’s challenges can also be its greatest strengths. Their ability to balance multiple responsibilities and still be able to achieve positive outcomes is a testament to their ability and determination, attributes the sector is committed to harnessing and employers are keen on developing in the workplace.

    As we continue to explore and understand their experiences in developing our project over the coming months, we can start to challenge assertions and learn valuable lessons that can benefit all students and allow more to “choose life.”

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link